Univ. of Kansas Takes Up Creation Debate

Many high schools, especially smaller ones, have no humanities elective, no "cultural" class, no philosophy, no religion, where ID could get a hearing. If it were not to be even mentioned in a science class, probably the next best place for it would be in American history, at the "contemporary" end. History teachers notoriously discuss "current events", at least selectively, anyway; so a discussion of ID vs. evolution could take place there, too.

Many, if not most of our kids discuss---or are at least exposed to---AIDS (including anal and oral sex), STDs, abstinence, condoms, etc.---in health class. It's controversial, but most districts don't duck it. In many districts, parents can choose to hold their kids out of those classes.

Although the analogy isn't exact, ID is here. The President and other politicos, and media coverage, have lent some legitimacy to it. Let's air it out for what it is.

 

This is a trick question, and I do not have to answer it...

You still don't understand. The answers are not as important as the pursuit of it... the answers are not as important as the human ability to ask the question and explore.

Stay away from science if you want the mysteries of the universe laid bare in front of you... you will be sadly disappointed because science does not have those answers, nor does it pretend to.

But if you are passionate enough to ask the question and pursue the possibilities with dedication and with an open mind and not a closed one that just wants the answers... then you have the mind of a scientist.

Science is about expanding human understanding of the world and the universe... human beings are fallible creatures, but science represents the framework that we can use to expand how much of the universe around us we can understand... it does not pretend to have all the answers like your religion.

 

Uhh... notice what I DO for a living?? Or all the posts I've put up on this topic and the last ID debate here on Priuschat?

I AM a scientist. I realize you're quick to defend your position, as am i... but yikes. I'm on the same side as you here.

I was using it to compare and contrast to demonstrate that religion does not require proof of anything while science is based entirely upon proof and peer scrutiny. I certainly was not equating the two.

Maybe I was a little short in my answer, but I sure won't be biting the hand that feeds me (my CAREER, that I've so far spent 20% of my life in college and/or grad school preparing for) anytime soon...

 

I wasn't exposed to evolution in required classes... and I suppose by default I would be the most recent high school graduate here...

World history or American history would be appropriate since all I heard about in world history was religions and their roles in history.

 

Oh sorry galaxee :-D... i was agreeing with you (that's what ++truth means)...

The rest of my post was addressed to everyone, not to you in particular! I should have specified who "you" was when I posted. sorry!! ^_^

 

ohh... okay. i thought you were saying i was neglecting the fact that scientific results could be essentially assumed as truth. and therefore wasn't giving it enough credit.

i'm not 100% oriented with typical language in online forums yet. well thanks for backing me up then.

 

I've had too much turkey and the tryptophan is getting to me .

 

I.D. versus Real Science, hmmmm. I have read through 4 pages of this debate and figured I would chime in (although I probably shouldn’t).

Okay, with I.D. We can teach our children (in school of all places), lets see if I got this straight:

1. That the earth was seeded by some supreme being
2. That we all originated from Adam & Eve
3. There was a “talking snake†in the Garden of Eden
4. There was a bunch of incest (since we are all descendants of Adam & Eve)
5. This God commanded Abraham to kill his son to show that he was faithful
6. Almost all living things were destroyed by a “all encompassing†flood
7. There was a lot more incest after the flood to repopulate the world
8. Sodom & Gomorrah was destroyed by God & and Lot’s wife turned into salt
9. All of the languages were created at the Tower of Babel
10. Jonah spent 3 days in the belly of a whale
11. God and the Devil made a bet about Job
12. Jesus was born and lost for 33 years and showed up as the Son of God
13. Jesus died for all of our sins so we don’t have to worry about them any more. (This made the sheep and goats real happy)
14. Christianity spread, kind of
15. Armageddon


Basically I.D. wants us to teach our children that Adam & Eve rode to church on the backs of dinosaurs.

Science on the other hand actually attempts to explain what is really going on in our history, present, and future. As many others have said in this post, science is an ongoing process. It doesn’t claim to be perfect and correct at all times. As we research we find more answers. Some corroborate the facts and some change them. The nice thing about science is that we have the latitude to change. Religion doesn’t have that luxury. You either believe what is said or else.

If we want our children to learn about I.D. let them learn it in church. If we want them to learn something a little closer to the truth, let them learn science.

Just my take on things.

Britt

 

Are you assuming that others are not scientist?

I am quite certain that science and creation theory coexist well..... I am glad that no one told Gallelao that his credentials were invalid because he believed in creation... his beliefs sure messed up his work, right?. Thank goodness an evolutionist came along to fix his messes. (not)

Look, I am quite certain we will not agree. I do not believe that you bolster your argument by using your degree/s as a proving point. I too am a scientist, I have multiple patents in my field and I like you am open minded to new research and new evidences. Our difference is that I do not patently throw out a theory because I don't like the premis of it. I like you can't prove or disprove creation or for that matter evolution. There are hundreds of gaps and holes in evolution.

For example why have petrified trees been found standing upright disecting multiple strata layers that carbon date millions of years difference between layers? That is one old tree. For me that draws into queston the accuracy of carbon dating which causes concern that conclusions based on carbon dating are invalid.

When considering our universe and assuming there was a big bang that set it in orbit, why is the law of conservation of angular momentum violated? Again, observations of phenomia would draw into question the idea of a big bang (planet rotations differing).

Why have micro-biologist not been able to create living matter from "non-living" elements or gasses? The theory states that this is required, yet it has never been observed and believe me people have tried.

The earths magnetic field has declined 6% in the last 150 years, simple math yeilds the fact that 25,000 years ago the heat generated from the magnetic field would be so hot that life would not have been possible. The reason I use this example is that you talk about observable data today that points towards your conclusion although you could not observe the original event.

Evolutionists teach that the red giant stars change into white dwarf stars over millions of years; yet Sirius is an example of a red star becoming white within the pst 2,000 years. Ancient astronomers recorded that Sirius glowed red in the sky, yet now it is categorized as white.

Jupiter and Saturn both radiate more heat than they receive from the sun. if they were billions of years old, both planets would have reached equilibrium and no longer be able to lose more heat than they receive.

Gravitational foces and friction loss can be computed and predicted mathematically. The moon is getting farther and farther from the earth. Using this math you will find that the earth could not be older than 1.2 billion years. (The moon would have been too close to the earth)

These are a few of thousands of examples that points towards a conclusion..... The earth could not be billions and billions of years old.

Nearly every claim of the orgins through evolution are unproven. The only aspects proven are natural selection and adaptation such as we see with virsus and the like. There has never been a single shred of evidence supporting a species jump. Yet it is declaired as fact...... Neither has the use or study of evolution contributed one scientific law (growth in understanding the physics of our universe)

When they prove it I will believe it, but simply stating it is not enough for me.

There are hundreds and thousands of credible scientist that do not accept evolution, for you to decree that they are irrelavent and ignorant because you disagree, is not rational.

 

Whatsthat...

You are a long way off from saying that science is a religion, and both are the same.

There are valid criticisms of evolution of course, but you're not even talking about evolution... you are talking more in the area of astrophysics and astronomy, not evolution...

There is debate ongoing in the fields of astronomy and astrophysics... there is debate ongoing in every field of science about the details.

Now I'm about to make an important point, so pay attention:
There are scientists that are legitimately trying challenge the details of evolution, astronomy, and astrophysics... challenge is an integral part in science of course, but they are not the same people who lead the charge for _CREATIONISM_ in schools...

This is not a binary issue... just because evolution, astrophysics, or whathave you is not 100% perfect does not mean that Science is WRONG and we have to fall back to the mythology of creationism and the Bible...

You people act like if there is one small thing wrong with the theory, then you must throw out EVERYTHING... the theory will just have to be further refined... no different from anything else in science.

Debate and research goes on in all areas you mention by scientists, but the debate going on in legislatures regarding ID in classrooms is NOT the same debate.

Edit: the proponents of ID in the POLITICAL debate like to cherry pick their scientists, and like to depict like it's a 50/50 split between those who agree on evolution and those who dissent... this is NOT true...

the fact is that in this point in history, evolution is established in the scientific community, and any challenge to it will be subject to much debate before it can be widely accepted.

 

One more thing...

Your argument isn't even against the core of evolution, but of the question of the age of the planet... WHY? What are your motives for taking this stance?

Evoution is a much bigger issue than the age of the planet, yet instead of attacking evolution directly for what it is, you take a roundabout way of attacking evolution... Evolution's primary conclusions aren't that the planet is old... if anything, it's a lemma..., yet that's the part that bothers creationists and yourself the most.


I am willing to bet you pick such a consistent argument against the age of the planet argument, which by itself is a mundane secondary detail compared to the concept of evolution and natural selection...



because you are trying to discredit ANY scientific theory that threatens your Religion... the Bible... Is this your motive?

And what exactly is the "theory" of creation anyway? I have not once heard a description of the "theory" of creation does not involve some supernatural force, or refer to God explicitly or implicitly... The reason why the "theory" of creation has been summarily dismissed is because no one has ever been able to even state the argument without involving supernatural forces, which is not what science is about...

 

I have to emphasise again that science is remarkable for it's adaptability... it provides a way for our ideas to change and refine themselves, or be thrown out completely...

i'll use as an example something completely unrelated to evolution for lack of controversy's sake... atomic theory...

Neils Bohr proposed the Bohr model of the atom... atoms were modeled as solar systems with protons and neutrons at the center with electrons orbiting around like planets, and where electrons can jump between energy levels...

As a model, this helps to understand certain behavior of the atom... but it turned out it was an incomplete model, with several important flaws... however during the course of the 20th century, quantum mechanics challenged and tried to refine Bohr's model...

Now we understand the atom much deeper...

But science as a whole did not implode because of this debate, and the paradigm shift to quantum mechanics... science was able to adapt to new evidence and strong argument.

The same for evolution, science will ensure that the theory simply won't fall apart because you challenge one detail... the theory will be further refined...

This is vastly different from theology... especially fundamentalist theology where the teachings must be interpreted literally... if one detail turns out incorrect, that implies in the mind of the faithful that all of the teachings are incorrect, and all faith threatens to collapse...

 

Actually, you have completely missed the mark. Read up on ID and what it proposes; it accepts an old earth, doesn't propose anything about the first humans being a specific couple, and does not follow the Genesis example of "days", etc. ID is Creationism updated, and, in my view, one more step closer to the day when conservative Christians will accept the idea of evolution as easily as they now accept a round earth or the sun being the center of our solar system.

The most sensible proponents of ID are saying its an idea that should be tested with peer reviewed articles and level headed debate within the scientific community. Who can argue with that?

This is just a friendly caution before you take your views on the road, and not meant as a slam or personal insult. But I have to tell you, shooting from the hip like that is the worst thing you can do. Were you to engage an ID proponent in front of a group of students with this kind of rhetoric, they would leave the room believing in ID. I saw it happen with a group of students, a biology teacher, and Henry Morris. Morris was an excellent public speaker, never once insulted the biology teacher, and "won" the debate because the biology teacher took the tack you did ... insult the opponent instead of addressing the issues. All the kids liked Morris, and then accepted his views ... after all, he did discuss SCIENCE instead of putting words in his opponent's mouth and insulting him.

 

What does answering that question have to do with teaching the accepted theory in school, and not teaching a theory that isn't accepted by any of the experts?

You might get an atheist to admit he doesn't know, or an agnostic to say some supernatural origin may exist, but that doesn't prove anything. It certainly doesn't help fulfill the Great Commission on the one hand, and it doesn't disprove evolution on the other.

You may be thinking that we should tell students that the one unanswered question, "where did the matter come from", should be answered in a science class by a definitive answer ... that God created the matter. But that's the one statement science cannot make. Science can neither prove nor disprove God's existence. Science can only say "We don't know." And guess what? That's exactly what science says.

There are a number of alternative theories to what happened on September 11, 2001. The majority theory is that Al Queda attacked us. A minority theory is that the State of Isreal attacked us so we would get mad at the Arabs. Should that theory be given equal standing in history class next to the other? We believe that Hitler killed many millions, including 6 million Jews. Should we also teach the theory that Hitler only killed a few thousand Jews who were trouble-makers?

A science class teaches science. When the ID people do the work, which they are starting, and get peer reviewed and their theories are tested and proven, it will be taught in science class. Until that time, it cannot.

 

First, tell me which strata this supposed tree cuts across. Then tell me the age of those sediments. Carbon 14 dating cannot be used to date everything. It is used to date things from the relatively recent past. There are several methods for dating objects but each method is only useful for dating things in specific time blocks. Using C14 to date dinosaur fossils, for example, would result in very inaccurate data because the technique is not valid for things that old. The error, when the procedures are done correctly, is pretty small. However, that can translate into many millions of years if you're talking about things that are 4 billion years old.

I think that you're confusing Evolutionary Biologists with Astrophysicists.

Where did you get all of these figures on planetary physiscs? Can you back these claims up?

fshagan:

You are obviously not taking a literal approach to the Bible since you used words like poetry in an earlier post. You're correct about the various Christian interpretations that have developed over the ages (many of those lines of thought drew upon Greek views of the universe) are not really supported by a more careful reading of the Bible. You're obviously taking a more integrated view of science and religion. However, there are many people who read the Bible and accept what it says as literal truth. The seven days and the 6000 years bit. Here their views collide with evolution theory and *presto* there's conflict. I think that quantum theory actually does more to challenge these long held Christian beliefs than evolution does. Quantum strikes at the very core of the deterministic, all knowning God that so many people believe in. I'm surprised that the struggle between free will and determinism doesn't generate more controversy. It seems to strike at the core of what most people consider to be fundamental to their concept of God (i.e God is all knowing).

BTW, how are the ID folks proposing to test ID as a rigorous theory? I'd be interested to hear their plans. Also, assuming that they have a way, how are they going to be able to identify who designed things? Are they going to try to do that?

One thing that I find interesting is that I've never heard of Buddists, Hindus, or anyone other than Christians for that matter, struggling with these issues. Are there such struggles but they just don't get publicised (or published) here? I have no idea. Well it's now 2:00AM, time to rack out.

Cheers,

Tripp

 

4 months ago I saw a petrified acorn...... Millons of years? Live acorns were discarded in the back of a work shop in a bucket of water. After one year they were turned to stone. If it really took millions of years then how did this happen?

It was not all that long ago that many unknow events (or unexplainable) were believed to be "supernatural" predicting eclipse for example. Just because you can't explain the existance of God or "how" he created does not mean that it is relegated to superstition or fairy tails does it? Many who have gone before you made that mistake and we now look back at them and laugh.

You claim to be open minded yet yours is closed. You are most likely one of those people who claim to be tollerant of other views.... hugh? It is amazing how the self proclaimed tollerant and open minded are anything but.

Name one contribution that the theory of evolution has brought to the field of science? Have they contributed to the greater field of quantum physics? Calculus? Chemestry? Geometry? Thermo-science? ect.... Give one law or one learning that has been fundamental to unravling the unknown. Has it helped decode the universe as did the discovery by Mr. Bernuli? For those who ignorantly espouse that evolution is only biological in nature (you really should read what those books are teaching little Johny) Name one discovery that has come from the study of evolution; new drugs? new creatures? perhaps new species? Anything at all?

What I don't understand is this: How can something so useless to the greater body of knowledge be defended and protected so vigerously? Do you really believe that teaching evolution and not teaching creation will some how create inferior students? Inhibit scientific development? End the world? My view is put them side by side and debate them for what they are. It is interesting that 50% of the american public does not believe in evolution. How can this be? Every one of those people have been taught evolution in school, over and over again. Perhaps we should involke taktics like using thought police or burning of books or better yet elimination of those who dare to believe or desire to teach differently. I have a sister in-law that thinks like you (you have steriotyped my thoughts so I will steriotype yours) she believes that every fundamental christian should be rounded up and put in a concentration camp or killed. I must admid, that would certainly make your job easier, just silence the opposite thought.

Look, back to reality for a minute, I don't think you believe like my sister in-law but to extrapolate the destruction of science based on debating or presenting an opposite view to students is paranoid at best.

Many have tried to silence thought in the past, nothing good has come from it and nothing good ever will.

 

First, I do take a literal view of the Bible when the text presents itself in a way to be taken literally. I do not take the massive volumes of poetry contained in the book of Proverbs, Song of Soloman and Psalms literally, otherwise I would think that one of Soloman's wives had teeth that looked like sheep, that God has feathers and wings, and that everything around us in the physical world is really "vanity". Textual criticism requires us to view those statements as non-literal. I believe a careful reading of the two different creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 also require that we view them not as science texts, or even historical accounts, but rather a statement that God did indeed create the heavens and the earth. How he did it is for us to discover, and science is doing that.

Also, I suspect that conservative Islam accepts a type of creationism, as well as conservative Jews (I know some conservative Jews who do). Not the scientists, but the laypeople. The problem is we've presented the issue as "either or", and its not. God is not threatened by truth, even though we sometimes are.

 

I challenge anyone to defend ID on its own "scientific" merits rather than on perceived issues with the theory of evolution!

 

Wow, there are some people here that must've gotten religion shoved down their throats so hard when they were kids (or other orifices :lol: ), such that they now have a chip on their shoulders regarding it, and scoff at anyone who might see otherwise...

I am not a religious person by any means, but I sure as heck wouldn't simply "discount" various thoughts/idea's just because I can't sit around and construct a grand experiment around it so I can make myself believe it MUST be true, it's a matter of faith (as is the idea of physical "money" in your bank account ). Conversely, what does a scientist have in the absence of a "law"? Yup, a THEORY. I would have to say any "scientist" that completely dismisses religion has no more integrity than one who turns a blind eye to an opposing viewpoint on the basis it has the potential to compromise their work.

Maybe when someone/some scientist somewhere comprehends infinity to an infinite degree, then, they can start taking pot shots at religion...

Now, pardon me while I go contemplate zero...


h34r:

 

The accumulated knowledge of mankind, scientific and not, is "its own reward". A principle of physics doesn't have to lead to a Manhattan Project---or to a better Prius---to have "value". It must also be acknowledged that many people---most?---do not think very "abstractly", and do not value knowledge "for its own sake". This fact, and the lack of this ability on the part of many, has always been an impediment to the educational process. Ask any teacher.

At least some study of evolution addresses man's desire to understand "who he is", including "where he came from" and "how he got here". Again, many do not worry themselves with these questions. But many do, too.

A sizeable portion of evolutionary study now employs the study of RNA, as found in the traces of past life forms as well as present ones. Among other things, genetic "markers" now enable the readers of this code to trace individuals back centuries to a point of geographic origin.

Is such knowledge irrelevant, and even devoid of interest, to you? If so, so be it, but it's of interest to many.

Cellular mutation is not completely unpredictable. We know that as viruses evolve, they adapt to new environments, and may mutate to escape a particular environment. Have you heard of avian flu?

If these things pique your interest, may I suggest you try reading The Ancestor's Tale, by Richard Dawkins. It's a fascinating overview of all animal and plant evolution, working backward from the present to the earliest speculated times. It's scholarly, with hundreds of references, yet written for the lay person. Dawkins is very frank himself in pointing out many current gaps in evolutionary knowledge, most of which result from the forces of geology and the rates of decomposition of various substances.

If you need something more concrete, you can always watch "Jurassic Park" again. Yet even Spielberg will admit that we still have no clue what COLORS various dinosaur species were! They have to guess. Oh, well.


Edit: oops, the underline didn't turn off. Don't know how to undo all that without possibly losing it. Too lazy to do it over. My aplogogies.