Should Intelligent Design be Included in Science Classes in Christian Schools?

[ArnautDaniel]

Those who advocate for ID don't claim that the current evidence PROVES there's a creator (much less that that creator is the God of the Holy Bible). As I already said, it's an 'inference to the best explanation'--as in, an inference to a better explanation than that provided by Darwinian evolution with its presuppositions of philosophical materialism.

But you see I've looked at it, and the fact is:

It doesn't provide any explanation *at all*.

The most ID might do is poke some holes in evolution, and say:

Here are something you haven't accounted for, and (we argue) cannot account for.

So let's suppose ID is right, evolution in its current form fails. That doesn't get you to God.

Its not like there are only two options in the entire universe, A and B, so that if you can prove ~A you automatically get B.

Let's say I write a paper poking holes in Einstein. Does that mean that there is no such thing as *gravity*, and that I must instead conclude that God is individually controlling everything, and we mistook the conscious action of God for gravity? Or do I conclude we just need a better theory of gravity?

Merely poking at evolutionary theory is not a demonstration of God.

You see in science it isn't enough to disprove a rival theory, you actually have to state your theory, elaborate on a few tests which you argue proves your theory, but which *might* come out the wrong way thereby *disproving* your theory.

I have yet to see a theory which goes:

If the universe were created by God we expect to measure A, B, and C for the following reasons...{insert reasons here}...and if we don't measure A, B, and C, then our theory of creation by God fails.

 

[elsbeth]

I guess because according to the Scriptures, God created everything, so if evolution is what really happened, it means that God deceived us.

This is the fallacy that keeps coming up. Evolution DOESN'T say there isn't a God or that He didn't create things. It DOES, however, contradict a literal reading of Genesis. GOD DID NOT DECIEVE US, and neither are the Scientists when they talk about evolution. I believe that Genesis is allegory- a way of explaining Spiritual truth to people who were scientific infants, so that He couldn't give them all the facts.

 

[teishpriest]

I'm listening to the video now. Although, I'm not really a fan of ID as I understand it, as it seems to be really vague. "There may be somone behind all of this" as opposed to "God IS the Creator"

I DO accept the Bible as literally true! This may make me somewhat of an oddity in most circles. I figure that if it's not all literally true, then how on earth am I supposed to decide what Scripture is true, and what requires an "interpretation".

Guilty! I am a big fan of Answers in Genesis! I've read a great deal of their material and attended a seminar by them at the local State University.

Really, science can only ever present theories on the origin of the universe, for two reasons. 1) No human witnessed the beginning of the universe. 2) We cannot re-create either evolution OR creation. Science could never absolutely say that one is true over the other.

The reason that I completely accept the Creation theory, is simply because it is what is written in the Bible. I will believe the Bible over ANYTHING any day.

IAC, I completely oppose Government Schools, so I couldn't care less what they indoctrinate, oops, I mean teach, children!

Video is interesting, btw.

 

[UberLutheran]

If privately-funded, non-tax dollar supported Christian schools want to teach Intelligent Design, Christian Physics, Math From the Bible, The Earth is Flat And The Stars Are Twinkling Lights And Sun Revolves Around the Earth -- and parents are willing to pay money for their children to learn that, then so be it.

Not that these will necessarily be helpful classes for the student -- but if people are willing to pay for the privilege of receiving misinformation, then by all means they should be allowed to do so!

(This is libertarian side of me speaking...)

 

[ab1385]

I'm listening to the video now. Although, I'm not really a fan of ID as I understand it, as it seems to be really vague. "There may be somone behind all of this" as opposed to "God IS the Creator"

I DO accept the Bible as literally true! This may make me somewhat of an oddity in most circles. I figure that if it's not all literally true, then how on earth am I supposed to decide what Scripture is true, and what requires an "interpretation".

Guilty! I am a big fan of Answers in Genesis! I've read a great deal of their material and attended a seminar by them at the local State University.

Really, science can only ever present theories on the origin of the universe, for two reasons. 1) No human witnessed the beginning of the universe. 2) We cannot re-create either evolution OR creation. Science could never absolutely say that one is true over the other.

The reason that I completely accept the Creation theory, is simply because it is what is written in the Bible. I will believe the Bible over ANYTHING any day.

IAC, I completely oppose Government Schools, so I couldn't care less what they indoctrinate, oops, I mean teach, children!

Video is interesting, btw.

I have to ask, if all evidence other than the bible is irrelevant to you other than the bible, then why on earth would you bother with Answers in Genesis? If you say that science contradicts what you think the bible says, and therefore think science has it wrong, then I would say you are misguided, but at least internally consistent. If science is irrelevant then why look for scientific answers on completely bogus sites like AiG?

It is interesting that you say science can never prove anything completely. This is true, science can only offer evidence such that we can be 99.9999% sure of evolution having happened, but the same does apply to an interpretation of a biblical passage. Can you really claim to be 100% sure on a literal interpretation of Genesis?

As to how you decide what is literal and what is not, that is a VERY good question, and one well worth asking. What requires an interpretation, though, is everything. Even in a literal historical narrative, the use of ancient terminology and turn of phrase means that we should study what was originally written, by whom, and what for. Some things are as plainly written, but we must study them beneath the surface to discover what they are. Here is how I put it on another forum:

Its called hermeneutics.

We should study who the book was written by, in what society, with what cultural presuppositions and beliefs. This should be true of any historical document, not just the bible. We can't say 'this bit is allegorical' or 'this bit is factual', but rather figure out which bits are compatible with an allegorical and which are compatible with a literal understanding. Genesis as a standalone text is compatible with either understanding, but science shows us that a literal understanding is not the case. Therefore, the book must either be allegorical or wrong, which is not the same as 'therefore the book is wrong'. The Gospels, by contrast, are only compatible really with a literal, historical interpretation. Thus, to falsify the Gospels would not leave open a 'well, it's just allegorical anyway' statement.

It really isn't that hard for those who study the original Hebrew and such to decide which interpretations are and are not likely to be valid. As for Genesis, how poetic is "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

It is wrong to say that to say this is allegorical is 'picking and choosing', as if deciding that if something falsified is then 'just allegorical'. The idea that Genesis may not be literal was around over a thousand years ago, a view held by some very early Christian theologians.

I strongly recommend 'how to read the bible for all it's worth' as a book to help you understand what the bible really is underneath the hood, so to speak.

 

[ab1385]

If privately-funded, non-tax dollar supported Christian schools want to teach Intelligent Design, Christian Physics, Math From the Bible, The Earth is Flat And The Stars Are Twinkling Lights And Sun Revolves Around the Earth -- and parents are willing to pay money for their children to learn that, then so be it.

Not that these will necessarily be helpful classes for the student -- but if people are willing to pay for the privilege of receiving misinformation, then by all means they should be allowed to do so!

(This is libertarian side of me speaking...)

This isn't talking about miseducating oneself, but children. Miseducating children is wrong imo, mmmmk?

 

[UberLutheran]

This isn't talking about miseducating oneself, but children. Miseducating children is wrong imo, mmmmk?

I happen to believe that God works using the tool of evolution.

I also believe that the story of Adam and Eve is an instructional myth to explain why there is suffering, toil, hardship and pain in the world.

There are plenty of people here who believe that I'm "miseducated" because I don't believe in a literal, seven-day creation in the order prescribed in Genesis 1 -- and for that matter, I don't believe in a literal Tower of Babel or a Flood (which is impossible using the adabiatic lapse rate because the top two miles of "the flood" would have to be ice).

I believe evolution should be taught in public schools.

I also believe that comparative religions should be taught in public schools to expose children to different cultures and the way those cultures influence religious belief.

I am quite familiar with all-white "Christian" schools which teach that people who have brown or black skin are genetically inferior; and I have personally seen math and science textbooks which try explain the mathematical concept of "limits" using Romans 1:34-32 and state that AIDS can be prevented by getting adequate rest.

If people want to pay their own hard-earned money to get this kind of "instruction" (which I believe is patent misinformation, if not outright lies) -- well, a fool and his money are soon parted, and I say, "let 'em have at it if that's the way they choose to spend their own money."

On the other hand, if we're going to spend tax dollars on education, let's make sure that kids are getting actual, accurate information -- and not religious or political (left- or right-wing) propaganda.

Mmmmk?

 

[ab1385]

I happen to believe that God works using the tool of evolution.

I also believe that the story of Adam and Eve is an instructional myth to explain why there is suffering, toil, hardship and pain in the world.

There are plenty of people here who believe that I'm "miseducated" because I don't believe in a literal, seven-day creation in the order prescribed in Genesis 1 -- and for that matter, I don't believe in a literal Tower of Babel or a Flood (which is impossible using the adabiatic lapse rate because the top two miles of "the flood" would have to be ice).

I believe evolution should be taught in public schools.

I also believe that comparative religions should be taught in public schools to expose children to different cultures and the way those cultures influence religious belief.

I am quite familiar with all-white "Christian" schools which teach that people who have brown or black skin are genetically inferior; and I have personally seen math and science textbooks which try explain the mathematical concept of "limits" using Romans 1:34-32 and state that AIDS can be prevented by getting adequate rest.

If people want to pay their own hard-earned money to get this kind of "instruction" (which I believe is patent misinformation, if not outright lies) -- well, a fool and his money are soon parted, and I say, "let 'em have at it if that's the way they choose to spend their own money."

On the other hand, if we're going to spend tax dollars on education, let's make sure that kids are getting actual, accurate information -- and not religious or political (left- or right-wing) propaganda.

Mmmmk?

Mostly mmmmk, until the bit about it being OK for parents to pay to miseducate their kids. Miseducating kids is bad whether you pay for the priviledge or not, surely?

I mean, why is it OK for some kids to be taught blatant lies about creationism, just because their parents were taught the same lies when they were young, and now want to pay for their kids to receive the same education?

 

[UberLutheran]

Mostly mmmmk, until the bit about it being OK for parents to pay to miseducate their kids. Miseducating kids is bad whether you pay for the priviledge or not, surely?

I mean, why is it OK for some kids to be taught blatant lies about creationism, just because their parents were taught the same lies when they were young, and now want to pay for their kids to receive the same education?

I see the misunderstanding.

I don't support the teaching of creationism, even in Christian schools; and I think students should receive age-appropriate sex education including discussion of contraceptives and homosexuality; and I'd like for students to take a required set of courses in practical living -- how to balance a checkbook, how to have an argument with one's spouse without resorting to emotional or physical battering, how to cook for oneself (or a couple), how to take care of children, etc.

I'm not going to tell a Christian school how to do their curriculum or what to teach, even if I don't agree with what they're teaching -- but at the same time, I'm going to encourage parents not to send their children to a private school which is teaching creationism, or junk science, or junk mathematics as I described in the previous post.

 

[ab1385]

I suppose you can look at it from the viewpoint that parents who would pay to send their kids to a school teaching creationism and such would just homeschool if there wasn't the oppertunity to do so.

It is just sad though, these children will not understand what science is, we could be losing potentially brilliant scientists to childhood indoctrination. I don't see that it is right, despite my liberal tendencies, to do this to children. If someone wants to teach themselves about creationism as truth, then I say live and let live, but once they start trying to put those views as facts, when they are demonstrably not, to other people, and especially children, I just don't think it's OK.

I think that we should be wary of anything legitimising ID, when it is not at all legitimate. Allowing it to be taught as science in ANY school will do that,so I am against it.

Added to that, the teaching not only implies that ID is correct, but generally sets up this preconception that evolution is anti-God. This is just not healthy, and I don't see how it can do anything other that lead people, ultimately, away from Christianity.

EDIT: By the way UberLutheran, I like your signature. Is it a quote from anyone in particular, or your own composition?

 

[lopez23]

Dont any of you understand?

ID is not science. Christian creationism is no more correct than any other ancient form of thought as to how the universe came to be.

There is absolutely no reason to accept christian creationism over, let's say, cherokee creation myths.

And if you believe in the literal truth of the bible then all I have to say is "WOW". I really hope your kids see the light at the end of your dark and minimalistic tunnel.

 

[UberLutheran]

I suppose you can look at it from the viewpoint that parents who would pay to send their kids to a school teaching creationism and such would just homeschool if there wasn't the oppertunity to do so.

It is just sad though, these children will not understand what science is, we could be losing potentially brilliant scientists to childhood indoctrination. I don't see that it is right, despite my liberal tendencies, to do this to children. If someone wants to teach themselves about creationism as truth, then I say live and let live, but once they start trying to put those views as facts, when they are demonstrably not, to other people, and especially children, I just don't think it's OK.

I think that we should be wary of anything legitimising ID, when it is not at all legitimate. Allowing it to be taught as science in ANY school will do that,so I am against it.

Added to that, the teaching not only implies that ID is correct, but generally sets up this preconception that evolution is anti-God. This is just not healthy, and I don't see how it can do anything other that lead people, ultimately, away from Christianity.

EDIT: By the way UberLutheran, I like your signature. Is it a quote from anyone in particular, or your own composition?

And actually, ab1385 — I'm in complete agreement with you. I cannot support the teaching of ID as "science" in any school.

My quote comes from an episode of The West Wing — it was an electrifying speech by the liberal Presidential candidate in the show, and I loved it so much that I made it my signature!

 

[teishpriest]

I do believe that there is evidence to support Creationism, but that is not WHY I believe it. I find science facinating, and that is why I read things about it.

What's the point of Genesis if none of it is true? I certainly do not believe that ancient cultures were scientifically inferior. In fact, I believe that they were "smarter" than we are. Take our modern number system, it has issues. Some of the ancient number systems were MUCH more accurate. My husband could explain it so much better than I am, though. IAC, I believe that we would find them surprisingly advanced. So a myth to explain things to "backwards" people doesn't make sense to me.

I used to be of the camp that much of the Bible was in need of interpretation. God has shown me otherwise, and changed a LOT of my opinions over the past couple of years. I stopped believing something because it's what I was always taught, or because it's what somone else told me. I've started forming my own thoughts and opinions, largely based on the Scriptures, and what God has chosen to reveal to me.

Yeah, we will homeschool our kids because God has given us the responsibility for their education. Two of the most important things that kids should learn are, 1) how to think, study, and research for themselves and 2) how to have a Biblical worldview. If you teach kids how to find their own answers, they will be much better off.

 

[teishpriest]

Dont any of you understand?

ID is not science. Christian creationism is no more correct than any other ancient form of thought as to how the universe came to be.

There is absolutely no reason to accept christian creationism over, let's say, cherokee creation myths.

And if you believe in the literal truth of the bible then all I have to say is "WOW". I really hope your kids see the light at the end of your dark and minimalistic tunnel.

LOL! I'm much freer now that I do accept the Bible as literall truth, than I was when I believe that it needed to be interpreted. The dark tunnel was "religion" and I thank God for freeing me from it!

 

[ab1385]

I do believe that there is evidence to support Creationism, but that is not WHY I believe it. I find science facinating, and that is why I read things about it.

Are you of the opinion that those Christians who are of the opinion that evolution has happened have somehow been duped? Or do you accept tthat science lies in favour of evolution, but disagree because the bible says, in your opinion, that evolution didn't happen?

What's the point of Genesis if none of it is true? I certainly do not believe that ancient cultures were scientifically inferior. In fact, I believe that they were "smarter" than we are. Take our modern number system, it has issues. Some of the ancient number systems were MUCH more accurate. My husband could explain it so much better than I am, though. IAC, I believe that we would find them surprisingly advanced. So a myth to explain things to "backwards" people doesn't make sense to me.

It's not "a myth to explain things to backward people", nor is it a denial of the truth of Genesis, any more than a denial of the truth of any of Jesus' parables. It is merely that their frame of reference would not be able to deal with the idea of evolution. All they would need to be able to know is that God is in control of the world and created it. How this is the case.

Also, I don't believe that we know of any past systems which are more advanced than our current systems, for the simple reason that if they were then we would have adopted them as our current systems. Can you please provide an example of what you were referring to?

I used to be of the camp that much of the Bible was in need of interpretation. God has shown me otherwise, and changed a LOT of my opinions over the past couple of years. I stopped believing something because it's what I was always taught, or because it's what somone else told me. I've started forming my own thoughts and opinions, largely based on the Scriptures, and what God has chosen to reveal to me.

How exactly has God shown you otherwise? I only ask because you will find very few serious bible scholars who feel that one does not need to do any sort of hermeneutics, who no doubt also feel God's influence on their study and have prayed about the issue. Forming your own thoughts, rather than those just of your closest friends, however, can only be a good thing.

Yeah, we will homeschool our kids because God has given us the responsibility for their education. Two of the most important things that kids should learn are, 1) how to think, study, and research for themselves and 2) how to have a Biblical worldview. If you teach kids how to find their own answers, they will be much better off.

I agree mostly with this. There are of course, some undisputable facts about the world. Where the issue is largely debated I think that the childdren should be taught what the facts are on these issues, and taught how to make up their own minds.

This is why I feel that ID should not be taught in science classes, because all of the arguments presented as facts are, in fact, not. Thus children taught this will be unable to make their own minds up based on the facts.

If you teach a child that science provides more evidence for evolution than ID, but a literal interpretation of Genesis, which you happen to believe in, teaches us that evolution doesn't happen, then they are free to make up their own minds when they are capable of studying the issue themselves.

The thing that really gets me is setting up the idea that one can choose either science or God, and that evolution and the bible are incompatible. I understand that you believe that evolution didn't happen, regardless of the science, but many people think that evolution and Christianity are fully compatible. Setting up a false dichotomy will never benefit your children.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

LOL! I'm much freer now that I do accept the Bible as literall truth, than I was when I believe that it needed to be interpreted. The dark tunnel was "religion" and I thank God for freeing me from it!

I will admit that things are much simpler when you have all the answers and don't have to think about things.

 

[elsbeth]

I certainly do not believe that ancient cultures were scientifically inferior. In fact, I believe that they were "smarter" than we are.

That's a little scary, that you believe that. OF COURSE the ancient cultures were scientifically inferior. There are some areas (notably astronomy) where the ancients had a lot of knowledge, but it was pretty much zip where the life sciences are concerned.

 

[teishpriest]

The theory of evolution tells us that things just evolved by chance. The theory of Creationism tells us that everything was specifically created by God, that everything created was by His design for a specific reason. I really feel that saying that God just kind of set things in motion then sat back and let it happen takes away from the wonder of what He did. For example: My mother was healed miraculously of severe heart disease a number of years ago. Many people told her that it must not have been all that bad. Some of her doctors said that the tests just must have been wrong. Her cardiologist, agreed with her that it was a miracle of God. Saying, "Well, it must not have been bad after all," took the credit away from God. I believe that God does amazing, miraculous, and unexplainable things, and that one of those was Creation.

I know that a lot of Christians believe in evolution. I'm certainly not questioning their salvation, I just think that they are wrong on this subject. Hey, I know that I've been wrong on a great many things, and I'm sure that some of the things I think are still wrong, LOL! None of us are right about everything. Someday, we will know for sure, until then, well, it's OK to disagree!

As for ancient cultures knowing things we don't let me try to explain. This is actually my husband's idea, so I will try to explain, but understand that he could do a better job!

Define zero. It really doesn't have a definition, it is simply a placeholder. Every number has a corrosponding negative number. But zero, not being a number, has no negative. I almost want to say that it was the Egyptians that had a better number system, but my DH isn't here for me to ask. (Poor guy has been working himself to death this weekend!) IAC, zero having no real value or no negative presents a problem in certian equations and theories. As I said, my husband could REALLY explain better than I! When you look at some of the things accomplished, like the pyramids, their understanding of sciences an mathematics is really incredible! Of course, they didn't just leave a ton of textbooks lying around for us to find, unfortunately! Oh well, someday when the computer is obsolete almost nothing of what we know will be around and our great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandkids will think that we were pretty uneducated too, LOL!

IAC, I find this debate very interesting. You won't change my mind, and I know I won't change yours. So this is really just for fun anyway, right? Good night!

 

[teishpriest]

Oops, I realized that I didn't answer a question. I finally set aside everything that I had been indoctrinated with in church. I stepped outside of that and started reading the Bible without my pre-conceptions. I understand that you have to take things in context and take into account the culture of the time, etc. My husband and I have studied that Bible a LOT, but we have read other things as well in realtion to our research on certain issues. Occasionally, God has just shown us something in a way that leaves no doubt that the message is from Him. I'm a black and white type of person, it's either all or nothing for me. Either I believe that all of the Bible is absolutely true, or it's not. In which case, I'd just have to disregard all of it.

I've been wrong about a great number of things in the past, and I'm sure that I'm wrong about a number of things now. But, it's OK, since none of us will be perfect this side of Heaven. Someday, we will all have the answer, and we won't have to agree to disagree anymore. At that point it won't matter, and I don't think we will even care who was right and who wasn't.

Goodnight, and thank-you for the interesting and thought-provoking conversation.

 

[Mallon]

The theory of evolution tells us that things just evolved by chance. The theory of Creationism tells us that everything was specifically created by God, that everything created was by His design for a specific reason.

I always find myself a little distressed when I hear this misconception repeated.
Evolution is definitely NOT simply a result of random chance. Certainly, chance has a part in evolution, when chance mutations introduce new genotypes into a population. But these mutations are then filtered through the very non-random process of natural selection.
For that matter, if you are going to reject the natural explanation for how life diversifies, then I would be surprised if you didn't also reject the natural explanation for how babies are made. The Bible says God knits us together in our mother's womb. Developmental biology says zygotes grow via mitosis. What allows you to marry science and theology when it comes to embryo development, but prevents you from doing the same when it comes to the diversification of life?