If evolution is treated as anti-faith, by both sides, then many of the faithful will not even consider evolution, and regard it as hostile to their faith. Evolution should be treated as a logical extension of faith, atheists notwithstanding, as there are elements of evolution in the development of religions. The National Center of Science Education, the leading advocacy group of evolution in the classrooms, agreed with me when I pointed this out to them in an e-mail.
I think this idea is silly and I’m a YEC. Unless Minnesota has started requiring a lot more time covering Darwin than was spent when I took biology there, the amount of time spent covering evolution is not enough to get bent out of shape over. To me, simply mentioning that not everyone believes in evolution and that this is one of the most controversial topics in science seems sufficient. It is up to the parents and sunday school teachers to explain Intelligent Design.
On another note: I had a friend who believed in evolution because he wanted to be a chemical engineer and therefore he had to believe in evolution because he had to believe in science. As a fellow budding chemical engineer I found this incomprehensible, especially since my roommate was a biology major who was a YEC. Granted, she’s an ecologist but, the whole idea that belief in evolution says ANYTHING about ones religious beliefs or ones ability to be a practicing scientist or engineer is silly.
I don’t think that Darwin’s idea of descent with minor differences followed by the filter of natural selection is, or was right from its beginning, a controversial topic within the scientific community.
Evolutionary theory is not controversial with scientists but with non-scientists who have a religious problem with it. the science, itself, is uncontrovertable.
The fact that someone would reject evolutionary theory actually says quite a bit about their ability to be objective and to accept empirical evidence. Since YEC requires an irrational rejection of proven fact, I would say that it would severely compromose one’s ability to function as a scientist. Being a scientist means having some respect for scientific method. A belief in YEC shows such a gross disregard for scientific method that it would have to severely handicap one’s ability to practice the method.
Would you go to a doctor who didn’t “believe” in germ theory and insisted on treating people for demonic possession instead? Would such a doctor really be practicing medicine?
**Eureka, ** you and I must have had the same instructors growing up. IIRC, they’re way of dealing with the subject was to purchase textbooks that had the chapters dealing with evolution, the moderrn synthesis, etc. toward the end. Magically, spring would role around and we would not “get” to it. I don’t think in this case ignorance is the best policy, however. It’s not going to make the fact (I’m sorry SnoopyFan , but it most certainly is that) that man is a primate go away. Just out of curiousity, how do you reconcile your beliefs with your profession(you mentioned you are a scientist, I assume you understand and use the scientific method)? The preponderance of evidence from many fields says exactly the opposite of what you “believe.” Not knocking you for them, I’m just interested in how YEC christian scientists(thats a mouthfull) can compartmentalize, you do realize much of the material you have studied and will use as a tools in your career owe much to organic and biochem, both of which have been most useful in the human genome project, and human/ape DNA hybridization studies?
Evolution should not be treated as either “anti-faith” or a “logical extension of faith” by public schools. Public schools aren’t in the business of either refuting or confirming religious doctrines. Scientifically, evolution is neither anti-faith or a logical extension of faith–some scientists may have strong opinions on the subject one way or the other, but they don’t publish their opinions about the theological implications of evolution (or any other part of science) in science journals.
What churches teach is another matter, of course. If churches want to teach that evolution is a logical extension of faith, more power to them.
Theory of Gravity
Theory of Relativity
Germ Theory of Disease
I could go on.
Just out of curiosity, if a religious parent could have his/her child opt out of certain classes on evolution, sex ed, etc. could a secualr parent just declare that their child will simply not attend classes on ID?
Best way to fight 'em may be to just not to.
First of all, David Simmons and Diogenes are correct. My wording was sloppy which is one of the reasons I usually stay out of GD. I didn’t mean that evolution is controversial among scientists, I just meant that it is one of the ideas which is most likely to spark public controversy and threads like this one.
Next, I think my high school biology teacher spent one class period discussing evolution. I’m not even sure that he suggested that not everyone agreed with it, but as a “good christian” I knew that not everyone did, because it contradicted Genesis 1 and 2. At that point, I believed that Genesis was a nice story, and the only thing I was certain about was that however the earth got created, God did it. Since that time I have come to believe that God is powerful enough to have created the universe by any means he felt like. Therefore, since there was a reason for the writing of Genesis, it probably was because that is how the universe was created. ( I’m not sure that makes sense, partially because of my phrasing and partially because I’m not sure that the ideas make sense, even to those who believe in an all-powerful God).
Thirdly, I am not now a scientist. I am a professional student in a non-scientific field. My reasons for this have nothing to do with evolution and a lot to do with things that are too revealing of who I am and what my future may be for exposure on a message board. I will admit to having obtained a B.S. in Chemical Engineering and even to having taken graduate courses in that field. My ecologist friend is perfectly willing to grant you that humans are primates.
I’m really not sure just what I would be expected to compartmentalize if I were a YEC christian scientist. I understand the scientific method and can I use it appropriately. Calculating mass and energy balances or reading a P&ID (piping and instrumentation diagram) has nothing to do with biology at all. I believe that God created the universe and someday Christ will come again to judge the living and the dead and while I know that he could return at any time, I act as if he will not return until long after I am dead. I don’t know how to explain it, but I have never deliberately had to compartmentalize. Well-educated YEC christian scientists are not common but they do exist and most of them you would not recognize by their work, unless they are advocates on behalf of the YECs.
I hope I made some sense. Some of the replies to my original post hit my hot buttons which make it tough to think clearly. Also, I’m out of practice at having my words examined under a microscope. But my main point is fairly simple, belief in evolution is not a prerequisite for belief in the scientific method or the application of scientific principles to daily life.
Maybe not, but belief in Genesis is downright contradictory with the scientific method, though how much that applies to “daily life”, I’ll admit, is a metter of definition. Stictly speaking, you could ignore such basic facts as the world being round and still live a happy “daily” life.
Anyhoo, somewhere along the way in studying to be a chemical engineer, you might have come across fusion, specifically the process in stars converting hydrogen fuel into heavier elements. Had God created all stars some 6000 years ago (i.e. Genesis 1:16), and since we now know that 6000 years is an pretty trivial period of time compared to the lifetime of a star (unless you want to discount astronomy generally), and since we’ve observed red giants and other phenomena that show a star’s death, then either:
[ul][li]God created some stars that were already dead or dying, or[/li][li]The universe is considerably older than 6000 years, and some stars have used up their hydrogen and “died”.[/ul][/li]
There may be other explanations, of course. The fact that you can live with or without evolution says nothing about whether or not you should live with or without Genesis. Ignoring the former does nothing to eliminate the logical problems with the latter.
Embracing contradictory ideas is something humans do all the time. Just don’t ignore that fact that they are contradictory, or buy into the idea that the explanation of their contradictions is vested in some Godlike entity and thus something man was not meant to know. That does a service to no-one, especially schoolchildren.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Bryan Ekers *
**Anyhoo, somewhere along the way in studying to be a chemical engineer, you might have come across fusion, specifically the process in stars converting hydrogen fuel into heavier elements. Had God created all stars some 6000 years ago (i.e. Genesis 1:16), and since we now know that 6000 years is an pretty trivial period of time compared to the lifetime of a star (unless you want to discount astronomy generally), and since we’ve observed red giants and other phenomena that show a star’s death, then either:
[ul][li]God created some stars that were already dead or dying, or[/li][li]The universe is considerably older than 6000 years, and some stars have used up their hydrogen and “died”.[/ul]**[/li][/QUOTE]
It gets worse; most of the stars we have actually witnessed dying are more than 6000 light years away, meaning that the light we saw from them blowing up was emitted before the creation of the universe, or the stars were created in an already destroyed state and the lightshow of them blowing up was created in transit (i.e. their destruction was faked).
On re-reading, I see that I’ve done nothing but restate your point Bryan; sorry, I don’t know what happened to my reading comprehension there.
Whenever anyone mentions “it’s only a theory, if it were a fact it would be a law”, I usually say “then what was Newton talking about in the following?”
Taken from here.
Really?
Boy were they (the NCSE) ever bending over backwards to be polite towards a rather misleading and irrelevant observation! The debate has nothing to do with the general meaning of the word “evolution” or the fact that the word is often used in contexts where it has no meaningful relationship with the natural principles of biology and selection, etc. Faith and science are fundamentally incompatible, and the fact that human language can be used to falsely blur the distinction between them merely illustrates the ease with which language can be used to promote deception.
I would take issue with this statement, or rather view it in a similar light as I would the words “peanut butter and gasket sealant are incompatible” - certainly seems reasonable on the surface, but are you rebuilding an engine, or making a sandwich?
Mangetout, can you frame your objection in a cogent and reasonable way, or are you just going to rely on comments about peanut butter and gasket sealants?
Faith is first and foremost about believing in claims concerning the empirically unknowable. Science is first and foremost about focusing exclusively on that which can be empirically known and also in rejecting belief of claims that lack adequate empirical evidence. The two modes of inquiry are and will forever be fundamentally incompatible.
Can you prove (show, demonstrate, whatever) that they’re not? Plenty of well-meaning folks have tried, but they’ve always failed to do anything but use language in such a way as to disingenuously highlight alleged similarities while disingenuously burying the huge and irreconcilable differences. But perhaps you will be the first to break the mold?
Perhaps I could, perhaps not, but at the moment, I can’t see any point in trying. Forget I said anything.
Responding to the question of “But how do you deal with astronomy where the evidence says the universe is much older than 6000 years?” (Which is sort of posed by Bryan Ekers andmangetout , I’m reading between the lines of their posts).
I take a multi-pronged approach. I don’t think there is anything magical about 6000 years. Actually, I suspect the earth is older than that, just not nearly as old as the geologists/astronomers/Darwinists think the earth should be to make their theories work. I don’t have a reason for this, I just do. Secondly, I treat descriptions of nebulas and such sort of like fairy tales. It isn’t so much that they are wrong, it’s just that they are more fun if you don’t take them too seriously. And, frankly, when looking at the Grand Canyon, it’s more enjoyable to imagine that the geologists are right than to ponder why God felt like designing something that only looks like it was formed through erosion.* And finally, I believe in a God who could have created dead stars just for fun and because he wanted people to look out at the universe and marvel, not see stars as if they were pinholes in the night sky, all the same distance away.
*Something about this idea reminds me of a portion of Douglas Adams’ Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy trilogy. Somewhere in there one of his characters talks to the guy who carved the norwegion fjords. It gave me a totally different (and slightly odd and more than slightly irreligous) take on why God might have created a universe with depth.
**
**
I wonder why Eureka is no longer in a scientific field. The above quotes show that he was perfectly qualified for science.
I guess it’s just one of the great mysteries, like the nature of the Trinity, or where paperclips come from.
As cited in Steven Pinker’s latest book, The Blank Slate, “76% of Americans believe in the biblical account of creation… and only 15% believe that Darwin’s theory of evolution is the best explanation for the origin of life on Earth.”
As opinions are generally polarised on this issue, with scientific rationality on one end and faith on the other, noone is really going to be willing to swap sides regardless of the arguments of the other, unless creationists come up with some proof of their claims. If time is given to creation “science” in schools, I believe that while it would further polarise the issue it would leave the creationists with little scientific grounds for argument. If your average high-schooler can debunk most of the theories of YEC/ID, then the theory should diminish in credibility much quicker. As a student whose main interest is evolutionary psychology, I would very much appreciate it if that happened.
The method of assessment should be simple. Answers will be marked on their legitimacy. Sure, there’d be a big fuss, maybe lawsuits and all, but it would be worth it in the end. An answer of “godidit” gets a zero, and “godidit how?” written in the margin in red ink.