Teaching the difference?

[athorist]

Oh yes, I would concur. No religious theory of creation belongs in the science classroom, especially not the thinly veiled ad-hoc creationism hybrid that is ID.

Seems like we are in total agreement here then. What really bugs me about ID though, is that there seems to be a campaign going on that deliberatly tries to spread disinformation. I know that I may be unfair here, but I can't help blaming the moderate (majority) of christians for shielding that behaviour. I would have hoped for the moderate voices to be louder and more visible.

Well many would claim that Genesis sets out quite specifically how the earth and the universe in general was created (well, I say specific, I don't mean it comes with elaborate answers as to the actual processes, but describes how it was performed). Whether people take this literally, metaphorically or allegorically is the sticking point however, and many simply cannot get over the different interpretations (or evolution, which one would be flippant, and incorrect, to describe succinctly as the rejection of Genesis and creation myths in general).

Yes, indeed, Genesis is quite specific about the process. The problem that I see, is that you really have to interpret it very metaphorically if you don't want it to be flatly contradicted by what we know through science. Which leads to the question how metaphorically the bible is to be interpreted in general. There seems to be no rule to decide. For me this raises the question whether there is any point in relying on the bible at all, but that's maybe a matter of taste, I guess.

This is a very sad point, because Christianity is so much more than this singular issue, but one that many cannot seem to overcome, retreating into fundamental interpretations of the Bible or dogmatic adherence of secular tenants vis-à-vis evolution.

I'm not sure if I follow you here. I hardly see dogma in evolutionary biology and I can very well see why the scientists in that field are really upset. Just take a look at some of the inane posts in this thread alone. The feeling among many scientists is that science itself is under attack, which is the reason that many researchers who work in other fields solidarize with biologists who are at the frontline.

Quite how the universe was created, whilst I agree is such an important question and one we should strive to answer, has an answer for believers in 'God', and anything else is just minor details.
Now I'm not saying we should fall back on on 'Godidit', but merely that origins of life and existence should be a question that occupies the mind of the non-believer more than the believer in my opinion.

I can assure you it occupies the mind of the non-believer more than the believer. The desire to know were we come from seems to be deeply embedded in the mind of any human being. It's just that the non-believers are not satisfied with an oversimplified answer.

As in that which cannot be explained is attributed to God, or have I misunderstood what you meant?

Yes, that's what I meant.

Oh yes, of this I am aware. And, to be perfectly honest, many who are not satisfied by the conjecture now would not be swayed if all the evidence you could muster were presented. The theories presented are, and I'm sure you must sense this also, rather thin on ground with regards to abiogenesis or biogenesis. That's improbable, therefore God? Maybe, but I like to think it's more than that.

Indeed thin ground. The formation of aminoacids from anorganic matter can be reproduced in laboratory (see the Miller-Uray experiment). Self-orginization and emergence seem to play a major role in the process of abiogenesis, but this is a relatively new field of science and is only recently really accessible to us mathematicians through the explosion in computation-capacity of modern computers. But as for how the exact details work out, nobody really knows. Another unsolved and most important issue is the problem of monochirality: why are all naturally occuring molecules of L-chirality? We have ideas, and monochirality is actually a strong indicator that all life on earth has one single origin, but here also we ultimately don't know. Divine intervention seems to be a very unlikely theory, though.

I, for what it is worth, am convinced by the evidence for Big Bang theory, specifically that exhibited by inflation theory, red shift, the WMAP background radiation images and so on. But, now that we have a credible, although some would say far from foolproof, explanation for the existence of the universe, does this remove the need, or possibility, of God? In my opinion no, although some would disagree. Whilst it is true that time would probably not existence prior to the Big Bang, making it possible that there was a 'time' (I use the word loosely) when there was 'nothing' (again, loosely meant), it is equally conceivable that, rather than quantum fluctuations or whatever it is that it is theorised started the Big Bang (been a long time since I read up on it unfortunately, so correct me if I'm wrong), an entity, namely God, started it also.

Keep in mind that WMAP, background radiation and so on only gives us an imagine of what happened immediately after the Big Bang. Gauge-theory, M-theory and the various flavours of String-Theory seem to be good bets, but unfortunately there is no observational evidence yet. The LHC is supposed to change that, but I wouldn't be surprised if we observe something completely unpredicted in the LHC. Baryon-asymmetry is another important problem that has to be solved and the LHC has an entire detector reserved for that single purpose. Let's hope the LHC will at least find the Higgs-particle so that gauge-theory would be set on a robust observational basis. Interesting times we live in...

There is no scientific evidence for this, nor will there ever be in my opinion, so I guess it's a matter of faith. Which must be a frustrating answer, so my apologies.

To the contrary!

 

[Jersey]

I somewhat doubt that this is a cause taken up by many, even the staunchest proponents of evolution, mainly because they recognise that evolution is science, and therefore belongs in the science classroom and not in the church. The reverse in also true for literal creationism espousing a 6,000 year old earth, in my opinion.

I know they wouldn't. It was only meant as a tongue in cheek comment, sort of satire just to make a point of how absurd it is for Creationism to be taught along side science. Totally ridiculous !

I don't know why many Christians get worked up by this issue to be honest. If they believe in God then quite how He created the cosmos should be a matter not overly high on the agenda. If you trust in God then the mechanisms used are secondary to the knowledge that He did it. As one of my friends put it, once you embrace God He does not give you answers to your questions, more He takes away the frustration of not knowing the answer.

I don't really agree with your last sentence simply because God belief doesn't really answer any questions. It's just creates more mysteries. God isn't doing anything because there isn't any evidence for a God in the first place.

Not that I'm encouraging ignorance in the area, far from it. As it so happens, I believe Genesis to be allegorical, and also think the process of micro, and to some extent macro, evolution to be true. And I do indeed encourage people to think about the origins of life and the universe and come to their own opinion. But, when all is said and done, arguing over it is just petulant.

At least you are the right track to thinking clearly and objectively when it comes to the metaphors in the bible. Sooner or later you might be a member of the free thinkers club and I'll be the first to welcome you sir. Keep up the good work as you apply more reason as you go through the bible and will see it for the ancient relic that it really is.

 

[Markus6]

At least you are the right track to thinking clearly and objectively when it comes to the metaphors in the bible. Sooner or later you might be a member of the free thinkers club and I'll be the first to welcome you sir. Keep up the good work as you apply more reason as you go through the bible and will see it for the ancient relic that it really is.

Ha, yes. To be a 'free thinker' you have to be non-christian and see the bible as an ancient relic. Bravo sir, you are free indeed!

 

[Staccato]

I know they wouldn't. It was only meant as a tongue in cheek comment, sort of satire just to make a point of how absurd it is for Creationism to be taught along side science. Totally ridiculous !

Satire somewhat fades compared to the absurdity of reality these days my friend

I don't really agree with your last sentence simply because God belief doesn't really answer any questions. It's just creates more mysteries. God isn't doing anything because there isn't any evidence for a God in the first place.

I agree that it may created more mysteries, but I disagree when you say it answers no questions. On the contrary, it answers nearly all of them. Does this mean we should stop searching for answers? No. We are given brains so as to use them, and should not fear what we can discover by exercising them once in a while.
And when you say 'evidence' I fear you fall into the semantic trap of limiting into the category of 'objective, empirical and physical'. This may be some of the most convincing type of evidence, but it is not the only sort.

At least you are the right track to thinking clearly and objectively when it comes to the metaphors in the bible. Sooner or later you might be a member of the free thinkers club and I'll be the first to welcome you sir. Keep up the good work as you apply more reason as you go through the bible and will see it for the ancient relic that it really is.

Thanks, but I like to think I'm not one of these people who reads the Bible with my eyes closed and mind shut as you may think. I already do apply logical deductive reasoning similar to yourself and several others. I merely come to a different conclusion. That does not mean my methodology is wrong, only that there are differing variables in play for you than for myself.

 

[Jersey]

Ha, yes. To be a 'free thinker' you have to be non-christian and see the bible as an ancient relic. Bravo sir, you are free indeed!

I'm glad you noticed that i am free. Free from the fear and superstitions one finds in the bible and religion in general. Free indeed, yes indeed. I could never believe the bible is reality. Then again if it was reality there wouldn't be any need to believe in then right? Unless of course I suspend disbelief which is the main requirement for believing in such a primitive relic.

That said, you have a wonderful day.

Sir.