Bdgr, are you just pretending to be illiterate? The answer to your latest query was already posted by Satan (the poster, not the biblical character) at 11:52 am 02-11-2001.
The Christian Science faith teaches that disease is, essentially, an illusion and that it ban be dismissed with prayer.
To the best of my knowledge, they do not object to the germy theory (Whoops! There’s that word again.) being taught in health class, but merely that they, themselves, consider it kind of pointless.
Seriously, now, what other scientific theories do you hold to be invalid based on scripture? Or are you just jumping onto the anti-evolution bandwagon to feel more of a martyr?
Talking about the flood and history classes, bdgr says:
Exactly. Just as evolution courses don’t wind up the lecture with “Of course, this means that there is no god”. And if there are people out there teaching evolution this way, they should be fired. Although I challenge you (just as Satan has already challenged you) to find any evidence that any school sanctions such behavior anywhere in this country.
The objection to evolution is that it gives an explanation that some people think has a meaning that is against their religious beliefs. No evolution teacher oversteps their bounds to “outright deny” the existence of a god, or to “say it (god) happened”.
Exactly the same situation you just described with regard to history teachers and the flood.
So again, if your position is that the schools should not require learning about things that conflict with the beliefs of (even small) religious groups (remember, it doesn’t matter if you think they conflict, only that anyone else may think that), why shouldn’t the subjects that have been mentioned be treated the same way you say evolution should be treated? Why shouldn’t all of these things either not be taught, be taught with disclaimers that they are just guesses, or be taught as electives?
Huh. OK, I’m not backing up anybody. I’m speaking for myself, not for “Creationism.” Let’s get that clear.
Weirdly enough, the Old Testament is so old, there aren’t really any contemporary histories to contradict most of it. And archaeology hasn’t yet disproved it either. The interpretation of Israel’s history as showing God’s will–that’s open to question. But that these cities & nations actually existed, archaeology seems to support. Though many people would love for the Exodus, say, to be a myth, we just don’t know it to be false; in many cases, the O.T. is the one coherent historical source we have. The one part of the O.T. that’s most likely to be disproved is the early part of the book of Genesis: Eden through Babel. Is that just so much myth? Probably. But there really isn’t much proof that a cataclysmic (though maybe not worldwide) flood didn’t happen a 4-5 millenia ago. We don’t have any terribly reliable records from that far back.
Which is not to say I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, a young earth, or the supremacy of the “god of Abraham.”
But it’s also worth pointing out that history doesn’t quite disprove the existence of an intervening supernatural entity. And that the branch of science which deals with cosmic history came up with the rather bizarre “big bang” theory to explain a godless universe with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
There’s a lot we don’t know. By all means, let us be scientific, & cautious in our conclusions. If it can be shown that life could arise and diversify spontaneously, fine. It sounds plausible enough; let biologists explore it with alacrity. But please don’t think fools of us who suspect that, in the long history of life on this planet, the true engine of the origin of species may have been something supernatural–something divine.
Of course, you will think us fools. It’s a long-standing prejudice that a theistic belief is unscientific. And someone like me, who says, “Maybe gods exist,” is easily dismissed as an unthinking Biblical-literalist.
But what I’m saying is this: If there are gods, or there is one god, then isn’t it reasonable to suppose that they (he) could take part in paleohistory? That the “evolution” of the ecosystem was directed, over the ages, by successive adjustments by some consciousness? Is that so absurd?
Some say “science & religion have nothing to do with each other.” But if the conclusions of current science contradict the contentions of a religion, one must be in error (and maybe both).
If a religion is proven scientifically false, for the sake of truth, that religion must change, or be forcibly abolished. If science could prove that there is not & cannot be a god, then atheism would have to be required teaching in schools. Otherwise, we would allow lies and delusion to flourish.
Science, if it’s worthwhile, is about reality. So is religion. So don’t give me that “Science and Religion speak to entirely different truths” line. Or I’ll join certain dogmatic atheists in calling you illogical, weak-minded, & a bad influence on your own children.
But I do disagree in one important way with those who take a dogmatic view. I think there are questions worth asking. And one of them is, “How could abiogenesis happen?” and the answer might be entirely naturalistic, or it might be, “through divine intervention.”
Children of creationists, and their parents, benefit when evolution is taught in school.
Picture this. A kid comes home from school and tells his mom and dad that the biology teacher told them that such-and-such fossils are a hundred million years old. “How can that be true?” he asks. “You told me, and the preacher told me, that no life existed until God made it 6,000 years ago.”
The creationist parents can then explain that the scientists’ dating methods are flawed: carbon dating is absolutely inaccurate and geologists have misinterpreted the evidence. Clearly, they’ll say (if they’ve done their homework), all those fossil deposits are just more evidence of the Deluge.
If the kid comes home and says, “Hey, mom and dad! The biology teacher says the human race has ancestors: Homo habilis, Homo erectus, even autralapithecus! But you and the preacher told me that Adam was the first man, and Eve was made out of Adam’s rib [depending on which creation story in Genesis you’re literally interpreting]!”
Mom and dad can then explain that those fossil skeletons of animals that looked remarkably like humans weren’t really human (they died out in the Deluge, even though Noah was supposed to take a pair of every species aboard), and that all ‘Neandertals’ were really just Prussian soldiers with rickets.
This gives the creationist parents a good opportunity to explain that, sure, microevolution can occur (Noah couldn’t have possibly taken two representatives of each of the 250,000 species of beetles on board the Arc, so he probably just brought a few and they speciated after landing on Ararat), but it’s impossible for critters to have morphed from one-celled critters to human beings! After all, the Bible says only 6,000 years have passed since the beginning of the earth!
And so on. Good creationists must learn somehow to counterattack whenever evidence of evolution is presented. Most importantly, they must learn how to distort the meaning of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. How can they do so if evolution isn’t taught in school?
Actually, some items in the Bible have a factual basis of history that studies such as archaeology has shown to be true, but at the same time, there is no evidence of a world-wide flood during the period that Biblical literalists swear it happened. In fact, evidence found (such as core samples of trees which show that the period went by with nary a problem) sometimes counteracts this as well.
Frankly, this is all none too surprising to anyone except a few who swear on the literal inerrancy fo the Bible.
But just as saying a flood didn’t happen on a global scale doesn’t mean that there ain’t a God, saying that a king the Bible said existed during a certain timeframe actually did exist doesn’t mean that Jesus was the son of God either.
**
No, but we do have decent enough records that show any unusual phenomenon of that scale didn’t happen. Certainly not in the timeframe that the fundies want us to believe.
**
How does one prove an intervening entity was not responsible for the snow storm that hit us last week? Or disprove it?
You are treding onto some dangerous territory here, foolsguinea. Because you can’t prove or disprove the supernatural, you either have faith or you don’t.
**
Actually (and I welcome Jab or David to come along and correct me if I am mistaken), I think you have it backwards. Once the Second Law of Thermodynamics was applied to observable phenomeon (the size of the universe and the speed/direction it is moving in, among other things) it added up as evidence which made the Big Bang Theory plausible (and still, even with some competing ideas being floated around by some scientists, the prevailing concept) as to how the universe came into being.
**
Which is exactly why science calls things "theories,
because science is always open to new evidence. 1 + 1 may always be 2 in math, but new information about 1 (so to speak) is liable to change that in science.
But that evidence is not here, and is unlikely to show up, which is why Abiogenesis and Evolution are accepted “facts.” Some scientists may quibble as to the details, but no legitimate scientists with a working knowledge of the world around us thinks there is EVIDENCE the whole universe is only a few thousand years old. Some may have FAITH in that, but those are two different things.
**
Science never says than an entity is not there. Science will never claim this. Most faithful people can accept the evidence we have and still retain faith in a God of their choosing.
**
What a silly thing to say… Of course it’s unscientific! Show me some test results that prove (or even “prove”) the existance of God, please. You can’t. Which is why ANY belief which is not backed by evidence is rejected.
That doesn’t mean scientists reject the notion of God, just that they don’t take supernatural events into account when they gather evidence because you cannot measure the supernatural or prove it is here.
**
By whom on this board? I’d like to see a citation, thanks.
Because there are many people who believe in God who are not dismissed as a Creationist, on this board and in the world around. Actually, most religious people have no problem reconciling the two thoughts.
**
Sure, it’s all plausible.
It’s also all plausible that the whole universe was actually created last Thursday and everything we all know was implanted there by this God.
You cannot disprove this.
Do you want it taught in your schools? Right alongside something which has EVIDENCE (a mountain of it, by the way) of it happening?
Therein lies the issue.
**
False dilemma.
**
Religion cannot be scientifically proven false or true.
**
No. Science is about evidence and religion is about faith, which does not require evidence.
And you can believe anything you want. Really. Go ahead. Even in “Last Thursdayism,” as I outlined above. Knock yourself out.
But you cannot teach anything which is not testable as science. And God is not testable, and faith does not require evidence.
See the Scopes trial for more information about the differences between the two ideas, please.
*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Ten months, two days, 20 hours, 2 minutes and 0 seconds.
12353 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,544.38.
Extra life saved: 6 weeks, 21 hours, 25 minutes.
Yeah, there is. Granted, it’s mostly in the form of missing evidence, but that’s still evidence. For example, geologists have a whole list of things they could check for signs of a large scale flood, and none of them exist. For some good examples, check out this sections of the talk.origins FAQ:
Yes, but there’s a lot we do know, and that part gets bigger all the time. Lets look at the record, shall we? During the last 2000 years, how many new and correct explanations of ANY natural phenomena has religion come up with? How many has science come up with? Do we even need to post a score?
And if you choose to believe that, then fine. But don’t use that belief to say that the evidence is inconclusive, that your completely unsupported belief deserves to taught with the same degree of authority as true science, tested by decades of experimentation and investigation.
Teach philosophy is great. Teaching kids to examine the evidence and not to blindly accept dogma, not matter what the source, is wonderful. Teaching them that we don’t know everything is perfect. Teaching them that there may be mysteries that we will never solve keeps them on their toes. Terrific.
But when we are trying to teach science, what can be reasonably taught other than what the evidence points to? Since there is plenty of evidence for evolution, and none for so called “Creation Science”, “Intelligent Design” and the other dodges that fundamental Christians have used to try and get their beliefs taught, what should be taught? My opinion, obviously, is to teach what the objective evidence points to.
More or less, yes, although not really (or exclusively) the laws of thermodynamics that were being applied. It was more the laws of motion and celestial mechanics.
Way back when our friend Dr. Edwin Hubble was doing his work, he observed that other galaxies that we could see were moving away from us. This was true whichever direction he looked in–they were all moving away from us, and they were moving away from each other. Even weirder, the farther away they already were, the faster they were moving away from each other, in a proportional manner (galaxies twice as far away were moving twice as fast).
Logic told him and the rest of the astronomical community that, if they are currently moving away from each other, then yesterday they were closer together than they are today. The day before, they were even closer together. Repeating this process, one is led to the conclusion that, at some point in time, all the galaxies were in the same place. Thus, the Big Bang theory was born.
And it’s been confirmed again and again. The discovery of the cosmic background radiation by Penzias and Wilson in 1964 was a huge piece of confirming evidence. Information from the COBE satellite has provided even more confirmation.
The Big Bang is subject to constant revision based on new observations, but the core of the theory is not really seriously debated in the field of cosmology. It’s the explanation that best fits the evidence. And it says nothing about whether a deity exists.
BTW, if you want to see some mind-blowing stuff, that will make you feel humble in the face of the universe’s grandeur no matter what your religious beliefs, check out http://csep1.phy.ornl.gov/guidry/violence/bang.html.
Referring to the teaching of the Flood and not mentioning it in history class, I had noted:
bdgr responded:
Wow. You mean, kind of like dealing with evolution in science class, eh? You know, where they talk about science, discuss what the best scientific evidence is, etc., and never mention creationism.
Sounds to me like you just switched sides in this discussion. Welcome aboard!
I had asked (and asked and asked) about health class, wondering:
You finally responded:
As has already been noted a couple times, at least Christian Scientists believe it. But other groups do as well.
The point is that this could go on and on and enter into virtually every subject. Should we not teach about computers because there is the chance that an Amish kid might be in school? Should we not discuss the Inquisition in history class because some kid was taught that everything the church of the time did was right and proper?
It’s quite obvious that you have not thought out your position here. If you had, you would realize how inconsistent you are being. In fact, it is this very inconsistency that continuously marks creationism. They object to evolutionary theory, but have no problem with, for example, atomic theory (how often have you heard a creationist say, “Well, that bit about atoms is only a theory!” Similarly, you are objecting to the teaching of evolution because it might contradict somebody’s religious beliefs, but obviously have not thought about how impossible it would be to make a curriculum that doesn’t contradict some whacked-out religious belief somewhere.
foolsguinea said:
Yes, actually, there is. Such a flood would have left distinctive information in the geological record (just as any other flood does). That information is not there. Thus, the flood did not occur.
Of course not. Nor has anybody in this thread claimed it did.
What? Care to explain that one?
What we may think of you is not at issue here. What is under discussion is whether to teach religion in a science class.
Absolutely. As I said, nobody here has indicated otherwise. Evolution is not taught in schools by saying, “This is the way it happened, so that disproves God!”
Except that science will never – can never – prove the nonexistence of a deity. Science can close the gaps in our knowledge, but no matter, what the concept of a deity can always hide in there somewhere. There are a number of people on the SDMB who believe in a creator God and also have no problem accepting the scientific reality of evolution.
Some person named Sergei, it seems from Purdue Univ., without an email account, asked me a question about my “Vitamin C” statement above. Since I do not want to reveal a personal email, I will paraphrase.
First Sergei complemented me on reading Behe, which I haven’t. I have only read summaries as those linked previously. Mr Sergei states that I cannot ask questions like “If ID exists, why did the ID’er do THIS?” Because Mr. ID’er can do as he pleases. To this I say that this is ID proponents having their cake and eating it, too. If ID is not falsifiable, then it is not Science any more than Young Earth Creationism.
Then Sergei states that the Vitamin C is a problem to Darwinian Evolution since its loss conveys no survival advantage. To this I reply:
However, we are not talking about Darwinism, but Neo-Darwinism which is Darwinism + genetics. One of the facts of genetics is genetic drift: Neutral genes are passed around the gene pool until all members have them. Some time in the distant past the common ancestor of the primates lived in a vitamin C rich environment. A mutation arose that removed the ability to synthesize vitamin C. Since the diet was rich in vitamin C the effect of this mutation was neutral. This mutation was passed to every member of the species and then on to species, like us, that came from the same germ line.
I got an e-mail from this mystery person as well – complaining that we were beating up too much on the Behe fans.
I ignored it, and I would encourage you (and anybody else) to do so in the future as well. If somebody can’t sign on here and post what they think, I’m not going to waste my time on them.
Actually in the situation you describe, loss of the ability to produce Vitamin C is probably a positive (vice neutral) mutation - if there’s plenty of Vitamin C in the enviroment, then avoiding the extra work of creating it is a good thing.
Andy
Joke: “Warning: the creator of the human genome is not responsible for adverse effects of operating the device outside of normal parameters, such as extended sea voyages without ingestion of citrus. Warranty is voided in these circumstances”
Hmph. Baby Jesus is crying right now Godsend, because you won’t defend Him against the atheists. He says He is crying because you’re such a big fat coward.
I hereby take back my apology to you. Because of your cowardice all us atheists here on SDMB are gonna go straight to hell when we die.
What else do you expext from someone who styles himself “God’s End”? I suspect he is a covert operative for the International Atheist Conspiracy. I hate those guys…
Case in point: The Standard Model of particle Physics may not be as accurate as physicists thought. New experimentation has produced unexpected results. If the results are verified, the Standard Model will be changed to reflect the new data.
This is a perfect example of how science works. You gather data and try to explain that data. If the explanation does not account for any subsequent discoveries, you change your explanation to make it more accurate. The theory of evolution was developed in the same manner.
