one in three teachers says teach creationism alongside evolution

[franksolich]

Those who put belief over knowledge.....

There is nothing in this time and place that can be identified as concrete ultimate final truth, or knowledge. 

We believe what we see (or hear or touch or whatever), but given that understanding the Infinite (God, reality, truth) is impossible for finite and limited humans--or even the amassed cerebral capacity of all humans who exist, and have existed--our perceptions of things are limited, and probably even distorted.

I believe in evolution--as said many times before, it all makes sense to me--but it's a belief, not a certainty.  I believe that when I walk on the sidewalk, one leg will move ahead of the other.  But it's a belief, not a certainty.  I believe the sun will rise from the east in the morning, as it has without exception since the beginning of time, but it's a belief, not an absolute final certainty.

[Chris_]

There is nothing in this time and place that can be identified as concrete ultimate final truth, or knowledge. 

We believe what we see (or hear or touch or whatever), but given that understanding the Infinite (God, reality, truth) is impossible for finite and limited humans--or even the amassed cerebral capacity of all humans who exist, and have existed--our perceptions of things are limited, and probably even distorted.

I believe in evolution--as said many times before, it all makes sense to me--but it's a belief, not a certainty.  I believe that when I walk on the sidewalk, one leg will move ahead of the other.  But it's a belief, not a certainty.  I believe the sun will rise from the east in the morning, as it has without exception since the beginning of time, but it's a belief, not an absolute final certainty.

Coach, the nature of knowledge and belief is interesting, but doesn't help.  As I said earlier, for all intents and purposes, "believing" in TToE is like "believing" in Gravity.  It just is, irrespective of the belief system of the observer.

If you want to teach kids to doubt everything, fine.  To point out a scientific fact as a specific something to doubt -- not so good.

[franksolich]

If you want to teach kids to doubt everything, fine.  To point out a scientific fact as a specific something to doubt -- not so good.

We're having a, uh, communication problem here.

You say "scientific fact" as if it's real.

I say "scientific fact" is a belief, and not necessarily real.

[Chris_]

We're having a, uh, communication problem here.

You say "scientific fact" as if it's real.

I say "scientific fact" is a belief, and not necessarily real.

As long as you treat all scientific facts the same and don't single any out for special mistreatment.

[franksolich]

As long as you treat all scientific facts the same and don't single any out for special mistreatment.

Of course all "scientific facts" should be subjected to vigorous and constant question.

The problem is that when one accepts something as the "final truth," he boxes himself in, in his way of thinking.  He can't see things beyond standard textbook definitions.

I recently read something that illustrates this; the diaries of an Englishwoman who was a nurse in the Russian army in 1915.

Most of us have at least a faint idea of conditions in the Russian army at the time; underfed, underarmed, badly officered, notoriously corrupt, and the Austro-Hungarian army constantly shoving them back, back, back (in 1915).

The nurse recorded a rather lengthy description of when the medical personnel, such as it was, was confronted with thousands of bleeding men, thousands of men in pain and agony.

The physicians said, "We can't do anything; we've got no bandages for bleeding, no morphine for pain."

I suppose we would all agree that bandages are best for controlling bleeding, and morphine is best for subduing pain.

But what if one has no bandages, no morphine?

Someone with a rigid narrow-minded way of thinking would then say, "Well, it's very sad, and it's all too bad, but these guys are just going to have lay down and die."

Because they can't possibly conceive of any solution, other than the standard textbook solution.

But as the nurse related in meticulous detail, there appeared at the field-hospital a tall, gaunt Russian Orthodox monk, who went among the wounded, using.....hypnosis.

He of course couldn't restore a missing limb, but his hypnosis appeared to staunch bleeding and alleviate pain.  Hypnosis of course wasn't as good as bandages and morphine, but it was something, when the other choice was nothing.

It would never occur to a "scientific" physician that anything short of bandages and morphine would do any good; that there existed alternatives.

It's always healthy to think outside the box, even if one runs the risk of being thought of as iconoclastic.

[Chris_]

Of course all "scientific facts" should be subjected to vigorous and constant question.

The problem is that when one accepts something as the "final truth," he boxes himself in, in his way of thinking.  He can't see things beyond standard textbook definitions.

I recently read something that illustrates this; the diaries of an Englishwoman who was a nurse in the Russian army in 1915.

Most of us have at least a faint idea of conditions in the Russian army at the time; underfed, underarmed, badly officered, notoriously corrupt, and the Austro-Hungarian army constantly shoving them back, back, back (in 1915).

The nurse recorded a rather lengthy description of when the medical personnel, such as it was, was confronted with thousands of bleeding men, thousands of men in pain and agony.

The physicians said, "We can't do anything; we've got no bandages for bleeding, no morphine for pain."

I suppose we would all agree that bandages are best for controlling bleeding, and morphine is best for subduing pain.

But what if one has no bandages, no morphine?

Someone with a rigid narrow-minded way of thinking would then say, "Well, it's very sad, and it's all too bad, but these guys are just going to have lay down and die."

Because they can't possibly conceive of any solution, other than the standard textbook solution.

But as the nurse related in meticulous detail, there appeared at the field-hospital a tall, gaunt Russian Orthodox monk, who went among the wounded, using.....hypnosis.

He of course couldn't restore a missing limb, but his hypnosis appeared to staunch bleeding and alleviate pain.  Hypnosis of course wasn't as good as bandages and morphine, but it was something, when the other choice was nothing.

It would never occur to a "scientific" physician that anything short of bandages and morphine would do any good; that there existed alternatives.

It's always healthy to think outside the box, even if one runs the risk of being thought of as iconoclastic.

Again, great philosophical points.  Don't let the term "scientific fact" throw you -- I again point you to my upthread definition.  ALL scientific axioms are up for grabs at all times. 

But if you don't have those axioms/facts you can't build.

[franksolich]

But if you don't have those axioms/facts you can't build.

Ah, but one can build on faith alone.

My whole life, and I'm sure the lives of everybody else, are perfect examples of this.

[MrsSmith]

He (God) had no problem with faith during the time covered in the Old Testament.  He talked to everyone, did amazing acts, destroyed civilizations, etc...  Yet all of a sudden (once the religions start to become organized) it all shifts to faith.

During a time when humanity didn't number a fraction of what it was, he made himself known to everyone time and time again, yet during a time when the world is exploding with humans, and religions number more then any of us know, with countless people not adhering to the "one true faith", it is all supposed to be based off of faith and word passed down by one man 2,000 years ago.

Doesn't make much sense to me.

I'm not going to get back into much of this, I've seen these arguments go for hundreds of posts.  But your point, djones, is somewhat off.  During much of the Old Testament, God made Himself known to the Children of Israel, though we see that some others also believed, like Rahab.  Just as now, those who chose to believe could "find" Him, but those that chose to look away were allowed to reject Him.

Since the Resurrection and Pentecost, those that choose to believe have the Holy Spirit.  There is quite a bit more to it than faith and the word of one man.  If it doesn't make sense to you, then you haven't looked into it enough.

[Chris_]

How long is a "day" to God? A single revolution of the Earth? The Galexy? The Universe? The Creator is not obliged to give us this information, if we want to know, exactly, we are obliged to figure it out.

I see no reason to believe that God is bound by our concept of time.  God is timeless.  I do laugh though, when I hear people say they believe God created everything, but he couldn't possibly have done it in six days.   

[USA4ME]

How about those who believe the world was created by a Great Bear?  Or those who believe in a pantheon? Those who believe that demigods created the world and guide the weather? Who gets to judge which belief is better? You?

Tell you what, if there's enough people who believe that demigods created the world to guide the weather, we'll deal with it at that time.  Until then, there are a overwhelming number who believe God created the universe, and that is the matter at hand.

As far as belief over knowledge, if the question is do I believe God when His scriptures say he created the universe in 6 days or do I believe science when it says it happened over millions of years, that's easy to answer.  I'll take God's Word over science any day.  If I were to take science over God, and knowing what I know without question to be the truth, I'd be just as well off not even bother believing in God at all, because the end result of where I would spend eternity would be the same place.  I might as well eat, drink, and be merry and enjoy it while it lasts since things wouldn't be so great where I'd end up.

.

[Peter3_1]

luh-nut, I go back on my word:
http://www.gummy-stuff.org/M-theory.htm
 

[Woody]

As long as you treat all scientific facts the same and don't single any out for special mistreatment.

"Scientific fact" is a moving target that represents the best description of what we can prove at a given time.  At one point, it was "proven" that a top-fuel dragster was limited to a certain best time.  Then the dragsters started beating that time.  The engineers and scientists scratched their heads, and realized that they should have used shear friction as opposed to boundary friction, as the tire was actually sticking to the road, and shearing itself off as it spun.  (My terms may not be exact; I'm not an engineer.)  So the "scientific fact" of the day changed.  The vast majority of scientific facts have changed over time as science got better. 

As for evolution, it's a good theory that explains just about everything.  I believe in it.  Why is it so difficult for some folks to let it be challenged?  If the evolutionists are right (and I think they are), then science will prove them right. 

(BTW, I do believe in God as the prime mover.  I also think He's clever enough that He won't leave any fingerprints behind.  After all, if you had proof, then belief wouldn't really require any faith, would it?) 

[MrsSmith]

"Scientific fact" is a moving target that represents the best description of what we can prove at a given time.  At one point, it was "proven" that a top-fuel dragster was limited to a certain best time.  Then the dragsters started beating that time.  The engineers and scientists scratched their heads, and realized that they should have used shear friction as opposed to boundary friction, as the tire was actually sticking to the road, and shearing itself off as it spun.  (My terms may not be exact; I'm not an engineer.)  So the "scientific fact" of the day changed.  The vast majority of scientific facts have changed over time as science got better. 

As for evolution, it's a good theory that explains just about everything.  I believe in it.  Why is it so difficult for some folks to let it be challenged?  If the evolutionists are right (and I think they are), then science will prove them right. 

(BTW, I do believe in God as the prime mover.  I also think He's clever enough that He won't leave any fingerprints behind.  After all, if you had proof, then belief wouldn't really require any faith, would it?) 

Of course, the Holy Spirit does provide proof. 

[Chris_]

Tell you what, if there's enough people who believe that demigods created the world to guide the weather, we'll deal with it at that time.  Until then, there are a overwhelming number who believe God created the universe, and that is the matter at hand.

Ah, so your concept of science is that the majority belief rules.  The fact that over a BILLION people believe in Demigods means you lose.

As far as belief over knowledge, if the question is do I believe God when His scriptures say he created the universe in 6 days or do I believe science when it says it happened over millions of years, that's easy to answer.  I'll take God's Word over science any day.  If I were to take science over God, and knowing what I know without question to be the truth, I'd be just as well off not even bother believing in God at all, because the end result of where I would spend eternity would be the same place.  I might as well eat, drink, and be merry and enjoy it while it lasts since things wouldn't be so great where I'd end up.

.

You speak and read Aramaic and Greek?  Who knew?

Which Genesis story do you believe?  You know they directly conflict, right?
 

[Chris_]

Of course, the Holy Spirit does provide proof.  :-)

The Holy Spirit provides faith.

[MrsSmith]

The Holy Spirit provides faith.

Not really.  You can have faith in all kinds of things...for example, you have faith in scientific discoveries.  The Holy Spirit provides a certainty that is more than just faith.

[MrsSmith]

Which Genesis story do you believe?  You know they directly conflict, right?
 

No, they don't.

[Chris_]

Not really.  You can have faith in all kinds of things...for example, you have faith in scientific discoveries.  The Holy Spirit provides a certainty that is more than just faith.

I have knowledge of science.  I have faith in God.

And if you don't "believe in" science, you really shouldn't be using it -- like them thar evil computers.

[Chris_]

No, they don't.

They most certainly do. Compare Genesis I to Genesis II.

And the version of the Old Testament the Jews use conflicts with the version most Christians use.

And I would say .000001% of all Christians have read the "original" in its original language.  And that figure hits 0% here.
 

[MrsSmith]

They most certainly do. Compare Genesis I to Genesis II.

And the version of the Old Testament the Jews use conflicts with the version most Christians use.

And I would say .000001% of all Christians have read the "original" in its original language.  And that figure hits 0% here.
 

Telling the same story from a different angle, with a different emphasis, is not a conflict.

I have no idea what percentage of Christians have learned Hebrew, but I do know that it's taught in most seminaries, and many Christian schools give courses.  My husband and step-daughters have all had some instruction in the language.  Biblical translators know it very well.   The most accurate translation is the NASB, which is written at a college-age reading level for the greatest accuracy and the best possible understanding.  It is likely to be far more helpful to read the best possible translation in the language you understand than to try to stumble through a language you don't know well.  (Probably the reason the apostles all spoke in "each person's native language" on Pentecost, huh?)  Having done some translating in both Spanish and Russian, I prefer to read the translation done by the person who KNOWS the language rather than guessing through it myself.  It's like the way we can study a wonderful scientific discovery made by someone in Japan without having to learn to read and understand Japanese first. 

[MrsSmith]

I have knowledge of science.  I have faith in God.

And if you don't "believe in" science, you really shouldn't be using it -- like them thar evil computers.

Oh, I believe in science.  I believe in electronics, also.  I just don't believe that either science or electronics are always perfect.  I believe science has made many wonderful discoveries.  As always, the greatest downfall is that people believe that today's science is mostly all correct.  In a couple decades, we'll know better.  In a couple hundred years, we'll look as dumb as the witch-hunters.  Having a knowledge of today's science is great.  Believing that today's science knows more than God...not so great.

[Chris_]

Telling the same story from a different angle, with a different emphasis, is not a conflict.

I have no idea what percentage of Christians have learned Hebrew, but I do know that it's taught in most seminaries, and many Christian schools give courses.  My husband and step-daughters have all had some instruction in the language.  Biblical translators know it very well.   The most accurate translation is the NASB, which is written at a college-age reading level for the greatest accuracy and the best possible understanding.  It is likely to be far more helpful to read the best possible translation in the language you understand than to try to stumble through a language you don't know well.  (Probably the reason the apostles all spoke in "each person's native language" on Pentecost, huh?)  Having done some translating in both Spanish and Russian, I prefer to read the translation done by the person who KNOWS the language rather than guessing through it myself.  It's like the way we can study a wonderful scientific discovery made by someone in Japan without having to learn to read and understand Japanese first. 

The Bible was not written in Hebrew.  And there are HUGE differences between the source language and interpretive language - as you of all people should know. The cultural background implicit in the language can not be eliminated from a highly connotative matter such as religion.

Science uses standard languages: English and German.  And it uses a standard protocol that is he same for all languages. To publish in a science you have to follow specific steps and explain each step. It also must be reproducible and is required to be peer-reviewed.  That pretty much eliminates linguistic drift.

Until someone can tell me they have read the Old testament in its original language, they can't tell me they take the word of the Bible over anything factual.

The Bible is a theological text -- it is God telling us how to live our lives, not how physical laws work.

[Chris_]

Oh, I believe in science.  I believe in electronics, also.  I just don't believe that either science or electronics are always perfect.  I believe science has made many wonderful discoveries.  As always, the greatest downfall is that people believe that today's science is mostly all correct.  In a couple decades, we'll know better.  In a couple hundred years, we'll look as dumb as the witch-hunters.  Having a knowledge of today's science is great.  Believing that today's science knows more than God...not so great.

No one has claimed science knows more than God -- that particular strawman is always irritating.

For the last time -- science is SILENT on God. It is a tool we use tro explain the physical Universe God provided.

As far as your other strawman -- the idea ANYONE says science is "perfect" -- that also misrepresents my statements and the scientific process. Science has built-in mechanisms to correct itself.  The scientific METHOD probably won't change in millenia. 

We saw that in action when Eisenstein laws of gravity replaced Newtonian laws in the science world. And the theory of Gravity is still being hotly debated.

But apples still fell from trees, despite the change of the theory.  And man still evolved from lower life forms, no matter how many laypeople don't like that idea.  In fact, the more data we gather (you know there are BILLIONS of data points now, right?  None of which contravene TToE), the more it is clear that TToE is broadly accurate.

[MrsSmith]

The Bible was not written in Hebrew.  And there are HUGE differences between the source language and interpretive language - as you of all people should know. The cultural background implicit in the language can not be eliminated from a highly connotative matter such as religion.

Science uses standard languages: English and German.  And it uses a standard protocol that is he same for all languages. To publish in a science you have to follow specific steps and explain each step. It also must be reproducible and is required to be peer-reviewed.  That pretty much eliminates linguistic drift.

Until someone can tell me they have read the Old testament in its original language, they can't tell me they take the word of the Bible over anything factual.

The Bible is a theological text -- it is God telling us how to live our lives, not how physical laws work.

Genesis was written in Hebrew, and that was the specific topic.  

I confess that I find your attitude to reading the Bible in "it's original language" somewhat amusing, given that tons of scientific discoveries, both true and untrue, were written in many languages besides English and German, and you, no doubt, know all about them without ever learning, say, Latin.  

The Bible is theological, among other things.  God didn't write us a science textbook, but He did tell us some of what He did.  Ignoring what He tells us of His actions is foolish.  Believing that our current science knows everything is foolish.  Believing that we have facts that are more accurate than God's knowledge is extremely foolish.  When our science finally gets everything right, we will find that it fits perfectly with God's statements.  Until then, we're not completely right.

[Chris_]

No one has claimed science knows more than God -- that particular strawman is always irritating.  You mean like the "angels holding up airplanes?  That strawman?  

For the last time -- science is SILENT on God. It is a tool we use tro explain the physical Universe God provided.

As far as your other strawman -- the idea ANYONE says science is "perfect" -- that also misrepresents my statements and the scientific process. Science has built-in mechanisms to correct itself.  The scientific METHOD probably won't change in millenia. 

We saw that in action when Eisenstein laws of gravity replaced Newtonian laws in the science world. And the theory of Gravity is still being hotly debated.

But apples still fell from trees, despite the change of the theory.  And man still evolved from lower life forms, no matter how many laypeople don't like that idea.  In fact, the more data we gather (you know there are BILLIONS of data points now, right?  None of which contravene TToE), the more it is clear that TToE is broadly accurate.

So you refuse to accept that God spoke man into existence, right?