Evidence for God from Science

There are many individuals and groups who do not accept the explanations of evolutionary theory. This is prima facie obvious given the backlash against the idea of evolution within North America. That's fine - and should even be expected - because no one is required to accept every explanation given for a phenomenon.

However, when scientific curriculum is being developed by public schools, it should provide the most current scientific information that is widely established in the academic community (of scientists). There is no objective criteria out there that would preclude evolution as being the only modern scientific explanation for human origins. And if you disagree with this statement, I would like to hear why you disagree. But before you do, let me provide a bit of additional information to clarify my position.

1. There is a normative statement in there about what schools should teach. If you wish to discuss educational philosophy, that's fine, but that discussion should deal with that topic only, and not evolution.

2. I'm not atheist nor a deist; I'm a Christian.

3. I accept evolutionary explanations for human ancestory.

Ooh, I like you. You sound smart and logical. Good for you!

I completely agree with you. I feel that if ID were being taught in lieu of evolution, science classes would be completely missing the point and science itself would be completely undermined.

I personally believe that advancing hypotheses with little scientific evidence into primary schools is a mistake. It would be revolutionary also in the respect that it contradicts generally accepted principles of curriculum development.

Hi Matthew, welcome to the forum.

2. I'm not atheist nor a deist; I'm a Christian.

3. I accept evolutionary explanations for human ancestory.

How do you reconcile your Christianity with your belief in evolution for human ancestry?

MichelleAnn wrote: I completely agree with you. I feel that if ID were being taught in lieu of evolution, science classes would be completely missing the point and science itself would be completely undermined.

No-one is asking that ID be taught in lieu of evolution. And this is the slippery slope fallacy, science will not be undermined in any way if alternatives are taught alongside each other.

Matthew_O wrote:There are many individuals and groups who do not accept the explanations of evolutionary theory. This is prima facie obvious given the backlash against the idea of evolution within North America. That's fine - and should even be expected - because no one is required to accept every explanation given for a phenomenon.

What backlash?

Matthew_O wrote:However, when scientific cirriculum is being developed by public schools, it should provide the most current scientific information that is widely established in the academic community (of scientists). There is no objective criteria out there that would preclude evolution as being the only modern scientific explanation for human origins.

The may be no objective logical criteria to preclude evolution as being the only "scientific" explanation, but it is also proves nothing to simply accept it as the only one. As for providing the most scientific information, I agree, and all that is desired is that the same scientific problems often discussions in peer-reviewed scientific journals are also presented to students in classes. That is, teach the evidence for "evolution", Darwinian and otherwise, but don't divorce it from scientific criticisms.

Matthew_O wrote:3. I accept evolutionary explanations for human ancestory.

And so does Michael Behe, a supporter of ID. And please also note, it is a mistake to think ID proponents want ID taught as they freely admit it is not developed enough to be presented as an alternative. This is why they are only pushing for evolution to be taught, but more fully with science both for and against being presented within classes.

I'd also recommend reading over a response to FAQs about Intelligent Design (rather than what is presented in the media and so forth) at http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestio ... gentDesign

Kurieuo

August: Thanks for the welcome, I appreciate it.

Reconciliation:

I have come to the view that the bible does not wish to provide scientific concordance. Explanations of anything in the natural world (be it the origins or mountains, animals, or mankind) are incidental and not truth-preserving in the material sense.

Rather, all scripture is truth-preserving in a spiritual sense. For example:

1. Scripture that discusses that the world does not move and that the sky is a solid firmament have spiritual messages attached. The foundation of the Earth on pillars is metaphorical to God's foundation as Creator. It doesn't mean the world was really sitting on pillars or that geocentrism is actual.

2. This holds to Genesis. Adam and Eve are symbolic to mankind's general nature. Noah's Ark is metaphoric to having trust in God. They aren't physical events (and the poetic language seems to emphasize this).

I hope that is comprehensive enough (even if you disagree).

MichelleAnn wrote:I completely agree with you. I feel that if ID were being taught in lieu of evolution, science classes would be completely missing the point and science itself would be completely undermined.

Another poster who seems to just accept the propaganda against ID point-blank. Sorry if that sounds rude, but really, I can't help but see the misinformation on ID any other way. And from your posts, you appear to have accepted much of it. I find it extremely irritating seeing lies continually perpetrated and wish people would get their facts straight. For one, mainstream ID proponents do not want ID taught. The Discovery Institute for example says,

While Discovery Institute does not support efforts to require the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, it also strongly opposes the ACLU's attempt to censor classroom discussion of intelligent design.... Rather than require students to learn about intelligent design, what we recommend is that teachers and students study more about Darwinian evolution, not only the evidence that supports the theory, but also scientific criticisms of the theory.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... ew&id=2847

Kurieuo

Matthew_O wrote:August: Thanks for the welcome, I appreciate it.

Reconciliation:

I have come to the view that the bible does not wish to provide scientific concordance. Explanations of anything in the natural world (be it the origins or mountains, animals, or mankind) are incidental and not truth-preserving in the material sense.

Rather, all scripture is truth-preserving in a spiritual sense. For example:

1. Scripture that discusses that the world does not move and that the sky is a solid firmament have spiritual messages attached. The foundation of the Earth on pillars is metaphorical to God's foundation as Creator. It doesn't mean the world was really sitting on pillars or that geocentrism is actual.

2. This holds to Genesis. Adam and Eve are symbolic to mankind's general nature. Noah's Ark is metaphoric to having trust in God. They aren't physical events (and the poetic language seems to emphasize this).

I hope that is comprehensive enough (even if you disagree).

Ok, I follow. Of course we acknowledge that Scripture contains many types of literature, including history, symbolism, laws etc. If Scripture is only the truth for spiritual matters, do you believe that Jesus ever historically and physically existed?

What I still don't understand is how you reconcile the creation account, by a divine God, with a naturalistic, unguided process, as described in the ToE?

It doesn't matter if ID proponents want it taught. There is a trial going on in Pennsylvania regarding this issue, so what proponents want is besides the point. SOMEONE wants it taught or there wouldn't be an issue.

MichelleAnn wrote:It doesn't matter if ID proponents want it taught. There is a trial going on in Pennsylvania regarding this issue, so what proponents want is besides the point. SOMEONE wants it taught or there wouldn't be an issue.

There is an issue because the ACLU wants to censor any discussion of intelligent design fullstop. It wants to censor any discussion that Darwinian evolution may have flaws, since ID proponents predominantly want the scientific criticisms both for and against Darwinian evolution taught. Not every scientist, for example, accepts that natural selection acting on random mutations can account for what we see. Even if "evolution" (however you define it) is said to be the most accept theory by scientists for life's diversity, many believe something different on what evolution is, and as to how it works. Given this "evolution" just becomes a meaningless word, undefined, and yet believed in. And students receive a hackneyed education regarding the divergence of opinions. Yet, I can't think it can be stressed enough that Behe tends to accept common descent, and he is a main player within the ID camp perhaps since his book Darwin's Black Box.

Kurieuo

Kurieuo:

I have always felt that there is a strong anti-evolution sentiment in the general public. Most of this seems to be a personal distaste with the idea of sharing ancestory with primates.

I agree that it should not be blindly accepted. However, I disagree that the scientific problems with evolution be discussed in class. There is a primary reason for this: the criticisms of evolutionary theory in peer-reviewed literature deal only with specific mechanisms. Often these deal more with balances, influence percentages, etc.. They are not criticisms about the soundness of common ancestory. Pragmatically, it seems that passing on common understanding is difficult enough for educators. To try and include high-level criticism seems a bit utopian.

I also realize that ID gets smeared in the popular press. However, Behe is acting in a case where ID is being offered as an alternative within public schools. So if this is his view, he should not in good conscience be a defense witness. And if the Discovery Institute really agrees with this statement, they should disassociate from Michael Behe.

August:

I believe Jesus existed. I find there is a serious demarcation (as most do) with the New Testament and the Old Testament.

Matthew_O wrote:August:

I believe Jesus existed. I find there is a serious demarcation (as most do) with the New Testament and the Old Testament.

Can you maybe expand on that a bit? I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Also, you did not answer my other question related to the reconciliation of the Genesis ex-nihilo creation by a divine God, and the ToE's non-divine naturalistic processes.

Kurieuo wrote:

MichelleAnn wrote:It doesn't matter if ID proponents want it taught. There is a trial going on in Pennsylvania regarding this issue, so what proponents want is besides the point. SOMEONE wants it taught or there wouldn't be an issue.

There is an issue because the ACLU wants to censor any discussion of intelligent design fullstop. It wants to censor any discussion that Darwinian evolution may have flaws, since ID proponents predominantly want the scientific criticisms both for and against Darwinian evolution taught. Not every scientist, for example, accepts that natural selection acting on random mutations can account for what we see. Even if "evolution" (however you define it) is said to be the most accept theory by scientists for life's diversity, many believe something different on what evolution is, and as to how it works. Given this "evolution" just becomes a meaningless word, undefined, and yet believed in. And students receive a hackneyed education regarding the divergence of opinions. Yet, I can't think it can be stressed enough that Behe tends to accept common descent, and he is a main player within the ID camp perhaps since his book Darwin's Black Box.

Kurieuo

What exactly are these flaws in the theory you are refering to again?