Democrats & Liberals: Archives

It really bugs me when people speak of equal time in terms of this debate. The whole point of science is that some theories, on basis of the facts, do not deserve equal time and consideration. Scientists should be open minded, but only to the facts.

Creation science and intelligent design are social promotion for students that don’t want to have an open mind about the huge, well proven reserve of facts that supports evolution as a theory. They don’t want their kids to have to learn it, despit the fact that it is a crucial part of any understanding of biology or medicine.

It’s not just lousy science, it’s lousy faith. It comes out of this sense that the world must prove God, that God must tip his hand and show his dominion through scientific evidence and inerrant scripture. Whatever happened to just believing? I think those people are hanging themselves and others up on a matter of science on which people are provably right, when they should just be saying, my belief doesn’t depend on everything lining up according to my standards. If anything, evolution is a great way to teach people humility, a connection with the rest of the universe. Every creature great or small, ugly or beautiful, vicious or docile exists as a product of it. Properly understood, evolution is no threat to morality. It simply says there are choices, and every creature must live or die with the results of those choices. The meek and the strong alike survive in nature, so the meek must be doing something right.

Stephen Jay Gould wrote an excellent essay along these same lines. Because something’s a theory, that doesn’t mean it isn’t also a fact.

While Darwin’s particular theory of evolution is not widely accepted in all its details among scientists, evolution itself is an incontestable fact. In fact, there need be no contradiction between belief god as a creator and evolutionary science—though plenty of religious fundamentalists insist on making fools of themselves by maintaining such a contradiction.

I found a link to the essay here.

I must say, however, that Lawnboy’s post here is exceedlingly misleading and innacurate. To say that since the election the religious right has been trying to change the educational curricula is downright ridiculous.

For one thing, the ACLU suit concerns something that happened in 2002.

Also, the evolution-creation debate has been raging in America since the Scopes trial of 1925, and in the world for much longer than that. To lay this at the foot of Bush’s reelection three weeks ago is patently absurd.

Further, I’d be interested to know what percentage of Democrats believe in “creationism,” especially among the African-American and Hispanic Catholic base.

An unfortunate result of this election has been the embittered secular left’s shrill attack on everything Christian—and I say that as secular Republican. If the Democrats insist, in a fit of pique to commit suicide by lashing out like this, I wonder if we’re not heading for one-party dominance of American politics for decades to come—a situation I do not favor.

Good article LawnBoy.

Martin, the Pope reconciled creationism with Catholicism a few years ago,

…new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as something more than just a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

I’m hardly a philosopher, but it looks like the Pope is saying that when God created man in His image, it means His spiritual rather than physical image. In retrospect, that should be obvious. :)

Since the Pope is God’s’ representative on Earth, Catholics should all be fine with creationism. It’s possible that some didn’t get the message,

Only about a third of Americans believe that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence, while just as many say that it is just one of many theories and has not been supported by the evidence. The rest say they don’t know enough to say.

Forty-five percent of Americans also believe that God created human beings pretty much in their present form about 10,000 years ago.

>>Martin, the Pope reconciled creationism with Catholicism a few years ago,

Martin,

For a moment there, I was afraid we were going to agree completely on a topic :)

You are right, though, that I linked the election and this issue too strongly. The issue has been in the news a lot more in the past month, and I was trying for an interesting lead-in. I’m glad you acknowledge that “evolution itself is an incontestable fact,” and I hope that we can build from there.

An unfortunate result of this election has been the embittered secular left’s shrill attack on everything Christian—and I say that as secular Republican. If the Democrats insist, in a fit of pique to commit suicide by lashing out like this, I wonder if we’re not heading for one-party dominance of American politics for decades to come—a situation I do not favor.

Woah. I think you overracted to what I actually wrote. Only the short introduction has anything to do with Bush or the election, and I don’t attack Christianity at all in my post (of course, some will interpret a defense of evolution as an attack on Christianity, but I can’t help that).

I believe in God. I believe there is evolution within species but I do not believe that cat ever became a dog, or that monkeys became man.

I don’t claim to be a scientist, but I do know that even the big bang theories claim that something existed before the big bang. I do know that the laws of matter as we know them state that “something” does not come from “nothing”. In other words, matter does not create itself.

Therefore, without delving into the great depths of the details of this argument, I believe in God as the Creator of all. Perhaps he chose to create the world through the process of evolution or perhaps he chose a method more in line with creationism or intelligent design.

What I believe is that God was behind it, and beyond that, everything else seems less important.

Joe-
I don’t believe man came from monkeys, nor cats from dogs. Neither do most Evolutionary biologists. The error is in looking at Evolution as a series of superceding changes, or one species instantly turning into another.

From time to time, some sort of event or change within a species will cause one group to become isolated as a breeding pool from another. Mutation and adaptation occur separately for the species, and those changes are not communicated across those lines.

Cats and Dogs long ago had a common ancestor. Somehow their ancestors became split off from one another, and evolution took a different course with each creature. They would start out similar, but as time went on, the inability for the species to share adaptations and changes between each other would lead to a divergence of appearances, of physiology, and of other attributes.

This would take place on scales of time that dwarf our history by a factor of thousands (up to millions even).

It’s important to not that change in evolution is not random. Mutation is random. But the world and the chemistry and the other elements that determine which mutation succeeds are not. The circumstances that made cats different from dogs, men different from monkeys were not random.

I believe God had a part in all this, but I don’t think we’ll ever be capable of distinguishing God’s work from natures, owing to the fact that we are stuck within the laws of nature ourselves, and depend upon them for our perception and measurement of the world around us. My rule of thumb is that a perfect God creates seamlessly, and so nature will not show the fingerprints of our Lord in the structure of the world. For that to be so, there would have to be a seam in nature allowing the perception of supernatural forces through it, and I think that would be too sloppy for God’s tastes.

Regarding God and evolution, it’s clear that a lot of us here see no contradiction. In looking at our planet, there are millions of different species of everything, but humans possess something distinct from the rest of the life forms on the planet. In my opinion, this is exactly the ‘creation’ aspect of the development of our world. There are species with comparatively well developed neural systems, but along the lines of AP’s comments, we were created in God’s spiritual image, and as such possess something beyond that of the rest of life in its various forms.

Stephen -

Well said. If we were created by God and intended to have the choice to choose him or not, God could not have left his fingerprints in science for us to know he exists, otherwise there is no choice, only provable fact which no intelligent person could deny.

”>>Martin, the Pope reconciled creationism with Catholicism a few years ago,”

Oooops my post got cut off above. I learned evolution in Catholic school 25 years ago; popes have had no problem with evolution longer than that even. Catholicism is less hung up on biblical literalism.

I do wonder if there has ever been observed, in real-time so to speak, one species or a cross of two species producing a third. I know of variation within a species and survival of the fittest (those black and white moths in England everyone cites) but an actually observed variation?

Matthew,

Dozens of examples of speciation are described on the Talking Origins website. More examples are here and here and here. In fact, just do a Google search on “observed speciation”, and you’ll find a lot more.

Since, and during the last election cycle, much is being made of television, radio, and eastern newspapers 30 year history of “liberal bias” and “liberal leanings.” Even those involved agree to the bias. But what we’ve forgotten is that when the electronic media took hold in this country, making people think, because the facts were more than just facts, they were reality; reality meaning change, equality — and equality was “liberalism” at its best — or worst depending on your view point. Evolution and revolution was changing the landscape of this country. The “movements” were in full swing: race relations — Martin Luther King stabbing at the pre-frontal lobes of every American, black, white, conservative, and liberals, (whatever the word liberal truly means). There was the war on poverty; womens equal pay for equal work. So reporting brought what? A liberal bias?
And now we are saddled with hate radio to such a degree, that any response from so called liberals is referred to as arrogant. Rush, and all his counter parts calling “liberals” arrogant?
I’ve often thought that the Bill of Rights and The U.S. Constitution somehow ring out with terms of what I call “liberal.” (Much to the dismay of Mr. Limbaugh.)They are the most balanced of any document in the history of this country or any other for that matter. And yet I have not come to grips with what a true conservative is. Oh, I guess I have. Hate radio. The American Standard, to name only a couple, ring true to conservative. And I think of hate.

Larry,

There is part of the problem.

Those of us, who really do try to stay in the ‘middle’, which is not always possible, depending on the issue, are hearing the hate from both sides.
It is the extremes on both sides that are the loudest and carry the most anemosity towards the other side.
It is part of what makes some people not fully undrstand what either party really ‘stands’ for.

We know that most of the people who run for office do so to help out the best they can. The new ones start out with big plans to make some changes only to find out the ones that have been there longer most generally will have no part of it, and all the power.

I like to vote for the ‘new guy/gal’. I am one who wants the change to come from all of us. To me it makes absolutely no sense to keep voting the same person in over and over. They tend to lose touch with us commoners.

Darwinism…
It is hard not to believe the theory. What is hard to know is exactly how the earth began.
That is what makes some believe that we may be an experiment of sorts by some superior being.

My daughter asked me, “I know that GOD created us, but who created GOD?”
I was tongue tied. I was not raised going to church every Sunday, nor did we go to bible study. I have friends who take my children with them to church, have them pray with them before meals, things like that.
My daughter, who is 7, came up with her own answer. She decided that GOD was created by someone, he had to be.
That was good enough for her. It was good enough for me.
My husband asked me to call a friend of ours who is very religious and ask her, to see what she said.
I did not like her answer. It was not good enough for me.
She said, “Tell her that GOD always was.” Then she explained how she is supposed to accept that and not ask questions.
Since I am a person who was taught to ask questions when I did not know the answer, this was far from acceptable. I did not tell this to my daughter.

This is also why I do not have a problem with our children being taught ALL the theories and letting them make up their own minds. Someone or something gave us brains, we should use our own brain to decide for our own self and be able to do so freely without someone else telling us we are wrong or stupid.

Dawn, won’t you (and your daughter) have the same problem accepting evolutionary theory then?

If man evolved from earlier life forms that in turn evolved from lifeless matter, then what did the lifeless matter evolve from?

Isn’t it just as unsatisfactory to say that matter always existed as it is to say that God always existed?

The Big Bang theory holds that matter and energy as we know it was once compressed at one infinetly tiny point before the boom—but where did that compressed matter it come from? Science is not able to answer that question, which leaves open the possiblity that god created it. Or for that matter that a giant squid or very small bunny rabbit did. Who knows?

I won’t try to convince you to believe in any religious position I don’t believe in myself, but anybody’s guesses about the ultimate origin of the physical universe are equally based on blind conjecture.

This is also why I do not have a problem with our children being taught ALL the theories and letting them make up their own minds. Someone or something gave us brains, we should use our own brain to decide for our own self and be able to do so freely without someone else telling us we are wrong or stupid.

I agree with the logic here but when you say, “ALL the theories” you need to define what you mean as “ALL” and what you mean by theory. In the world of science a hypothesis is what most people think a theory is, an educated guess. So creationism would be regarded as a hypothesis. Evolution on the other hand is a theory; just like there is a theory of gravity. In order for a hypothesis to become a theory in the scientific world it must undergo at least a certain amount of scrutny and provide evidence. Both of which have only been completed by only one idea: evolution. So when you say “ALL the theories” on the origin of life you in reality mean only one.

_____________

In regards to my personal beliefs I believe God created the infinetely tiny and dense universe that existed right before the big bang, but after there science takes over. Evolution, the Big Bang and all scientific theories are just the tools God used to create us. When Genises says God created man it does not have to mean a one second ‘poof’ creation, it could mean a difficult creation that took 14 billion years of long, slow laborious evolution.

As far as the big bang goes, matter wasn’t infinitely dense- energy was. But if you understand Einstein’s theories on relativity, matter is just condensed energy, so it’s the same difference.

Dawn-
My objection to your point of views on teaching all theories is that scientific theories on the same precise subject are not meant to be coexist. The greater truth of one theory takes from the lesser truth of another.

Interestingly, the Catholic Church is one of the biggest defenders of the Big Bang. Stephen Hawking’s and other scientists of late have begun to ponder an infinitely expanding and contracting universe that has no beginning or end.

On creationisn/evolution: What the Catholic Church has known for years is that evolution works. I am sending my child to parochial school in part because I know that she will get an honest education. Despite its many flaws, the modern Catholic Church is better able to deal with science than many of the Protestant and post-Protestant religions.

You can believe that God created the universe 7000 years ago, in 7 earth days. However, he created a Universe with a set of physical laws and rules that make the past understandable, and some future events predictable. The Theory of Evolution uses these “tricks” that God created in the 7 day creation, and uses them to predict such outcomes as the black moths in England, strange species on isolated islands. The TofE also helps make science possible. It could just be a trick, but it still explains the universe in which we live now and therefore must be taught. Gravity might be a trick. Faith may let us see that there is nothing holding our bodies to the earth, and we really could float to God whenver we chose, however until we uncover this as a truth, we must live within the laws of gravity.

My God’s not a tricky God is yours? My God doesn’t secretly master the art of stopping the fermentation of grapes, so he can drink wine without drinking alcohol, tell everyone in his book that he drank wine, and then hide the secret for 1835 years until Dr. Welch came along. Wine as mentioned in the bible containing alcohol: real. Evolution: real.

Of course, technically, you can’t even call creationism a hypothesis, since a basic requirement for a scientific hypothesis is that it be testable by experiment. Thus, the statement, “Lifeforms can evolve” is a scientific hypothesis, but “All life originated from a puddle of soup,” is a nonscientific or metaphysical hypothesis.

If you wanna get technical..

The point of which, is that there are no theories on the origin of life. Scientifically speaking, there is no experiment that could possibly verify the way everything came to exist. Any decision about what to believe must be based purely on faith.

There’s a chicken-or-egg dilemma in every scenario: Either God came from nothing, or everything else did. Logically, I find it very difficult to believe that anything exists at all.

Josh, didn’t I see Carl Sagan create life from a puddle of soup on his Cosmos series a few decades ago?

There are plenty of theories on how life began, Josh, but the trouble is, nature erased much of the evidence. The sea floor has been recycled more than a vaudeville routine. The rocks on the continental shelf are older, but often enough they’ve been shoved so far underground and under such pressure that the rocks are literally cooked into new rocks. This is how you get marble from limestone.

Regardless, there are hypotheses about how the processes of life came together. It’s just rather hard to find the evidence that would settle the question.

The question of what makes a good theory is not an issue that can be settled independent of the evidence, or by ad hoc mathematical trickery. Creationism is not scientific because it asks us to ignore and disregard evidence rather than explaining the relevenat facts. Intelligent Design is not scientific because it tries to argue things about life from a standpoint of mathematical probabilities without ever exploring phenomena in nature that shift the nature of those probabilities. As I’ve said before, mutation may be random, but evolution is not.

This is important in the context of intelligent design because it ignores the effect on probability that non-random conditions can have- that is, if certain conditions are true, certain outcomes become more likely. If you dig a hole in the freeway, the improbable outcome of a vehicle falling through it (how many times has it happened to you?) becomes more probable.

Because evolution works on many different attributes that creatures have, and the world around us is complex itself, the use of probability to determine the intervention of supernatural forces is rather foolhardy, because we are not knowledgeable of all the non-random forces that have shaped the form, chemistry and speciation of life, and can never be.

As for fossil record imperfection, it should be pointed out that the creation of fossils is an unlikely event, requiring the body to be buried under certain conditions, protected from scavengers and rampant decay. It is by luck that we see creatures, including our ancestors, in the fossile record.

It is simply a matter of beig given information about different possibilities and letting someone decide o their own.
If we really think about it, since neither creationism nor evolution by the big bang theory can be proven beyond a doubt - just let people believe what they choose.
I don’t see what is so hard about that.
‘All the theories.’ I guess I meant the most accepted. The ones that seem to be fought over the most.
It is beyond me why either ‘theory’, mentioned above, is a threat to the other.

joebagodonuts said I do know that the laws of matter as we know them state that “something” does not come from “nothing”. In other words, matter does not create itself.

Martin said The Big Bang theory holds that matter and energy as we know it was once compressed at one infinetly tiny point before the boom—but where did that compressed matter it come from? Science is not able to answer that question, which leaves open the possiblity that god created it.

Well, the laws of quantum mechanics allows for elementary particles to be created “from nothing,” interact for a short period of time, and then annihilate into the void. This happens everywhere, all the time. In an infinite vacuum, the possibilities that any spontaneously generation might have the energy required to create something like what we perceive to be the universe may be extremely small, but it only has to happen once, and in an infinite set, any subset is also inifinte.

Kevin M Monsour said Gravity might be a trick. Faith may let us see that there is nothing holding our bodies to the earth, and we really could float to God whenver we chose, however until we uncover this as a truth, we must live within the laws of gravity.

There are some who believe that angels create all the effects that we interpret as gravity. They call it, intelligent grappling. I guess this means that if you push someone off a cliff, the angels are to blame for the pushee’s death.

Let’s not fall into the logical trap of “science doesn’t have an answer, therefore God did it” when thinking about origins. Just because it’s very difficult or impossible to determine what happened a very long time ago does not validate any religious ideas.

The issue here is that some groups are calling for what is essentially a warning sticker on textbooks: “This may not be the Truth. It has not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.” If what these groups were really concerned about was truth, wouldn’t they just read the textbook to make sure students were learning the meaning of the word “theory” and that scientific method was being taught? The fact that they want disclaimer stickers on textbooks seems to indicate that they are attempting to cast doubt upon the validity of evolutionary theory.

“The fact that they want disclaimer stickers on textbooks seems to indicate that they are attempting to cast doubt upon the validity of evolutionary theory.”

Doesn’t the fact that the left doesn’t want God or creationism even mentioned in schools, cast doubt upon the validity of the creationism theory?

kctim —

Creationism isn’t a theory.

Alejo,
sorry I have to disagree. Creationism is no less a theory than Darwinism. Just because you belive something doesn’t make it fact.
The “theory” of Genesis was around long before it was written in the Bible and can be found in the texts of virtualy all ancient religions.
Faith is not scientific.
The “law of gravity” is a scientific fact of our universe.

Rocky —

I think you’re misunderstanding me; I’m not saying creationism is a fact, nor am I saying I believe in it. I’m saying creationism doesn’t fit the definition of what a theory is. Per Merriam Webster, from a scientific viewpoint, a theory is

a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

and creationism doesn’t fall into that purview. It is a story.

Alejo
Ok, theory was wrong word. But how do people refer to its meaning then.
Faith? The evolutionary jump also requires faith at this point in time.

If evolution is to be taught as the beginning of life, it is only fair that creationism be represented also.
I still remember being the only kid in class who was not confused when the teacher was going over the big bang theory.
I also remember being the only kid who was not offended when the teacher said there was no God and that those who believed in God were weak.
The school board told the parents that nothing could be done. That according to the textbooks, the teacher was right, there was no God, and therefore could not be held responsible in any way.
It was a very interesting 2 weeks to say the least.

Alejo, sorry, when I used the word “you”, it was in the general, as in the “all of you who” sense.
This medium really sucks to try to get a point accross without having to explain what I mean when I use a word.
No offence meant.

Alejo,
BTW, I think that there are folks who think that Creationism would fall into the “plausible” catagory.

kctim —

How should we refer to creationism? Strictly speaking, it fits the definition of “myth,” but I think a lot of people would be offended by the use of that word. I don’t know what to call it, other than a “story.”

As for evolution, if you study it you’ll see that there really aren’t many gaps that require leaps of faith. The so-called missing link is between apes and our apelike ancestors, not between our apelike ancestors and us.

If you had a teacher who was telling you that science proved God does not exist you were done just as much of an injustice as a student who’s told that God created the universe. Science can’t prove anything does NOT exist, and for your teacher to tell you that was terribly ignorant.

Rocky —

No offense taken, my friend. Just making sure you didn’t think I was banging a Bible.

There have been a lot of good posts since I started writing this, but I hope it still fits in. Evolution is not just a theory in biology, it basically is biology at the present time. Everything about biology is taught in terms of evolution, from biochemistry to relationships between organisms. Evolution is so highly regarded in the scientific world principally because it does what a theory is supposed to do. It provides a framework to understand why biological systems are the way they are, provides new areas in which to look for new answers, and allows for wholistic reasoning on even the most intricate problems. It is impossible to be a modern biologist without a thorough grounding in evolution. Any attempt to weaken the teaching of evolution in schools will only lead to a weakening of America’s prowess in biology.

Trying to replace evolution in science is doomed to failure, because creationism does not provide a framework for research, explain why biological systems are the way they are, or identify new directions to look for solutions to different problems. In short, it provides no scientific value. I’m not saying it provides no value, or is not a reasonable belief for people of faith, just that in a scientific context, it doesn’t work. In fact, rather helping in the search than searching for new answers and understanding, Creationism effectively halts science by inhibiting any idea that does not fall within the religiously defined parameters.

Theories in science are replaced by other theories which better explain observed phenomena and are able to more accurately predict the results of experiments. If those who believe for religious reasons that evolution cannot have ocurred really want to make their point, they need to embrace biology, learn as much as they can, and hope the produce someone with the genius of Charles Darwin who can provide a new theory that fits these requirements.

Also, creationism is clearly a religous issue. I doubt that those pushing to eliminate evolution from textbooks would seriously want Hindu or Native American teachings, say, in biology along with creationism. What is wrong with teaching from the Bible at home and learning current, valuable science at school?

I also remember being the only kid who was not offended when the teacher said there was no God and that those who believed in God were weak. The school board told the parents that nothing could be done. That according to the textbooks, the teacher was right, there was no God, and therefore could not be held responsible in any way.

kctim,

I’m sorry that your teacher taught evolution and creation that way. Despite being a firm opponent of teaching creation in public school science classes, I think it’s abhorrent for a teacher to proclaim the non-existence of God like that.

However, I strongly disagree when you say that “If evolution is to be taught as the beginning of life, it is only fair that creationism be represented also.” In a science class discussion of the origin of the world, only scientific explanations for the origin should be discussed. I have no problem with Creation being discussed in a comparative religion or equivalent class, but fairness doesn’t enter into the equation in deciding what science curricula should be. As brian eloquently described, Evolution is the basis of modern biology, and it has held up to rigorous scientific examination in many different ways. Creation doesn’t hold up to scientific analysis, so it should not be taught in science class.

sorry I have to disagree. Creationism is no less a theory than Darwinism. Just because you belive something doesn’t make it fact.

Rocky,

Creationism is an idea. Evolution is a scienctific theory. There is a huge difference, and the evidence for evolution takes it out of the realm of “(j)ust because you belive something doesn’t make it fact.”

The “law of gravity” is a scientific fact of our universe.

However, the law of gravity has no more scientific proof than evolution does. Both are theories, but only one is controversial because only only one is interpreted as having religious implications.

LB
Thanks man.
While evolution has prevailed in tests, its beginning has not.
Before anything can evolve, it must first be created, some how.

kctim —

Actually, there’s no reason to think all matter hasn’t existed forever and that there was no beginning. We just can’t comprehend the concept of infinite time any better than we can infinite space.

When I was much younger I started a discussion with the Pastor of my church regarding Creation vs Evolution. I asked him what he believed. This was his response:

— Of course the theory of Evolution can be scientifically proven. But you have to keep something in mind - In the Bible it states that God created the earth and all that inhabits it in 6 days. But it defines those days as having a morning and a night - one day. But what we think of as a day is man-made thing - 24 hours, 60 minutes, 60 seconds - all created by the mind of man. This is God were talking about. An hour to Him could last 300,000 man-made years if he wants.

Of course this is the same religous man who agrees that Jesus was not the ivory-skinned, smooth-haired man we see in pictures and that God could very easily be a Woman.

Lawnboy,
“However, the law of gravity has no more scientific proof than evolution does.”

An apple falling out of a tree and hitting Sir Issac Newton on the head is about all the proof I need to make this a fact insted of a theory.

This was the Merriam Webster dictionary definition of “theory” as stated in a post by Alejo.

“a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena”

I would have to say that the word plausible would bring Creationism under the definition. Possible, probably not. Plausible, maybe.

Faith is believing when common sense tells you not to. Fred Gailey - Miracle on 34th street

I believe life evolves - common sense tells me that.
common sense also tells me there is no way that all of this was created in seven days.

But faith tells me that God got it all started.
Yeah, I’d like to have it all spelled out for me nice and neat with no contradictions, but it doesn’t always happen that way, does it?

I don’t need a sticker to tell me that what I believe is right, nor am I offended if a sticker tells me it is wrong.

Rocky,

An apple falling on your head is analogous to the fact that men have nipples and some whales having unnecessary hip bones; these are phenomena, but not an explanation.

It took centuries for humans to make the leap from falling apples to a theory that involved masses being attracted to each other, attraction decaying to the square of the distance, etc. It took further centuries to go from the Newtonian understanding of gravity to the Einstein understanding of gravity.

It also took centuries for humans to make the leap from unnecessary nipples and whale bones (and a lot of other evidence) to a theory that explained where we are, where we came from, and how it happened.

The explanation of gravity is not self-evident, just as the explanation of our origins is not self-evident. However, both are supported by the vast majority of the evidence, but both have unexplained areas that don’t invalidate the theories. We don’t know why masses are attracted to each other, but they are, and gravity works. We don’t know what existed before the universe began, but it began, and evolution works.

Creationism isn’t plausible as an explanation of our origins because it isn’t a theory that can be derived from the evidence, and it doesn’t provide any guidance in how to understand new phenomena. Biologists can create experiments with a guess to the result based on the principles of evolution. They can’t do that with creationism. It’s not plausible science.

Here’s a summary from a discussion of creationism in schools:

Since creationism has too many conflicting aspects, as well as
factual and logical inadequacies, and not to mention the fact that it does not follow the guidelines of science, it should not be taught in science classes in public schools. Scientific creationism, while subscribing more to the guidelines of science, can be simply seen as a contortion of the Book of Genesis to make it compatible with these logical scientific guidelines. Until it logically fits into the mold of a theory, it can not be accepted as a plausible alternative.

My problem with creationism is that some of those people can’t seem to justify their existence without it. They really get upset. Seems to me if you are, you are. How that happened shouldn’t be essential to the fact of your being.

Some think God was made in man’s image from the way they act. For me, I figure God can do whatever and however and whenever, and it don’t make no never mind what the great truth of it is (which way it happened) except as an intellectual exercise.

Ok, its probably too late to interject (the “evolution” of this blog is almost complete) but let me conjecture something here.

We talk about creationism and evolutionism as conflicting explainations of how life began, however I think that is a fallacy. Creationism does explain how “life” (i.e. The Earth as I interpret it from the Bible) came into existance. Evolution DOES NOT. Evolution, as I understand it, explains how “life” in the scientific sense came into being. It provides NOTHING to epxlain how the Earth OR the Universe came into being.

The fact that the two ideas attempt to explain different thigns is why I don’t think you can view them as conflicting in any way.

If you want to pit creationsim against the big bang, or the cyclic universe (which is essentially big bang/big crunch oriented), or the infinitely expanding universe theory (again still based off the big bang) thats fine, but evolution does nothing to explain the creation of the earth or the universe.

I think it is necessary that we make this distinction.

Creationism does not explain anything. It only states what God does. There’s no information about how he makes the skies or the earth, the animals of the field or the men and women of this world. It simply states that God made these things.

Genesis tells us more about God than the world. What we have here is a careful, exacting creator, who doesn’t leave things alone until they are just right. For some, this has to be a concrete obvious truth. For others it can simply be the spiritual truth that regardless of what the chaos in the world tells us, we are creatures born of a deep and abiding order in the universe.

Besides, evolution was never meant to explain things outside the scope of biology in the main sense of things. It’s not meant to hold mystical implications about life, the universe, and everything (or the number 42). It’s just meant to explain how species came to pass. It’s extraordinary usefulness comes from it’s intersections with how the various systems and adaptations of creatures come to pass, and why things are as variable between individual creatures as they are. With Creationism, you have the thing to be caused, and God, and nothing really connected inbetween. With Evolution, you have a theory whose results integrate spectacularly with everything between God and his creation.

The only drawback is that you can’t follow the theory back to any source of moral compulsion. But then again, God never intended that. He intended choice and free will. He wasn’t going to extend his grace to a bunch of scholars in 21st century America, and withhold it from everybody else. The grace of God, and the compulsion to follow it must come from inside us. That’s all that science is saying by knocking down illusions about the age, vastness and complexity of the world.

Simply put, you can’t explain faith, can’t know all the things God did to create us, can’t do anything but rely on the Holy Spirit. I can’t help but think, that’s the way it was meant to be.

All very good posts.
It is great to find a blog site with a truly intelligent and insightful audience.

I would like to put in my two cents:

If we teach creationism at schools, in order to be fair, which version of creationism should we teach?

Every religion and philosophy has its own story about how the world was created. They all say it was a supreme being(s), but the Vikings version is quite different than that of the ancient Egyptians, or the modern hindu religion. I have not read Islam?s, but I just finished a book about Nahuatl (Aztec) epics, and their version is very cool indeed.

If we have to pit faith againts science, why should only one faith have a voice? Or maybe that is the reason why we are better off teaching science instead of catehecism.

I was raised in a catholic home and went to catholic school all though my primary education.
I?m from Mexico, a deeply religious country with a 98% majority of Catholics. I didn?t know this controversy even existed until I move to the US.

In Mexico, evolution is first though in the sixth grade as per government education standards, and every school (public or private) has to comply.
Some of my biology teaches were priests and I can?t recall them ever fussing over this.

God created our souls in his image. Why does the physical vessel, or the way it came to be, carry such an importance in our believes?

In fact, I believe that by exploring the incredibly complex path life has taken in order to allow the next generation to survive we a honoring and recognizing God?s infinite wisdom.

Best regards?