Education

I agree that would be nice, Christine. I'll pass it upwards.

Thanks for signing through the hurdles (and living in Korea as I do currently, believe me, I sympathize).

This does need help.  Creationists are continually assaulting our "Freedom of Religion" and trying to edge themselves and thier beliefs into our education system and our govenment from every angle and corner.  They're like roaches finding every crack,crevase, and crannie to weasel thier way into everyday public course to spread the God Virus of thier choosing to make sure everyone follows thier beliefs.  Educational cirriculum is continually challanged accross this great nation in an attempt to squeeze in some creationism here and there.  Just because it's not in printed text books doesn't mean that it's not part of a teaching cirriculum in some schools and districts.  So to let you know Blair, you do have your freedom to learn ALL possibilities right this very moment, and most of us do have tolerance for your alternate views.  You'll just have to learn about your creationist point of view on your own time in your own church, and not on my or anyone elses tax dollars, nor on my childrens time while they sit in that same classroom.  As for the intolerants in society, they'd be your fellow creationists that believe in a different God or "story" than you and can't understand how you can worship an incorrect diety according to thier beliefs.  America - Land of the Free..... because my children and I are free from having to listen to your creationist crap, and you can go to church and preach it all you want!!

P.S. Before the Creationists go nuts on me, my parents took me to church to learn what I needed to make my own decision on this issue, and I returned the favor to my children as well.  I did not force my views on them, they attended a private Lutheran school for the first few years of thier educational careers.  Then, same as I did, they reached the "age of reason" and made thier own decisions.

Totally there with you Blair.

But why does this even have to BE about Creationary Theory versus Evolutionary Theory? Why can't it just be good policy to have teachers double check Board policies?

Science is a pathway to truth, not a stick to bludgeon Creationists, nor the evil religion of Evolutionists.

Science is amoral. It is a pursuit of truth, regardless of morality. It is no more or less fallible that those who pursue it, and it is no more or less religious than those same people.

P.S. Before any evolutionists go nuts on me, religion has not caused things like the inquisition, abortion clinic bombings, and religion in government stupidity. People did that. How would you feel if someone killed the president and said that they did it for you because of some off handed remark you made about how you hate Blackberry PDAs? Once you understand that feeling, you might be able to grasp at conceptualizing how a majority of Christians feel about those loud-mouths that try to put religion in schools and blow up abortion clinics.

Mr. Meacham,
"...religion has not caused things like the inquisition, abortion clinic bombings, and religion in government stupidity. People did that..."

You must be intellectually blind; or else you have no sense of history. Shifting the blame on 'people' is easy from your absurd high moral ground. You only need to dig a little deeper to see how religion has been poisoning everything, including people's minds, and how it has been warping people's perspectives, goading them to do insane acts - all over the world.

And "...evil religion of Evolutionists"? Ha, ha! You, Sir, have absolutely no understanding of evolution, nor of science in general - despite your disingenuous spiel about science being a pursuit of truth.

Purported practitioners of "religion" have no monopoly on committing attrocities.  Mao? Pol pot? Hitler? Stalin? Not exactly men known for their spirituality.  Since there are both practitioners and non-practitioners, it does not logically follow to say that religion was the cause.  Religion may have been the tool, but take those behind the inquisition, remove religion, and they'd find another reason.  Just like Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, and Stalin.  So there is nothing blind about saying people are the problem, and to accuse someone of intellectual blindness for disagreeing with your position is resorting to argumentum ad hominem, otherwise known as not having points to back up your claim, so go after the person.

And in response to Eric Ruth, your assertion seems to imply that their is some neutral position.  There isn't.  Teaching evolution as doctrine isn't a "middle of the road" position.  It is choosing one group's position over another's.  Why should people who don't believe it be forced to pay with their tax dollars for something that tears down their beliefs?

I had a middle school teacher who handled this well.  She said, "Some scientists think the earth is 6,000 years old-- others think it's billions of years old.  My job isn't to tell you which to believe.  My job is to teach you this curriculum, and then you'll make your own decisions."  She taught the science while reminding us that science is just the work of people, not some window to absolute truth.  A healthy dose of sanity check would be much welcomed on this topic.

I don't remember being told about how deep the dust is on the moon, or how salty the sea is, or how many red stars there are, how much silt is on the sea bottom etc.... my point is; too much science has to be ignored too teach evolution, that's called dumbing down. 

fair words ethan. sanity checks must be issued.

Evolution of man from the apes is what is questioned. The concept of evolution in and of itself is well understood, even by us "religious" people. There are holes in macro-evolution that an open minded scientist must accept. 

Faith, on the other had is a complete unknown, dependent on  everything that is not scientific.  You either have faith or you don't.  This is why one has to absolve to himself how his religious life combines with his scientific knowledge. But, faith requires a form of child-like behavior, in accepting what does not appear to be, on the surface, real. or be things hoped for,... things not seen.  As in the supernatural things.  I use my faith to allow me to function, in the scientific world, knowing, one day, I will have the answers.  I might be told how my concepts on life were wrong, in eternity.  Who knows?  I did not think any "Christians" wanted evolution, not to be taught.  From what I understood, they felt that their theory was just as provable as the one presented by Darwin. As a result, they think both should be taught.

Hmmm?
You only mentioned one creation myth, the Judeo-Xtian-Islamic. And don't forget the peculiar Mormon creation myth; one whole state is dominated by that belief system. How about equal time for the Hindu, Yogic, Buddhist, Sikh, Confucian, Taoist or Shinto creation myths. Maybe we should consider the Mandean, Zoroastrian and Masonic-Rosicrucian creation myths. Next we could survey the African creation myths of which Voodoo has a sizable following in major cities. Perhaps we should acknowledge the creation myths of those whom we displaced, eradicated and forcibly converted in this hemisphere, so let's try Apache, Navajo, Hopi, Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek, Haida, Inuit, Iroquois, Lakota, Seminole, Tlingit, Mayan, Aztec or Incan?

Well stated Blair Corbett!

Freedom is an amazing thing, cherish, speak out, and fight for those we still have! Fight against the ignorance of anyone who tries to rationalize eliminating the free exchange of ideas!

I think He put konobos here for us to consume!  When God created the plants for us, he said it was good!  I like that part of the creation story!  Christianity, as practiced, in our society, seems to not resemble much of what it was founded on, back in the ages!  Seems as though there are too many self-righteous hypocrites making rules for us all to live by, that they can't  follow themselves! 

I have read the Bible all the way through,  I know what is says. And, as well, what it does not say!  There are passages that can account for the age of the dinosaurs, as well.  But, my faith is my own and you all can believe what you want.  Just don't try to tell me I can't believe the way I want.  It is one of our inalienable rights, guaranteed by the Constitution!

I looked it up. It only talks about the thorns and the thistles being given with the curse when man was cast out of the garden. That probaly included the poisonous plants. But, poisons can be medicine, at the right dose!

Only poisons it talks about are those of the "asps".  Job mentioned arrows of poison.  And, in James it mentioned the tongue could be full of poison.  But there is absolutely nothing, else, in the King James Version of the old and new testament about poisonous plants!

I looked it up. It only talks about the thorns and the thistles being given with the curse when man was cast out of the garden. That probaly included the poisonous plants. But, poisons can be medicine, at the right dose!

Only poisons it talks about are those of the "asps".  Job mentioned arrows of poison.  And, in James it mentioned the tongue could be full of poison.  But there is absolutely nothing, else, in the King James Version of the old and new testament about poisonous plants!

Dr. Gotelli's meaning is clear. Creationism is not science and should not be taught alongside evolution.

It is one of many creation stories. Public schools should not promote religion.There are religious studies classes. There are religious schools who teach only creationism. Churches have schools and universities. They don't pay taxes despite the fact that their local school districts lack funding.

Can't you see the can of worms this would open up? How many religions do you think are in this country? How many creationist stories do you think there are? How would you choose which ones to promote?

I am alarmed about the unwarranted religious intrusions into our lives. The last thing we need is a theocratic government (another Dark Ages.)

I am not usually involved in creationism/evolution debates, but a while back, creationists were almost ecstatic that one of their writers had been published in a mainstream scientific journal, and then they saw why they are almost never published: the editor, an evolutionist himself, had the piece published to say that intelligent design researchers are doing good enough work that they need to be answered, not just swept under the rug. The piece had passed peer review. For allowing that article, the editor (whose name I forgot) was almost fired from his job as the Smithsonian. He is no longer an editor at that journal.
The point the editor was making: by not answering intelligently to the work of those who promote intelligent design, and to do so those arguments must be properly understood, it leaves the public with the impression that evolutionists do not have a good argument.
His experience tells another story: the peer review process is stacked heavily against true academic freedom, especially if they are new or controversial, just as Dr. Thomas Gold charged.
Creationism is not scientific, as can clearly be recognized in that it does not conform to scientific method ( http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Scientific_Method_fromscience_textbooksscience_textbooks ). It makes a claim about the past that cannot be verified by the scientific method.
But wait, evolution fails the same test: in that it is a belief about the past that cannot be observed. See http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Criticism_of_evolution . Since it is a religious belief and not science, to inculcate that in public schools as the truth is religious indoctrination. This is what many creationists object to, namely being forced to pay for religious indoctrination that violates their conscience, which Thomas Jefferson (author of the Declaration of Independence) called “tyranny”. Further, they object to having their children the objects of such indoctrination. And yes, this is de facto religious discrimination, even persecution, perpetrated by “open minded” tolerant people.
As long as there is some semblance of religious freedom, creationists/intelligent design advocates will continue to be active. The answer is to take all religious indoctrination out of public, tax supported schools, and put it in comparative religion classes if they are given.
Richard Ortiz

Whoops, there’s a broken link in the above message:http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Scientific_Method_fromscience_textbooks

I hope that fixes it.
Richard Ortiz.

Nope, still broken.
http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Scientific_Method_from_science_textbooks

Richard Ortiz.

Yeah, right! That's what we have been seeing for the past several years, in the creationism /Intelligent design nexus pushing hard to get into the school curricula in different states; in one senator accusing another of being an atheist, and therefore, lacking the 'qualification' to serve in a US senate; in religiously-motivated homophobic and anti-choice screeds being fed to the flocks... Need I go on?

You don't really get it, do you?

Kausik, you said,


"You don't really get it, do you?"

Your response is condescending!

Try this out for size!

You really don't get the Constitution, do you?

Why is it that people start in with that crap?!  This country was established because of religious persecution.  That is why the "pilgrims" came here. Is it any wonder that the Constitution had, as part of it, the prohibition of there ever being established, by the government, an official church!  According to the first amendment.  everyone has the right to believe how he or she wishes.  It is just wrong when either side tries to force their religion  down the other's throat.  Atheism is a form of religion being an organized denial of religion. IMO  They can be just as zealous as other religions in expressing their points of view. 

It is a free country and I think Marguerite "got it" very well!  She seems to understand "it" better than you!

I love how if one supposes God to behind the origin of the universe, one therefore also believes the earth is flat and that Holocaust didn't happen.

I'm a spiritual man myself and a Christian.  The whole evolution debate is sort of pointless one to me, as Genesis says "what" and "who" happened without address "how."  Evolution or waving a magic wand?  It's irrelevant to the rest of the book.

The whole school thing would be fixed for me by following what my middle school teacher did.  "Look, we don't know WHY this happened, so don't draw up your life philosophy from it.  What you'll learn in this class is what we've observed."

Leave the philosophy to churches or coffee shops or whatever.  And boom! Kids learn the popular science of the day, and questions of faith or lack thereof don't even arise.  Such questions have no place in a science classroom anyway.

"the Holocaust."  My apologies for this grammatical error and any others that may be found.

You should read this article:
http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
It discusses what speciation is from a scientific standpoint (the general public's idea of species is not specific enough for biological applications), and then describes many examples of speciation that have been observed firsthand in the scientific literature.

James, you understand German, apparently, about as well as you do science.

Classic.

the "thankgodforevolution" author is a wackjob. its just plain atheism, he uses the word "God" in place of "the universe". he doesnt even believe in the supernatural and he calls himself a reverend. this guy thinks hes the way the truth and the life.

Dear arne bast;
Thank you for your thoughtful comments! But, I am confused about the points you are trying to make.
Michael Dowd had believed the world to be 6,000 years old and fought against Evolution. He now understands Evolution is real, Scientists are not the bad guys; and Science is interpreting the Natural world.
Michael can talk to you in religious metaphores, or the less fuzzy language of science.
I hope this helps,Dale E. Moore

You should watch a great documentary by Bill Maher called Religulous.

are you thus defending or resisting the attempts of these two congressmen. I assumed they are trying to do something similar to what you mention.

John White said, "Have you ever considered having a fair representation of both Intelligent design and evolution?" 

It would only be fair to have ID taught when it has evidence equal to that of evolution; currently it has none.  Scientist's have spent millions of hours doing research and all of it supports evolution.  Creationists have done no research, instead they quote mine, lie, quote the bible, and attempt to under mind evolution via every other method possible; instead of doing the research.

Answers In Genesis?  Oh, come on!!

First, Genesis has stories that you'd expect out of a bunch of pre-scientific desert dwellers who had only recently discovered iron.  The Earth is flat with a solid bowl (the firmament) over it, and all heavenly objects go around the Earth.  There are two creation stories, and mythologists can trace their histories back to other religions.  The stories contradict logic (with night and day before the sun existed), evidence (the universe was actually created long before Earth), and each other.  They are total myths that were good for telling around fires before people had TV to entertain them.

Second, there's no evidence to support AiG's insipid creationist claims.  There is overwhelming evidence to support evolution -- including our having seen species form, extensive lists of transitional fossils, the fossil record, genetics, and molecular biology of every living thing.  A little web research by anybody can show that these claims are true (if religion isn't controlling too much of the mind).   Here's a list of places to start:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Science.html#evolution

Some people say that evolution is "only a theory."  It's important to remember that the term "theory" in science is not the same as it is in general usage.  A scientific theory is a unifying concept that explains a large body of data.  It is a hypothesis that has withstood the test of time and the challenge of opposing views.

The Theory of Evolution is the basic unifying concept of biology.  If you don't like evolution, then don't use modern medicine -- which is based on it.

I love reading AIG, the stupid there is so thick, I always end up LOL.  Still if you can give me a website; I can give you one, check out Talk.origins.  As you say "i dare you ... to honestly check" it out. 

It's actually hard to believe that anyone would give AIG as a serious web site, AIG is just one logical fallacy after another, one quote mine after another and one bible quote after another.  There is nothing else there.

"It's not that hard to figure out - teach Evolution AND Creationism."  Actually they need to teach Evolution and the only true religion that of the Norse Gods, you can find the Norse Gods bible in any current issue of Thor comics. 

Just in case you don't get it, the above is indeed sarcasm. 

However I wish to point out that the evidence for the Norse Gods in Thor comics is just as good as any evidence for creationism. 

Thanks Ted. You said it better and more succinctly than I did. Cardinal John Henry Newman wrote (from memory so not exact), "There is no conflict between religion and science: science tell us what is on this side of the veil; religion tells us what is on the other side." Lets keep science in the classroom and religion in places of worship.

No Paul. In religion, like sex, you have the freedom to do what you wish -- in the privacy of your own home, or with like-minded consensual others. You have no right to indoctrinate my kids into your brand of Christian Protestant Fundamentalist faith. Your religion is not public education. It is private belief.

Are you rallying for equal representation of all faiths in school, or Creationism only? Because I want my children to have the freedom to choose. I read the article assuming it means these two are rallying for evolution to be taught as well. Besides, the lack of freedoms you are reffering to in other countries included forcing the closing of their churches as well. Do you believe this is those two individuals next intended step?

Paul said, "If its an education that we want to give our children then Evolution and Creationism would be given equal presentation in our nations education system."  I totally disagree with this statement.  To do as you say is the exact opposite of providing an education, it is instead the providing of fundamentalist propaganda to many who would be too young or too uneducated to resist it.

Paul you are apparently unaware that it is illegal to teach creationism in our public schools.  This is a good thing.  This is also the only reason ID exits; ID is the creationists replacement for creationism.  It, (ID) has now also been ruled illegal to teach in the public schools.

This happened in Kitzmiller v. Dover, in the United States federal courts.  Where the plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and thus it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.  To reiterate this is also a good thing. 

Creationism and ID exist only for those so blinded by fundamentalism they are unable to reason clearly; no living, breathing, reasoning being would support their existence.  (Again this is, in part, (mild) sarcasm).

I think the majority of Americans have a very flawed idea of what science is, and what constitutes a scientific theory.

Theories are not facts. In common usage, the word "theory" often means a hunch, speculation, or educated guess. This is NOT what the word means in a scientific context. Rather, theories EXPLAIN facts, and thus are at the pinnacle of importance of ideas in science.

Evolution is a scientific theory. What that means is that it is an explanatory framework that first of all EXPLAINS via a very specific and testable mechanism a large body of observed FACTS on the subject of the diversification of life. Secondly, that same framework MAKES PREDICTIONS about facts that had not been observed at that time, that can be (and HAVE BEEN) confirmed by further observation or experimentation. Here are just a few important PREDICTIONS of evolutionary theory that have been confirmed:

1) That cladistic trees constructed on the basis of phenotype, karyotype, and genotype would all CONVERGE. This continues to be confirmed EVERY TIME a new genome has been sequenced. If evolutionary theory was incorrect, we would expect vastly different trees depending on which characteristic you based your tree on.

2) That a study of the human genome would show a CHROMOSOMAL FUSION of two ancestral chromosomes, thus accounting for the chromosome number difference in man and other apes. This was confirmed with the discovery of telomeric and centromeric sequences embedded in human chromosome 2.

3) That retroviral sequences embedded in the genomes (known as endogenous retroviruses or ERVs) of recently diverged species would show IDENTICAL distribution, right down to the individual base pairs at the point of insertion; and that the further the relationship between two species, the fewer matching ERVs. This prediction is likewise confirmed when looking at shared ERVs among the great apes (including man).

Ideas taught as scientific theories MUST meet the standard of the scientific method: They must explain a body of observed facts, they must make testable predictions, and those predictions must be confirmed repeatedly with little or no contradiction. The modern synthesis evolutionary theory has met those criteria. Creationism, intelligent design, and Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, on the other hand, are nowhere close, because they offer NO testable explanatory framework, and make NO testable predictions.

The "battlefield" of scientific ideas is (thankfully) in the PEER-REVIEW process of scientific journals, where competing ideas are held to exactly the same standard: Does the research conform to the scientific method? The conclusions of that research play ABSOLUTELY NO ROLE in that consideration. So where are all the peer-reviewed papers supporting Creationism/ID? They don't dare attempt to compete on that battlefield, because if subjected to the scrutiny of the scientific method, they totally and completely FAIL.

The American sense of democracy and "fairness," while necessary when dealing with individual rights within a larger society, do not apply here. Science is not a democracy, where whatever whimsical idea you can conceive gets "equal time." If that was the case, we should also give "equal time" to alchemy and chemistry, to astrology and astronomy, and to demonology and germ theory. Creationist organizations such as AnswersInGenesis and the Discovery Institute intentionally play to this sense of equality and fairness, because they know that their ideas cannot stand on their own scientific merits.

Thank you, Senator Ellis and Representative Rose, for standing up to these powerful lobbying groups in the interest of preserving science.

@Wil Nusser,

Many thanks for troubling to write such a fine comment. I invite you to feel free to your heart's content to supplement with any links for others needing direction.

And thanks to @William Newman for tipping me off to your comment. First-rate.

The easy answer is, I don't give a damn what you believe, Melvin. Don't teach it to my kids.

No, William Newman, the easy answer is I don't give a d*** what you believe, so don't teach that to my kids.  What's that?  Too small minded to be able to see anything from any point of view other than your own?  Thought so, God hater!

Melvin said, "I believe the entire universe was created by God including the earth and man."

Some questions Melvin, why does the universe need a creator, if it is because everything needs a creator, then name the being who created god, and the being who created the being who created god, and so on and so on.  Or to put it another way, if god needs no creator, then why does the universe need one.  

It is simpler to say the universe has no creator, than to say god has no creator.  Since, among other things, we have evidence for the existence of the universe but no evidence for the existence of god.

Creationism is not science and should not be taught alongside evolution.

It is one of many creation stories. Public schools should not promote religion.There are religious studies classes. There are religious schools who teach only creationism. Churches have schools and universities. They don't pay taxes despite the fact that their local school districts lack funding.

Can't you see the can of worms this would open? How many religions do you think are in this country? How many creation stories do you think there are? How do you propose the government choose which ones to promote?

I am alarmed about the unwarranted religious intrusions into our lives. The last thing we need is a theocratic government and another Dark Ages.

Wow, Naomi. You are a perfectly hyper-polarized, internally conflicted and paranoid drama queen. Better calm down or you'll blow a fuse. You attempt to portray evolutionary theory as simply another kind of faith. It is not. It is science. There is no such thing as an "evolutionist" because evolution is not a belief; it is theory born of extensive research by many dedicated people from across the entire spectrum of humanity. These people continue to evolve the theory with further ongoing research. You posit a Christian Protestant Fundamentalist doctrine as the "other" choice as if it were somehow equal to science. It isn't. It is an arbitrary static belief based on irrational unquestioned faith in a mythical supreme being. Throughout your rant you fail to mention the myriad other equally implausible creation myths competing with yours. Have you read the Popal Vu of the Mayas? Talk about a creation myth! That one will blow your Adam and Eve right out of the garden! How about Gilgamesh? Both are far older than your creation myth and equally useless for anything but conjecture on its allegorical significance or as entertainment, except to the science of anthropology. You call everyone who dares to reject your mouth-foaming scree as "liberal" although the choice to support and defend science is made across the entire global political spectrum and has nothing to do with progressive, conservative, independent or other political values. It simply is rational. You accuse those who disagree with you as being irreligious god haters (!) though, again, education based upon scientific principal is a bedrock of educational strategy across the globe and among all the Earth's many religions and beliefs, with the notable exceptions of some fundamentalist theocratic governments, societies and outlaw groups -- like the Taliban. I, and everyone I know, support and defend your right to believe freely whatever you wish, just as I support your right to make love to whomever you wish, man or woman, black, brown, yellow, red or white, in any way you wish (as long as nobody gets hurt ;-)). But, keep your mythology in the home or seminary or chapel and don't clutter up our public school classrooms with it. Kind of like how you keep your lovemaking in the privacy of your home (I hope!). Gambatte Naomi-san! Hayaku, genki ni natte! Yours, King Lugalbanda

"What are all you evolutionists afraid of?" 

It is not fear, it is simple respect for the truth.

Well, you haters can blog back to me all you want (and I didn't bother to waste my time actually reading your comments, by the way) but the bottom line is that anybody who responded negatively to my post was somebody I clearly seriously ticked off and now you have my thoughts and opinions floating around in your head to entertain you and continue making you mad every time you are reminded of them.  (Notice I didn't use the word "think," because you are plainly not capable of forming actualy thoughts.) 

Glad I could be of service to you and am pleased that an obviously awful person like me was able to upset you so much!  Y'all have a nice day now, haters, ya hear?

so so true

the bible doesnt contradict itself. look deeper.

The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years old.  So one day could be to God 65,000,000 of our years.
The first day, in 65 million years, God created heaven and earth and so on. This puts evolution and creation on the same course.

"The problem as I see it is evolution is being taught as though it isn't just a theory but is the definitive explanation of how life began. When theories are taught as absolute truths then education becomes indoctrination."
Here's one for you. Gravity is just a theory.

Melvin,
You've hit on one of the key debates among Christians when it comes to evolution. In fact, whenever the Hebrew word that is translated as "day" in Genesis 1 is used later in the Bible, it is almost always translated as "age." As far as I understand it, the actual word is what we know in English as Aeon or eon, an unspecific but large amount of time. I have not personally been convinced of this theory, however, the original text is there to support it, so I have to consider it a valid possibility.

Paul,
Can you imagine if the Theory of Gravity had been taught as an absolute truth? Isaac Newton would never have been allowed to study it. He would be in jail or laughed out of universities for questioning such irrefutable science. Further more, Einstein would likely have brought us nowhere because he wouldn't have had the funds to leave Germany due to the apparent stupidity of his theories. Can you understand now why it is the scientific method that should be taught as absolute truth, and not the apparent truths found through the application of it?

Chris, do you mean like people being arrested for saying the earth was spherical?

The theory of ID should not be taught in public schools (as it is complete bollocks), and it wont be taught in schools (as it is complete bollocks).
Why do religious people struggle with the concept of cause and effect? How does this one thing trip you over in so many areas?


Melvin: "So one day could be to God 65,000,000 of our years." -It could also be 1 second. How did you arrive at the convenient (to you) 65m? 
I'd bet reality would like some more lube before you go shoehorning anything else into it.

Paul,
Do I mean like people being arrested for saying the earth was spherical? That is exactly what I mean. How many people have not introduced new theories because they disagreed with the established "proven" theories currently reigning supreme? And how many times have men, I repeat, men manipulated religious teachings (or scientific teachings, for that matter) into a stick to bludgeon those who disagree? The scientific community once believed that flies spontaneously generated from decaying meat. The scientific community once believed the world was flat. Science is not always right and can sometimes be wrong even though decades and centuries of theory and laws are behind it. I'm not saying that this means that religions are correct just because science is not always. I'm simply saying that science is not so infallible as many haters of creationists seem to think.

On the other hand, I don't believe that ID should be taught in schools in science classes either. I also think there is nothing wrong with a disclaimer for science texts stating that "science is composed of a broad base of theory that has been backed up by material evidence over decades and in some cases centuries." But I do believe that ID should be covered in Social Studies classes, if for no other reason than as a historical study of social issues. There are many religions in this world, and beliefs brought from these religions, that I learned in my social studies classes and would not have known if I went to public school today, due to the book burning of all religious material of any nature in schools now days.

Paul, you asked, "Why do religious people struggle with the concept of cause and effect? How does this one thing trip you over in so many areas?"
I find it interesting that you would insult so many people that agree with you by saying that they do not understand such a basic concept as cause and effect. You seem to forget that not all religions or all religious people think that science is bad or that religious ideals should be taught as rules of living in public schools. Some of the greatest breakthroughs in science and research today are made by people who have faith in a particular religion. In fact, Christianity teaches specifically that it's followers not force their beliefs on others, although not all those who call themselves Christians pay attention to that teaching. Furthermore, religion is an explanation of the cause to the effect that is our existence, regardless of the amount of faith you hold in the source of that explanation, so I would scarcely believe that a religious person does not understand cause and effect.

What I don't understand is why people are so quick to judge that all those who are religious are stupid and ignorant. It is almost as though they are trying to create some cause to the effect of someone ever disagreeing with them. It is easily possible that two educated individuals have simply seen the same evidence and left it with different, opposing conclusions. This happens all the time in science, so what's to stop it from happening in life?

Chris Meacham:

I know a little bit of Hebrew, well, more than a little bit, but in ancient Hebrew the word translated as “day” meant day. Sometimes it was used metaphorically, as in “the day you are a graduate…” or to a med student “the day you are a doctor…” but when it was used with a number, as in Genesis one, it meant day, equivalent to a 24 hour day.

It was never used to indicate an indeterminate long period of time, like an eon. That was a different word in ancient Hebrew.

That’s linguistics.

That’s why creationists insist on a six day creation.

Richard Ortiz

I understand where you see that, but there has to be some reason why the Hebrew word for "day" came to mean "age" in English. A quick search on Google found the website " which shows that the Hebrew word for "day" is indeed "YaM" (pronounced ee-ahm) which eventually became our word for eon over the... eons...

I'm no linguist, but I would guess it was due to the metaphoric relationship between a sunset and the end of an age or a life.

There's also:
"
He gives a very logical argument that Genesis is not 7 chronological days, but seven parallel stories of the same day.

A slightly longer search found:
"

If the links get cut, I'll modify them and post almost immediately.

Anywhere there is a single " replace with a link in the following order:

replace colon with :
replace slash with /
remove all -

http-colon-slash-slash-www.ancient-hebrew.org-slash-5_day.html
http-colon-slash-slash-www.ancient-hebrew.org-slash-23_genesis_1.html
http-colon-slash-slash-www.answersincreation.org-slash-yom_hebrew.htm

you seriously believe the bible teaches hate? how can you talk about something you clearly know nothing of. i dont try to tell muslims what the muslim faith is about? a christian is simply someone who cares for someones elses soul. if you dont want to live for eternity with the creator, i really dont care. i wouldnt want you to be there if you dont want to be there. im simply here to witness the truth.

Who is antagonizing non-believers.  I think it is the evolutionists here insisting that only their favorite theory can be presented to the children in schools.  It takes just as much faith to believe that theory, as well.  We are not saying don't teach evolution. But YOU ALL are saying don't teach creation.  It looks like it is just the opposite of that which you proclaim.  The evolutionists are the ones trying to suppress any information from their counterparts.  So much for freedom.

Arne Bast wondered if we "seriously believe the bible teaches hate?"  I've been collecting verses from the Bible; some of them directly address this.  You can decide if "the bible teaches hate."

JESUS ON PEACE AND FAMILY VALUES
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/BibleQuotes.htm#peace

JESUS KILLS
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/BibleQuotes.htm#jckills

GOD STEALS, ORDERS GENOCIDE, AND PUNISHES
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/BibleQuotes.htm#steals

GOD KILLS
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/BibleQuotes.htm#kills

BIBLICAL DEATH PENALTIES (over 50)
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/BibleQuotes.htm#kill

GOD'S ANGER
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/BibleQuotes.htm#anger

INCEST, VIRGINITY, RAPE, PORNOGRAPHY, EXHIBITIONISM
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/BibleQuotes.htm#virginity

WAR
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/BibleQuotes.htm#war

HELL, SELF MUTILATION AND CASTRATION, PUNISHMENT, TORTURE!
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/BibleQuotes.htm#hell

CHILD ABUSE
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/BibleQuotes.htm#childabuse

SLAVERY
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/BibleQuotes.htm#slavery

Mark, it is clear that you have been reading the Bible, or at least searching it. I would encourage you to read Romans and 1 & 2 Corinthians. Both deal with the anger, wrath and judgement of God that you proof-text here. And in both of them this is the central message: that God was, in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself, not counting our sins against us. He is forgiving traitors and welcoming them into His family - at the cost of the death of His own Son.

And in 1 Corinthians, you will find one of your conclusions echoed: "For the word of the cross [of Jesus] is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

We who are Christians need to be more honest and straightfoward in saying this. Our faith is not a socially respectable one; it is either true, and gives meaning to all human existence, or it is is false and foolish. We hold it out to the world with confidence that the good news of Jesus IS true, even though it does not, and cannot, meet the criteria of scientific knowledge. That is the center of our living hope.

Graham: Noted, you are confused. You will further note that Clay opened this blog to give a forum to voice support for two very brave Texas politicians. Perhaps he did not intend for it to become a forum for debate on creationism. Perhaps he, like many of us, sees no use wasting his time on any mythical creation theories and the deluded fools who promote them as some version of reality. Yet, as soon as he decided to cut off the discussion, he reopened it. That was way up this discussion page and many messages ago from many thoughtful and sane writers and others. You are more than a bit slow on the trigger trying to capitalize on that one. Sorry and bye-bye.

William, I think what we are seeing in this discussion is that every view implies "universal intent." That is to say that to hold a view as true is to desire for others to see it as true also. You are certainly doing that (with name calling), as are your creationist counterparts in this thread.  For them to put forth their views here requires courage, because they are likely to be lambasted, like me, for being "deluded fools."

However, I think it would be more helpful to clarify the discussion. I would suggest that my creationist friends not contend that their view is scientific. They admit evidence (divine revelation) that scientists do not - and on their principles cannot.

The reason that these discussions never end - and can never end - in agreement is because we have a different starting assumptions. I think it is fair to say (and would welcome his clarification) that Clay believes that what can be known about reality must be subject to the scientific method. As such, creation is a myth, and inadmissible.

Christians, however, have a different set of most basic assumptions. We believe that history has a meaning that is disclosed by its Creator, which  cannot be discovered by merely studying the repeated regularities of nature - and yet accounts for the reliability and place of science.

It would be far more helpful to acknowledge these fundamental differences and talk about them rather than assuming that people who share fundamentally different assumptions will come to a common conclusion.

Hum, interesting term, Graham, "universal intent." Sounds like something my wife would like. Personally, I don't care much that others agree with me or share my beliefs. Like a variegated quilt, I treasure the vast variety within humanity. I think it great that there are so many ideas among individual seekers of truth, even as I continue to attack beliefs hawked by institutions. My "name calling," like my signatures, is all tongue-in-cheek, and meant to keep my own attitude light and playful so I do not descend into anything near Naomi's unstable state of mind. (Be sure to give her a warm shoulder to find her composure on.) People who call themselves "creationist" are not my counterparts in any sense. I do not adhere to any "ism" and cannot be defined as any "ist" you may name. Don't get me wrong: I hold no inherent antagonism with regard to religion per se. When I lived in Austin I frequently invited the missionaries who came to my door in for tea and a chat. I still visit amiably with Mormon and other missionaries I meet on the road. I've travelled all over the world and sat in comfortable dialog and companionship with people of every race and of many beliefs. I've sat on the roadside next to a begging Hindu leper and felt only awe at the beauty in his eyes. In my early 20s I assisted a Catholic priest in a small Mexican village and still treasure the memory. I have actively studied under native American shamans, a Tibetan Lama, Christian and Islamic mystics and remain a card-carrying member of the International Society of Mystics. Eventually, I went deeply into a specific school of Buddhist meditation for 10 years. I do not indulge in "beliefs" as I have done my personal research and understand well about the nature of reality and the role of spirituality for humanity. I know from experience the reality of our interconnectedness as I have many times sat in meditation halls in many countries and among many peoples and experienced for myself what happens when all sensory input is systematically silenced and the mind brought into clear focus: I experienced the dissolving away of the physical and mental illusions that distract us in daily life and became aware of the universal Mind that connects us all. I know that the only authentic role for any religion is to provide each of us with a foundation upon which to experience genuine insight, and to become a better human being through our own personal experience. This cannot be imposed upon, or even given to anyone, and pre-packaged "beliefs" are anathematic to any seeker of a truth beyond dogma. In the end, the entire spectrum of institutionalized faith is intellectually dishonest and spiritually debilitating. Spiritual insight is a personal experience. Any authentic experience of this sort can only be personal and so can have no place in public educational institutions. The choices made on any path are personal and the experience is private and cannot effectively be communicated intellectually as a belief by written or spoken words. Organizations that claim to do this serve no god, but, like any pyramid scheme, enrich and empower the people at the top at great expense to the rank and file, who are fleeced, and often deceived into devoting their lives to virtual bondage to very corporeal masters. When such an organization indulges in evangelical social activism and, especially, targets our public educational system, it is time to take action against it. Your organization will lose this battle because it is wrong. Enough Graham. I've been at this blog all night. Take care, William Newman.

William, a quick thanks for summing up both my original inclination to close the thread, then my re-decision to keep it open.

There are a lot of good, thougtful posts here, with many good links for us all, so I'm glad I changed my mind.

Thanks, Clay, for keeping the thread open.

Would you agree with William, that "Spiritual insight is a personal experience. Any authentic experience of this sort can only be personal and so can have no place in public educational institutions."?

If so, would either of you care to explain why you think this is the case? Why is "spiritual" insight different from scientific insight? It seems to me that this is a MASSIVE undefended assumption that underlies the whole conversation.

Graham, your question, "Why is 'spiritual' insight different from scientific insight?" shows a very naive understanding of science.

Scientific hypotheses become theories and accepted, provisional explanations for natural phenomena when nobody can falsify them.

Falsifiability is key. If it can't be put to a test, can't be repeated, can't be falsified, it ain't scientific.

So "spiritual insight," being personal and subjective, can't be put to such tests. Therefore, it's simply not scientific at all. Conviction isn't science. I could be convinced by any number of paranormal experiences that a refrigerator-sized diamond is buried in my back yard. The conviction makes me happy. It may be true, even. So we dig and dig in the yard but don't find it. (This example is not original, by the way.)

I can always insist it's just deeper. But so far, the digging has falsified it. Until something is discovered that others can agree is evidence it might be there after all, it's a failed hypothesis.

If I threw a pencil into the air right now, and it didn't fall to the floor, I'd be doubting the truth of gravity. If I could do it in front of others, ideally scientists, they'd all be the first to admit there's more to know about gravity than we currently know. And they'd get to work trying to learn something new about it.

Give me a way to falsify your spiritual insights - particularly if you want them to overturn the overwhelming evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology, and other fields that life has been a process of modified descent through time.

What amazes me, as a teacher, is that people can go through a full 12 years of schooling k-12, and come out without an elementary understanding of the scientific method - of what makes an idea qualify as scientific.

Graham! You're back! :-) Look at Wil Nusser's piece uplist (scroll up this page). It's the best explanation here on the scientific method, with an emphasis on evolution. If you can grasp it -- even a bit -- you may understand that science does not depend solely on insight; Wil does not even mention it. He clearly knows his stuff so I defer to him in all matters related to science. Read it again just to be sure; it is based upon a Rational Objective Reasoned Ethic, or what I call, RORE. I'm not a scientist. I'm a teacher of English. However, I'm familiar with the scientific method Wil describes so well, as I've had to use it in past studies and I've found RORE useful in life as a way of thinking. It guided me in how I went about research for my spiritual pursuits. I read a lot. I went to lectures, workshops and seminars. I networked with others. I canvassed the entire field of possibilities with a truly open mind. Some of my friends and family in Texas took a much easier route and decided to do what many of their friends were doing and became born again Christians, like you. I did not. George Bush never read a book until he went to a Bible meeting in Odessa. He, like far too may others, simply took this same easy route that requires no critical thinking. Religious Faith, actually, requires you abandon all critical thinking. I developed a base criteria for what I was looking for and, after ten years of trial and continually refining my criteria, I decided to go to the world smorgasbord of spirituality, India, and have a look around. I found exactly what I was looking for and spent the next ten years practising it and gained insights into literally everything. Actually, it is called Insight Meditation, in English or, Vipassana, in Hindi. In those 20 years, and in the totality of my own life, I have learned that spiritually is a personal experience, whether one chooses to share that experience with others or to live out one's life alone in a cave. This conclusion, too, is my personal experience, and not likely to be influenced by a faceless Ditto-head. (Sorry, I do use this as a pejorative, but J. Falwell's Ditto-heads were proud of this moniker. I use it to describe a fool who eschews independent, critical, intelligent thought for the fuzzy warm dumbed down feelings of comfort and safety provided by an uncritically accepting group and wholeheartedly embraces the dogma of that group.) If you ever decide to try thinking for yourself, try Vipassana, it's really great. You can find it here . They even have a meditation center in Texas, just outside of Dallas. I recommend it.

Thanks for your reply, Clay. I'm sorry that I don't measure up to your intellectual standards.

However, as I said above, "I would suggest that my creationist friends not contend that their view is scientific." The question I'm asking is not whether creationism qualifies as scientific (I've already said it does not - and I think we agree there), but whether the assumption that ALL knowledge must be subject to the scientific method is valid.

This is my contention (and I'd welcome clarification if I'm misrepresenting you). Each of us has a faith-commitment, a starting point from which we make sense of the world. Your faith commitment is not only to the reliability of the scientific method (on which we agree), but to its comprehensiveness - that nothing should be admitted as knowledge which does not meet its criteria. I am starting from a different faith-commitment: that the scientific method is both valid and limited in its scope. It can describe how things work with brilliant clarity, but cannot explain why in terms of purpose. For example, both of us would recognize an enormous difference  between an electrode attached to a muscle in order to make it fire, and the conscious descision to pull a trigger to kill another person. Scientists can describe the electrical processes of both, but cannot explain human action in terms of purpose.

I will gladly admit that my assumptions are not falsifiable in the sense that you desire. But I would contend, neither are yours. The assumption that ALL knowledge must meet the criteria of the scientific method is just that, an assumption. Why should we accept as a fundamental assumption that which can only describe and not explain? Is it laudable to assume that your love for your wife is merely a function of biological processes?

Finally, let me ask a scientific question:
If we assume that the genetic code (DNA) is the chance product of natural selection, it is without biological function until it is translated (right?), and the machinery for this translation depends on the components that are themselves products of the translation. How do you explain this?

William, are you suggesting that I am not thinking?

Arg, Graham - while I appreciate the civility of your tone (opening dig notwithstanding), I hope you appreciate now why I wanted to close this thread originally: I'm now being asked to write about the difference between scientific and other forms of knowledge.

As William, I think it was, already surmised, I really don't have the time to spend on debates about religion. I went through those in my from my teens to my 30s, and love being beyond them in my 40s.

I'll throw you a bone and tell you I love the Christianity of Valentinus, though, and the Gospel of Thomas (at least as interpreted by scholar Elaine Pagels).

So my apologies for returning to higher priorities - the book I'm trying to write, the wife I'm trying to love - instead of letting a simple "thanks for defending science, folks" suck me into debates that have little chances of resolution.

Good night, and good luck ;-)

Clay, thanks again for keeping the thread open, and apologize for the dig.

Would you consider writing a separate post about respectful educational dialogue with folks who share fundamentally different assumptions? It seems like that is what is running beneath all of this - on both sides of the stream.

Thanks again.

Graham

Oops! The URL for the Vipassana site got deleted from my previous post. Well, you can just Google it and you'll find several centers in North America, including the one in Texas. It's a great practice for Christians, scientists, and everybody else. 

William, it is interesting that you say that religions require one to eschew critical thinking. I find that statement to directly contradict the teachings of Christianity. For example:

1 John 4:1
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits
["spirit" being translated from the same Greek word as is translated "soul," or, as it was used in the common vernacular of the time, Koine Greek, "person"]

It may be so in other religions as well, but this is the one with which I am most familiar. I agree with you that many seem to think that when you get up from the water you should leave your brain behind, and they often act accordingly, and some even teach it so, but that is the opposite of what is taught in the Christian text.

Further more, I'm in total concurrence with you regarding W, with one exception: he didn't even read that book. If he had he would have read what has come to be known as the Golden Rule "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and

1 John 4:8
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

Luke 6:27
But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you

No person claiming to be Christian will send people to kill other people, or intentionally kill other people, if they have truly read the text.

"In the end, the entire spectrum of institutionalized faith is intellectually dishonest and spiritually debilitating."
What about religions which are not institutional? Such as Christianity (not the "ism"s and "ist"s which call themselves such) and what I understand Buddhism to be? I'm just curious how you feel about unorganized religion. I'm not trying to attack your beliefs.

Jeffery, Bro., listen to me here. Did you read anything uplist? Go on now, scan up this page. Now read. That's a good boy. Now, repeat after me (ah-hem!): (1) People who disagree with me comprise a wide variety of the global political spectrum, not just progressives (Oh! those folks you call liberals, you know!). (2) Evolution is a scientific theory based upon volumes of careful, ongoing research by people across the globe and among all religions and beliefs; it has nothing in common with any mythology. (3) Creationism is a belief promoted through aggressive evangelistic efforts by a relatively small group of Christian Protestant Fundamentalists; it is an arbitrary belief based on irrational unquestioned faith in a mythical supreme being. (4) There are virtually countless creation myths out there and they cannot all be given equal time in our public school classrooms. Any attempt to do so would be disastrous. (5) I know that science does not attempt to prove anything as being conclusive "true." Absolute Truth is not the realm of science. (6) People in need of the comfortable clothing of unshakable belief seek absolute Truth. (7) Through a global collective effort, Science works to debunk myths and other fuzzy thinking and continually evolve an ever clearer image of the nature of reality. (8) Science and myth are not only far from equivalent, they are mutually incompatible in the laboratory and in the classroom. (9) However, the inherent discontinuities between science and myth may be resolved in the hearts of individual men and women. (10) This is a personal choice and private experience and has no place in public education. --- I think I'll leave you there fella.  I wouldn't want to overtax your little 'ol bean by making you read too much, now would I? -- Mr. Bean

William Newman:
Listen to yourself:
“Jeffery, Bro., listen to me here. Did you read anything uplist?”

Did you?

My previous post disproves everything you claim after the above question. Unless you change the definition of science away from an empirical study of the physical universe, science cannot study the past. Scientists can theorize, based on their religious beliefs, but cannot use scientific method without violating the scientific method and/or logic.

Evolution, because it is a theory concerning the past, is a religious belief which cannot be science. It is a logical impossibility. Therefore, to indoctrinate evolution as the only answer to the religious question of origins in tax supported public schools is a de facto establishment of a state religion, violating the First Amendment.

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, also called it “tyranny” to compel people to pay for religious beliefs opposed to their personal beliefs. It is even worse to compel their children to be subject to indoctrination in religious beliefs opposed to their own, for after paying taxes to support state religion schools, parents often cannot afford to send children to private schools. They can’t afford to pay twice for education.

What would take real courage would be to demand that all religion be removed from science classes. Liberals won’t do it, because it is not their ox being gored, rather their religion is being pushed. Creationists don’t want to, because they want their religion to have a cachet which it does not deserve. To demand that all religion be removed would bring down the fury of both sides: that would take real courage.

Richard Ortiz.

Richard, I have already signed off for today but your twisted attempt at logic is so remarkable that I'll force myself to write just one more message before sleep. You did not and do not prove or disprove anything. Twisted, relativistic illogic will never pass muster in any serious debate. Unravelling your silly attempt at argument is as challenging as unravelling meaning in the convoluted grammar of some of my non-native English speaking students' essays. (sigh) Shall I cue you, too? Okay then, repeat after me: (1) Science can and does study the past: linguistic "fossils" remaining in our languages inform scientists much about past civilizations including their movements and interactions; bacterial and other organic "fossils" and inert physical remains, including fossils remaining in the earth, inform scientists much about past biology, human civilizations, and the evolution of species; examination of geology and observation of the movement of heavenly bodies can be backtracked to inform scientists of past bathymetric, terrain, meteorological and celestial events; continually evolving technologies make all of these finding ever more accurate. (2) Scientific theory is a work in progress as it is supposed to be, not an exercise in theology. (3) Few, if any, true scientists expect to pin down any sort of absolute truth, but rather grab a "baton" of research and move it forward. (4) Science is fundamentally different from religion: religion is not science. Period. (5) Science is not promulgated by "indoctrination" (which is a term more appropriately applied to religion), but through the rigorous, rational, and ethical application of intellectual inquiry. (6) Jefferson was referring to religion, which, dare we say again, is not science. (7) All religion _should_ be removed from our public school classrooms, and from our printed money, from the Pledge of Allegiance, from the Star Spangled banner, from oaths of office (along with the bible), and from all other areas of our government. There simply are far too many religious faiths and non-believers represented by the vast variety of Americans to favor any one of them over another. I'm going to catch a bit of sleep now. Take care, dear Richard.

"There is no science that proves evolution to be true." Keep in mind there is no science proving anything to be true. Science can only prove what is not true, and nonscientists can only grow accustomed to it gradually through generations, and yet other science is taught as if it were true as well. That is the unfortunate nature of science. It can only teach which is implied to be true, and the only way of judging that is by what the general scientific consensus is. I thank you for your recognition of the importance of science and its benefits, but I feel I must correct you on your terminology of creation as a theory. The term theory in its true form, the scientific one which you use to describe both creation and evolution, is an idea put forth and subject to years, sometimes hundreds of years, of intense scientific scrutiny on all levels to attempt to rule out all possible contradictions to it, that is after all that time "awarded", so to speak, the title of theory in recognition of it passing such rigorous tests. The fact is that when something is deemed a theory, it cannot be deemed anything higher. For a time, the scientific community put forth the idea of a "Law" for exceptionally important and fundamental theories, such as Newton's law of gravity, but that title was retired about the time Newton's law, which was only a very good approximation, was found to be wrong in some instances. Some scientists I have heard speak (I am still a student myself) say that evolution would have been given that title also, if it had not been retired. With this in mind, creation is not a true theory, in that it has not passed such scrutiny by the scientific community, and been awarded the title. Few people know this exact scientific use of the word, but it must be kept in mind when talking of theories that have earned the true title. It's like speaking of a captain of a ship and an individual who has been promoted to the rank of captain in one of the armed forces. They are not the same thing.  Please don't take this the wrong way, I agree with your notion that children should be allowed to choose which idea they wish to follow, and don't wish to anger you in any way, just to clarify terms.

Hare Krishna

William Newman:
You wrote:
“Richard, I have already signed off for today but your twisted attempt at logic is so remarkable that I'll force myself to write just one more message before sleep.”

Maybe you should have gotten your sleep in before you wrote.

Let’s analyze your logic, if mine is so twisted.

 “You did not and do not prove or disprove anything. Twisted, relativistic illogic will never pass muster in any serious debate. Unravelling your silly attempt at argument is as challenging as unravelling meaning in the convoluted grammar of some of my non-native English speaking students' essays. (sigh) Shall I cue you, too? Okay then, repeat after me: (1) Science can and does study the past: linguistic "fossils" remaining in our languages inform scientists much about past civilizations including their movements and interactions; bacterial and other organic "fossils" and inert physical remains, including fossils remaining in the earth, inform scientists much about past biology, human civilizations, and the evolution of species; examination of geology and observation of the movement of heavenly bodies can be backtracked to inform scientists of past bathymetric, terrain, meteorological and celestial events; continually evolving technologies make all of these finding ever more accurate.”

This long statement is begging the question (a logical fallacy). It does not clarify how a study based on repeatedly observable phenomena can make statements on the past that can be checked by observation. Nor does it address the issues listed in the URL referenced above concerning scientific method, and why it can’t study the past.

 “(2) Scientific theory is a work in progress as it is supposed to be, not an exercise in theology.”

Again begging the question, as you did not clarify. You just made a statement of faith. Now I can clarify, based on the scientific method as defined in secular science textbooks, as defined by evolutionists, but the URL I listed above already does that, so no need to repeat.

Incidentally, this statement is also a red herring argument, as you brought in theology, which I no where referenced because it is irrelevant.

 “(3) Few, if any, true scientists expect to pin down any sort of absolute truth, but rather grab a "baton" of research and move it forward.”

Again begging the question, a statement of belief. By the way, did I ever disagree with this? Did you read what I wrote?

 “(4) Science is fundamentally different from religion: religion is not science. Period.”

Begging the question, as you did not define how and why. Further, where did I disagree with this?

 “(5) Science is not promulgated by "indoctrination" (which is a term more appropriately applied to religion), but through the rigorous, rational, and ethical application of intellectual inquiry.

Oh? Always? Isn’t this claim another begging the question logical fallacy? Did you actually read what I wrote above, or merely skimmed it to catch key words, then to react to them?

Incidentally, Dr. Thomas Gold had an interesting take on your above statement.

 “(6) Jefferson was referring to religion, which, dare we say again, is not science.”

And I wasn’t? Do you understand what you read?

 “(7) All religion _should_ be removed from our public school classrooms, and from our printed money, from the Pledge of Allegiance, from the Star Spangled banner, from oaths of office (along with the bible), and from all other areas of our government. There simply are far too many religious faiths and non-believers represented by the vast variety of Americans to favor any one of them over another.”

You think I disagree with this? Did you read what I wrote? This is a perfect example of a red herring logical fallacy, as it is bringing in a subject that is tangentially at best related to the subject at hand. Yet it is designed to lead away from the subject at hand, namely that religion should not be inculcated in science classrooms, and that includes your atheist religion.

 “I'm going to catch a bit of sleep now. Take care, dear Richard.”

I hope you had a good rest. Now that you are rested, do you have some logically valid arguments that I can sink my teeth into?

Richard Ortiz

In the 1980's David Barton was looking for quotes from our founders, for his upcoming book "The Myth of Separation."  He wanted these quotes to show that The United States of America was founded by Christians, as a Christian nation.  Unfortunately, he couldn't find much.  So, he did what many Christians down through the ages have done when they don't like what they find -- he fabricated.

Barton published his book and created a video version, "America's Godly Heritage."  He then went on the road, pushing his version of U.S. history -- and made millions selling his book and video, with their fake quotes.

In 1995 Barton's group WallBuilders' issued a one-page document titled "Questionable Quotes," where he confessed to making up the quotes.  Of course, he kept the money.

The two quotes here, supposedly by James Madison and Patrick Henry, are on this list of bogus quotes.

A little research by Melvin Tracy would have uncovered this travesty.

For more, see
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/founding.htm
/>
Our nation's founders realized the inherent divisiveness of religion and the many bloody wars that had been fought over religion, and kept it specifically out of our Constitution and government.  God is not even mentioned in our Constitution.  Religion is only mentioned twice - both times to keep religion and government separate.

For an explicit look into what the founders thought, see The Treaty of Tripoli.  It was written during the administration of President George Washington, signed by President John Adams, and unanimously approved by the Senate. It stated, "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."  How could we as a nation have forgotten such an important fact?

"Religion has always been central to our national identity. Religious references do not violate the First Amendment, which was never intended to bar all religious expression or discussion from national discourse. James Madison himself, the author of the First Amendment, was sworn in with his left hand on the Bible. So was George Washington, and, I believe, every president since. The Ten Commandments provide the very foundation of our nation's legal code. They also make up the basis of the moral values that thankfully guide us in our everyday lives." --Lawrence Kudlow
Removing prayer to God and the Ten Commandments in schools begats Sin and Violence.
Many Christians today believe that the Constitution requires the separation of church and state; yet, these words never appear in the Constitution or its amendments!

Hmm...

Derek, it's an odd comment. I've never heard "butt hurt" before as an adjective. It must be new slang.

There's another creationism movement underway in Pakistan. Google it.

Then debate their claim that the Qur'an explains it all. And when you two prove which side is right, get back to me.

Then I'll support you. (If you want to prove it without debating the Islamic creationists, I'll listen to your argument. Prove away.)

Dear Clay,

Please go to http://www.khouse.org/topical_bible_study/creation/
and Listen for a few minutes. The Bible is the truth. The Quran is not the truth. It was written by Mohammed, a false Prophet. You can learn all this for free at the above website. You must be open for input or you would not be on this Blog.
Peace Brother,
Mickey

*sigh*

Take care, William. (and explore drop.io or any number of places you could upload that pdf so others can download it. Maybe even Google Documents?)

William, you have employed multiple techniques from rhetoric 101: the straw man, name calling and belittling, and topic avoidance. It is disingenuous to blame these things exclusively on those with whom you disagree. Indeed, this whole thread began in praise of those who have courage to disagree. Let's treat all of them with respect, not only those with whom we already agree; for that shows no courage at all.

William, if it is integral to this discussion, why not post a link for everyone to see it? If you're afraid of it getting intense inspection, don't worry: if it's as important as you say, which I'm not discounting, then it will stand up. If you're afraid of the author getting insulted, don't worry: sticks and stones may break a person's bones, but words will never hurt him or her. Besides, giving a link will prevent anyone from suggesting that you are just blowing smoke.

FYI, I am a school board member for 13 years.  We have had a scientist come in that can offer theories in the parallels in creationism and evolutional theories.  We shouldn't have to bring in an outsider, our teachers should be getting this training in their proffessional development.
As long as Christian principle are under attack while no others are being questioned there will be a huge problem in this countries education system.
There is no doubt that too many things had to be perfectly in place for "Big Bang" theories.  Devine intervention occurred somehow.  Think about it.

Watching words fly past each other can be exasperating, and the continuous (and I suspect deliberate) misunderstanding of the word "theory" in science precludes true discussion. Still, I never met a fray I could resist, so in I jump.

Mr. Bosin, school board member or not, Christian or not (and for the record I'm the latter, not the former), the idea that science attacks Christian principle(s) "while no others are being questioned" reveals a huge misunderstanding about science. Science questions everything, and bases its models on direct and indirect observations of the natural world.

Science does not close the door on religious thought, but it has no answer for things based on the supernatural or myth or magical thinking or pure faith. This is one of its limits, and that much is worth teaching.You can, however, teach that science has procribed limits without introducing Creationism, which, of course, is not science.

(You did manage to get all kinds of buzz words into the discussion--had you thrown in "American Way" and "apple pie" you would have swayed me.)

Paul, it's love of science, not hatred of fundamentalists.

We need clear understanding of science. There are some pretty big challenges facing our children and grand-children.

And many, many, many Christians are not fundamentalist Creationists, and know that Genesis can be seen as a deep myth and not a science textbook.

There are many good Christian people who agree with this petition.

It's not about hatred at all. It's about education. And keeping science in science classrooms, and everything else out.

I think a lot of people in America didn't do very well on the science section of the SAT or ACT .

Very well said, Clay.

Which is surprising, at 4.45 in the morning in Seoul.

But thank you, Chris

*>*

Richard: Clearly your education in the Sciences did not impede you from going on to have a personally rewarding experience in religious Faith.

Science education is not to be feared by anyone. All true spiritual belief derives from personal experience which is non-transferrable.

Each and every human being must follow their own unique path to an understanding which will be theirs and theirs alone.

Theology, doctrine, and dogmas of all sorts are not actually spiritual experiences and yours is no exception. Whatever authentic spiritual experience you may have had is yours, your Pastor's belongs to him, and to your wife, hers.

All you will succeed in doing with this insane effort to evangelize our school curriculum is to created ever more astoundingly dumb people like the woman in your not-funny-but-sad story.

-- Wm.

You are joking with your analogy of the water bill, I hope.

Done.

Love,

Clay

Mickey (and the rest of you creationists),

There is no reliable evidence that any of the values that denote the basic parameters of our universe are changing -- especially the speed of light.  That's why science refers to them as constants.

The Bible and its creation stories are interesting myths, but they were created over 2000 years ago by people who thought that iron was the latest technology and it could beat Yahweh (Judges 1:19).

I note that you just refer to "scientists" without actually naming any or stating their qualifications.  For a review of Barry Setterfield's preposterous claims, see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html

I also find it hard to understand how you "love Science and Creationism as they both go together."  Science is based on reliable evidence.  Creationism is a myth, with absolutely no reliable evidence.

Nice rant.

Science is important. It's not a religious question, it's an educational one.

Fundamentalists are trying to undermine the public understanding of science. If you want it to stop, tell the Discovery Institute to spend its billions of dollars giving people jobs, instead of trying to make kids dumber.

We just want to teach science in science class.

Clay, what is going to make kids dumber is pushing the hypothesis that you support on our kids and not allowing them to see a second hypothesis and form their own decision. Creation is no more a religion than evolution because neither can be demonstrated in a laboratory so they are best guesses. No human can create life from non-life and unfortuneately we can't just ask God to come down and create life again for people to see. There is not enough evidence to put evolution in a class by itself. If you want science to be taught in science class, then how about we teach the scientific studies that support each one and not teach one by itself as the one and only truth.

Hi Jeff: It is very much about dumbing down the kids.

The Christian Protestant Creation myth, like so may other creation myths, is no less a myth because it is being aggressively promoted by a narrow minority of politically active fundamentalist Americans (and non-Americans).

Science, with all of its theories, is nothing of that sort. I studied Greek and Roman myths from grade school onward and loved the stories, very much like I loved reading Braum Stoker's Count Dracula, Science Fiction stories, and so on.

So, you can see that your creation myth has its place beside other myths, but not anywhere near Science.

What would our kids do if you guys got your fundamentalist theocratic doctrines into our schools muddying up the clarity and beauty of Science?

What if you were to get all of what you want and kids could study nothing but that dreary old bible of yours? Dumb, dumb, dumb! And boring, too. ;^)

Welcome back William. Can you lead to where I can find documentation of the observance of abiogenesis? No one else has addressed my previous requests. I'm trying to figure out why your supported myth deserves to be in a science book and not the creation myth when there are so many scientists who have studied and contradicted evolution theories.

haha love it

Funny guy. Way to avoid making any real points. And there are classes on religion in University as well. Try again, PLEASE!

Hi Paul: Evolution is _not_ in a class by itself: Science is. Evolution is a highly developed, broadly respected scientific theory. A "theory" scientifically speaking (need we remind you), is _not_ to be confused with the common usage of that word, and more than adequately explained above (see, Wil Nusser) for those willfully ignorant few who simply refuse to get the point.

Hi William, I was actually responding to Jeffrey's empty comment about "not enough evidence for a class". A quick search on google for "study evolution at university" brings up many courses all over the world and even a "Centre for the Study of Evolution - University of Sussex" 
Cheers

Oops! Sorry, Paul! The text on this list often doesn't have clean line breaks and so can get a bit jumbled together. Then, that last post was intended for Jeff. Poor Jeff is catching Hell today. ;^)

Mr. Newman, I hope that you will continue to research this topic as I'm confident you will find out that more and more science is coming out supporting creation and disagreeing with the science of old which desparately wanted to support Darwin. I pray that you will come to this realization before it is too late. I'm sorry for the feelings you must be having at your age with nothing to look forward to when your body gives out. It's not too late you know.

Jeffrey,

You're right. Allah did create the universe. The Pakistani creationists have "come out with a more and more science" proving it.

I suggest you read all the Pakistani Muslim Creationist literature (and the Turkish is really scientific too) as soon as you can, since you are clearly a seeker of truth and lover of Allah.

I pray for the athiests too, as I, like you, know I will live forever as well.

Allahu akbar.

--In other words, Jeffrey, don't you see how culturally limited your point of view is? How contradictory, when looked at from a global point of view?

Abiogenesis... address this please. Again I have not been saying that the bible needs to be in science books, just a section explaining how a large portion if not majority of Americans believe that there is a creator of life and contain at least some of the scientific data that supports it. And don't claim there isn't any. Abiogenesis...don't forget.

Jeffrey, someone offered Talk Origins way up the post as a resource that deals with all the creationist talking points, including abiogenesis.

Here it is.

But don't expect me to debate this with you. I'm on your side. The Turkish and Pakistani Muslim Creationists are right. (They make the abiogenesis argument too, by the way.)

I see Mr. Musgrave's point, however, he appears to make a lot of assumptions that are a little shaky. For starters, he assumes an unproven amount of time for the generation of a random protein sequence. It could take less time or even more time. For another, he assumes that all possible proteins would lead to the formation of prokaryotic (and higher) life. Further more, he appears to assume that all possible reactions between significantly differing proteins happen all the time. It is just as probable, if not more so, that no significantly differing proteins ever crossed paths. Point being: it is an irrelevant distraction to consider non-sequential probability if for no other reason than that, depending on your time scale, all things are comparatively sequential.

That said, he does make a significant point that there is not enough evidence to determine the actual amount of time that the process of evolution would take. This makes it hard to argue that it took more than 10,000 years or less than 4 billion years (with intentional placement of "more" and "less"). The fact is, the probabilities involved are too widely ranging to definitively decide on time frames without observance of it in its natural states. Archaeological evidence definitely helps, but can never replace visual confirmation.

None of this means it didn't happen, just that it is extremely difficult pin down a definite time frame for the whole or the individual parts.

Abiogenesis:
Jeff does have a valid point. Has abiogenesis ever been observed either in nature or lab tests? If it has not, then I must suggest that evolution as a theory for the development of life is not a scientific theory. It has not tested true. The scientific method requires a testably true hypothesis for a theory to be acceptable. If abiogenesis has not been tested to be possible, then it cannot be a scientific theory. This does not preclude evolution from being a perfectly valid scientific theory for the development of species, just from being a valid scientific theory for the development of life.

That being said, even some of Einstein's best theories are only now being proven true. And some them are only now being proven false, as well. I have confidence in the science being proven one way or the other eventually...

...so long as those moving science ahead have open minds.

First, evolution has nothing explicitly to do with abiogenesis (life from non-life).  Evolution starts with some sort of self-replicating organism or molecule.  As has already been stated, the reliable evidence for evolution is overwhelming.  The reliable evidence for creationism is zip.

Second, the field of abiogenesis is a legitimate area for scientific research.  Some researchers think that they'll be able to "create life" in the next few years.  Even if we're not smart enough and we don't figure out how life started on Earth, that doesn't mean that some god did it (and certainly not the Christian god Yahweh).

Of course, if we do create life, I can already hear the creationists trumpeting, "See, it took intelligence to create life!"

Third, life had billions of years times an almost countless environments for potential startups.  If we consider the anthropic principle (if only one planet in one universe allowed life), we'd be that planet in that universe.  This adds potentially quadrillions (or more) of planets/moons times an unknown (perhaps just 1) number of universes.

If anybody is interested in some websites and books on abiogenesis, I've collected a few at
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Science.html#abiogenesis

Of course, you can (and likely will) disregard all this science stuff if your god (or his/her duly appointed spokesperson) told you that he/she created life or that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Mark, the site you link to is an excellent resource.

I hope others find it in all this noise.

I apologize if my missing post resurfaces after this posting, but the abridged version:

Mark,
Insulting your opponent gives no merit to your argument, hurts your case with the undecided onlookers and your opponent, and shows a weakness of character. When you reach an impasse, focus on the impasse. If you cannot remove it, then end the debate. There is no shame in agreeing to disagree, and insults just show that you do not have the ability to control yourself. When a debate degenerates to insults, often the only ones left in the room are the debaters.

I long for the day when this can be debated without such plebeian displays.

Hi Lianne,

I understand your point of view.  However, there are many children whose religious upbringing is neglected due to their parents' disinterest or belief system.  Of course, that is their sovereign choice and I would never dream of forcing religious education on anyone.

On the other hand, unless one is homeschooling one's children or can afford the often costly tuition for private/Christian school, one's children are coerced by the State to attend public school.  In that context, I would think it reasonable that all ideas, at least those held to by a vast number of people in our country, such as evolution and creation/intelligent design, would be included together in any curriculum in order to have a balanced presentation and provide a platform for discussion so that children can learn how to reason and think for themselves.  Doesn't that seem reasonable to you?

Mike

I apologize if my comment posts twice. I've been getting a weird bug where my comments don't post until the second time.

Again Mark, the insults are unnecessary. If you have a point, just make it. Otherwise people ignore your points because they can't see past your insults and bating.

"Most religious people seem to come to their religiosity using emotion, and then attempt to back it with faulty reasoning." Oh how I wish that were false, but never has a truer statement been said. Even the very book that those who call themselves Christians supposedly follow says not to be led byone's emotions. For example,

Romans 14:19
"Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification."
(For those who don't know, edification means support, like a tension cable in a bridge.)

How do you respond to the very logically minded that have also chosen religion based on the very same evidence that is used against it? The people that do not have faith because they choose not to think, but have faith because it has beenproven through thoughtful examination of the evidence?

Bill Maher is well known for is complete hatred of religion and ruthless attacks on individuals because of their religious preference (regardless of their other contributions to society), but that does not make his statement immediately discountable. One of the fallacies of logic is to add just a little truth so as to make the attendees of a debate believe that the whole statement is true.

The true part of the first quote: "...those who preach faith [only] and enable and elevate it are intellectual slaveholders - keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned so much lunacy and destruction." Those who preach "faith only," faith without evidence and devoid of thought, are indeed the worst of humanity and have, more often than not, caused the worst atrocities in history.

The false part: "Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking..." Faith has never meant a leaving any thought or study of evidence behind. Faith has often been twisted that way by people like BillMaher , Adolf Hitler, Crusaders, Emperor Nero, etc., to further their own personal agendas. At risk of a cliche, "Religion doesn't kill people. People kill people."

"Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don't have all the answers, to think that they do." Again, a hint of truth. If one can agree with that statement, then one would have to agree with: "Science is dangerous because it allows human beings who don't have all the answers, to think that they do," or "Politics..." or "Mathematics..." It is a fallacy of logic to suggest that something should not be engaged in because it is dangerous. If that were the case, then we would not have electricity, internal combustion engines, any understanding of nuclear fusion, etc.

Thanks, Chris, for your respectful reply.

Mark, to you comment that religion is based on dogmatism: I have to agree. Every system of belief - including science and religion - is grounded in a foundational set of assumptions, the dogma that undergirds all future thought. The dogma guides the faith exercised.

For example, the commitment to the validity and reliability of the scientific method guides the faith of scientists as they seek answers that are consistent with the foundational assumptions. It IS faith, commitment to an understanding of the way the world is, that guides scientists, particularly at the frontiers of science. When Einstein pressed his theory of relativity, he expressed confidence in the system, even though no one could validate his theory at first.

Given the obvious explanatory power of science, the question is not whether or not it is valid, but the extent to which it is valid. Above, Liane stated: "The point of this whole discussion (though people seem to lose sight of that) is that science should be taught in science classrooms. Religion is for churches, temples, and mosques. Period."

On what ground is this 'point' made? Why should science exclude religion? And why should religion exclude science? The 'point' seems to rest on a dogmatic assumption that all true knowledge can be validated by the scientific method; anything that cannot be tested by this method cannot properly be called knowledge, and belongs to the 'private' sphere of 'faith,' and 'opinion.' This, too, is dogma. It is a commitment to a way of understanding and living in the world that, like religious faith, entails risk if the assumptions turn out to be false.

Mark - Interesting reference to Bill Maher's opinions about religion.  He's a real reliable, unbiased source on this topic, isn't he?  There's about as much of a chance of Mr. Maher having something favorable to say about religion as there would be in having Hitler say something favorable about the Jews.

Also, please clarify for us how you came to the determination that Jesus is a myth...an interesting total disregard of historical fact on your part. 

Also of interest is how you so offhandedly discount the possibility of so many other things.  I would imagine one would have to be all-seeing and all-knowing - i.e. God - to make such far-reaching statements as though they were incontrovertible fact.  It must be great being you and knowing that you have all the answers!

Michael,
One of the key features of a good debater is the ability to ignore the insults that those who are not good debaters throw when they have run out of points to debate. If you engage in similar bating, or show any hint of the emotion they are intending to produce, then you give them an out to claim that you are too emotional to continue, or claim that all of their opponents are evil attackers of honest debate, or some other similar nonsense.

Usually such debaters will eventually stop debating you entirely if you give them no emotional response and simply respond to their valid points. Often their only purpose for debating is to hurt you, and if you let them, then they win.

I'm not saying that this is the case with Mark, but if you get in a similar situation in the future, you should keep this in mind, because that person may be such a debater.

---------------
As to your point about Jesus Denial, I agree. I originally chose to ignore the attack. Denying that Jesus existed is about as believable as Holocaust Denial. But then, like with the Lunar Landing Denial, some people will never believe it even if they visited the landing site and inspected the landing stage themselves. Even Jesus said so in a story:

Luke 16
"27 Then he said , I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said , Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent .
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded , though one rose from the dead."

Chris, there is indeed scholarly debate over whether Jesus was an historical character. A New Testament Greek professor at a religious university in Canada (he was also a minister) named Paul Harpur wrote about it in a chapter of his very good The Pagan Christ. It's a beautiful book, well worth the read.

The same question is explored in a reasonably well-done, though not great, documentary called "The God Who Wasn't There."

There's no solid evidence either way, but it is a controversy taken seriously by reasonable people who've looked into the arguments and evidence.

Thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee. For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp.--Deuteronomy 23:13-14

Oh, I'm not denying that there is debate, even "scholarly" debate, Clay. I'm never one to deny debate from those who disagree on a topic. Freedom of Speech is very important to me. I don't think I'd be willing to kill for it, but I most definitely would die for it.

All I'm saying is that sometimes debate should be considered "with a grain of salt." People once debated whether the world is round. People still have "scholarly" debate over whether Germany actually killed millions of Jews when they saw they were losing WWII, at least, in countries where such debate is legal. I'm sure that in a thousand years, should the USA survive that long, people will debate whether George Washington ever really existed. I'm just saying that sometimes the passage of time makes debate possible on something that was once a certainty.

In hopes of better expressing it to your point of view, I doubt that evolution is how we came about, but does that make it any less true?

Further yet, if I were to debate whether or not you existed, after you've passed, would that make it any less true that you did exist?

Again, my point is, one can debate any truth as long as they want, but that truth exists regardless of who believes it.

There's enough anthropology material here to write a thesis on, Paul.

true

Mark,
First, I must commend you on a well presented point.

While this "Christian's Wager," so to speak, is indeed overused (and usually at the worst of times), I genuinely believe it is not intended as a threat. If you consider the basic idea, you'll realize it has some simple logic to it:

1) You have a belief in life after death that is precluded by such belief.

2) You have a belief that there is no life after death.

Each is clearly mutually exclusive.

If you believe 2 while 2 is true, you live life as you want and die, never knowing for certain whether your belief is true.

If you believe 1 while 2 is true, you live life based on that belief and die, never knowing for certain whether your belief is true.

If you believe 1 while 1 is true, you live life based on that belief and "don't die."

If you believe 2 while 1 is true, you live life as you want and die, missing out on an opportunity to "not die."

So if 2 is true, then the outcome is the same regardless of what you believe. However, if 1 is true, then your belief affects the outcome. Following this rather simplified logic, it is safest to believe 1 because the outcome won't be changed if 2 is true.

Once again, it is simplified logic, but I feel it is a genuine, last chance, attempt to logically debate the relevance of religion. It is not intended, usually, as a threat, but because the person cares about your outcome and doesn't know what else to say. There are a few who would use it as a threat, however, I tend to think of those people as not understanding their own religion. No major religion, at least in existence today, has a text that encourages or even allows such behavior.

Likewise, Mark, I want to thank you for a thoughtful reply.

To answer your concern, I was using your first definition of dogma:
"1 a: something held as an established opinion; especially a definite authoritative tenet"

I think that your second paragraph does an excellent job of setting forth dogma:

"You can't reasonably compare the two methods of viewing the world (science and religion) as somehow separate but equal.  The whole point of science is to create valid models of reality.  Religion is based largely on faith without evidence.  After all, if you have evidence you don't need faith."

This is your established opinion or authoritative tenet (dogma, under definition 1a) that guides your inquiry, and divides science and religion as separate but UNequal - one dealing with reality (science) and one dealing with opinions (religion/faith).

Please forgive my apparent use of a straw man. However, I'm not convinced that it is a straw man, even if there are some sorts of non-scientific knowledge that you admit. I understand you to be saying that my knowledge which rests on faith does not meet your criteria of validity - scientific evidence - and therefore is inferior and mythical. Is that a fair read of your comment?

Finally, I'm glad that you turned the tables on Pascal's wager, because I think that you are absolutely right. In fact, the Apostle Paul was far more bold in writing to the Christians in Corinth. He said:

"And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins [and under the just anger of God]. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied." (1 Cor 15:14-19)

I am willing to own that, and not to diminish it. My claim is not that science is wrong, but that it is limited in scope. By defition it cannot address issues of purpose or meaning, because those categories are bracketed by scientific inquiry. Science can tell us, with amazing force and clarity EFFICIENT causes (cause and effect) but not FINAL causes (purpose).

My claim is that the good news of Christ, (that is, that the God who created all things for Himself, and was estranged from His creation through our rebellion, is reconciling all things to Himself in the death, ressurrection and ascension of Jesus) is the purpose and meaning of human history that science cannot supply.

I know that this claim is not verifiable on scientific grounds, and do not attempt to offer it as such. This, I will happily admit, is my dogma, the 'definitive authoritative tenet' which give purpose and guidance to both life and science as one unity (not separate and unequal). I offer it rather as testimony, of one who has seen and experienced it.

Mark,
First, good point regarding Pascal's Wager.

I realize you're new to this friendly debate thing, but insults and straw man arguments do not engender anyone to your side of the argument. If you can not check your anger and emotional outrage at the fact that anyone could possibly believe in a higher form of life than ourselves, then it serves you little purpose to debate the topic, because you just chase away those who would potentially, eventually, agree with you. If you wish to continue with the emotional outbursts, then feel free; it is your right. But I'm trying to help you here. Of course, I could be misinterpreting your comments. After all, it could be that you are just skimming over the comments of your perceived opponents rather than reading them entirely. For instance, Mary had a little lamb. His fleece was white as snow.

No one said that the act of doubting evolution automatically makes it false. I was pointing out that doubting Jesus' existence does not automatically mean that he didn't exist. But, I agree with you that this point is a bit too off topic to go into major detail.

Secondly, no one said that scientific discoveries that have been related to modern biology are incorrect. Clearly they are correct or we'd all be dead for all manner of virii generations ago.

Furthermore, no one is doubting that the process of adaptation exists. It's been proven on countless occasions so there is little point in arguing against it. It is your assumption that adaptation goes so far back as to cause the existence of humanity from individual molecules that is in doubt by some.

Actually, Mark, "Chris" was giving evidence to the fact that you are not reading posts before responding to them. Also, I thought it might be beneficial to give suggestions so that you might better adapt your methods of debate to more successfully persuade your opponents. It appears that someone being unemotional regarding this topic offends you in some way, but it would be much easier to debate the various topics without such directed and personal attacks in the third person (or first person for that matter). They are useless as attempts to persuade your opponents, and they make your side of the debate look less appealing to those who have not chosen a side, yet. I would say the same to someone of either side of the debate, but so far you are the only one I see making emotionally charged, directed, personal attacks.

I also find it odd that you are claiming that I didn't provide any evidence when it was clearly not my intention to argue someone else's point. I thought that you may have misunderstood your opponents' point of view, and so I thought you might benefit from a more thorough explanation of the logic behind it.

You misunderstand my meaning for the term "assumption." In my opinion, an assumption is a belief without first hand witness, regardless of the amount of evidence.

It is interesting that you say that Earth being spherical and traveling around the Sun is "counter to the Bible." Do you have evidence for that? Book, chapter, and verse would be most convenient.

I have some to the contrary:
Isaiah 40:22
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth..."

Allowing for the lack of vocabulary in an ancient language, the word translated circle is the same word for any object with a constant radius. In 2d it would be our circle. In 3d it would be our sphere. In 4d... well, we don't have a term for that, but since they had no dimensional distinctions on their word, they did.

Genesis 1:7-8
"So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so.
God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day."

Here, they had no word for what we called space, so instead something with an equivalent characteristic was used. We can't breath in either of the "waters," above or below.

If you are interested in more, visit
http://www.tektonics.org/af/earthshape.html

Mark, can you give us any evidence that you exist? Really? Is the true measure of existence not "cognito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am)?

I have no evidence to give to you that I exist. I could just as easily be a computer program designed by some Christian programmer to copy debate responses from one evolution related forum or topic to another. I would have to be an extremely complex program to be able to extract emotional content from these debates, let me tell you, but it's not an impossible scenario. Oh, improbable to the extreme, but not impossible.

My point is the same as in my response to Clay. Everyone in the world can doubt the existence of a particular rock, or an element on the periodic table, or George Washington, and it wouldn't change the fact of whether or not he existed. Furthermore, it is much easier to "prove" that something didn't exist than it is to "prove" that it did exist, when there is no scientifically obvious evidence of it currently existing. And the longer you wait afterward, the easier it gets to "prove" that it didn't exist. Think of all the effort it takes to prove that something as big as a dinosaur existed: fossilization, search for rock (fossils) within rock, excavation, careful testing for genuineness, dating. And this had to be done thousands of times before even a valid theory of the dinosaurs' speciation could be presented.

Let's do this as an exercise in the logic of your argument that Jesus didn't exist:

Let's all try to prove that Mark Thomas exists as a single human being who is currently debating in this thread.

My most immediate contribution to the exercise is this:
He has conversed with us intelligently on this forum, occasionally responding to comments made by some of us.

Well, I can knock my own down any number of ways. First, he doesn't respond to everything everyone says in that he sometimes picks and chooses which points to which to respond. This is typical of a Turing AI program which attempts to create an intelligent response to only some of the conversation in hopes that the more computationally difficult topics will go unnoticed.

Second, in a textual internet medium he could be a group of people working together.

Anyone else care to give it a go? If it's this hard to prove that a currently existing person exists, then how hard could it be to prove that someone who died 2 millenia ago existed?

Chris asked for chapter and verse about the Bible being a flat-Earth book.  Here are 29 verses on the Earth being flat and fixed (which is what you'd expect from a pre-scientific culture):
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/BibleQuotes.htm#fixed

The Bible also teaches that the Sun doesn't cause our day/night cycle (along with many other errors).  For more, see
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/BibleQuotes.htm#creation

The website http://www.tektonics.org/af/earthshape.html gives extreme logical contortions attempting to fit the round peg of the Bible into the square hole of reliable, scientific evidence.

Chris' idea (actually, the website's) that the Bible's authors had no word for sphere is wrong.  Isaiah used the Hebrew term for circle, “chug,” not the term for sphere, “kadur.”  Chris' idea that that the authors referred to space as water (because we can't breathe either) is ludicrous.  The ancients thought that the Earth was flat with a solid bowl (the firmament) over it.  The firmament had windows that let the celestial waters (rain) through.

For more, see "The Flat-Earth Bible" at
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

Note that in 1633 Galileo was threatened with torture or execution for the idea that the Earth was not the center of the Universe.

Also, imagine what an omniscient god could have put in the Bible:
The Earth is a very large ball of a certain size, and the air goes only to a certain height.  The Earth orbits the Sun, and the "wandering stars" (planets) also orbit the Sun at huge distances.  The billions of real stars in our galaxy are actually vast distances away.  There are billions of galaxies, and the universe is billions of years old.

Diseases are not caused by demons.  They are often caused by very tiny organisms, and disease can be reduced by killing these organisms with heat or alcohol.
...
...
(pick any of the scientific discoveries of the last two hundred years)

Instead, the Bible only shows what anyone of its time thought they knew.

On 03/23 Chris gave a long "Red Herring" argument (any argument in which the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion).  See
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html

Even if I am just a smart computer program, my arguments on the actual existence of Jesus are unchallenged.  Chris tried to divert the conversation from this simple point.  Nobody has addressed my arguments.  Again:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/WhyAtheism.htm#jesus

Freud noted that all religions are addictions.  I think that addicts will do or think almost anything to continue getting their fix.  Some people eventually see that freedom from religious addiction is an intellectually and emotionally healthy change, although withdrawal can be painful.

I'm tired of this "debate" and have spent too much time on it.  As I already noted, people can and do believe whatever they want -- no matter what the reliable evidence shows.

Mark, I'll try to answer your charge for historicity with a link: http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TopicIndex/54_The_Bible/2629_Why_I_Trust_the_Scriptures/

But I'll admit up front that it won't satisfy you. Nor can any argument that I could offer (and there are many of them).

The Bible does not meet your criteria of reliability; nor does it pretend to. It is not a scientific document (althought many Christians treat it as though it is). It is, in its own words, "a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense." In Lesslie Newbigin's words, it is a stone of stumbling to every structure of which it is not the cornerstone.

You're right. Your assumptions about the world are incompatible with the Christian gospel. I don't want to gloss over that, or try to persuade you that the Christian way of living in the world ought to be respectable in your eyes.

You offered the example of Galileo, who in the face of execution, was compelled by faith in what he had seen to press forward against the grain of his society. Christians now are in a similar place - not with regard to the shape of the earth, but with respect to the purpose of human history. Seeing what others do not see, we maintain that it is true (and not merely true for those who choose to believe it) and offer it to the world.

Mark,
I really hadn't intended on getting this deep into it, but since you insist.

First of all, as to the evidence that you are not reading all of each post before responding to it, the expected response was "And everywhere that Mary went, the lamb was sure to go."

Actually, from what little of it I have read, http://www.tektonics.org/af/earthshape.html is a very logically thought out process of studying Ancient Hebrew in relation to the shape of the Earth.

Actually "kadur" is Modern Hebrew for ball. I think the word you meant is "dur," which is the Ancient Hebrew. And the author of the previously mentioned website addressed that, as well:

"1754. duwr, dure; from H1752; a circle, ball or pile:--ball, turn, round about.

This word no more [indicates] sphericity[sic] than our other word, for it is used by Isaiah elsewhere thusly:

Is. 29:3
And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.

Obviously, the soldiers could not camp in the shape of a sphere around the city! Based on this and other usages, this word appears to be making a statement about a circular pattern rather than giving reference to a given shape."

As to your assumption that you know what the ancients were thinking when they wrote what they wrote, that is an interesting ability, though I wouldn't go so far as to call it ludicrous. I think I'll simply say that I disagree. The atmosphere, in my opinion is pretty firmly planted on the Earth due to the gravity which holds it there, hence it is a firmament. The author addresses this point as well, if you care to read it.

As to "floodgates," have you ever heard it said, "It's raining cats and dogs out there!"? The Ancient Hebrew equivalent is "The floodgates of Heaven have been opened out there!" It has no more cosmological meaning than "everything but the kitchen sink."

Yes, it was very unfortunate that in Galileo's time, scientists were so backward as to physically, financially, and politically threaten those with conflicting beliefs or limited evidence. It says a lot about the progression of science today, since today scientists only financially and politically threaten those with conflicting beliefs or limited evidence.

I'm confused. I thought you agreed with me that science and religion are separate studies. Why then are you suggesting that a purely religious entity write a science text rather than a religious text? But in answer to your question of why He didn't write a science text, it doesn't solve the problem that His religious text does. That is, to inform human kind both of Himself and His wishes.

I understand that you believe my argument to be a red herring. I agree. I did not intend to go down that path, but I did get a bit emotional there. For that I apologize.

You say that your arguments go unchallenged. You are wrong in that assessment. I challenged them and many have before me. I am willing to rebut you assumptions and assertions point by point if you'd like (even your flat-earth and earth-centric system assertions). My only question is, would you like it here (and would Clay allow it), elsewhere with a link posted here, or in an email or other personal communique?

Again, realize that I don't believe that Creation should be taught in schools, but I'm not going to sit idly by as someone suggests that Jesus, or Caesar, or Mohamed, or King Richard, or Hitler, or whoever didn't exist. It's one thing to have an opinion, it's another to be just historically inaccurate.

I think I understand your weariness. You've been jumping from point to point for quite a while and have probably only covered 20% of what you have. I can totally relate... I've been chasing and leading you around for a portion of those.

If you ever need a debate sounding board in the future, let me know. I love a good debate (and even some bad ones) and I do love reading myself type (as well as hearing myself talk).