Teaching science in schools

[carlfense]

Well here goes, I haven't been ripped on in quite awhile so I'll take my turn in the barrel.

 

I find myself most closely identifying with brb in this thread but I also would say I don't really take issue with anyone, except possibly husker x. I won't say I'm right or X is wrong but personally I just don't like it when someone takes such an absolute position on something that I don't believe can be treated so absolutely.

 

I have no problem in accepting all of the supported science as it pertains to this. I also believe and am personally convinced beyond any doubt in a creator and intelligent design. We can ignore any religions, religious beliefs, the Bible, etc. to address why I believe in an all powerful creator. Science does not answer "why". Science is also not fit to deal with the idea of a supernatural, all powerful creature. It can't be observed or tested. The science of origin simply cannot and will not ever be able to explain something from nothing. And, if it could, would not be able to answer "why" or disprove a creator who also would be responsible for the creation of all evidence and even the ideas and methods used to study it. I agree that this in no way proves the existence of a creator and I will not tell anyone who doesn't believe as I do that they are wrong. But I am convinced beyond all doubt that there is a reason we are here that science has not and cannot address. There really is no more to say than that. Similarities to ancient myths and religions, fundamentalist beliefs, hokey creation museums, etc. may all contribute as evidence against any specific religion being right but they don't have to be right to say a person believes in a creator.

+1.

 

If you're looking for a reason, religion is probably where you need to be looking.

[Husker_x]

Well here goes, I haven't been ripped on in quite awhile so I'll take my turn in the barrel.

 

I find myself most closely identifying with brb in this thread but I also would say I don't really take issue with anyone, except possibly husker x. I won't say I'm right or X is wrong but personally I just don't like it when someone takes such an absolute position on something that I don't believe can be treated so absolutely.

 

I have no problem in accepting all of the supported science as it pertains to this. I also believe and am personally convinced beyond any doubt in a creator and intelligent design. We can ignore any religions, religious beliefs, the Bible, etc. to address why I believe in an all powerful creator. Science does not answer "why". Science is also not fit to deal with the idea of a supernatural, all powerful creature. It can't be observed or tested. The science of origin simply cannot and will not ever be able to explain something from nothing. And, if it could, would not be able to answer "why" or disprove a creator who also would be responsible for the creation of all evidence and even the ideas and methods used to study it. I agree that this in no way proves the existence of a creator and I will not tell anyone who doesn't believe as I do that they are wrong. But I am convinced beyond all doubt that there is a reason we are here that science has not and cannot address. There really is no more to say than that. Similarities to ancient myths and religions, fundamentalist beliefs, hokey creation museums, etc. may all contribute as evidence against any specific religion being right but they don't have to be right to say a person believes in a creator.

 

I do not hold to an absolutist position. All of my views are subject to change or revision based on the evidence (the part creationists never bother with). But if you'd care to take a look at the bolded quotes above, your view appears to be much more along the lines of what you're decrying here.

 

And I have to take an issue with both yourself and carlfense. If you're looking for an explanation, religion is the very last place you should be looking. Religious claims (like intelligent design or any other form of creationism) are not explanations. They're just bald assertions. They are not explanations because they lack explanatory power or any insight into a mechanism of, in this case, creation.

 

If someone holds a belief that some force outside the universe is responsible for its origin, I don't have much of a problem with it. Deism is pretty benign. Of course almost no one really holds to that view; they only find it convenient to mask their theism in debate by avoiding having to defend the bible. ID is among the more dishonest bait and switch positions in vogue these days. But anyway, deism has the same problem as any other religious claim: it is asserted without evidence and without the expectation of ever having evidence. It's just an extra unfalsifiable assumption that does not move the ball down the field a single inch.

[tschu]

2 things:

 

Science is not absolute. Science is always changing. There are no "facts" in science, only ideas and evidence supporting or refuting them.. When scientists like myself make "absolute statements" in arguments like this, we aren't presenting anything as fact. We are presenting it as a summation of the evidence gathered over the decades and centuries. "Science" is not a collection of facts - it is the continued gathering of information.

 

The burden of proof is not on science to prove that there is not a creator. "Yeah well we don't know how life started; it must have been a creator" is not a valid piece of logic. "Science can't explain X therefore I believe in a higher power" both A) assumes that science is static and not dynamic and B) attempts to explain a natural phenomena with something completely outside the realm of science. Therefore mentioning both science and the religious construct in the same sentence is a logical fallacy.

[Landlord]

2 things:

 

Science is not absolute. Science is always changing. There are no "facts" in science, only ideas and evidence supporting or refuting them.. When scientists like myself make "absolute statements" in arguments like this, we aren't presenting anything as fact. We are presenting it as a summation of the evidence gathered over the decades and centuries. "Science" is not a collection of facts - it is the continued gathering of information.

 

The burden of proof is not on science to prove that there is not a creator. "Yeah well we don't know how life started; it must have been a creator" is not a valid piece of logic. "Science can't explain X therefore I believe in a higher power" both A) assumes that science is static and not dynamic and B) attempts to explain a natural phenomena with something completely outside the realm of science. Therefore mentioning both science and the religious construct in the same sentence is a logical fallacy.

Well here goes, I haven't been ripped on in quite awhile so I'll take my turn in the barrel.

 

I find myself most closely identifying with brb in this thread but I also would say I don't really take issue with anyone, except possibly husker x. I won't say I'm right or X is wrong but personally I just don't like it when someone takes such an absolute position on something that I don't believe can be treated so absolutely.

 

I have no problem in accepting all of the supported science as it pertains to this. I also believe and am personally convinced beyond any doubt in a creator and intelligent design. We can ignore any religions, religious beliefs, the Bible, etc. to address why I believe in an all powerful creator. Science does not answer "why". Science is also not fit to deal with the idea of a supernatural, all powerful creature. It can't be observed or tested. The science of origin simply cannot and will not ever be able to explain something from nothing. And, if it could, would not be able to answer "why" or disprove a creator who also would be responsible for the creation of all evidence and even the ideas and methods used to study it. I agree that this in no way proves the existence of a creator and I will not tell anyone who doesn't believe as I do that they are wrong. But I am convinced beyond all doubt that there is a reason we are here that science has not and cannot address. There really is no more to say than that. Similarities to ancient myths and religions, fundamentalist beliefs, hokey creation museums, etc. may all contribute as evidence against any specific religion being right but they don't have to be right to say a person believes in a creator.

 

I do not hold to an absolutist position. All of my views are subject to change or revision based on the evidence (the part creationists never bother with). But if you'd care to take a look at the bolded quotes above, your view appears to be much more along the lines of what you're decrying here.

 

And I have to take an issue with both yourself and carlfense. If you're looking for an explanation, religion is the very last place you should be looking. Religious claims (like intelligent design or any other form of creationism) are not explanations. They're just bald assertions. They are not explanations because they lack explanatory power or any insight into a mechanism of, in this case, creation.

 

If someone holds a belief that some force outside the universe is responsible for its origin, I don't have much of a problem with it. Deism is pretty benign. Of course almost no one really holds to that view; they only find it convenient to mask their theism in debate by avoiding having to defend the bible. ID is among the more dishonest bait and switch positions in vogue these days. But anyway, deism has the same problem as any other religious claim: it is asserted without evidence and without the expectation of ever having evidence. It's just an extra unfalsifiable assumption that does not move the ball down the field a single inch.

 

 

Good thoughts by both of you guys.

 

I'm going to start a thread tomorrow branching off the topic a little bit but indirectly in response to both of these posts. Just give me a bit to get my thoughts together

[Husker_x]

Good thoughts by both of you guys.

 

I'm going to start a thread tomorrow branching off the topic a little bit but indirectly in response to both of these posts. Just give me a bit to get my thoughts together

 

Sounds good.

[JJ Husker]

X and tschu- I'm not using a creator as a substitute for science. I do not hold the position that because science doesn't have an answer, it "must" be a creator. I have arrived at that belief with 50 years of personal research and observation. It may not seem logical to you and apparantly you have made a different determination about how things came to be. I'm fine with that. Where I start to get concerned is when statements are made that it's "a waste of time and oxygen". Science is a great thing that can and has answered many things for us. I cannot help it or control that it is totally incapable of dealing with a supernatural all powerful creator. It may very well be illogical, in that sense, for a person to go beyond science and hold supernatural beliefs. That however does not make those beliefs impossible or a waste of effort. It just is what it is.

 

And husker x, yes I may state my faith and beliefs as absolute convictions but that does not mean I am closed minded or not willing to look at further evidence. Particularly in these types of discussions, I am always looking for an explanation that would cause me to rethink my position. I cannot help the fact that information which would change my mind has not yet been provided from any source. I am not focusing on this one issue to avoid having to defend the myriad of problems of defending the larger issues of "religions" and all that entails. It just happens to be the magic bullet that would indicate there is more at work here and science, quite frankly, is not equipped to deal with that realm. Sorry, I wish it were. It sure would free up some time for me if I didn't feel the need to tend to spiritual matters. I'd love to sleep in on Sundays.

 

Edit- changed the term "smoking gun" to the more appropriate "magic bullet".

[carlfense]

And I have to take an issue with both yourself and carlfense. If you're looking for an explanation, religion is the very last place you should be looking. Religious claims (like intelligent design or any other form of creationism) are not explanations. They're just bald assertions. They are not explanations because they lack explanatory power or any insight into a mechanism of, in this case, creation.

I was trying to refer to the big philosophical questions . . . but it's likely that I didn't express that clearly.

[BigRedBuster]

X and tschu- I'm not using a creator as a substitute for science. I do not hold the position that because science doesn't have an answer, it "must" be a creator. I have arrived at that belief with 50 years of personal research and observation. It may not seem logical to you and apparantly you have made a different determination about how things came to be. I'm fine with that. Where I start to get concerned is when statements are made that it's "a waste of time and oxygen". Science is a great thing that can and has answered many things for us. I cannot help it or control that it is totally incapable of dealing with a supernatural all powerful creator. It may very well be illogical, in that sense, for a person to go beyond science and hold supernatural beliefs. That however does not make those beliefs impossible or a waste of effort. It just is what it is.

 

And husker x, yes I may state my faith and beliefs as absolute convictions but that does not mean I am closed minded or not willing to look at further evidence. Particularly in these types of discussions, I am always looking for an explanation that would cause me to rethink my position. I cannot help the fact that information which would change my mind has not yet been provided from any source. I am not focusing on this one issue to avoid having to defend the myriad of problems of defending the larger issues of "religions" and all that entails. It just happens to be the magic bullet that would indicate there is more at work here and science, quite frankly, is not equipped to deal with that realm. Sorry, I wish it were. It sure would free up some time for me if I didn't feel the need to tend to spiritual matters. I'd love to sleep in on Sundays.

 

Edit- changed the term "smoking gun" to the more appropriate "magic bullet".

 

 

Well said.

[knapplc]

The difficulty I have with life origins stems from the fiendish complexity of life. tschu mentioned earlier something about "basic life forms" and that there are explanations for how these could form from "organic materials."

 

I get the building blocks of basic ingredients that are necessary for life. What I don't get is how these basic things could, even in the most friendly of environments, go from inanimate objects to something capable of consumption and processing of food, healing and replication. Those are tremendously complicated functions in even the most basic life forms.

 

Perhaps there's an explanation out there and I've missed it. But those are pretty high hurdles.

 

 

However, that does not mean I think God or magic or whatever. The fact that I don't know the answer to that question =/= Zeus exists.

[JJ Husker]

And I have to take an issue with both yourself and carlfense. If you're looking for an explanation, religion is the very last place you should be looking. Religious claims (like intelligent design or any other form of creationism) are not explanations. They're just bald assertions. They are not explanations because they lack explanatory power or any insight into a mechanism of, in this case, creation.

I was trying to refer to the big philosophical questions . . . but it's likely that I didn't express that clearly.

 

I think I took it the way you intended carl.

[BigRedBuster]

The difficulty I have with life origins stems from the fiendish complexity of life. tschu mentioned earlier something about "basic life forms" and that there are explanations for how these could form from "organic materials."

 

I get the building blocks of basic ingredients that are necessary for life. What I don't get is how these basic things could, even in the most friendly of environments, go from inanimate objects to something capable of consumption and processing of food, healing and replication. Those are tremendously complicated functions in even the most basic life forms.

 

Perhaps there's an explanation out there and I've missed it. But those are pretty high hurdles.

 

 

However, that does not mean I think God or magic or whatever. The fact that I don't know the answer to that question =/= Zeus exists.

 

 

Tends to be one of my biggest question marks also....among a lot of others.

[JJ Husker]

The difficulty I have with life origins stems from the fiendish complexity of life. tschu mentioned earlier something about "basic life forms" and that there are explanations for how these could form from "organic materials."

 

I get the building blocks of basic ingredients that are necessary for life. What I don't get is how these basic things could, even in the most friendly of environments, go from inanimate objects to something capable of consumption and processing of food, healing and replication. Those are tremendously complicated functions in even the most basic life forms.

 

Perhaps there's an explanation out there and I've missed it. But those are pretty high hurdles.

 

 

However, that does not mean I think God or magic or whatever. The fact that I don't know the answer to that question =/= Zeus exists.

 

Exactly. The lack of a definitive answer does not mean God exists or that God doesn't exist. I can admit it may be no more than a burning desire for that answer that causes me to believe as I do. But, often times, it really does seem like so much more than that and it has gotten to the point where I'm convinced. That is not to say I am not open to further evidence, just that I am pretty darn certain that further evidence will not be forthcoming before I take a dirt nap.

[StPaulHusker]

Does anyone know what religion or specific church is out there today railing against science and evolution? I attend Mass weekly for several years now and I have to say that I can't remember once it being an issue during the readings or the homily.

[Landlord]

Does anyone know what religion or specific church is out there today railing against science and evolution? I attend Mass weekly for several years now and I have to say that I can't remember once it being an issue during the readings or the homily.

 

 

Almost the entirety of the opposition is attributed to a small percentage of varying Protestant denominations. The Catholic church has no issue with an old earth and evolutionary theory, nor does the Orthodox church, nor Jews, nor Christian spun cults, etc. That isn't to say all of those people practicing those faiths agree, but the official church positions vary from either affirming to neutral.

[knapplc]

46% of Americans believe in Creationism

 

From that survey, 67% of Americans who go to church regularly believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years.

 

Whatever these churches are saying in press clippings, in church, Sunday school, Bible study, etc, they're reinforcing a Young Earth/Creationist belief.