Divine rain vs. meteorological precipitation

[Pats]

evolution is a scientific explanation of man's origins...

That's a very good point. It is a scientific explanation.

 

[Dannager]

"..evolution is a scientific explanation of man's origins,..."

Thank you thank you thank you. I've been anxious to hear someone finally express the whole evolution enchilada. Other TE's claim that they believe that God used evolution only to tinker with species. Thanks for being completely honest!

Man, what? Evolution is a scientific explanation for man's origins. And dogs' origins. And lizards' origins. And dinosaurs' origins. And cockroaches' origins. Evolution is not a scientific explanation for life's origins. Don't build another strawman here.

 

[Dannager]

That's a very good point. It is a scientific explanation.

Yup. Evolution is a scientific explanation. This means that, as it is by far the best-evidenced explanation we have, it belongs in science classrooms. Creationism and Intelligent Design are not scientific explanations. They are supernatural explanations. They do not belong in science classrooms. Myself and most others who support evolution have no problem with the supernatural belief in creation. It's not falsifiable, so you're free to believe it all you want. It's not science, though, and it's not parsimonious. What we have problems with are those who attempt to dress up creationism as something it isn't and push it on students who aren't capable of discerning the truth. That's what the Intelligent Design movement is (or was - it seems to be in rather poor health at this point).

 

[shernren]

"..evolution is a scientific explanation of man's origins,..."

Thank you thank you thank you. I've been anxious to hear someone finally express the whole evolution enchilada. Other TE's claim that they believe that God used evolution only to tinker with species. Thanks for being completely honest!

Woohoo! I'm being quoted out of context to disprove a point evolutionists don't even disagree with! I can join the Evolutionist Hall of Fame right alongside S.J. Gould and Niles Eldridge!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What I am saying is that similarly, just because evolution is a scientific explanation of man's origins, doesn't mean that evolution excludes God from the picture, any more than meteorology excludes God from the picture of weather.

Above is your whole quote, in context.

You are still using the connection between meteorological weather and God influenced weather to form a connection between evolution, as science defines it, and creation. Implicit in your statement is your acceptance of what science considers to be 'evolution'.

The wording of your statement also indicates primacy of science over God.

Also, the scientific explanation of man's origin doesn't accept divine creation, and although you didn't qualify meteorological weather as 'scientific' meteorological weather, by inference you did. And they don't accept divine interference either.

What I am saying is that I am doubtful that TE's believe in God directed evolution, but rather the same evolution that science believes in, and God is not included in that theory. God is tossed a crumb here and there but the lions share of the credit for the creation goes to evolution and 'natural' phenomena.

 

[Pats]

Yup. Evolution is a scientific explanation. This means that, as it is by far the best-evidenced explanation we have, it belongs in science classrooms. Creationism and Intelligent Design are not scientific explanations. They are supernatural explanations. They do not belong in science classrooms. Myself and most others who support evolution have no problem with the supernatural belief in creation. It's not falsifiable, so you're free to believe it all you want. It's not science, though, and it's not parsimonious. What we have problems with are those who attempt to dress up creationism as something it isn't and push it on students who aren't capable of discerning the truth. That's what the Intelligent Design movement is (or was - it seems to be in rather poor health at this point).

My problem is that some evolutionary concepts are given more credit than they deserve when they are presented to these young and impressionable minds. There are a lot of holes in the theory of common ancestory, and those are not being looked at objectively in the classroom. Instead, it is just presented as fact.

We had a student recently post about the Big Bang theory being taught at her school as a fact without any reasoning or backing, just a mention that this is how the universe began and they moved on.

Is that really teaching science?

Science is a process of exploration. It has discovered evidence that scientists have interpreted in different ways. If the actual science was being presented, along with support for theories and missing information from theories, it would be objective. But it isn't presented in a truly scientific, objective fashion. Children are taught the conclusions of scientists as facts.

That is my issue with it.

As far as ID goes, we could've come from Martians.. so don't get me started on that one.

 

[KerrMetric]

There are a lot of holes in the theory of common ancestory, and those are not being looked at objectively in the classroom. Instead, it is just presented as fact.

And you would know this how?

This is one of my biggest problems with this whole debate. You are basing this not of your work and/or education but because a pastor or some whacky internet site says something you want to hear.

We had a student recently post about the Big Bang theory being taught at her school as a fact without any reasoning or backing, just a mention that this is how the universe began and they moved on.

Is that really teaching science?

If the Big Bang Theory is taught then it should be taught with reasoning and backing since it wouldn't exist if there was no such evidence. The Big Bang theory is technically not a theory of origins but a statement about the evidence with respect to early times after the creation.

Science is a process of exploration. It has discovered evidence that scientists have interpreted in different ways. If the actual science was being presented, along with support for theories and missing information from theories, it would be objective. But it isn't presented in a truly scientific, objective fashion. Children are taught the conclusions of scientists as facts.

And again you know this how? How do you know that actual science isn't being presented? What skills and knowledge do you posess that enable you to conclude this? How can you tell the difference between good and bad science?

In other words, do you know what you are talking about?

 

[Pats]

And you would know this how?

This is one of my biggest problems with this whole debate. You are basing this not of your work and/or education but because a pastor or some whacky internet site says something you want to hear.

In my experience, one of my problems when discussing these issues with MD's, and other highly educated people, is that this education gets in the way of the discussion. Some of these people automaticlly assume they are superior and of superior intelect than others.

In fact, I am basing this statement on books that I have read both by creationists and secular. I wouldn't mind going into specifics, but why bother? You don't.... You don't seem to need to explain your positions to me or anyone else in this post or any of the others I've read.

I do not know why you post here, Kerr. You don't back up what you have to say, we're just all supposed to take it as fact because you're a scientist. You don't want to bother explaining it because you don't think we'd understand it anyway.....

If the Big Bang Theory is taught then it should be taught with reasoning and backing

Agreed.

And again you know this how? How do you know that actual science isn't being presented? What skills and knowledge do you posess that enable you to conclude this? How can you tell the difference between good and bad science?

In other words, do you know what you are talking about?

For starter, and this is a history issue, they only recently starting teaching children that Christopher Columbus did not discover America. Since there were already people here, I am glad they've finally come to that conclustion.

As far as science goes, I think of numerous examples where the evidence is being presented with as much objectivity toward common ancestory as AiG has toward creation. I know this because I've read my 7th grader's science book.

I am saying there is enough question on the subject to present it more theoretically than as fact.

However, as a humble Financial Services Rep. who has only read a few books and is here on this forum to try and understand it better, I have no place to talk or bother posting compared with you? Is that whay you're saying?

 

[KerrMetric]

In my experience, one of my problems when discussing these issues with MD's, and other highly educated people, is that this education gets in the way of the discussion. Some of these people automaticlly assume they are superior and of superior intelect than others.

No but actually knowing the material as opposed to never studying it is a valid point. Especially when you see very basic errors made that highlights this fact.

How can education get in the way of discussion when it is a lack of education that gets in the way. This is typical (and very American I might add) anti-intellectualism rearing its head.

In fact, I am basing this statement on books that I have read both by creationists and secular. I wouldn't mind going into specifics, but why bother? You don't.... You don't seem to need to explain your positions to me or anyone else in this post or any of the others I've read.

Actually, I have in the past posted very long and specific answers to some of the points raised. I usually do that when the posts get into the scientific detail.

I do not know why you post here, Kerr. You don't back up what you have to say, we're just all supposed to take it as fact because you're a scientist.

As I mentioned above, I have frequently gone into the details on the science side but I find, quite frankly, it goes over the heads of most on here. They want the debate to remain in sound bites and cartoon science and don't want to put the time or thought into the science itself.

Don't take what I say as fact, though I don't lie, take it as a branching point to use resources at hand (i.e. the internet) and check what I or others say and see if it holds up.

You don't want to bother explaining it because you don't think we'd understand it anyway.....

Unfortunately this actually seems to be the case much of the time. What is the good of explaining radioactive decay and isochronal methodology when they ignore anything if it isn't in Genesis.

For starter, and this is a history issue, they only recently starting teaching children that Christopher Columbus did not discover America. Since there were already people here, I am glad they've finally come to that conclustion.

Strange, I was taught that in the 1960's.

As far as science goes, I think of numerous examples where the evidence is being presented with as much objectivity toward common ancestory as AiG has toward creation. I know this because I've read my 7th grader's science book.

I will not deny that school level texts are often terrible though there is a factor at work here most seem to gloss over. If you truly had to present science then kids would never learn a thing.

You don't teach mathematics to 5 year olds based upon set theory do you? There are concepts more basic than counting numbers and the fundamental arithmetic operations but it would mean kids never learned to count or add or multiply - they'd be bogged down in abtractions. Similarly when teaching science to kids you cannot tell a full picture has they don't have the machinery in place to really follow and separate the important from the minutae.

Take the Big Bang for instance. We know that the universe at the earliest times was in a hot dense state and that it is expanding. But do we for 14 year olds go into the details of how we know this, do we go through particle physics to explain the light element abundances? Do we give them general relativity so they can see the impact of the Copernican principle and the derivation of the Robertson-Walker metric line element on which the expanding universe and Hubble law can be described?

See what I mean - these details in the derivation and the melding of observation and theory would leave them lost. We want kids to learn science but they are going to get by necessity a simplistic and lacking in explantion picture.

I am saying there is enough question on the subject to present it more theoretically than as fact.

Theory is as important as fact. Theory is not a guess.

However, as a humble Financial Services Rep. who has only read a few books and is here on this forum to try and understand it better, I have no place to talk or bother posting compared with you? Is that whay you're saying?

No. But I am saying that reading a few books and web pages without putting in the time and learning makes it less likely people know what they are talking about.

 

[Pats]

No but actually knowing the material as opposed to never studying it is a valid point. Especially when you see very basic errors made that highlights this fact.

How can education get in the way of discussion when it is a lack of education that gets in the way. This is typical (and very American I might add) anti-intellectualism rearing its head.

I am certainly not anti-intelectual, as I would love nothing more than to be in college right now were that possible for me. However, I have noticed rather large egos amongst many physicians and they are the only highly educated people I am exposed to in person regularly. Most of them are above belief in something like Christianity. I am impressed that you've accepted it.

I misspoke myself when I blamed it on the education rather than the attitude of superiority taken by the educated person.

Actually, I have in the past posted very long and specific answers to some of the points raised. I usually do that when the posts get into the scientific detail.

That is a relief, since I have yet to whitness this myself. Even in scientific threads, I saw you knit picking simple errors rather than speaking to the subject at hand.

I know when I asked you a simple question about one of your posts, I learned not to this agian, as I was chided for not Googling the information for myself. When actually, I wanted your interpretation and input. I have learned not to ask you honest questions, Kerr. You won't be bothered by my ignorance and lazieness again.

As I mentioned above, I have frequently gone into the details on the science side but I find, quite frankly, it goes over the heads of most on here. They want the debate to remain in sound bites and cartoon science and don't want to put the time or thought into the science itself.

I really do wonder what makes you stick around when you sound so sick of the debate and forums. Some people might be honestly evaluating their beliefs, but to heck with them? You've already decided what I'm after based on most people you've talked to before?

That sounds prejudice.

Don't take what I say as fact, though I don't lie, take it as a branching point to use resources at hand (i.e. the internet) and check what I or others say and see if it holds up.

Everyone should do that. That's why I'm here.

Unfortunately this actually seems to be the case much of the time. What is the good of explaining radioactive decay and isochronal methodology when they ignore anything if it isn't in Genesis.

In my case, I want to evaluate how to best educate myself and my children on the whole enchilada. My 12 year old already sees the "young earth" theory as being out the door. But the dismissive attitude on evolution at church or at AiG doesn't really explain a thing. So, I'm doing my best with what resources and time I have.

I don't know about others or most of the time, I know about me. If you've had such dreary experiences with the debate, perhaps you are burned out and should take a break?

Strange, I was taught that in the 1960's.

Maybe you're not that up to date with what they're teaching in shcools. As I have young children, it's of interest to me.

I was taught that Chris Columbus discovered America in public school, in the 80's.

I will not deny that school level texts are often terrible though there is a factor at work here most seem to gloss over. If you truly had to present science then kids would never learn a thing.

You don't teach mathematics to 5 year olds based upon set theory do you? There are concepts more basic than counting numbers and the fundamental arithmetic operations but it would mean kids never learned to count or add or multiply - they'd be bogged down in abtractions. Similarly when teaching science to kids you cannot tell a full picture has they don't have the machinery in place to really follow and separate the important from the minutae.

Take the Big Bang for instance. We know that the universe at the earliest times was in a hot dense state and that it is expanding. But do we for 14 year olds go into the details of how we know this, do we go through particle physics to explain the light element abundances? Do we give them general relativity so they can see the impact of the Copernican principle and the derivation of the Robertson-Walker metric line element on which the expanding universe and Hubble law can be described?

See what I mean - these details in the derivation and the melding of observation and theory would leave them lost. We want kids to learn science but they are going to get by necessity a simplistic and lacking in explantion picture.

Yes, I see what you are saying. I just wonder how long after they knew Brontosaurus never existed it was before he finally left the school texts. This is not an isolated example of fraudiliant findings in that field as far as I am aware.

Theory is as important as fact. Theory is not a guess.

Theories are very important, and I'm not disputing that. But common ancestory is a theory, and shouldn't be presented as hard evidence. This sets young minds up to prejudice on the subject down the road. Although TEist don't see this as a conflict with the Bible, a lot of non Christians do.

No. But I am saying that reading a few books and web pages without putting in the time and learning makes it less likely people know what they are talking about.

Admittedly, there are levels of "knowing what you're talking about." Do you believe in Pangea, Kerr? That's still being taught.

 

[Mallon]

Do you believe in Pangea, Kerr? That's still being taught.

What's the matter with Pangaea?

 

[KerrMetric]

I am certainly not anti-intelectual, as I would love nothing more than to be in college right now were that possible for me.

I'm sorry but the tone of many posts on here, including some of yours, comes across as typical American anti-intellectualism that is favoured by the typical evangelical, charismatic or fundamental churches.

I misspoke myself when I blamed it on the education rather than the attitude of superiority taken by the educated person.

Let me ask you, if someone came inot your job area and told you how to peform a specific task you do everyday in a wrong manner (and you know they haven't a clue) what would you say about their advice or knowledge base? You'd tell them they didn't have a clue right?

I really do wonder what makes you stick around when you sound so sick of the debate and forums. Some people might be honestly evaluating their beliefs, but to heck with them? You've already decided what I'm after based on most people you've talked to before?

I like to view how idiotic some amongst society are. Sorry but it is that simple at times.

In my case, I want to evaluate how to best educate myself and my children on the whole enchilada. My 12 year old already sees the "young earth" theory as being out the door. But the dismissive attitude on evolution at church or at AiG doesn't really explain a thing. So, I'm doing my best with what resources and time I have.

Fair enough.

Maybe you're not that up to date with what they're teaching in schools. As I have young children, it's of interest to me.

I have kids too though older than yours. I am familar with college texts as I sometimes evaluate them.

I was taught that Chris Columbus discovered America in public school, in the 80's.

Hey that is the USA for you.

Yes, I see what you are saying. I just wonder how long after they knew Brontosaurus never existed it was before he finally left the school texts. This is not an isolated example of fraudiliant findings in that field as far as I am aware.

Brontosaurus didn't cease to exist - they just changed the name. Are you sure you check things out?

Where do you get this info from? Clown Bible college?

Theories are very important, and I'm not disputing that. But common ancestory is a theory, and shouldn't be presented as hard evidence. This sets young minds up to prejudice on the subject down the road. Although TEist don't see this as a conflict with the Bible, a lot of non Christians do.

But like gravity some theories are so overwhelming that they in an everyday sense become factual.

Admittedly, there are levels of "knowing what you're talking about." Do you believe in Pangea, Kerr? That's still being taught.

What is wrong with plate tectonics?

 

[Shalia]

Maybe I'm clinically insane.
Actually, I keep rephrasing my question because I'm trying to sharpen it. My question stems from the following assumptions:
1) Most Creationists argue against the teaching of evolution in public schools (or argue FOR the teaching of Intelligent Design or whatnot) because it is unbiblical and makes no appeal to God
2) Modern meteorology describes rain as coming about via natural processes and makes no mention of God
So with these points in mind, why do Creationists not also argue for the teaching of a sort of 'Intelligent Meteorology' in schools? Maybe I am wrong in my line of thought, but I want to thoroughly defuse it before I give up on it.

Hi, new in here.

OK. Maybe no one is focusing on "intelligent meterology" because there is nothing in the Bible to make anyone determine or even believe that rain can't be a natural process AS WELL AS a God driven process. So when meterology is taught <for about 3.2 seconds in an 8th grade science class> it's not worth the argument. As every good parent knows, pick your battles, right? "Intelligent Meterology" isn't a battle worthy of fighting when we can't get discussion on Evolution <half of 9th and 12th grade science> discussed.

The Bible, at least in the minds of some people who are YEC's explains in a rather specific way how human life started. It does *not* explain very specific ways clouds are formed or why rain falls.

We need to spend time worrying about making sure people know that God is the creator of all life, why stress about raindrops? I'm relatively certain that if we had a discussion about 'Intelligent Design' in schools, 'Intelligent Meterology' would be an effect. It would be hard to think about God <or whatever the schools came up with to put there> being in charge of creating the universe without recognizing that He was responsible for the natural universe that went with it as well, right?

 

[shernren]

The wording of your statement also indicates primacy of science over God.

I have said and implied no such thing. There is no primacy of science over God for the simple reason that science is subservient to God. Science is simply an artifact of the fact that God is orderly and works in orderly ways. God decided that He wanted such and such a universe and instead of doing miracles every half-a-second He decided that He would implement certain rules and predictable relations between quantities in how He governed the universe. What we see when we do science is His predictable relations between quantities which He Himself put down.

Evolution nowhere pushes God out of the picture. Evolution is God saying, "I shall have My creatures reproduce, according to their kind, but with accumulated errors, which are winnowed by natural selection to yield new life-forms." Every natural selection event, every mutation, every reproduction, is a decision of God. It is simply that God has been so astoundingly consistent in the way He has made such decisions that we can trace the way He does it and by His grace form some sort of mental framework to quantify it.

Science is really seeing God's fingerprints, and science only exists because God decided that His fingerprints would be mostly consistent. Science has primacy over God only in the same way Bible, "by which I can set limits on God - look! God isn't allowed to hate! God isn't allowed to sin!" could ever 'have primacy' over God.

And you, my friend, are still stuck in a God-of-the-gaps paradigm.

 

[Mallon]

We need to spend time worrying about making sure people know that God is the creator of all life, why stress about raindrops?

You just demonstrated the very reason why scientists don't want Creationism taught in the science classroom. It has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with pushing a religion on children.
Thanks for being so honest, though. Most Creationists would never attempt to make a sale that way.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I like to view how idiotic some amongst society are. Sorry but it is that simple at times.

Kerr,

We, the undereducated of the christian world, are stumbling our way towards the truth. Instead of tripping us, why not lend a hand?

 

[KerrMetric]

Kerr,

We, the undereducated of the christian world, are stumbling our way towards the truth. Instead of tripping us, why not lend a hand?

Most people on here don't want to listen. They already have their AIG Young Earth Creation childishness in their heads and don't want the science pointing out.

I said it earlier on this thread - it's typical fundamentalist (and usually American) anti-intellectualism.

 

[Dannager]

We need to spend time worrying about making sure people know that God is the creator of all life, why stress about raindrops?

Except God's hand in creating life or the world isn't scientific in any way. You're free to teach a supernatural origins outlook in your home or in church, but it can't be taught in a science classroom because it isn't science.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

quote=shernren]I have said and implied no such thing. There is no primacy of science over God for the simple reason that science is subservient to God. Science is simply an artifact of the fact that God is orderly and works in orderly ways. God decided that He wanted such and such a universe and instead of doing miracles every half-a-second He decided that He would implement certain rules and predictable relations between quantities in how He governed the universe. What we see when we do science is His predictable relations between quantities which He Himself put down



Evolution nowhere pushes God out of the picture. Evolution is God saying, "I shall have My creatures reproduce, according to their kind, but with accumulated errors, which are winnowed by natural selection to yield new life-forms." Every natural selection event, every mutation, every reproduction, is a decision of God. It is simply that God has been so astoundingly consistent in the way He has made such decisions that we can trace the way He does it and by His grace form some sort of mental framework to quantify it.

Science is really seeing God's fingerprints, and science only exists because God decided that His fingerprints would be mostly consistent. Science has primacy over God only in the same way Bible, "by which I can set limits on God - look! God isn't allowed to hate! God isn't allowed to sin!" could ever 'have primacy' over God.

And you, my friend, are still stuck in a God-of-the-gaps paradigm.[/quote]

I didn't say you implied anything. I said your wording indicated....

You are including a homegrown version of evolution in God's creative process that still smacks of atheistic evolution i.e. those darned 'new life forms' you speak of.

And what do you find objectionable in the Gap theory. It makes more sense than any other model out there? My version agrees with everything you believe, with just a few exceptions, including evolution of course.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Hi, new in here.

OK. Maybe no one is focusing on "intelligent meterology" because there is nothing in the Bible to make anyone determine or even believe that rain can't be a natural process AS WELL AS a God driven process. So when meterology is taught <for about 3.2 seconds in an 8th grade science class> it's not worth the argument. As every good parent knows, pick your battles, right? "Intelligent Meterology" isn't a battle worthy of fighting when we can't get discussion on Evolution <half of 9th and 12th grade science> discussed.

The Bible, at least in the minds of some people who are YEC's explains in a rather specific way how human life started. It does *not* explain very specific ways clouds are formed or why rain falls.

We need to spend time worrying about making sure people know that God is the creator of all life, why stress about raindrops? I'm relatively certain that if we had a discussion about 'Intelligent Design' in schools, 'Intelligent Meterology' would be an effect. It would be hard to think about God <or whatever the schools came up with to put there> being in charge of creating the universe without recognizing that He was responsible for the natural universe that went with it as well, right?

It was not that long ago that bad storms were blamed on evil spirits and lightning rods were evil, all proclaimed by the church. The curches use to ring their bells durring storms to ward off the evil spirits. Sadly this only lead to the deathes of countless bell boys wwhen the church spire was struck by lightning. This is why ID then and now is a bad thing. Its intent is to stop us from asking questions that some find uncomfortable and leads to unneeded suffering and death for inoccents because if IDs forced ignorance.