Vote for Creationism or Evolutionism or Both for Schools to Teach?

[netrox]

What I haven't liked about some of the coverage of this (as I commented in the thread in the news forum) is that some article writers assume that the only two options are an atheistic evolution or "creation science".

Real science must be 100% naturalistic which is often percieved as athiestic by religious fundies.

 

[MorriganTait]

Real science must be 100% naturalistic which is often percieved as athiestic by religious fundies.

Funny - I seem to recall explaining this to YOU in another thread. Hmmmmm?

http://www.alldeaf.com/showthread.php?t=26498

 

[MorriganTait]

What I haven't liked about some of the coverage of this (as I commented in the thread in the news forum) is that some article writers assume that the only two options are an atheistic evolution or "creation science".

Yeah - I think this is awfully funny too. I don't personally think a concept of a creative higher power (God) excludes the scientific concepts of evolution. It simply forces us to adjust our interpretations of the creation stories we have learned as a matter of theology. I prefer to think of Genesis, and much of the Old Testament, as an effort by ancient Jews to describe how their relationship with God changed and developed over time, and how they got to be the people they were at the time they documented the stories. That's just me - many prefer a strictly literal interpretation, and so be it.

I prefer to imagine a God powerful enough to set evolution into motion myself.

 

[Rose Immortal]

Real science must be 100% naturalistic which is often percieved as athiestic by religious fundies.

The problem is that some poorly written articles (like one that I read recently that you can go to the thread in the Current Events section to read) still insist on putting a philosophy with science, which it doesn't. Even if real science is 100% divorced from any theological beliefs, that's not what's coming across in the popular press. Somebody needs to educate the science writers and editors in the media not to do that kind of stuff before they run articles.

 

[Rose Immortal]

Yeah - I think this is awfully funny too. I don't personally think a concept of a creative higher power (God) excludes the scientific concepts of evolution. It simply forces us to adjust our interpretations of the creation stories we have learned as a matter of theology. I prefer to think of Genesis, and much of the Old Testament, as an effort by ancient Jews to describe how their relationship with God changed and developed over time, and how they got to be the people they were at the time they documented the stories. That's just me - many prefer a strictly literal interpretation, and so be it.

I prefer to imagine a God powerful enough to set evolution into motion myself.

I find myself wondering if the exclusion of the middle way is an attempt by BOTH the radical right and left to keep the issue going, so to speak--creating artificial polarization.

 

[Beowulf]

I find myself wondering if the exclusion of the middle way is an attempt by BOTH the radical right and left to keep the issue going, so to speak--creating artificial polarization.

You are JUST wondering? Well, it's a start, lol.
Personally I do not think extremes will fraternize in the way you suppose, it is more one than the other.
I have been saying this for years, it is all going according to plan, i.e., divide and conquer, divide and conquer. Same thing with the immigration thread here. Sighhhhh.

 

[MorriganTait]

I find myself wondering if the exclusion of the middle way is an attempt by BOTH the radical right and left to keep the issue going, so to speak--creating artificial polarization.

The science of evolution is not, in-and-of-itself, a partisan issue. Both very conservative groups (The Catholic Church) and very liberal groups (The Peace and Freedom Party) have spoken up in acceptance of the science of evolution. I believe it is only an attempt by one rather small faction of extreme right-wing American conservatives to polarize the issue as an "either-or" issue. I have seen no one in the (legitimate) scientific community, nor anyone else of high regard, suggest that one must abandon faith, deny a creative intelligence or otherwise disregard religious tenets in order to accept the science of evolution. In fact, the (legitimate) scientific community makes it a point to express their neutrality on matters of religion/theology/faith, and only attempt to clarify that at this time "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" are not recognized as true scientific disciplines due to lack of evidentiary foundation and failure to use objective scientific protocols to examine postulations. Many times, the scientific community has implored these other groups to adopt scientific principles.

I accept that both "creationism" and "intelligent design" are legitimate philosophies, and as such, I would have no issue with these being taught to public school students in the context of social-studies, anthropology, psychology, philosphy, world culture, etc. But because they are not science, they should not be taught as science.

Keep in mind, I am a Christian, and I accept a phiolosphy of intelligent design as an explanation for the observable characteristics of evolution, but I acknowledge that it can likely never be more than a philosphy, and do not feel my faith a bit shaken by that.

PS. I don't think there IS a "middle" way, because that suggests these viewpoints are opposite one another, when they actually are not particularly related to one another. It is like saying one must choose between having blue eyes and eating a taco - as if one cannot do both at the same time - as if eye color and food choices have anything to do with one another. It does not matter if one faction says that humans with blue eyes lack the physical capacity to consume tacos - we watch humans with blue eyes eat tacos all day long.

 

[Rose Immortal]

The science of evolution is not, in-and-of-itself, a partisan issue. Both very conservative groups (The Catholic Church) and very liberal groups (The Peace and Freedom Party) have spoken up in acceptance of the science of evolution. I believe it is only an attempt by one rather small faction of extreme right-wing American conservatives to polarize the issue as an "either-or" issue. I have seen no one in the (legitimate) scientific community, nor anyone else of high regard, suggest that one must abandon faith, deny a creative intelligence or otherwise disregard religious tenets in order to accept the science of evolution. In fact, the (legitimate) scientific community makes it a point to express their neutrality on matters of religion/theology/faith, and only attempt to clarify that at this time "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" are not recognized as true scientific disciplines due to lack of evidentiary foundation and failure to use objective scientific protocols to examine postulations. Many times, the scientific community has implored these other groups to adopt scientific principles.

Even if the actual scientists feel like that, there are still certain groups of atheists that do adopt evolution as a philosophy and that's frustrating to me. That's why I put the blame on both sides, personally.

PS. I don't think there IS a "middle" way, because that suggests these viewpoints are opposite one another, when they actually are not particularly related to one another. It is like saying one must choose between having blue eyes and eating a taco - as if one cannot do both at the same time - as if eye color and food choices have anything to do with one another. It does not matter if one faction says that humans with blue eyes lack the physical capacity to consume tacos - we watch humans with blue eyes eat tacos all day long.

Wrong blue-eyed human to say that to.

Anyway, immaturity aside, I do think there's kind of a false dichotomy, but it does seem to be furthered by certain people on both sides.

 

[Reba]

...a very good analogy is that a 1920 car has evolved over many decade into most modern car with high tech gadgets.
That's called evolution. We have seen it happens!

Cars don't "evolve" thru natural selection or mutate by themselves. Car designs are changed every year by...DESIGNERS and ENGINEERS! Whoa! Intelligent design at work!

We went from big tube powered TV to a largest LCD TV powered by silicon chips instead of TUBE.

Did TV's change thru natural selection or genetic mutation? No! An outside intelligent source created the changes.

ALL things in this universe is made of atom <--- that's what you and I are made of right down to way below the celluar level.

If you can create something with all kinds of atoms that are out in the universe like Hydrogen and Oxygen together become water.

Who made the atoms?

planet were formed from gas we have seen in action in distant galaxy and life were formed on ground as environment changes then evolution occur over the years.

Who made the gases?

 

[netrox]

Cars don't "evolve" thru natural selection or mutate by themselves. Car designs are changed every year by...DESIGNERS and ENGINEERS! Whoa! Intelligent design at work!

Did TV's change thru natural selection or genetic mutation? No! An outside intelligent source created the changes.

Who made the atoms?

Who made the gases?

Who made God?

 

[Rose Immortal]

God is eternal, with no maker--He is the "First Cause", to use Aristotle's terminology. To use the Judeo-Christian technology, the name He presents Moses with ("I AM") has the same implication. In God is the source of all existence and He is beyond our kinds of tense distinctions (was/will be, etc.).

Reba, would you care to add to that or clarify it?

 

[Reba]

God is eternal, with no maker--He is the "First Cause", to use Aristotle's terminology. To use the Judeo-Christian technology, the name He presents Moses with ("I AM") has the same implication. In God is the source of all existence and He is beyond our kinds of tense distinctions (was/will be, etc.).

Reba, would you care to add to that or clarify it?

You're doin' just fine!

 

[Rose Immortal]

Thanks! I kinda worried that there were some unspoken steps in that logic that might need to be stated more fully, though...

 

[RedFox]

God is eternal, with no maker--He is the "First Cause", to use Aristotle's terminology. To use the Judeo-Christian technology, the name He presents Moses with ("I AM") has the same implication. In God is the source of all existence and He is beyond our kinds of tense distinctions (was/will be, etc.).

Reba, would you care to add to that or clarify it?

How different is that from saying that whatever reality the universe was made in, had been around forever? Occam's razor cuts away the first cause version of the god because of the lack of evidence that requires the god.

 

[Rose Immortal]

How different is that from saying that whatever reality the universe was made in, had been around forever? Occam's razor cuts away the first cause version of the god because of the lack of evidence that requires the god.

One problem I see with your statement is that you imply the existence of something outside of God, which then implies the need for something to create that outside reality. You could keep drilling away like that infinitely, by that pattern, and still be left with no explanation as to HOW this universe got here, nor for why it is not simply a formless void with everything evenly distributed--but that last one has its own set of questions that comes with it.

 

[netrox]

God is eternal, with no maker--He is the "First Cause", to use Aristotle's terminology. To use the Judeo-Christian technology, the name He presents Moses with ("I AM") has the same implication. In God is the source of all existence and He is beyond our kinds of tense distinctions (was/will be, etc.).

So is the energy/quantum/force. It's eternal. It's always here.

 

[RedFox]

One problem I see with your statement is that you imply the existence of something outside of God, which then implies the need for something to create that outside reality. You could keep drilling away like that infinitely, by that pattern, and still be left with no explanation as to HOW this universe got here, nor for why it is not simply a formless void with everything evenly distributed--but that last one has its own set of questions that comes with it.

How different is that from saying that whatever reality the universe was made in, had been around forever? Occam's razor cuts away the first cause version of the god because of the lack of evidence that requires the god.

To make it clearer, I was thinking about two cases, an eternal god that made the universe and an eternal reality the universe was made in with no god to create anything. I said that Occam's razor could cut away that sort of god because there's no evidence that requires such a god. "Whatever reality the universe was made in" wasn't precise enough to exclude a god making the universe within an eternal reality. Thanks for pointing that out.

With the case of the universe being created in an eternal reality that itself wasn't created by a god, Occam's razor isn't cutting that eternal reality away yet because there are hypothesises that gravity is weaker than other forces because it can spread out into other dimensions on large scales, but not smaller scales. This could somehow be related with the eternal reality. This is testable by measuring the strength of gravity on very small scales. But this haven't yet been done, so Occam's razor is on hold here.

Occam's razor would cut away a god within an eternal reality because we don't have the evidence for such a god.

Maybe the reality the universe is in could have been created by a god, but we have no evidence for that because we haven't yet done tests that could tell us about any reality outside the familiar dimensions. So Occam's razor would cut away such a creator.

This was what I was talking about, one eternal god that created everything, or things being created without a god.

The infinite regression is a different case that arises with an universe created by an noneternal god. This is where there are things outside of the god. The question is how many regressions there are before we get to a creator that is eternal.

It is interesting that getting the infinite regression depending on assuming that everything needs to have a creator, even gods. The interesting thing is that a similar assumpation is applied to everything within the universe by some believers to make a case for a god that created all of those things. Of course, in that case, the assumpation is not applied to the god because the god is placed outside the universe and the assumpation gets limited to only things within the universe.

 

[Rose Immortal]

God is considered to be beyond the universe as we understand it, yes, and that's why all things within the universe are considered to require a creator.

The other problem this creates for you is, if you're dealing with something outside the universe (or otherwise undetectable), you cannot scientifically prove OR disprove God's existence.

Finally, the application of Occam's Razor in the case of an entire universe is something I question...would you not need to explain all phenomena that occur within it? I'm not sure that you can effectively "simplify" things to that degree.

Pardon me...I'm REALLY tired and probably shouldn't be posting right now, so this isn't my clearest thought by a long shot. I just didn't want you to think I was ignoring you.

 

[RedFox]

God is considered to be beyond the universe as we understand it, yes, and that's why all things within the universe are considered to require a creator.

How does a god being considered beyond the universe cause everything in the universe to require a creator? A god being beyond the universe doesn't force the god to be the creator of the universe and everything in it because there could be other things beyond the universe that made it. The existence of such a god also doesn't force the universe to require a creator because there's the possiblity of both the god and the universe being eternal. There is no way of finding out which one of those possiblities is real without evidence about the nature of any such beings out there and the nature of any reality the universe may be in.

The other problem this creates for you is, if you're dealing with something outside the universe (or otherwise undetectable), you cannot scientifically prove OR disprove God's existence.

Is this god only outside the universe? If so, how can the god be detected, scientifically or by religous means like praying? If this god is the same god as Jesus and the Old Testament god, then the bible is claiming that the god was at least partially inside the universe at least sometimes.

Finally, the application of Occam's Razor in the case of an entire universe is something I question...would you not need to explain all phenomena that occur within it? I'm not sure that you can effectively "simplify" things to that degree.

Occam's razor is not being applied to an entire universe. It is being applied to a god supposed to have created the universe. If there is no evidence that there was a creator of the universe, then Occam's razor can be used. If one thinks that all phenomena needs to be explained before considering if there is evidence for a creator, then this brings us to the god of the gaps. It is a type of argument from ignorance.

Pardon me...I'm REALLY tired and probably shouldn't be posting right now, so this isn't my clearest thought by a long shot. I just didn't want you to think I was ignoring you.

Here's some interesting stuff on concepts about the multiverse. It might help us understand more about how the word universe can be used.

 

[Rose Immortal]

First off, thanks for putting up with my tired-mind posting last night. I crawled right into bed after that.

How does a god being considered beyond the universe cause everything in the universe to require a creator? A god being beyond the universe doesn't force the god to be the creator of the universe and everything in it because there could be other things beyond the universe that made it. The existence of such a god also doesn't force the universe to require a creator because there's the possiblity of both the god and the universe being eternal. There is no way of finding out which one of those possiblities is real without evidence about the nature of any such beings out there and the nature of any reality the universe may be in.

You mention the possibility of the physical universe being eternal--however, is that indeed what the scientific evidence is pointing to? The understanding I had was that it did have a specific time at which it started.

(I'm talking about 1 universe, not a multiverse right now...as far as I'm aware, other universes lie outside of our capacity to detect them.)

Anyway, you do start getting a problem with the infinite regression again if you postulate that something else made the universe, because then something had to make whatever made THAT stuff.

Is this god only outside the universe? If so, how can the god be detected, scientifically or by religous means like praying? If this god is the same god as Jesus and the Old Testament god, then the bible is claiming that the god was at least partially inside the universe at least sometimes.

I don't see God as being restricted to being outside the universe. But there can still be a barrier that we cannot necessarily cross, that we can.

Take this metaphor: you are standing at the shore of a lake, but you are not in it. You can place your hand in--but the reason you can do this is that you can exert more force than the surface tension of the water. A water bug would not necessarily be able to do that on his own. A barrier that God can penetrate, and that we cannot without His aid is sensible in my mind--the "surface tension" is beyond what we can overcome unaided. But, to one with sufficient strength to do so, then it is doable.

This is what God's interventions in our universe would be considered, in my mind.

Where we get into problems with detecting it scientifically is that I'm not sure we have the capabilities to detect what the barrier is, and when it's being crossed. I remember you and I had a discussion about one of my stories, though, where I conjectured on what could happen if we discovered such an interface.

Occam's razor is not being applied to an entire universe. It is being applied to a god supposed to have created the universe. If there is no evidence that there was a creator of the universe, then Occam's razor can be used. If one thinks that all phenomena needs to be explained before considering if there is evidence for a creator, then this brings us to the god of the gaps. It is a type of argument from ignorance.

What the God-of-the-gaps argument, as I understand it, seems to say is that God is responsible for anything we cannot explain, and kind of confined there. That's not the same tack I take...I see Him as the author of the explainable scientific processes as well. While at times He may intervene in ways that normally wouldn't happen, I also think that some of His intentions were designed right into the make of the universe itself. My personal thought is that while evolution was going on, that all the way down to the quantum level He knew what He wanted to happen and had designed this universe to end up producing that result from the start. (We'll discuss other universes shortly. )

However, the one thing the God-of-the-gaps argument has going for it is that it does point out our inability to prove OR disprove the existence of God when we don't have full knowledge of all that happened, or all of the variables. So if one is dealing strictly with science, the final conclusion one comes to is agnosticism. That is, with nothing else brought in.

I never have had a problem with admitting that my final choice in what I believe is due to faith. But I also don't accept the idea that science precludes God's existence.

Here's some interesting stuff on concepts about the multiverse. It might help us understand more about how the word universe can be used.

Cool stuff.

Did I ever mention that another of my story ideas deals with the idea of another universe, that works slightly differently from ours but mostly similar? I'm not sure whether that qualifies as a Level II or IV though...that was not the clearest of explanations in that article.