Ironman, I could say the same thing about a number of SIers.


"The claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted. Scientific investigators seek to understand natural phenomena by observation and experimentation. Scientific interpretations of facts and the explanations that account for them therefore must be testable by observation and experimentation.

Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.

No body of beliefs that has its origin in doctrinal material rather than scientific observation, interpretation, and experimentation should be admissible as science in any science course. Incorporating the teaching of such doctrines into a science curriculum compromises the objectives of public education. Science has been greatly successful at explaining natural processes, and this has led not only to increased understanding of the universe but also to major improvements in technology and public health and welfare. The growing role that science plays in modern life requires that science, and not religion, be taught in science classes."

From National Academy of Scientists website.

Bub

_________________
Ron Bailey

_________________
Mike Compton

bubbaguy, I'm a scientist and I know for a fact that evolution is not possible. The physics and chemistry don't work. Without those there can be no biology. If you don't want to belive in creation then don't, just spare the rest of us your rantings. Since this is a forum concerning God, you're not likely to convince anyone that evolution is at all feasible nor are any of us likely to convince you that creation is how it happened so let's all just leave this alone coz we will end up going round and round in circles endlessly.

You are spewing venom from the enemy himself in a bid to cause problems among the brethren and cause them to lose focus on what is truly important. This poisons those who are new to the faith and on that last day when you have to give an account of your life you will have nothing to say in your defense and there will be hell to pay for misleading the young saints. If you want that on your head fine, you have been warned.

_________________
Farai Bamu

_________________
Mike Compton

Guys,

Dating techniques that are used to measure the age of fossil life are verifiable. The progression of complexity of forms in the geology of the earth is observable. The basic constituents of living things are known to exist in the tails of comets. This is all verifiable and testable. Darwin came to his theory not out of whole cloth but from observations on the Galapagos Islands where animals had evolved entirely separated from their mainland predecessors.

Compton, believing in evolution does not mean I question the existence of God or that God created everything. There is no conflict that I see in being a Christian and believing in evolution and I would hazard to guess that the majority of Christians believe in evolution.

Bub

Bub

_________________
Farai Bamu

Hey, Bub--

I'm kinda in a middle place in this debate. I'm coming to the conclusion that theistic evolution may not be theologically tenable (which more or less scares me because creationism doesn't have the greatest reputation in the world for intellectual integrity!)

I agree with you that the ID movement hasn't shown much positively. They've spent their time trying (and to some extent succeeding) in shooting holes in neo-Darwinism. Many--if not most--of them, including Behe, actually believe in evolution (even macro- if I'm not mistaken) but wish to assail natural selection as the mechanism.

You can poeticize Genesis all you want, but there appear to be a couple of things that are inviolable:

1. God's act in creating the cosmos is an intervening in Nature not an infusing.
2. Man is a special creation, not just another more highly evolved animal.

So, tell me, how do you come up with the God of the Bible through theistic evolution? A God who says, "Let there be light" and produces the "Big Bang" is at best a deistic or panentheistic being. Unless you're willing to buy into Process Theology or the like, we need a deity who involves himself directly in creation (miracles, answered prayer, the special creation of Man) not just one who enacts some natural laws, kicks back, and enjoys the scenery.

The ID movement itself (as well as the "emergent evolution" espoused by the likes of Philip Clayton at Claremont, and Stuart Kaufmann, et al at the Santa Fe Institute) are teleological in nature and will fit with theistic evolution...but may not be compatible with Scripture.

I hope you are able to see that "Science" and "Evolution" as they are currently held are often clung to as religious systems. We could have gotten all of our modern technology without ditching the idea of telos in Nature. Methodological Naturalism is not necessary for objective Science to take place. With most experiments, methodological supernaturalism will not vary anything in the slightest. What it does change is perspective.

The National Academy of Science is clearly an anti-Christian institution with 90% of its members de-facto atheists.

My problem with evolution in the schools is that it is being taught religiously. A naturalistic system antithetical to Christian belief is being endorsed by a government entity. (By the way, according to the recent article in National Geographic "Was Darwin Wrong?" the author--who answers with an emphatic NO, by the way--cites the statistic that 44% of the American public disbelieves in evolution. My guess is that the majority of Christians disavow the theory.)

Your material from the NA of S website bothers me because it lies. ID publications do indeed "offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error," but they are considered out of bounds by the scientific establishment on clearly religious grounds (i.e., ID does not mesh with the scientific community's commitment to atheistic Naturalism). Yes, Science tolerates theistic evolution, but only because TE's god is properly distanced and irrelevant.

I have always felt I could have my cake and eat it, too. I am increasingly less sure. I'm not in the market to becoming a Deist...and I can't bridge the gap metaphysically and theologically between evolution and the biblical God.

By the by, I know a goodly number of Christian professors (in the sciences) here at the University of Georgia who have all kinds of trouble with evolutionary theory. (The reason many can't put this theory in with Gravity, Relativity, Atomic, Heliocentric, or even Quantum theories is that its evidence is culled mostly from the remains of the past...most such theories are inherently as philosophical as scientific. In our lifetimes we have gone from what, a steady-state to an oscillating to a big-bang model for cosmology...and Hawking seems to be distancing himself from the big-bang in "A Brief History of Time." Continental drift and carbon-dating look cool but are not in any way truly verifiable. Last time I checked, we can't go back in time. We can come up with reasonable theories based on the evidence we have...but it seems to me they are nowhere near as substantial/significant as theories wherein our evidence gathering and evaluation are repeatable. Evolution is speculative at best and such should be admitted (and would be admitted if there were not the fervent--almost fanatical--commitment to it).

Look, I'm no scientist. Scientists keep telling me that if I look at the evidence it will become clear that evolution is the only answer. They claim it's not that hard to see. Well, I can't see it! It still looks like hocus-pocus fantasy-land stuff to me, and I've really tried. The bit on neotony helps a bit, I guess...though there should still be transitional forms as the change creeps slowly from the juvenile into the adult...when you're half-way there, voila: transitional form. (BTW, are there any reasonable explanations for the Cambrian explosion?)

I truly am sorry if I come across as antagonistic toward either or both sides. It's something I'm honestly trying to come to grips with...and I'm not that fond of the options I've been given.

Some will think I'm dishonoring to God and Scripture. Some will think I'm sticking my head under an anti-intellectual rock as regards the evidences of Science and Nature. I'm merely trying to make sense of them both, and I refuse to compromise. I believe theisitic evolution compromises Scripture. I believe that most forms of creationism compromise the Creator's actual creation. Here's hoping someone will help me out of this (seemingly) inextricable morass!

God only knows,

--Eric

_________________
Mike Compton

So, Erik, are you trying to say your thoughts on creationism and evolution are going through the process of evolution?

Bub