Expelled - the movie - in theaters spring 2008

[LewisWildermuth]

I can't speak for anyone else but that's certainly how I see the issue. For the life of me I don't understand how you can possibly divorce the two, yet somehow it's done with no problem by TEs. LewisWildermuth's post clearly demonstrates how they do it. The idea that combining science with God in some way bogs everything down to a standstill clearly differentiates a creationist from a TE. For me it is the opposite, it is only with God in the equation that science even begins to make sense. Once you done that it thereby opens everything up to a greater understanding.

And this is why ID or creationism is not science. Sure there are thousands of papers on ID and creationism, but no one has the time to strain off all the theology to get to the bits that can be experimentally tested.

Science concentrates on only things that can be tested since this has proven time and time again to get results. It ignores things that cannot be tested because without tests there is no way to see if an idea is good or bad, thus you can talk about it a lot, but you will never see a result.

The idea of a trinity and exactly what it means has been in theological discussion for over a thousand years with little to show for it. Science does not have the time to play these games, a cancer patient, a disappearing species, dwindling oil reserves, thousands of other problems we face must be solved, not just talked about. So science cuts the talk about who's God is responsible for what and why and just concentrates it's efforts on what we can do about the problem now.

If you got cancer, we could review your life, go on and on about what you should or should not have eaten, touched or breathed, and get nothing done that helps you or we could look at the problem and see if we can stop the cancer. Which would you like us to do?

If ID wants to be science then it has to drop the theology and get onto testable ideas, until it does this it cannot and will never be science, it will be theology.

If I want to play baseball, I had better show up with a bat and a glove. If I show up with shoulder pads and start tackling people, it is my fault for not playing the right sport, not the baseball players that showed up with the right equipment.

It is ID's fault for not having testable ideas to put on the table, not science's fault.

 

[Critias]

I understand that science deals with (as you put it) narrow subjects, such as how life began, but how do you talk about how life began and justify that God has no part in the discussion, when science is concerned? I had thought we are suppose to glorify God in all things, not the ones we choose to.

So, if you are talking about Intelligent Design and inferencing a designer, how do you not talk about the designer? If I wanted to talk about design patterns in computer science, I would most definitely talk about who came up with the design, why, and what problem(s) it solves. It's actually quite important to include the source to better understand the reasoning behind the proposed design.

In mathematics, we talk about Newton and Einstein and how they came up with their ideas/theories, we don't leave them out of the discussions. In evolution, you talk about Darwin. So, when we are talking about how life came to being and that there is a Creator who created, we talk about the Creator as well. I, personally, have a hard time understanding why, in this specific instance, the Creator, seemly, has no place in the discussion when talking about His creation. Furthermore, to me, saying, "Oh, it's Theology, therefore we can't talk about it" is a cop out.

To me, it is akin to talking about Salvation and leaving out Jesus' life here on earth. To me, it's all (every piece of it) important and not something I could easily discard as if God has no place in the discussion of His creation.

 

[Dracil]

You must be able falsify your hypothesis in science. Do you seriously believe you can glorify God by coming up with a way to falsify Him just so you can call ID science?

You are free to personally attribute anything discovered in science to God. You cannot, however, truthfully call something science that requires invoking God. Such a thing would at best, be philosophy.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

I understand that science deals with (as you put it) narrow subjects, such as how life began, but how do you talk about how life began and justify that God has no part in the discussion, when science is concerned? I had thought we are suppose to glorify God in all things, not the ones we choose to.

So, if you are talking about Intelligent Design and inferencing a designer, how do you not talk about the designer? If I wanted to talk about design patterns in computer science, I would most definitely talk about who came up with the design, why, and what problem(s) it solves. It's actually quite important to include the source to better understand the reasoning behind the proposed design.

In mathematics, we talk about Newton and Einstein and how they came up with their ideas/theories, we don't leave them out of the discussions. In evolution, you talk about Darwin. So, when we are talking about how life came to being and that there is a Creator who created, we talk about the Creator as well. I, personally, have a hard time understanding why, in this specific instance, the Creator, seemly, has no place in the discussion when talking about His creation. Furthermore, to me, saying, "Oh, it's Theology, therefore we can't talk about it" is a cop out.

To me, it is akin to talking about Salvation and leaving out Jesus' life here on earth. To me, it's all (every piece of it) important and not something I could easily discard as if God has no place in the discussion of His creation.

Oh those that wish to give glory to God in a public manor write books about it, those that want to be more private do what ever they do in private, but these things are not written in the papers because they would again only add things that are outside of the question they are seeking to answer.

In school, when asked what two plus two was did you answer four and let the class move on or did you spend a half an hour praising God that a numbering system works in this universe and for the idea of numbers and all the other things that God is responsible for that have worked out in this universe to make two plus two equal four?

Even in the most religious of schools, I think you would get talked to if you spent time praising God for everything leading to an answer and leading to your ability to give and understand that answer.

It may sound good, but when you think of publicly praising God every time you do anything, you will find that you would end up waisting your time and the time of anyone around you.

After dealing with that, we have to deal with the problem that not everyone sees God in the same way, not only do you have people of different faiths, you have people of the same faith that see things incredibly differently.

Even if your answer was right, you might offend someone or even make an enemy because you praised God in a way that they did not like and start a theological fight when all you were trying to do was answer a simple math problem.

The dropping of praise or theological talk in science papers allows scientists to share important ideas without getting mired in theological fights.

Also, I have noticed you have failed to praise God in your last post for all the things He did so you could post... If you expect scientists to praise God publicly with every thing they write, don't you think that you should also?

 

[busterdog]

I never understood why the Creator cannot be discussed when talking about His creation? Does that make you a scholarly idiot that deserves to be thrown out of science all together? I know in the past, it seemed to me (perhaps I'm wrong) that TE's also agreed that talk of a Creator within Science is rubbish and He should be discarded in such discussions. Kinda like you can talk about a book, but don't give credit the author in that specific discussion. Am I wrong, or is this how most creationists here view TE's belief as well? (an honest question)

Exactly. And if you DONT talk about the creator, what do you do? You mumble some confused pablum about mystery or you come up with phrases like "self-organizing" matter, which don't answer the question, but merely beg it. Or, you have biologists starting to write on issues like "reinventing the sacred" because of the incredibly unlikely properties of organization in matter. Here is the forbidden thread on "self-organizing:"

http://christianforums.com/t7123368-mishmash-darwinism-understanding-challenges-to-id.html

The fact is that science does have a logical wall that it has never been able to penetrate. How appropriate to have this fundamental epistemological problem fits perfectly the Biblical problem:

Psa 107:8 Oh that [men] would praise the LORD [for] his goodness, and [for] his wonderful works to the children of men!

Or the problem of Gen. 3, where men presume to be like God. God gave his answer about where things came from. For science, that answer is unutterable as they presume themselves capable of "reinventing the sacred."

 

[busterdog]

Oh those that wish to give glory to God in a public manor write books about it, those that want to be more private do what ever they do in private, but these things are not written in the papers because they would again only add things that are outside of the question they are seeking to answer.

In school, when asked what two plus two was did you answer four and let the class move on or did you spend a half an hour praising God that a numbering system works in this universe and for the idea of numbers and all the other things that God is responsible for that have worked out in this universe to make two plus two equal four?

Even in the most religious of schools, I think you would get talked to if you spent time praising God for everything leading to an answer and leading to your ability to give and understand that answer.

It may sound good, but when you think of publicly praising God every time you do anything, you will find that you would end up waisting your time and the time of anyone around you.

After dealing with that, we have to deal with the problem that not everyone sees God in the same way, not only do you have people of different faiths, you have people of the same faith that see things incredibly differently.

Even if your answer was right, you might offend someone or even make an enemy because you praised God in a way that they did not like and start a theological fight when all you were trying to do was answer a simple math problem.

The dropping of praise or theological talk in science papers allows scientists to share important ideas without getting mired in theological fights.

Also, I have noticed you have failed to praise God in your last post for all the things He did so you could post... If you expect scientists to praise God publicly with every thing they write, don't you think that you should also?

Yes, logically "maybe" all of those things.

But, when the alphabet was learned at the time of the Revolutionary War, it was based on Bible stories.

Here is another logical "maybe" -- every bit as logical as yours: Maybe we were better off when literal Biblical truth was the fundamental basis for education. There was less teen pregnancy. The production of these educational systems, Jefferson, Franklin, etc. are far and away men of greater vision and intellectual stature when compared to modern leaders.

Do the (alleged) moral failings of Jefferson prove me wrong? No. Counterexamples dont remove the fundamental logic of my hypothetical about how education might be better if the BIble were still in it.

 

[busterdog]

You must be able falsify your hypothesis in science. Do you seriously believe you can glorify God by coming up with a way to falsify Him just so you can call ID science?

You are free to personally attribute anything discovered in science to God. You cannot, however, truthfully call something science that requires invoking God. Such a thing would at best, be philosophy.

I think we all agree that it is philosophy. It is just better philosophy than Darwinism. Not only that, it is our right as citizens to teach it as such and not be fired for it.

http://christianforums.com/t7123368-mishmash-darwinism-understanding-challenges-to-id.html

Looks like you better open an OT thread.

 

[busterdog]

I can't speak for anyone else but that's certainly how I see the issue. For the life of me I don't understand how you can possibly divorce the two, yet somehow it's done with no problem by TEs. LewisWildermuth's post clearly demonstrates how they do it. The idea that combining science with God in some way bogs everything down to a standstill clearly differentiates a creationist from a TE. For me it is the opposite, it is only with God in the equation that science even begins to make sense. Once you done that it thereby opens everything up to a greater understanding.

By "bogging down", I think they mean "competition."

Wouldn't it just be so pretty to think that Darwinism is not already bogged down by its own bad ideas:

Woodstock of Science Set to Dethrone Darwin's Theory of Evolution

At Scoop freelance reporter Suzan Mazur pulls back the veil on one of science's dirty little secrets — Darwinism is dead as a theory of evolution. This won't be surprising to the early adopters here at ENV, but it will come as a surprise to many in the media who have lazily just regurgitated the tired old refrain of the NCSE that Darwinian evolution is the be-all and end-all of modern biology.
Mazur reports on an upcoming conference at the Konrad Lorenz Institute in Altenberg, Austria which she thinks will be the Woodstock of evolution.

What it amounts to is a gathering of 16 biologists and philosophers of rock star stature – let's call them "the Altenberg 16" – who recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence. It's pre the discovery of DNA, lacks a theory for body form and does not accommodate "other" new phenomena.​

Say what? Sixteen scientists who recognize that the theory of evolution, which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence. (Suzan, shhhh, don't tell anyone, there's hundreds more over here.) Mazur seems a bit surprised to find out something that intelligent design advocates have known for years. It is not safe to doubt Darwin.

A wave of scientists now questions natural selection's relevance, though few will publicly admit it. And with such a fundamental struggle underway, the hurling of slurs such as "looney Marxist hangover", "philosopher" (a scientist who can't get grants anymore), "crackpot", is hardly surprising.​

The meeting seems largely to have come about because of Jerry Fodor's article Why Pigs Don't Have Wings. In an act of near-heresy, Fodor wrote:

In fact, an appreciable number of perfectly reasonable biologists are coming to think that the theory of natural selection can no longer be taken for granted. This is, so far, mostly straws in the wind; but it’s not out of the question that a scientific revolution – no less than a major revision of evolutionary theory – is in the offing. Unlike the story about our minds being anachronistic adaptations, this new twist doesn’t seem to have been widely noticed outside professional circles. The ironic upshot is that at a time when the theory of natural selection has become an article of pop culture, it is faced with what may be the most serious challenge it has had so far. Darwinists have been known to say that adaptationism is the best idea that anybody has ever had. It would be a good joke if the best idea that anybody has ever had turned out not to be true.​

You can imagine what Eugenie Scott, Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers and the rest of the Darwinian politburo thought about that. Mazur reports:

When I called Fodor to discuss his article, he joked that he was now in the Witness Protection Program because he'd been so besieged following the LRB piece. ... Fodor also told me that "you can't put this stuff in the press because it's an attack on the theory of natural selection" and besides "99.99% of the population have no idea what the theory of natural selection is".​

Eminent biologist Stanley Salthe read Fodor's piece and was inspired to start an e-mail debate among a number of leading biologists, which looks to have led to this Altenberg meeting. Interestingly, Salthe, long having been a Darwin dissenter, is pretty straightforward in what he thinks about it all:

"Oh sure natural selection's been demonstrated. . . the interesting point, however, is that it has rarely if ever been demonstrated to have anything to do with evolution in the sense of long-term changes in populations. . . . Summing up we can see that the import of the Darwinian theory of evolution is just unexplainable caprice from top to bottom. What evolves is just what happened to happen."​

Someone had better call the NCSE and give them a heads up. What's that? Mazur already has? How'd that work out for her?

Curiously, when I called Kevin Padian, president of NCSE's board of directors and a witness at the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover trial on Intelligent Design, to ask him about the evolution debate among scientists – he said, "On some things there is not a debate." He then hung up.​

Many different points of view are to be represented at the meeting from Stanley Pivar's geometric approach, to Fodor's endogenous variables, to Stuart Kauffman's ideas on self-organization. Yet one entire field is not represented – intelligent design. It would seem that such a meeting would benefit from including Stephen Meyer or Michael Behe in its discussion as ID researchers, even if only to argue against their ideas. Regardless, there is a debate (whether the NCSE will admit it or not) and a paradigm shift is on the way.

 

[gluadys]

By "bogging down", I think they mean "competition."

Wouldn't it just be so pretty to think that Darwinism is not already bogged down by its own bad ideas:

You are hanging a lot of hopes on a conference that won't be held until July and won't have anything published until next year.

When all is said and done I expect it will do exactly what Fodor suggests; propose "a major revision of evolutionary theory".

Not a retraction, not a capitulation to creationism, not the introduction of theology into science. A revision. Possibly a revision on a par with Einstein's revision of Newton. But still a revision. There will still be a theory of evolution. It will still incorporate Darwin's theory and neo-Darwinism. But it will suggest a new and broader setting for them, linking them up with new information and understanding.

And you will probably loathe it.

 

[Mallon]

I know in the past, it seemed to me (perhaps I'm wrong) that TE's also agreed that talk of a Creator within Science is rubbish and He should be discarded in such discussions. Kinda like you can talk about a book, but don't give credit the author in that specific discussion. Am I wrong, or is this how most creationists here view TE's belief as well? (an honest question)

It's not God that's the problem, it's the use of miracles as a means of explanation. Usually, when neocreationists say "God did it", they mean God used a miracle accomplish some goal. The problem is, miracles are intangible to science and do nothing to improve our understanding of how the world works. For example, today we know that planets are held in elliptical orbits by gravity, and that they wobble occasionally due to the slight gravitational pull of other nearby planets. But once upon a time, people believed that it was God's miraculous power that held the planets in place, and that those regular planetary wobbles were just the hand of God doing some rearranging. And while the latter explanation certainly has a nice theological theme to it, it really doesn't help us to understand planetary motion any better.
Evolutionary creationists advocate that just because we have a natural explanation for how something happened in the past doesn't mean it excludes God. If "in Him all things hold together" (Col 1:17), there is no process, natural or otherwise, that happens apart from the grace of God. This applies to planetary orbit (as Newton admitted), and also to the natural explanation of evolution. Unfortunately, this viewpoint was purposely excluded from Expelled because the producer, Mark Mathis, thought it would "confuse" the black-and-white dichotomy he was trying to create between creationists and atheists.

 

[Dracil]

I think we all agree that it is philosophy. It is just better philosophy than Darwinism. Not only that, it is our right as citizens to teach it as such and not be fired for it.

http://christianforums.com/t7123368-mishmash-darwinism-understanding-challenges-to-id.html

Looks like you better open an OT thread.

Pop quiz, how many people in Expelled were actually fired? The truth may surprise you.

Once that's done, I have a list of people who were fired, forced to recant, physically assaulted, and received death threats for teaching evolution/questioning Creationism.

Also, you are free to teach ID, in philosophy class. It doesn't belong in science class, just as Math does not belong in English class.

Edit: Ah I see what you mean by opening an OT thread. Sorry, didn't realize this was in the Creationism subforum.

 

[busterdog]

Pop quiz, how many people in Expelled were actually fired? The truth may surprise you.

Once that's done, I have a list of people who were fired, forced to recant, physically assaulted, and received death threats for teaching evolution/questioning Creationism.

Also, you are free to teach ID, in philosophy class. It doesn't belong in science class, just as Math does not belong in English class.

Edit: Ah I see what you mean by opening an OT thread. Sorry, didn't]

Guess you need your own movie. Two wrongs don't make a right.

See you in OT.

 

[busterdog]

You are hanging a lot of hopes on a conference that won't be held until July and won't have anything published until next year.

When all is said and done I expect it will do exactly what Fodor suggests; propose "a major revision of evolutionary theory".

Not a retraction, not a capitulation to creationism, not the introduction of theology into science. A revision. Possibly a revision on a par with Einstein's revision of Newton. But still a revision. There will still be a theory of evolution. It will still incorporate Darwin's theory and neo-Darwinism. But it will suggest a new and broader setting for them, linking them up with new information and understanding.

And you will probably loathe it.

Probably I will loath it. The notion of "reinventing the sacred" alraedy frosts me.

However, all feelings aside, the ideas discussed in that conference are very close to what is expressed in ID, just as the sense of persecution of those in the conference is very close to what Ben Stein is talking about.

 

[Critias]

Oh those that wish to give glory to God in a public manor write books about it, those that want to be more private do what ever they do in private, but these things are not written in the papers because they would again only add things that are outside of the question they are seeking to answer.

In school, when asked what two plus two was did you answer four and let the class move on or did you spend a half an hour praising God that a numbering system works in this universe and for the idea of numbers and all the other things that God is responsible for that have worked out in this universe to make two plus two equal four?

You've brought up an excellent point here. I think it would actually be beneficial to students to know that 1+1 does not always equal 2. In fact, I can prove to you that 1+1 can also equal 3. This would then start a discussion on various number systems and the obvious of 1+1=2 isn't always the case, there are alternate answers.

So, just as we could go on a discussion of how 1+1=3, schools should also allow the discussion that there are competing theories in the space of evolution and creation.

Even in the most religious of schools, I think you would get talked to if you spent time praising God for everything leading to an answer and leading to your ability to give and understand that answer.

It may sound good, but when you think of publicly praising God every time you do anything, you will find that you would end up waisting your time and the time of anyone around you.

I think you know that you've taken this a bit out of context to use for your own manipulative way of making a point, but honestly, I think you knew what I meant.

After dealing with that, we have to deal with the problem that not everyone sees God in the same way, not only do you have people of different faiths, you have people of the same faith that see things incredibly differently.

Even if your answer was right, you might offend someone or even make an enemy because you praised God in a way that they did not like and start a theological fight when all you were trying to do was answer a simple math problem.

I don't think I've stated anywhere that a discussion on who the Creator is, should be part of this same conversation. Just the simple admittance that there could be a Creator. Whether the Creator is the Christian God, Muslim God, or whomever, that's a theological debate. Simple stating that there could have been a Designer/Creator that is behind the creation of the world, seems to be simple unthinkable, even among some TE's here - as it pertains to the discussion of.

The dropping of praise or theological talk in science papers allows scientists to share important ideas without getting mired in theological fights.

Also, I have noticed you have failed to praise God in your last post for all the things He did so you could post... If you expect scientists to praise God publicly with every thing they write, don't you think that you should also?

Yes, I suppose for you there is more important things - within science - than talk about God a Creator, the Salvation of our souls. See, I can manipulate your words as well as you've done with mine.

 

[Critias]

It's not God that's the problem, it's the use of miracles as a means of explanation. Usually, when neocreationists say "God did it", they mean God used a miracle accomplish some goal. The problem is, miracles are intangible to science and do nothing to improve our understanding of how the world works. For example, today we know that planets are held in elliptical orbits by gravity, and that they wobble occasionally due to the slight gravitational pull of other nearby planets. But once upon a time, people believed that it was God's miraculous power that held the planets in place, and that those regular planetary wobbles were just the hand of God doing some rearranging. And while the latter explanation certainly has a nice theological theme to it, it really doesn't help us to understand planetary motion any better.

Let's just dream, for one moment, ok? Let's say God did create and it was miracle, do you think we should hide that and do anything to cover it up?

Evolutionary creationists advocate that just because we have a natural explanation for how something happened in the past doesn't mean it excludes God. If "in Him all things hold together" (Col 1:17), there is no process, natural or otherwise, that happens apart from the grace of God. This applies to planetary orbit (as Newton admitted), and also to the natural explanation of evolution. Unfortunately, this viewpoint was purposely excluded from Expelled because the producer, Mark Mathis, thought it would "confuse" the black-and-white dichotomy he was trying to create between creationists and atheists.

I haven't seen the movie yet to know, but I'll take your word for it.

 

[Critias]

Pop quiz, how many people in Expelled were actually fired? The truth may surprise you.

Once that's done, I have a list of people who were fired, forced to recant, physically assaulted, and received death threats for teaching evolution/questioning Creationism.

Also, you are free to teach ID, in philosophy class. It doesn't belong in science class, just as Math does not belong in English class.

Edit: Ah I see what you mean by opening an OT thread. Sorry, didn't realize this was in the Creationism subforum.

I actually think your argument of analogy doesn't quite work here. It would be more akin to saying that Math should not be discussed in Computer Science, which, being a Computer Scientist, is shear rubbish. Math is a building principle.

I know I'm nobody here, but I personally don't mind you posting here Dracil. The reason I posted in here was so that we could have some sort of boundries. In the past, it seems the OT is an open shooting ground, but I'd be happy to discuss there, if you'd rather.

 

[Mallon]

Let's just dream, for one moment, ok? Let's say God did create and it was miracle, do you think we should hide that and do anything to cover it up?

If God did use a miracle, we cannot come to know it through science. That's my point. Science cannot detect the operation of miracles in history. Science can only suspend judgment until further evidence is acquired (maybe God did poof life into existence, or maybe we just don't have enough evidence yet). Many neocreationists are quick to use God as a sort of filler; they think we should just stuff God into the gaps of our knowledge instead of looking for explanations of the world that are consistent with how we know it operates. The problem for Christians comes when eventually we do find find a natural cause for some effect, and God is essentially put out of a job as place-holder. This is called God-of-the-gaps theology, and it is dangerous. As I said, we can avoid this pitfall by understanding a priori that God is responsible for all creation, regardless of whether we have a natural explanation for it or not.

 

[vossler]

Science concentrates on only things that can be tested since this has proven time and time again to get results. It ignores things that cannot be tested because without tests there is no way to see if an idea is good or bad, thus you can talk about it a lot, but you will never see a result.

Evolution is supposed to be considered science yet it relies tremendously on conjecture and speculation.

The idea of a trinity and exactly what it means has been in theological discussion for over a thousand years with little to show for it. Science does not have the time to play these games, a cancer patient, a disappearing species, dwindling oil reserves, thousands of other problems we face must be solved, not just talked about. So science cuts the talk about who's God is responsible for what and why and just concentrates it's efforts on what we can do about the problem now.

Science should be about arriving at the truth and given that the Bible is the ultimate source of truth one would think a Christian might lean on it whenever possible and not view it as some sort of game. All the problems you stated are known by our Creator and He is in control. Because I believe that to be true then He is critical to any sort of discussion or efforts concerning a remedy to our problems.

If you got cancer, we could review your life, go on and on about what you should or should not have eaten, touched or breathed, and get nothing done that helps you or we could look at the problem and see if we can stop the cancer. Which would you like us to do?

I would like you to submit your prayer requests for guidance and direction, on my behalf, to Him.

If I want to play baseball, I had better show up with a bat and a glove. If I show up with shoulder pads and start tackling people, it is my fault for not playing the right sport, not the baseball players that showed up with the right equipment.

If I want to be successful in life I had better not be too concerned with worldly things and be very concerned with what God is doing and what He wants to do through me.

Like I said, we've got very different approaches.

In school, when asked what two plus two was did you answer four and let the class move on or did you spend a half an hour praising God that a numbering system works in this universe and for the idea of numbers and all the other things that God is responsible for that have worked out in this universe to make two plus two equal four?

In school, one isn't allowed to give God glory for His creation, that's what evolution has ultimately produced. In school, one isn't allowed to pray to our creator for guidance and direction. In school, one isn't allowed to acknowledge that there even is a creator. In school, we can't teach the most important truth that ever happened. Oh yeah, we've got different approaches.

Even in the most religious of schools, I think you would get talked to if you spent time praising God for everything leading to an answer and leading to your ability to give and understand that answer.

If only that were real a problem. Sadly, it's quite the opposite.

It may sound good, but when you think of publicly praising God every time you do anything, you will find that you would end up waisting your time and the time of anyone around you.

Non Christians would certainly agree with that, however as a Christian I could never believe that there is such a thing as too much praise given to God or that it should ever be considered a waste of time.

After dealing with that, we have to deal with the problem that not everyone sees God in the same way, not only do you have people of different faiths, you have people of the same faith that see things incredibly differently.

Even if your answer was right, you might offend someone or even make an enemy because you praised God in a way that they did not like and start a theological fight when all you were trying to do was answer a simple math problem.

Since when are we supposed to judge whether we give praise by how it might be received by those around us?

It is clear to me these comments show how TEs and Creationists differ.

It's not God that's the problem, it's the use of miracles as a means of explanation. Usually, when neocreationists say "God did it", they mean God used a miracle accomplish some goal. The problem is, miracles are intangible to science and do nothing to improve our understanding of how the world works. For example, today we know that planets are held in elliptical orbits by gravity, and that they wobble occasionally due to the slight gravitational pull of other nearby planets. But once upon a time, people believed that it was God's miraculous power that held the planets in place, and that those regular planetary wobbles were just the hand of God doing some rearranging. And while the latter explanation certainly has a nice theological theme to it, it really doesn't help us to understand planetary motion any better.

This sounds so nice and complete! The thing is all we've done is replace God with gravity. No one knows where gravity's power comes from either. Gravity, for the most part, is intangible to science too!

 

[Critias]

If God did use a miracle, we cannot come to know it through science. That's my point. Science cannot detect the operation of miracles in history. Science can only suspend judgment until further evidence is acquired (maybe God did poof life into existence, or maybe we just don't have enough evidence yet). Many neocreationists are quick to use God as a sort of filler; they think we should just stuff God into the gaps of our knowledge instead of looking for explanations of the world that are consistent with how we know it operates. The problem for Christians comes when eventually we do find find a natural cause for some effect, and God is essentially put out of a job as place-holder. This is called God-of-the-gaps theology, and it is dangerous. As I said, we can avoid this pitfall by understanding a priori that God is responsible for all creation, regardless of whether we have a natural explanation for it or not.

Awe Mallon, you didn't even answer the question. I hope this isn't typical behavior. Seriously though, do you feel we should try and hide miracles of God? Whether they be creation, rising from the dead, water to wine, etc.

 

[Mallon]

The thing is all we've done is replace God with gravity. No one knows where gravity's power comes from either. Gravity, for the most part, is intangible to science too!

This is what I mean by God-of-the-gaps theology, Critias. We may not yet know every last detail about how gravity works, but that doesn't mean it's upheld directly by a miracle of God. We just don't know yet.

And vossler, I should point out that no one is being prevented from praying in schools. They just don't have "prayer time" anymore.