Evolution As Science? Really...?

RouterX said:

What is your source for this statistic? I'm not doubting it, but I haven't bumped into a stat on % of Christians believing in Creation/Evolution so I'm just wondering.

Click to expand...

Christians believe weird stuff. But here are some stats: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm , http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm
Note that the more educated you are the more likely it is that you will accept evolution.

Note also that 95% of scientists accept evolution.

Gracchus said:

Christians believe weird stuff. But here are some stats: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm , http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm
Note that the more educated you are the more likely it is that you will accept evolution.

Note also that 95% of scientists accept evolution.

Click to expand...

A useful quote from that site which demonstrates what I was saying above:

Beliefs elsewhere in the world:

Belief in creation science seems to be largely a U.S. phenomenon. A British survey of 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant ministers/pastors showed that:
97% do not believe the world was created in six days.
80% do not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve.

Click to expand...

We shouldn't be mean to YEC's. After all, it isn't their fault that they've been influenced by propaganda.

Pensees said:

We shouldn't be mean to YEC's. After all, it isn't their fault that they've been influenced by propaganda.

Click to expand...

Yes it is.

Thanks for those links.

Another thought... isn't it true that the "scientific method" requires that any hypothesis must be falsifiable in order to be proven?

I believe what the Bible teaches about creation and what Bonhoeffer states, that it is beyond our comprehension, just as the creation of the "New Adam" Jesus Christ was beyond our comprehension.

My point in all of this is that I don't think creation has a place in the science classroom mainly because my beliefs cannot be falsified and therefore do not meet the criteria of the scientific method.

RouterX said:

Thanks for those links.

Another thought... isn't it true that the "scientific method" requires that any hypothesis must be falsifiable in order to be proven?

I believe what the Bible teaches about creation and what Bonhoeffer states, that it is beyond our comprehension, just as the creation of the "New Adam" Jesus Christ was beyond our comprehension.

My point in all of this is that I don't think creation has a place in the science classroom mainly because my beliefs cannot be falsified and therefore do not meet the criteria of the scientific method.

Click to expand...

scientific method
n.
The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.Hope this helps.

God bless you all.

RouterX said:

Thanks for those links.

Another thought... isn't it true that the "scientific method" requires that any hypothesis must be falsifiable in order to be proven?

Click to expand...

Close, it requires that any theory be falsifiable. We don’t talk of “proof” in science, proof is for maths and alcohol, science deals in evidence to support the conclusion. So other than a few cosmetic details, you are essentially correct.

To go into a little more depth for the lurkers;-
Falsificationism is an essential part of the scientific method, and if a “theory” is not falsifiable (ie there is no way to test its falseness, as in a belief in God) then its not a theory at all.

Ghost

RouterX said:

I believe what the Bible teaches about creation and what Bonhoeffer states, that it is beyond our comprehension, just as the creation of the "New Adam" Jesus Christ was beyond our comprehension.

Click to expand...

An omnipotent, omniscient god is unfalsifiable. If something can do anything at any time, then how can we devise hypotheses? I think you see this. It doesn't make it wrong, it just makes it unscientific.

My point in all of this is that I don't think creation has a place in the science classroom mainly because my beliefs cannot be falsified and therefore do not meet the criteria of the scientific method.

Click to expand...

At the same time, no one should devise their spiritual beliefs in science class. I am all for keeping them separate, and most christians seem to agree with this view as well.

Updated: 5:31 p.m. ET Dec. 20, 2005
HARRISBURG, Pa. - In one of the biggest courtroom clashes between faith and evolution since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a federal judge barred a Pennsylvania public school district Tuesday from teaching “intelligent design” in biology class, saying the concept is creationism in disguise.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones delivered a stinging attack on the Dover Area School Board, saying its first-in-the-nation decision in October 2004 to insert intelligent design into the science curriculum violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

The ruling was a major setback to the intelligent design movement, which is also waging battles in Georgia and Kansas. Intelligent design holds that living organisms are so complex that they must have been created by some kind of higher force.

Jones decried the “breathtaking inanity” of the Dover policy and accused several board members of lying to conceal their true motive, which he said was to promote religion.

A six-week trial over the issue yielded “overwhelming evidence” establishing that intelligent design “is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,” said Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years ago.

The school system said it will probably not appeal the ruling, because the members who backed intelligent design were ousted in November’s elections and replaced with a new slate opposed to the policy.


During the trial, the board argued that it was trying improve science education by exposing students to alternatives to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and natural selection.

The policy required students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade lessons on evolution. The statement said Darwin’s theory is “not a fact” and has inexplicable “gaps.” It referred students to an intelligent-design textbook, “Of Pandas and People.”

But the judge said: “We find that the secular purposes claimed by the board amount to a pretext for the board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom.”

The disclaimer, he said, "singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource and instructs students to forgo scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere."

Edmond said:

Hello...that is because 100 % of all scientists have been singularly trained to accept one ideology...evolution. If that is all a person is taught and trained to investigate...and told there is nothing more...that is all they will tend to believe in and investigate. Especially when intimidated by the rest of the scientific community to do so... It's not a matter of greater intellegence, it is a matter of being repeatedly and specifically being exposed to a narrower and narrower view of the same assumptions.

Click to expand...

YOU ARE LYING. LYING IN THE NAME OF PRIDE.
Go to confession immediately. Do not pass GO and do not collect $200.

Don't pretend you have any idea how scientists are trained. You obviously do not. Scientists are trained to be skeptical, not obedient, rigourous, not shoddy. And, yes, intelligence is a pre-requisite. You are missing one or more of these.
Don't invent intimidation by a "scientific mafia" to support your ill-conceived thesis. Most scientists on this continent have had a Christian up-bringing and if there's been any intimidation, it's been from the non-scientific and religious communities.
Don't lie!

anti-Edmond said:

Hello...that is because 100 % of all creationists have been singularly trained to accept one ideology...creation. If that is all a person is taught and trained to investigate...and told there is nothing more...that is all they will tend to believe in and investigate. Especially when intimidated by the rest of the non-scientific community to do so... It's not a matter of greater intellegence, it is a matter of being repeatedly and specifically being exposed to a narrower and narrower view of the same assumptions.

Click to expand...

Hey Edmond, how old are you anyway?

Edmond said:

Since you happened to asked that question Hairless

Click to expand...

What question?

"You are lying" is not a question.

(The rest isn't worth a response.)

Edmond, what qualifications do you have to show that you've experienced this educational system firsthand? Could we please have a reference to your Ph.D.? Possibly a link to your doctoral thesis? Any of these would inject at least some accountability into your argument.

HairlessSimian said:

YOU ARE LYING. LYING IN THE NAME OF PRIDE.
Go to confession immediately. Do not pass GO and do not collect $200.

Don't pretend you have any idea how scientists are trained. You obviously do not. Scientists are trained to be skeptical, not obedient, rigourous, not shoddy. And, yes, intelligence is a pre-requisite. You are missing one or more of these.
Don't invent intimidation by a "scientific mafia" to support your ill-conceived thesis. Most scientists on this continent have had a Christian up-bringing and if there's been any intimidation, it's been from the non-scientific and religious communities.
Don't lie!

Click to expand...

It's funny. Just a few months ago I read an interview by the BBC of a well-known scientist in England. They wanted to know his thoughts of the ID debate in America. That scientist said that frankly, any person who wishes to be taken seiously within the scientific community must accept evolution (not just micro-evolution) as proven. The BBC then interviewed a student who said that they were raised a Christian but that they accept evolution because they want to become a scientist and they know that telling of their belief in creationism would limit their chances for serious work, so she was going to learn evolution inside and out. So, people in science do face a bit of pressure if they want to be taken seriously. I've spent 10 minutes looking for the article and can't find it, but if they have it in their archives, I'll post it.

That being said, what scientist, if they could PROVE that evolution is not fact, would not want to do that? Scientists want to make a name for themselves like the rest of us. It's no conspiracy. Science applauds innovative ideas and disproving evolution with hard facts would be applauded not feared.

So, ultimately, I think it balances out.

What confuses me is how passionate (see your response above) the responses get. If we are dealing with facts here, then why are you responding and acting like it's the Salem Witch trials? Those who support evolution can be just as passionate and pushy about their beliefs as the most monsterous Christians. That makes no sense to me. I would think that those who rely on logic and results would let the facts speak for themselves instead of berating those who don't agree.

Final point, this reminds me of the book "Evolution" published in joint with science community and PBS. The first 3-4 pages are dedicated to belittling those who believe in God as creator. I had to laugh at that. I realized that science books can use propoganda... so odd.. considering I sat down just to read the facts.

Edmond said:

Present the evidence that presents the information the statement you are referring to is a lie. .

--------------------
..Hello...that is because 100 % of all scientists have been singularly trained to accept one ideology...evolution. If that is all a person is taught and trained to investigate...and told there is nothing more...that is all they will tend to believe in and investigate. Especially when intimidated by the rest of the scientific community to do so... It's not a matter of greater intellegence, it is a matter of being repeatedly and specifically being exposed to a narrower and narrower view of the same assumptions.
-----------------------

If you cannot...see if you can at least find the courage and courtesy needed to apologize for such an rude accusation. ...

----------------------------------------

Click to expand...

Intimidation by the rest of the scientific community? Where? Provide evidence for this or retract your statement immediately.

RouterX said:

What confuses me is how passionate (see your response above) the responses get. If we are dealing with facts here, then why are you responding and acting like it's the Salem Witch trials? Those who support evolution can be just as passionate and pushy about their beliefs as the most monsterous Christians. That makes no sense to me. I would think that those who rely on logic and results would let the facts speak for themselves instead of berating those who don't agree.

Click to expand...

RouterX, I don't think HairlessSimian was being overly passionate at all. The fact of the matter is that despite everyone's willingness to help Edmond out here, he is stonewalling and throwing out baseless accusations. We tried to let the facts speak for themselves, but Edmond either didn't respond to them or used PRATTs to defend himself. If you want to, read some of our earlier dealings with him. Civility and calm guiding failed. It is doubtful that bolding the parts he needs to pay close attention to will help either, since this appears to be a case of willful ignorance on his part. But no excess of passion was used here. We're just at our last resort stage before we give up on him completely.