Teaching the difference?

You are mistaken. Whether you like it or not, science is proving that the popular views of how the earth formed as incorrect. The views is shifiting form one of seeing great geological features as being formed over millions of years to one of these features being formed rapidly in a catastrophy. While secular scientists comming to this view still steadfastly deny the Biblical account, the new views does bring science far closer in line to the Bible. There is a very large body of science supporting the Biblical account fo creation. But you sir, without taking the first look at any of it seem to have made up your mind that is inferior of quality to the scinece you back. Unfortunately, the science you back can be shown to have some serious flaws and fallacies in it.

Regarding the flood, this event is really not in question. The body of evidence for it is insurmountable to an honest look and almost every culture we know of has a story of an ancient global flood.

About teaching both sides in school, I'd rather scrap the theories regarind the old age of the earth which have nothing to substantialte them save highly suspect and disproven radiometric dating. However, if boht sides, with their evidences were taught side by side were presented objectively, I think you'd find that the Biblical accont would not be laughed off so easily. To an honest appraisal, there is a terrific amount of evidence. I should know. My conversion came about from the evidence. I could no longer deny that I bought into a lie and that the truth was staring me in the face.

Now, before you continue in claiming I am lying when I say there are disputes in the scientific community regarding the theory of evolution I'd strongly recommend you actaully research your position. That farce of a theory has insurmountable and fatal flaws in it and is by no means universally accepted aong scientists. And some who do accept it do so not because of it's merit, but because they view the alternative as unthinkable.

Also, before you continue to claim creationism is the hoax of the century you should do some research into that subject as well. Fairly impressive for this centuries "hoax" is that it has been around for 6000 years and never disproven. Perhaps you hold the elusive proof that it is all a big hoax perpatrated by Hebrew tribesmen that us wacky Christians keep alive. If so several thousnad years of Biblical detractors will owe you quite a large det of gratitude.

athorist said:

What I do not get, is how on earth teaching both theories alongside in schools could do christianity any good?

Click to expand...

Look up "The Wedge Document" - it explains everything in detail.

Everyone can read through it here: http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/2437/wedge.html but the part that answers your question is:

"We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." - from a 1999 document leaked by the Discovery Institute, the leading proponent of Intelligent Design

(note that the DI, does not deny the contents of the document).

athorist,

Ask and ye shall receive. I cannot compile the stuff now as I am heading out, but I'll get it to you.

This thread would probably be better over here:
http://christianforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=408

But I just wanted to weigh in as a Christian who agrees with you and assure you that there are many many Christians who accept evolution and mainstream science.

athorist said:

Many christians seem to believe the earth is only 6000 years old and that the big flood happened and all that fancyful stuff. Often I hear them claiming to have "evidence" for those claims. Some even claim that "evidence" to have the same level of sophistication than real science. They say the theory of evolution is disputed among scientists and would want to teach science and creationism alongside in schools.

What I do not get, is how on earth teaching both theories alongside in schools could do christianity any good? If you really teach both theories and show the evidence for both, then it will just be too obvious for any kid that creationism is the hoax of the century. Why do christians keep asserting that there is doubt among scientists when there in fact is not. I always thought lying was against gods will?

Click to expand...

Please note that young earth creationism is not the majority Christian position outside of the US. Most Christians are happy that science does a pretty good job of telling us about the internal mechanics of Creation, and that God is the creator of and life giver to that creation.

If you want a full-blown debate on the topic you would be better taking it to an 'origins' forum.

athorist said:

Many christians seem to believe the earth is only 6000 years old and that the big flood happened and all that fancyful stuff. Often I hear them claiming to have "evidence" for those claims. Some even claim that "evidence" to have the same level of sophistication than real science. They say the theory of evolution is disputed among scientists and would want to teach science and creationism alongside in schools.

What I do not get, is how on earth teaching both theories alongside in schools could do christianity any good? If you really teach both theories and show the evidence for both, then it will just be too obvious for any kid that creationism is the hoax of the century. Why do christians keep asserting that there is doubt among scientists when there in fact is not. I always thought lying was against gods will?

Click to expand...

The last paragraph seems to imply that Christians who subscribe to a 6,000 year old earth are involved in a conspiracy to hide the "truth". I think the answer is a bit more complex than that.

If a person concludes that a correct interpretation of the Bible is a literal interpretation, then that person is strongly inclined to accept a 6,000 year old theory of the earth to stay true to that belief. Thus, ideas or research that supports the belief tends to be embraced and ideas or research which run counter to the belief tend to be rejected or downplayed.

Understand, beliefs and rejecting challenges to them is not limited to religion. It is my understanding that many physicists rejected Einstein's Theory of Relativity until various experiments showed the theory was valid. Even after the evidence, some physicists rejected or downplayed the theory in favor of their own.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

athorist said:

Where do you get the idea from that science tells us "God is the creator"? How do you get that idea? Science does not do that. Why do christians always forget to name the relevant research papers when they boldly assert something along the lines "Science tells us...".

Show a peer-reviewed research that tells us "God is the creator".

Click to expand...

Sorry, I phrased that badly in print (it worked verbally). Let me rewrite it more clearly thus:
Most Christians are happy that science does a pretty good job of telling us about the internal mechanics of Creation. They are also happy that God is the creator of and life giver to that creation.

athorist said:

In what logically consistent universe would research indicate a 6000 year old earth? That's just ridiculous. Where is that "research"? Where are the peer-reviewed scientific publications that would suggest so? There sure is a lot of stuff out in the wild that would indeed suggest a (failed) attempt of conspiracy...


And? What's the theory of relativity got to do with asserting the earth is 6000 years old, which flatly contradicts virtually every aspect of science. It's a shame that none of you addressed my questions about the Hubble Deep Field and the Redshift. That's evidence beyond any doubt. Virtually ALL of physics would be invalidated if the earth was 6000 years old. So how can a sane person believe that?

Are you suggesting that if people find things through bible studies that contradict reality it means that reality got it wrong?

Btw, the main reason that scientists rejected Einsteins theory was because there had not been observational evidence initially. Once the respective experiments were done and showed the predictions of the theory to be correct it was not doubted any more (except for some very few crackpots). This is in no way comparable to the theory that the earth is 6000 years old which totaly fails to conform with reality.

Click to expand...

In what logically consistent universe would research indicate a 6000 year old earth? That's just ridiculous. Where is that "research"? Where are the peer-reviewed scientific publications that would suggest so? There sure is a lot of stuff out in the wild that would indeed suggest a (failed) attempt of conspiracy....

Click to expand...

I have no idea that there is any credible scientific research to back up the 6,000 year old earth idea. My intent was to explain that people who believe in a 6,000 year old earth do so as a conclusion based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. It is taken as a matter of faith. By being a matter of faith, evidence to the contrary tends to be dismissed, downplayed, scrutinized for any potential flaw, and/or ignored.

The talk about Einstein's theory was to show that people of all stripes tend to hold on to beliefs even in light of new information. This aspect of human nature is not limited to religious dogma. As you clearly pointed out to support my point even after Einstein was vindicated (by studies of an eclipse as I recall regarding the bending of light) there were a few who held on to their beliefs.

My intent is not to defend those who embrace the idea of a 6,000 year old earth. Rather it is to explain why some would embrace the idea.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

athorist said:

And I know you said that not all christians believe in a 6000 year old earth. Would those be happy if someone teaches their kids in school that the earth is 6000 years old? What I really don't get, and it's something that I always wonder about when thinking about the whole ID vs. evolution debate, is why isn't there any real debate among christians. Why aren't the ones that understand how ridiculous the YEC claims are giving their fellow brothers a reality update? But no, they actually seem to take a position of "let's just teach both in schools". That's outraging. And (to bring it back to my actual question) I think it would actually be of harm to the christian cause. Kids aren't stupid. If they are teached both theories alongside it will be fairly obvious to them that the proponents of YEC are willfully ignorant. What's your opinion about the Discovery Institute? Don't you think they are deliberately being deceitful? Isn't what they do "bearing false witness"?

Click to expand...

You are misinformed. There is plenty of debate amongst Christians and we attempt to give our YEC brothers a reality update regularly. There is a forum on this board just for Christians to debate origins and there are many smart (some scientists) Christian evolutionists who debate there. Of course the issue isn't black and white, there are YEC's, a couple of types of OEC's (old earth creationists - still denying evolution), ID (which can include YEC, OEC or evolution to an extent) and evolutionists.

There are also Christian scientist in the public who are fighting against YEC. The best example would be Ken Miller who authored "Finding Darwin's God". He testified against ID in the Dover trial. Another name to check out would be Francis Collins (author of "The language of God and head of the human genome project. Ex-Pope John Paul II's proclamation that evolution is "more than just a hypothesis" is also interesting.

athorist said:

Well, yeah, I see what your trying to say now. I don't really understand why you insist on calling it "internal mechanics of Creation" though. Science does not know about Creation. It neither says the world was created nor does it say it wasn't. So why not just call it the "internal mechanics of nature"?

Click to expand...

Because then I can't make the theological sentence work well. Science and theology use different languages and one needs to play a little flexibly with those to draw the statements together in the way I wanted. Where science talks about "the universe" or "nature" (biblical) theology talks about "creation" - but the terms aren't quite interchangeable.

And I know you said that not all christians believe in a 6000 year old earth. Would those be happy if someone teaches their kids in school that the earth is 6000 years old?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't - no. It would be both bad science and bad theology.

What I really don't get, and it's something that I always wonder about when thinking about the whole ID vs. evolution debate, is why isn't there any real debate among christians. Why aren't the ones that understand how ridiculous the YEC claims are giving their fellow brothers a reality update?

Click to expand...

Um, there is. That may not always be apparent from where you are standing, but...

But no, they actually seem to take a position of "let's just teach both in schools".

Click to expand...

I don't think I've come across many Christians who take a theistic evolutionary approach saying that. But then this isn't a major topic of debate for most of us outside the US.

That's outraging. And (to bring it back to my actual question) I think it would actually be of harm to the christian cause. Kids aren't stupid. If they are teached both theories alongside it will be fairly obvious to them that the proponents of YEC are willfully ignorant. What's your opinion about the Discovery Institute? Don't you think they are deliberately being deceitful? Isn't what they do "bearing false witness"?

Click to expand...

I'm reluctant to sit in judgement on anyone, and I don't consider my self sufficiently well informed on the behaviour of the Discovery Institute, to pronounce on them. I will say that I have strong reservations about the methods of many YEC institutions, and some are clearly dishonest.

Often I hear them claiming to have "evidence" for those claims. Some even claim that "evidence" to have the same level of sophistication than real science.

There are many people who, like you, believe that evolution is science while creation is religion ... but is that true? This is at the heart, the underlying, or the core issue of the debate. The purpose of this post is to help shed some light on the issue...

It is valid to make a distinction between the two main types of science: origins science and operational science. As the name suggests, origins science deals with the question about the origins of something or some event in the past, which is by definition unique, unobservable, and unrepeatable. By contrast, operational science involves understanding how something operates in the present, which by definition is repeatable and observable. (Batten, D. 2002)

It should be obvious that microbe-to-man evolution is a unique process that happened in the past. It can't be directly tested or observed, and it most definitely cannot be repeated. The tests and experiments that are done here and now in the present that relate to the past tend to be quite limited and often require a lot of assumptions to be made to fill in the many unknowns (a prime example of this may be the assumptions behind the radiometric dating, such as the initial composition of parent/daughter elements, for example). The further the event is in the past, the more assumptions are involved. The same is true of creation: it is a unique event that occured in the past that can't be directly tested or observed or repeated.

So, both evolution and creation fall into the origins science category. It should be obvious that both sides have the same data (i.e. observations in the present) yet somehow they come up with different interpretations or stories. The question has to be asked, why? Both creation and evolution are influenced by philosophical beliefs. Creation is obviously influenced by the Bible, but evolution is also largely influenced by materialism...

So some of the parts that you call 'real science' are actually outside the realms of science, that is to say that they are not directly observable, testable, or repeatable. The creation vs. evolution debate isn't religion vs. science, it isn't a debate over the data, it's a debate about the right interpretation of the data. To be blunt: at the core of the debate it is one over clashing philosophies.

Anyway, I got distracted and forgot to address the question. It doesn't really worry me whether or not they teach creation in secular schools, but just as long as they teach evolution in its proper context (that is, evolution is an unproven theory that largely deals with origins science) and that they make the nature of the debate clear to students ... then the students can make an informed decision about what they want to believe. That is showing and encouraging critical thinking, which is an important skill for later education at university.

References:
Batten, D. (2002). 'It's Not Science'. Creation Ministries International. Retrieved online 10 August 2008 from: creationontheweb.com/content/view/2480