I struggle with...

[razzelflabben]

[Staff edit].

The point was that some believe that God is 100% right all the time thus they accept creation as fact, the point was countered with among other things the claim that a gnome is 100% right all the time thus should be taught in school. As previously established in this thread, the theory of evolution is not a scientific fact but rather a scientific theory, that is to say, a belief and accepting it as truth is as much a matter of faith as is God or Allah or whomever we want to claim, like the yard gnome. I personally don't believe that faith based anything should be taught in school. I personally got no problem teaching evolution, as change or adaptation but the theory of evolution at best should get a nod as to this is how science makes theories....etc. and nothing more because it is teaching a faith not fact. Stick to the facts and I got no problem...Personally I don't even have a problem teaching, "here are different prominent religions and what they believe" as long as the teaching is fact based and not faith based.

Here is an example...some time ago I was teaching reading. We wanted to look at different ways to communicate the same thing. Easily at my disposal was the account of Adam and Eve and the fall of man. So we looked at that account as a story and not as a faith based story. We looked at it from the Bible, from a poem, from a song, etc. and compared each form for their literary context. I couldn't care less about that type of thing in school as I said as long as it is fact based and not faith based teaching which is where the theory of evolution as it is taught in school falls and personally I think it needs revised teaching...but that is my view. I was responding to a poster who seemed to want to teach gnome authority as fact in school...

 

[Strathos]

The point was that some believe that God is 100% right all the time thus they accept creation as fact, the point was countered with among other things the claim that a gnome is 100% right all the time thus should be taught in school.

The problem is that God's word isn't always perfectly clear.

As previously established in this thread, the theory of evolution is not a scientific fact but rather a scientific theory, that is to say, a belief and accepting it as truth is as much a matter of faith as is God or Allah or whomever we want to claim, like the yard gnome.

A scientific theory is a framework that explains facts and observations. It's not a faith-based belief. Gravity, germs, and atoms are also theories.

I personally don't believe that faith based anything should be taught in school. I personally got no problem teaching evolution, as change or adaptation but the theory of evolution at best should get a nod as to this is how science makes theories....etc. and nothing more because it is teaching a faith not fact. Stick to the facts and I got no problem...Personally I don't even have a problem teaching, "here are different prominent religions and what they believe" as long as the teaching is fact based and not faith based.

ToE is the framework that explains how the biological fact of evolution works. It's not faith-based.

Here is an example...some time ago I was teaching reading. We wanted to look at different ways to communicate the same thing. Easily at my disposal was the account of Adam and Eve and the fall of man. So we looked at that account as a story and not as a faith based story. We looked at it from the Bible, from a poem, from a song, etc. and compared each form for their literary context. I couldn't care less about that type of thing in school as I said as long as it is fact based and not faith based teaching which is where the theory of evolution as it is taught in school falls and personally I think it needs revised teaching...but that is my view. I was responding to a poster who seemed to want to teach gnome authority as fact in school...

What is being taught as fact that is not?

 

[razzelflabben]

The problem is that God's word isn't always perfectly clear.

lol more times than not it isn't clear because it isn't read for comprehension. I just finished a thread about this very topic. We were suppose to be looking at a passage that had more than one widely accepted meaning and what reading for comprehension, as in the common literary rules for comprehension that are taught in elementary school tell us the real meaning is. Of everyone willing to look at the text using those rules the conclusion was the same. Only one meaning. Everyone who refused to use those rules came up with a variety of possibles based on what hoops they could jump through to come to the meaning they liked. I study scripture an average of 20-40 hours a week and I have found very very few passages that didn't present just one meaning if common literary rules for comprehension were applied to the text. Add some good exegesis study and the number of questionable passage becomes even smaller and of those in question there is no real meat that would cause us to "stumble".

A scientific theory is a framework that explains facts and observations. It's not a faith-based belief. Gravity, germs, and atoms are also theories.

lol I know what scientific theory is, all I am saying is that if theory is taught as theory there is no problem with me. I myself have been in classrooms and talked to countless other people who have had the same experience that it is taught as fact and not theory. Even on these boards we are told that the theory of evolution is fact when in fact, IT IS NOT, it's a theory. As I said, teach it for what it is and I got no problem, inflate it to something it is not and I got a problem. That shouldn't be a problem for anyone who is being truthful to have a problem with. All I ask is that it is taught from the standpoint of what is truth and what is theory and we will get along just fine.

ToE is the framework that explains how the biological fact of evolution works. It's not faith-based.

it really is faith based if it becomes the central understanding of what we know. we talked about this previously...
maybe you should go back and review that part of the discussion.

What is being taught as fact that is not?

Huh? What is being taught as fact is not? what are you asking me here? I have participated in classes and forum discussions where the theory of evolution was taught as fact not theory and when I object I am labeled and insulted and otherwise treated badly just because I ask that it be taught for what it is, a theory....

 

[Speedwell]

I have participated in classes and forum discussions where the theory of evolution was taught as fact not theory and when I object I am labeled and insulted and otherwise treated badly just because I ask that it be taught for what it is, a theory....

That sounds pretty high level for public high school, where evolution is usually no more than a two-week unit in sophomore biology.

 

[AV1611VET]

A scientific theory is a framework that explains facts and observations.

And who observed the Earth coming into existence? was it observed being created, or was it observed being formed?

I can give you six specific names of persons who saw the Earth being created; can you give me one who saw it being formed?

 

[Speedwell]

[Staff edit].

I don't think the theory of evolution is the "truth," just the best opinion of science at the present time. I don't accept it by "faith" but on the basis of evidence which seems convincing to me, and because I have a math background I understand the power of algorithms based on variation and selection to create novel complexity.

 

[razzelflabben]

I don't think the theory of evolution is the "truth," just the best opinion of science at the present time. I don't accept it by "faith" but on the basis of evidence which seems convincing to me, and because I have a math background I understand the power of algorithms based on variation and selection to create novel complexity.

you should review that portion of the discussion it was interesting to say the least. In my opinion worth the time to go back and review it.

 

[Norbert L]

* Life evolved from primitive life forms after the creation event.

* As for mans religious and revelatory heritage, in the distant past we were betrayed by a high celestial administrator, the world fell.

* Some time later 2 incarnate celestials materialized and began their reign as the worlds new spiritual leaders, Adam and Eve. In short order they fell into a trap and sinned but repented.

* In Babylon, when the Old Testament books were being finalized, the Hebrews incorporated the well known Mesopotamian legend of Adam and Eve into their narrative of origins. They assumed Adam and Eve were the first humans.

* The Bible is the written word, its human.

Nice story!

 

[Jimmy D]

The point was that some believe that God is 100% right all the time thus they accept creation as fact, the point was countered with among other things the claim that a gnome is 100% right all the time thus should be taught in school.

I'm sure that they do. Their mistake is the belief that the bible is his autobiography and can only be read as such.

As previously established in this thread, the theory of evolution is not a scientific fact but rather a scientific theory, that is to say, a belief and accepting it as truth is as much a matter of faith as is God or Allah or whomever we want to claim,

That has not been established at all, it's completely untrue. The evidence supporting the theory is overwhelming and is meticulously tested, recorded and published so can be independently verified by anyone who cares to do so.

I personally don't believe that faith based anything should be taught in school. I personally got no problem teaching evolution, as change or adaptation but the theory of evolution at best should get a nod as to this is how science makes theories....etc. and nothing more because it is teaching a faith not fact. Stick to the facts and I got no problem...

The only faith likely to be involved is for those who don't want to verify the pertinent information for themselves. That would be the faith that the tens of thousands of biologists, geneticists, paleontologists, geologists etc who've tested and improved the theory over the last 200 years are not involved in a huge conspiracy.

Personally I don't even have a problem teaching, "here are different prominent religions and what they believe" as long as the teaching is fact based and not faith based.

Fine, in this country we call them Religious Education classes.

Here is an example...some time ago I was teaching reading. We wanted to look at different ways to communicate the same thing. Easily at my disposal was the account of Adam and Eve and the fall of man. So we looked at that account as a story and not as a faith based story. We looked at it from the Bible, from a poem, from a song, etc. and compared each form for their literary context.

Fine, as an athiest I'd be happy for my young daughter to learn about such things... in R.E class.

I couldn't care less about that type of thing in school as I said as long as it is fact based and not faith based teaching which is where the theory of evolution as it is taught in school falls and personally I think it needs revised teaching...

Stop saying it's "faith based", it's making you sound desperate. People graduating and working in areas relating to the Theory of Evolution seem satisfied with the status quo, the world's leading universites and scientific centres seem don't seem to think it needs much revising. Frankly, the world at large cares little about anti-science fundamentalist agendas.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The point was that some believe that God is 100% right all the time thus they accept creation as fact,

Even if we accept that God is 100% right all the time, what does that have to do with Creationism? It's a man-made doctrine.

 

[razzelflabben]

Even if we accept that God is 100% right all the time, what does that have to do with Creationism? It's a man-made doctrine.

What was the OP question? Why do people believe creation right? Right! The answer, some believe creation because it is taken from scripture which is said to be the inspired word of God and since they believe God to be 100% right all the time it is a natural belief for them....does that long winded version help clarify for you? I didn't say it was right or wrong or good or bad and quite frankly I can't even imagine what problem someone could possibly create from that simple look into human nature but here we are. here is another inconvenient truth for you about human nature...when people have their beliefs challenged they get all emotional and turn things that are simple fact into some big argument to try to justify their bias. You know like people are doing here over all this stuff...it's not a statement that should cause strife of any kind and yet here we are in an emotional battle over it because if flies in the face of peoples beliefs and biases and faith based assumptions. Human nature, the answer to the OP question, plain and simple.

 

[TLK Valentine]

What was the OP question? Why do people believe creation right? Right! The answer, some believe creation because it is taken from scripture which is said to be the inspired word of God and since they believe God to be 100% right all the time it is a natural belief for them....does that long winded version help clarify for you? I didn't say it was right or wrong or good or bad and quite frankly I can't even imagine what problem someone could possibly create from that simple look into human nature but here we are. here is another inconvenient truth for you about human nature...when people have their beliefs challenged they get all emotional and turn things that are simple fact into some big argument to try to justify their bias. You know like people are doing here over all this stuff...it's not a statement that should cause strife of any kind and yet here we are in an emotional battle over it because if flies in the face of peoples beliefs and biases and faith based assumptions. Human nature, the answer to the OP question, plain and simple.

Irrelevant. You said God was right 100% of the time. I asked, assuming that to be true, what has it to do with Creationism, being a man-made doctrine?

Any reason you're running away from the simple questions?

 

[AV1611VET]

I asked, assuming that to be true, what has it to do with Creationism, being a man-made doctrine?

Who made it up? Adam?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Who made it up? Adam?

Well, guys like Anaxagoras and Empedocles tend to get the credit for the general idea, but if you're talking Biblical, St. Augustine got the ball rolling, although he specified that the world was created from existing materials, which kind of torpedoes your ex nihilo theory.

Creationism was never really taken seriously as scientific/historical "truth" until after Darwin... sure, people like Paley had his famous teleological "watchmaker" argument back in 1802, but he never accepted a Biblical timeline, which got pwned by James Hutton once and for all back in 1785.

Contrary to popular (and ignorant) belief, Darwin did believe in "creation" as responsible for the origin of life, although he never postulated when or how that might have occurred -- clearly the Biblical timeline was out, thanks to Hutton, and Darwin, being a naturalist, apparently saw no need to go off on a supernatural tangent.

Creationism as we know and "love" it was a Presbyterian invention. It grew out of the Niagra Bible Conference of 1878, which founded "Christian Fundamentalism" in 1910, so I guess you could give them the credit, but it didn't really begin to grow in the US until the mid 20th century... not coincidentally, around the time that Natural Selection became a mainstream topic in science and science education, than the fundamentalists were afraid that such thought would weaken their sociopolitical influence.

In short, there was no one person, but rather quite a few over the centuries... none of which should be considered 100% correct, regardless of whether or not God is.

 

[Speedwell]

[Staff edit].

Why do people believe in creationism? Because they are devoted to a particular interpretation of a particular holy book. There is no other reason.

Why do people not believe in creationism? Because they do not believe in that interpretation of the holy book, and would not believe even if the current scientific theories of our origins proved to be faulty.

 

[Speedwell]

[Staff edit]. A theory, in science, is an explanation of scientific observations, "a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena."

If there is no evidence to be explained, there can be no theory, nor even an hypothesis.

 

[Speedwell]

[Staff edit].

For my part, if the theory of evolution was comprehensively disproved tomorrow, it would not change my view of creationism. I most certainly would not become a creationist.

 

[Strathos]

I think one of the major problems with some Christians who are unsure about evolution is that they have been told the lie that evolution rules out God and is inherently atheistic, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Jimmy D]

I think one of the major problems with some Christians who are unsure about evolution is that they have been told the lie that evolution rules out God and is inherently atheistic, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Why do people believe in creationism? Because they are devoted to a particular interpretation of a particular holy book. There is no other reason.

Why do people not believe in creationism? Because they do not believe in that interpretation of the holy book, and would not believe even if the current scientific theories of our origins proved to be faulty.

You've hit the nail on the head there chaps. The many creationist propaganda websites which serve to reinforce these ideas should probably shoulder a lot of the blame as well. Apart from misleading the scientific illiterate with what superficially might sound like convincing scientific arguments, their very presence implies that there is some sort of justification for a controversy that doesn't really exist.

 

[Strathos]

You've hit the nail on the head there chaps. The many creationist propaganda websites which serve to reinforce these ideas should probably shoulder a lot of the blame as well. Apart from misleading the scientific illiterate with what superficially might sound like convincing scientific arguments, their very presence implies that there is some sort of justification for a controversy that doesn't really exist.

Atheists aren't free from blame either. If I had a nickel for every time I saw an atheist go from arguing in favor of the ToE with a creationist to arguing that God doesn't exist I'd be rich.