<p>JHSU, I’ve actually heard a Ph.D. physicist explain in esoteric [to me] quantum terms how the Big Bang could happen spontaneously without anything Before. I admit I got a headache and while I juggle notions of singularities outside of time about as well as I do oranges [not very well], this sort of fried my brain.</p>
<p>Mony, my apology: I misunderstood your point. <bows></bows></p>
<p>The real issue is not whether evolutionary theory is right or creationism is right, but which one is science and therefore should be taught in a science class. As mentioned earlier, scientific theories all are admittedly replaceable in the face of certain data, including evolutionary theory. What data would creationists accept that would persuade them to replace the intelligent design conjecture with an alternative explanation? There are none. Accordingly, creationism is not science, it is faith. Does that make it incorrect, no, it just means it is not science and should not be taught as such. A God may be creating puzzles moment-to-moment, the fun of science is to make sense of the pieces.</p>
<p>““I think God put all this evidence for evolution here to test my faith. I believe the Bible is correct. After all, an omnipotent God could have created you, me, and everything else–including half-decayed uranium–ten minutes ago, and we couldn’t tell the difference, could we?””</p>
<p>I’m sorry that this is slightly off topic, but does that mean that only the very intelligent and very stupid can be ‘saved?’ If I commit the fallacy of trusting my senses and my reason, then I’m screwed. That doesn’t seem just. </p>
<p>I’m not a religious person, so it’s impossible for me to understand how one can hold a belief so securely that no concievable event could ever alter it. After all, it seems unlikely to me that a strongly religious person would ever lose faith in whatever diety(s) he/she believes in. Because of that, I can’t sympathize with or understand beliefs that are based on the notion that percieved reality is false and that the truth is apparently independent of all physical processes and logic.</p>
<p>NoMir–well, my friend believes that all of us would be saved if we gave our lives over to his God. </p>
<p>I happen to disagree, and my agnostic faith follows the tenets of the Unitarian-Universalist church, which believes firmly in reason (the UU creed is “Faith, Reason, Tolerance”). And that living right is the key to life.</p>
<p>I’m sure at some point you’ve seent the “proof” that all of us are going to hell? You have to choose how <em>you</em> want to live and what <em>you</em> want to believe and then live accordingly.</p>
<p>Which is what makes the “tolerance” part of life so very important—and so difficult for so many of us to follow.</p>
<p>What I have learned to do, is realize that when people talk about going to hell if we don’t believe the way they do, that is THEIR hell. Its not mine. I don’t have a hell. </p>
<p>I ask if they think Mother Theresa is in hell, as she wasn’t Born Again. If they say yes, I just sigh and walk away. There is nothing more to be said.</p>
<p>In 9th grade dd was very surprised to find religious kids at school wondering about this. Here is an article in Scientific American that may be useful.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF[/url]”>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF</a></p>
<p>Bettina, Thank you for the article. The term “theory” has always thrown me a bit, as it does have the connotation of unproven hypothesis. I think what makes this whole issue volatile is not our personal belief, but how science is taught to our children in school. I, personally, don’t find my faith in God threatened by any scientific facts. I really don’t believe it’s an “either-or” scenario. Children certainly shouldn’t feel like a traitor to the faith if they believe scientific fact.</p>
<p>That was fascinating, Bettina. Thanks for posting.</p>
<p>Dinosaurs. That one word breaks the theory of Creationism pretty quick. If man was created right away they couldn’t have coexisted with Dino’s and the Dino’s lived for millions of years. Hence man and Dinosaurs weren’t created at the same time, nor did they live at the same time, and the theory of the seven day creation breaks down pretty quick.</p>
<p>bigndude: but you see, the creationists can argue that dinosaurs are false evidence put there to test their faith.</p>
<p>As part of my master’s degree (in science education), we were asked to survey the other master’s students (graduate students in various areas of education) to determine how many of them believed that humans were specifically created in God’s form. Over 50%. Some of that 50% believed that the rest of the animals were created by evolution, but we humans were special.</p>
<p>Most science teachers may believe in evolution, but unfortunately many of the other teachers in our kids’ classrooms don’t.</p>
<p>Some of you may find the following thread interesting. It doesn’t seem to be as back-slappingly-self-satisfied as this one. </p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=27189&highlight=EVOLUTION[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=27189&highlight=EVOLUTION</a></p>
<p>orthodoxy, what a concept!</p>
<p>Question for scientists out there (really a question-I’m not being combative, but I really haven’t studied this): Is there physical evidence of transitional life forms, evolution from one species to another? I’m not addressing natural section, changes over time within species. And, are species still evolving into something else (I wouldn’t think evolution just kinda stopped!) If there is physical evidence, no educator in the world that could argue against teaching evolution as fact. You wouldn’t have to “believe in evolution” any more than you’d say you “believe in chromosomes”. Fact would be fact. If there are no discovered transitional life forms… well, that would take a leap of “faith” then. You’d have to make some assumptions.</p>
<p>It occurs to me that something relevant to this discussion is the fact that one should never confuse poetic truth with scientific truth. Two different domains. I slip back and forth between them so much that sometime I forget that many folks stop to have their passports stamped.</p>
<p>The single best source I have found on the topic of evolution is [url=<a href=“http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html][i]HERE[/i][/url”>The Talk.Origins Archive: Arguments against Creationism and Intelligent Design FAQs]HERE[/url</a>]. Take special note of the [url=<a href=“http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html][i]“Indext”>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html]*"Indext</a> To Creationist Claims”*<a href=“and%20rebuttals”>/url</a>.</p>
<p>Evolution is not something to be believed in. In is something to be convinced by. Before filing your complaint, check the database and speak with an evolutionary biologist. If you remain unconvinced on scientific grounds, then invest yourself in finding a viable alternative hypothesis. Good luck.</p>
<p>EDIT: I left out one (rhetorical) question-- Fundamentalist Christians take issue with The Big Bang creating something from what many assume was “nothing”. How can they say this without cognitive dissonance? Did G-d not come from nowhere? If everything is cause and effect, a claim creationists rightfully leverage against the scientific community, then where is G-d’s creator? It is an infinite regression. Currently, scientists agree that The Big Bang is the best model for our universe’s beginning. In science classes, it is the theory to be taught. End of story.</p>
<p>To those that say: “I think God put all this evidence for evolution here to test my faith. I believe the Bible is correct. After all, an omnipotent God could have created you, me, and everything else–including half-decayed uranium–ten minutes ago, and we couldn’t tell the difference, could we?”</p>
<p>My best response is one that Galileo Galilei so kindly provided: “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”</p>
<p>Nom, Very good website - thanks.</p>
<p>Nom, people, etc,</p>
<p>Interestingly, the web site “Indext To Creationist Claims” reminds me a great deal of religious web sites trying to uphold the opposite and more time-tested faith–perhaps more typical of scientism than science but in a long and well-honed tradition nonetheless.</p>
<p>It’s good to know there are ardent people out there defending their dogmas; for the record, IMHO, evolution is the best current explanation of the species and works for me. It’s just rather interesting that those who feel the need to defend evolution as the only rational explanation of the species sound very much like the simple (fundamentalist) people of faith they are so vexed and indignant about.</p>
<p>I cant wait until science proves that LOVE is just a chemical response to an economic pro-creative activity and the know-it-all progressive daggers come out to defend against those anachronistic and lug-headed romantic-types who wont let go of the non-scientific and retrograde myth of Love (I still capitalize it, like God).</p>
<p>“It’s just rather interesting that those who feel the need to defend evolution as the only rational explanation of the species sound very much like the simple (fundamentalist) people of faith they are so vexed and indignant about.”</p>
<p>Woodwork, Very insightful! It is rare to encounter an individual with whom you can intelligently discuss this topic without getting a rabid response (one way or the other). Are there any intellectuals left who will approach this issue with a mind truly open to facts, rather than having their mind made up, circling their wagons to defend their position?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Only him/her, apparently. I’m too jaded to stay my guns.</p>
<p>Things that bother me in the argument over evolution</p>
<p>Theory Vs. Fact: From my understanding, we can consider the basic tenets of evolution given by Darwin as being facts. These are such tenets as natural selection and adaptation. These have been observed and recorded over a large span of time for both animals and for plants. What is theory in evolution would be the specifics of species changes , such as in human evolution how they used to think there were fewer species changes than they do now, and they used to consider it a straight line. New evidence suggests this wasn’t quite the case. Too many people latch on to the word theory, applying it to the whole of evolution and giving it, as someone already stated, it’s common meaning rather than it’s scientific.</p>
<p>Where evolution occured and when it “stopped”: Here I’m not referring to geography but to the fact that so many people hear the word evolution and immediately jump to human evolution. Other animals evolved too, and still are evolving. We’re still evolving. Evolution is too often referred to as something that happened. In reality, it’s something that IS happening.</p>
<p>Religion and Science are the same thing: The people who expound creation science appear ignorant to me. They are neighter knowledgable about religion. Nor are they knowledgeable about science. They betray both worlds. If they must call religion science to back it, they are showing doubt in their faith, whether they realize it or not. If they treat science as religion, they insult it’s whole purpose which is not to accept things on faith but to test everything.</p>
<p>These are only a few things. I must add that I do not have a grudge against creationists if they accept that their belief is religious faith. I only bristle at the mention of “creation science.”</p>