I am not asking you to compromise.

[Robert the Pilegrim]

I was bemused by the "Did You Compromise?" thread as I was planning this thread but didn't get to it 'til now

In Vance's "Why the geocentrism analogy is useful" thread the following was written:

It is not the responsibility of Christians to repackage the message of the Gospel or any other part of the Bible in such a way as to eliminate potential conflict with a world-view.

While I have been known to use the geocentrism analogy, my problem is not with special creation of species or with YEC or OEC. My problem, both in terms of reaching out to agnostics and in my fear for Creationists, is Scientific Creationism.

I am not asking you to compromise your Biblical interpretation on how Creation occured; after all, I believe that a Carpenter's stepson was born to a virgin, was crucified as a sacrifice for my sins, has been raised from the dead and is in Heaven as we speak.

I am asking you to take that interpretation on faith and stop spending time worrying about whether the physical evidence can in some possible way be turned to agree with you.

Taking special creation and a young earth on faith is, well, an act of faith, and seen as such. At worst you look naive.

When you start claiming the physical evidence agrees with you, at best you look ignorant. And worse ... you get into a habit of ignoring evidence, believing anything that other Fundamentalists say about evolution and science, thinking that scientists are liars.

So again, I am not asking you to compromise your interpretation of Genesis,
I am simply asking you to take that interpretation on faith.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

They can't do that. They need a "scientific" basis for creationism so that they can put it on a level footing with evolution and teach it in schools - "equal time" and whatnot.

If it's purely religion, they can't have it taught.
The whole creation science thing can be seen as a creation of the American church state seperation as it applies to what can and can't be taught in public schools in the US.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

They can't do that. They need a "scientific" basis for creationism so that they can put it on a level footing with evolution and teach it in schools - "equal time" and whatnot.

If it's purely religion, they can't have it taught.
The whole creation science thing can be seen as a creation of the American church state seperation as it applies to what can and can't be taught in public schools in the US.

What my post is trying to do is point out that the two issues, scientific creationism and YEC, are seperable.

There was a poll done in ... Ohio I think. It was fairly in depth and had a decent sample size. What they found is that there are many people who believe that YEC should be taught in school, but outside of the science curriculum.

It would be most robust constitutionally if that were done in a survey of creation stories but as long as they teach it as "what some Christians believe" rather than fact it will likely pass constitutional muster.

At least as important to me is what gets taught in Sunday School and Christian adult ed courses and religious schools, and there the constitutional questions don't apply.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

What my post is trying to do is point out that the two issues, scientific creationism and YEC, are seperable.

I know. The second is merely wrong, the first is dishonest.

There was a poll done in ... Ohio I think. It was fairly in depth and had a decent sample size. What they found is that there are many people who believe that YEC should be taught in school, but outside of the science curriculum.

It would be most robust constitutionally if that were done in a survey of creation stories but as long as they teach it as "what some Christians believe" rather than fact it will likely pass constitutional muster.

I'm sure it would. But it wouldn't satisfy the creationists. They want it taught in science lessons.

At least as important to me is what gets taught in Sunday School and Christian adult ed courses and religious schools, and there the constitutional questions don't apply.

True enough. But I don't think that's the reason behind so called "Creation science"

 

[mhess13]

There was a poll done in ... Ohio I think. It was fairly in depth and had a decent sample size. What they found is that there are many people who believe that YEC should be taught in school, but outside of the science curriculum.

I don't really care if YEC were taught in school or not. I certainly don't push for it. Basically I'd just be happy if evolution were not taught as fact.

It would make me happy if evolution were taught outside of the science curriculum since it is unobservable and untestable and must be taken on faith

 

[gluadys]

I don't really care if YEC were taught in school or not. I certainly don't push for it. Basically I'd just be happy if evolution were not taught as fact.

It would make me happy if evolution were taught outside of the science curriculum since it is unobservable and untestable and must be taken on faith

But evolution is fact. It is observable. It makes testable predictions of which many have been found true.

Yes, there is also a theory of evolution which explains these facts.

But the teaching of evolution must include the fact as well as the theory.

 

[Vance]

But evolution is fact. It is observable. It makes testable predictions of which many have been found true.

Yes, there is also a theory of evolution which explains these facts.

But the teaching of evolution must include the fact as well as the theory.

Exactly. Teach the facts as facts, and the theory as theory. But when a theory is so strongly supported, you must be sure that the students understand that "theory" does not mean "guess" or some other speculative process, but a strongly supported explanation for what has happened.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

What my post is trying to do is point out that the two issues, scientific creationism and YEC, are seperable

I know. The second is merely wrong, the first is dishonest.

I think you underestimate the power of misinformation wishful thinking.

It would be most robust constitutionally if that were done in a survey of creation stories but as long as they teach it as "what some Christians believe" rather than fact it will likely pass constitutional muster.

I'm sure it would. But it wouldn't satisfy the creationists. They want it taught in science lessons.

I found and reread the poll I referred to. They don't give the breakdown of YEC positions, however the least charitable reading of the data indicates that at least 20% of YEC are in favor of having creationism discussed in science class explicitly as a belief.
www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_36.pdf
The press release is at http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1903

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Hmm...

Many Americans say schools should teach about creationism, but only a small fraction (less than 3 in 10) want it to be taught about in science class as science, either alongside evolution (13%) or exclusively, in its place (16%).

Whilst PFAW is putting a positive slant on this*, the raw data is that 29%, nearly a third, of the population, and therefore most of the YECs, who at a last estimate numbered around 40% IIRC, want creationism taught in science lessons, as a valid scientific option.

*since when was 29% a "small fraction"? I'd call it a "sizeable minority"!

 

[schooner]

Evolution a fact? No, it's a theory. Big difference. Observable? No, I think not! My cat has yet to morph into something else.

(Although I wish he would, sometimes. He's a pain.)

 

[Vance]

Evolution a fact? No, it's a theory. Big difference. Observable? No, I think not! My cat has yet to morph into something else.

(Although I wish he would, sometimes. He's a pain.)

It is both a fact and a theory. It is considered a fact in science that life underwent evolutionary development over billions of years. The Theory of Evolution is simply the theory as to how the fact took place (the mechanisms).

As for observable, yes, we have seen speciation occur. We have seen everything that makes up the evolutionary mechanism actually take place.

And, if your cat ever morphed into something else, or even gave birth to anything besides a cat, evolution would actually be proven wrong, since evolution requires that a given member of a species give birth to a being with almost identical genes. It is the "almost" that makes it all happen.

 

[billwald]

Doesn't matter which side is correct because when either side is taught to children who can't read and write and have never learned to think for themselves it is pure propaganda.

 

[Maccie]

Doesn't matter which side is correct because when either side is taught to children who can't read and write and have never learned to think for themselves it is pure propaganda.

Good grief! How do you teach children anything then??? You mean you start them off at the age of 5 teaching them both sides of everything and expect them to make their minds up? No wonder so many Americans seem rather confused over what science is!

And all knowledge is propaganda until we know enough about it to decide for ourselves? I haven't a clue how this computer and the World Wide Web works, but am I basing what I am doing here, presumably, on propaganda! No, I take it on trust that scientists who have that sort of gifting have sorted it out for me.