Teaching About Evolution.

[Mandy]

This has been an inspiring debate. Ultimately, each parent has the right to teach their child what they believe to be true. All of your comments are respected but for those that are interested in creationism, I will post the bits. Just give me some time because I have put lots of photos of my son in them to make them pertinent to him. So I will recreate them and post. Thanks for the interesting conversation!

[Chris1]

Blindly accepting parent’s beliefs without question is an example of dogmatism, the blind acceptance of received ideas. This discussion is not about religion; rather, its acceptance without question that is the important matter. People frequently adhere unflinchingly to childhood beliefs, shutting their minds to new ideas, or even to other older ideas. This is death to intellect.
Children need to be informed of alternative views and should be encouraged to doubt and question.

Critical Analysis of Kent Hovind's Age of the Earth

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/TNZCcTcOPV0&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/TNZCcTcOPV0&rel=1</a>

Critical Analysis of Ken Ham's Do Animals Evolve?

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/arMGLixFse4&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/arMGLixFse4&rel=1</a>

Chris

[Skylark]

Oh, so cute    He does look like a monkey a bit 

Anyway, dont really have a chance to follow the discussion with travelling, but definetly would suggest "The Priviledged Planet" documentary.

On the first glance, though, it does not look, like your, Chris's posts have much to do with baby's /children education or trying to look for tips or share your own experience, rather like trying to start a debate

I am pretty sure that parents here know what they teach their children, and are busy with that instead

As for me, having medical education and coming from the family of scientists, it makes sense to teach my baby ID principals. And, yes, I will definetly introduce Evolution, in due time, so she would know what some people read in some textbooks, among so many other theories, How high of a priority will be given to it? Probably not too high, as it is just one of many different things she will be learning, but enough for her to explain and reason things, when she is asked about it. It would not even come to my mind to actually teach that theory to my child.

Even my parents, who were higly educated and respected scientists, encouraged me to not pay much attention to the Evolution theory, when I studied it in school ( they were not believers, so religious beliefs had nothing to do here), my dad, who was a physicist, spent a few hours telling me that it is simply not mathematically feasable ( I loved our math discussions with dad!), and explained to me that even though we may not know exact answer as far as origins of species and Earth, I should look elsewhere for it, not to the Evolution theory. It was simple as that! It did not left me confused, it just reinforced my natural curiousity, desire to search for answers and study. It made sense.

So for those who for one reason or another does not teach Biblical Creation, I would say this is a good example of how to present it. It definetly worked in my case, and later, when I was old enough to make my own choice, I made an informed decision.

Later in life, as I asked many of our family friends ( some are leading scientists in EU, members of the National Academies of Science) about Evolution and Intelligent Design, none of them had confidence in Evolution theory, all were definetly persuaded in ID, since not all of them were Christians, not all of them held Biblical beliefs on the Creation of the World. But Intelligent Design was defiently a choice.

Those were the people who studied biology, microbiology, nuclear energy indepth. I also heard from a few of our family friends how it was their studies that led them to believe in Intelligent Design.

Have to run to be with my baby now, but hope it helps! 

[Chris1]

Hi Skylark,

it just reinforced my natural curiousity, desire to search for answers and study.

This is the goal for our children-children with open and enquiring, doubting and questioning, fully functioning minds.    Karma to you.

1987: Beliefs of American earth and life scientists:

According to Newsweek in 1987:

"By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..."

That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms to be about 0.14%

[Skylark]

 

Secular researcher Richard Milton summarized the current world situation:

"Darwinism has never had much appeal for science outside of the English-speaking world, and has never appealed much to the American public (although popular with the U.S. scientific establishment in the past). However, its ascendancy in science, in both Britain and America, has been waning for several decades as its grip has weakened in successive areas: geology; paleontology; embryology; comparative anatomy. Now even geneticists are beginning to have doubts. It is only in mainstream molecular biology and zoology that Darwinism retains serious enthusiastic supporters. As growing numbers of scientists begin to drift away from neo-Darwinist ideas, the revision of Darwinism at the public level is long overdue, and is a process that I believe has already started." (Much more so, a decade later...)

- Richard Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism (Rochester, Vermont: Park Street Press, 1992, 1997), p. 277.

My experiences are actually even more up to date  I guess I am a bit young for "Newsweek in 1987" article      And the people I mentioned in my previous post are not one of a thousands of the ones who got their doctorates and became units in statistics, but rather distinguished and known scientist who stand on their own in their areas of research.

I can not say about all scientists, neither I really took time to look at the statistics field by field.

What I wrote came from my personal experience, and as a result of thoughtful and in-depth discussions with number of leading EU scientists ( not from English speaking countries), thats all. So sharing this, may be considered just a personal observation.

However, it does explain why I came to conclusions and beliefs that I did; why I am open to Scientific Evidence, and therefore accept and wholeheartedly support the Intelligent Design theory. And I hope these personal observation will be of interest and help to those who after reading them, will consider to analyse and study the presenting evidence with open minds and will let that evidence lead them to conclusions.

But most of all, lets have fun teaching or little ones about beauty, diversity and fascinating complexity of this world. There is so much to discover, and no doubt as they discover new things every day, these discoveries will speak for themselves. After all there got to be a Designer..

That reminded me of a story I read in one of the Digests a little while back, cant remember exactly which one but the story stayed in my memory, I thought it was neat, it went something like that:

   "Many years ago Sir Isaac Newton had an exact replica of our solar system made in miniature. At its center was a large golden ball representing the sun, and revolving around it were smaller spheres attached at the ends of rods of varying lengths. They represented Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars and the other planets. These were all geared together by cogs and belts to make them move around the "sun" in perfect harmony.
   One day as Newton was studying the model, a friend who did not believe in the Biblical account of creation, stopped by for a visit. Marveling at the device and watching as the scientist made the heavenly bodies move in their orbits, the man exclaimed, "My, Newton, what an exquisite thing! Who made it for you?"
   Without looking up, Sir Isaac replied, "Nobody."
   "Nobody?" his friend asked.
   "That's right! I said nobody! All of these cogs and belts and gears just happened to come together, and wonder of wonders, by chance they began revolving in their set orbits and with perfect timing."
... He made the point!"  And so did I...

But that is why it is fun, no need to argue, proove or debate. All those things our little ones will be learning about the world around them, will speak for temselves. So I do not worry about that 

[Skylark]

As I reflected on my previous post about great scientific minds and belief in Intelligent Design, I realized that it lucked facts and references so to speak ( something I personally always look in posts, publications, etc.), but since it dealt with my personal experiences and referred to private conversations, general statement on what was my experience was all I could offer…

As I thought on that though, I felt that it would be a disservice not to bring into this discussion a comparison to my personal experience, however documented with facts, references and figures. I usually would not have a chance to write much, and probably would not visit back to this thread for at least a few days if not more ( life with the babe and travelling), but here are some pretty  neat facts, that I felt would be interesting to share, on great minds and Intelligent Design. ( Forgive me for typos, if there will be any)

   Isaac Newton (1642-1727), who discovered the law of gravity, formulated the three laws of motion, developed calculus, constructed the first reflecting telescope, and whom many consider the greatest scientist who ever lived, wrote an estimated 1,400,000 words on religion--more than on physics or astronomy. He wrote papers refuting atheism and defending the Bible; he believed in the Flood, a literal six-day creation, and the Ussher chronology (which dated Earth as a few thousand years old). Here are a few quotes from him:

   I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily.

   All my discoveries have been made in answer to prayer.

   We account the Scriptures of God to be the most sublime philosophy. I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever.

   How about astronomer Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)? Reasoning that the universe must be orderly if designed by God, he discovered the laws of planetary motion and conclusively demonstrated that the sun is the solar system's center. He explained that he was merely "thinking God's thoughts after Him" and said:

   I had the intention of becoming a theologian … but now I see how God is, by my endeavors, also glorified in astronomy, for "the heavens declare the glory of God."   

And:

   Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God.

   What of Robert Boyle (1627-1691), regarded as the father of modern chemistry, and whose name is wedded to the fundamental law of gas pressures? He determined that gases consist of particles, made early discoveries concerning vacuums, and even invented the first match.
   Boyle also read the Bible daily, was governor of a missionary organization, wrote The Christian Virtuoso to show that studying nature is a religious duty, and in his will established the "Boyle lectures" for the proving of Christianity.

   Then there was Francis Bacon (1561-1626), credited with developing the scientific method. He said:

   There are two books laid before us to study, to prevent our falling into error; first, the volume of the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then, the volume of the Creatures, which express His power.   

             Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778), who laid the foundations of modern taxonomy, still known as the Linnaean system. He too was a believer. Isaac Asimov acknowledged that "Linnaeus himself fought the whole idea of evolution stubbornly." The Dictionary of Scientific Biography says of him:

   His view of nature was deeply religious; central to all his work was God's omnipotence…. "I saw," he wrote in the later editions of Systema natura, "the infinite, all-knowing and all-powerful God…. I followed his footsteps over nature's fields and saw everywhere an eternal wisdom and power, an inscrutable perfection."

Astronomer Sir William Herschel (1738-1822) discovered Uranus and built the greatest reflecting telescopes of his day. He said: "The undevout astronomer must be mad."

His son, John Frederick Herschel, who discovered more than 500 stars and nebulae, declared:

   All human discoveries seem to be made only for the purpose of confirming more and more strongly the truths that come from on high and are contained in the sacred writings."

   John Flamsteed (1646-1719), who made the first great map of the stars, was founder of the famous Greenwich Observatory, first Astronomer Royal of England--and a clergyman.

   Besides being a great statesman, Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) invented the lightning rod, rocking chair, Franklin stove, and bifocal glasses. He organized the first U.S. postal service and first fire department. Some count Franklin as an unbeliever, but although he poked fun at dour ministers and entertained some doubts about the divinity of Christ, his belief in God was uncompromising. He stated:

   Here is my creed. I believe in one god, the Creator of the universe. That He governs it by His providence. That He ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to Him is in doing good to His other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this.   

He declared before the Constitutional Convention:

   I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?…
   I therefore beg leave to move--that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business….

   Some evolutionists like to call creationists "flat earthers." This is ironic since Christopher Columbus, famed for showing the world round, wrote:

   I prayed to the most merciful Lord about my heart's great desire, and He gave me the spirit and the intelligence for the task: seafaring, astronomy, geometry, arithmetic, skill in drafting spherical maps and placing correctly the cities, rivers, mountains and ports. I also studied cosmology, history, chronology, and philosophy.
   It was the Lord who put into my mind (I could feel His hand upon me) the fact that it would be possible to sail from here to the Indies. All who heard of my project rejected it with laughter, ridiculing me. There is no question that the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit, because he comforted me with rays of marvelous illumination from the Holy Scriptures….

   Shall we add to the list of believers Cotton Mather (1663-1728), the clergyman/Harvard president who introduced a smallpox inoculation; Jean Deluc (1727-1817), the Swiss naturalist who coined the word "geology"; or James Parkinson (1755-1824), the first physician to recognize the dangers of a perforated appendix, and to describe the disease named for him? We could also mention John Dalton (1766-1844), who revolutionized chemistry by developing the atomic theory; Benjamin Barton (1766-1815), who wrote the first U.S. textbook on botany; and chemist-physiologist William Prout (1785-1850), who was the first to identify basic foodstuffs as fats, proteins and carbohydrates. And does the famous painting The Last Supper not convey the faith of Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519), considered by many the father of modern science?

   I hear some saying, "OK, OK, maybe a few of those old dudes had some smarts, but they were only religious because that was the prevailing view in their day. They lived before Darwin. If they had read The Origin of Species, they would have seen things totally different."

   But hold on. Most scientists in Darwin's time weren't thrilled with his theory either. Contrary to the popular impression, it was scientists, not theologians, who primarily opposed evolution in the nineteenth century.

The Catholic church, still smarting from its wrongful condemnation of Galileo, wanted no risk of another embarrassment. Although the church maintained an index of forbidden books, The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man were never placed on it. When Darwin died, the Anglican church even insisted he be given a hero's funeral and state burial at Westminster Abbey.

   On the other hand, 717 scientists, including 86 members of the Royal Society (Britain's most prestigious scientific organization), signed a manifesto entitled "The Declaration of the Students of the Natural and Physical Sciences." Issued in London in 1864, it affirmed their confidence in the Bible's scientific integrity.

   Of course there were several scientists whom evolution failed to convince. There were many others whose faith it could not shake.

Louis Pasteur (1822-95) probably saved more lives than any other scientist. He established the germ theory of disease and the process of sterilization; he isolated pathogens and developed vaccines to combat them--including rabies, diphtheria and anthrax. He also introduced milk pasteurization, which is named for him.
   Pasteur was also a humble Christian. He did not patent his discoveries, but gave them to society freely. Though tragedy marked his life--three of his children died young--faith sustained him. "Science," he said, "brings man nearer to God." And he observed, "The more I study nature," the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator." In a series of experiments, Pasteur disproved the false notion, then pushed by evolutionists, that bacteria "spontaneously generate."

   Lord Kelvin (1824-1907) was, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundation of modern physics." He established a scale of absolute temperatures, with degrees "kelvin" named for him; supervised laying of the first Atlantic cable, for which he was knighted; held 21 honorary doctorates, published more than 600 scientific papers, and patented 70 inventions.
   As Chairman of England's Christian Evidence Society, Lord Kelvin said:

   I have long felt that there was a general impression in the non-scientific world that the scientific world believes Science has discovered ways of explaining all the facts of nature without adopting any definite belief in a Creator. I have never doubted that that impression was utterly groundless. [Lord Kelvin, address of 23 May 1889, quoted in Stephen Abbott Northrop, A Cloud of Witnesses (c. 1899; reprint, San Antonio: Mantle Ministries, 1988), 460.]

   Kevin opposed Darwinism and published a paper refuting uniformitarian geology. He said: "Over-whelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us … the atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words. And:

   Mathematics and dynamics fail us when we contemplate the earth, fitted for life but lifeless, and try to imagine the commencement of life upon it. This certainly did not take place by any action of chemistry, or electricity, or crystalline grouping of molecules under the influence of force, or by any possible kind of fortuitous concourse of atoms. We must pause, face to face with the mystery and miracle of creation of living creatures. [Mathematical and Physical Papers, Lord Kelvin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911), quoted in Thomas G. Barnes, "Physics: A Challenge to 'Geologic Time,'" Impact 16 (July 1974): 1-2.]

   Joseph Lister (1827-1912) saved countless lives by developing antiseptic surgery through the use of disinfectants. ("Listerine" is named after him.) He invented dissolving stitches and the wiring of broken bones. He was knighted, made president of the Royal Society and president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science.
   Lister was the son of devout Quakers, and would declare "I have no hesitation in saying that in my opinion there is no antagonism between the Religion of Jesus Christ and any fact scientifically established."   

             Samuel F.B. Morse (1791-1872) invented the tele¬graph and Morse Code, built the first camera in America, and founded the National Academy of Design.
   A dedicated Christian, Morse established one of America's first Sunday schools and supported missionaries. He said:

   The only gleam of hope, and I cannot underrate it, is from confidence in God. When I look upward it calms my apprehensions for the future, and I seem to hear a voice saying, "If I clothe the lilies of the field, shall I not also clothe you?" Here is my strong confidence, and I will wait patiently for the direction of Providence. [Northrop, 327.]

   
   The first message he sent by telegraph was: "What hath God wrought."

   Through experiments, James Joule (1818-1889) proved the law of energy conservation, and determined the mathematic relationship between an electric current's energy and the heat it gives off. The joule, a unit of energy measurement, is named for him. He said: "It is evident that an acquaintance with natural laws means no less tthan an acquaintance with the mind of God therein expressed."

   Though born a slave, George Washington Carver (1864-1943) became one of the world's greatest agricultural scientists. Working at the Tuskegee Institute, an Alabama school for Afro-Americans, he developed over 300 products from the peanut and 118 from the sweet potato. He showed both black and white farmers how to better utilize land, and revitalized the South's economy. He did much to improve race relations, and was also an accomplished artist.
   Like Pasteur, Carver patented none of his discoveries, but gave them away. He turned down an offer from Thomas Edison to leave Tuskegee and work at 60 times his pay. In 1940 he donated his life savings to the Institute. A devout Christian, Carver taught his students from the Bible, in a class that met on Sundays from 1907 until his death. He said:

   The secret of my success? It is simple. It is found in the Bible, "In all thy ways acknowledge Him and He shall direct thy paths." [William J. Federer, America's God and Country: Encyclopedia of Quotations (Coppell, Tex.: Fame Publishing, 1994), 98]

   So to figure out that science harmonizes with the Bible, you don't have to be a rocket scientist--but you might ask one. Wernher von Braun (1912-1977) was director of NASA's flight center; he oversaw the team of scientists that sent the first American into space, and masterminded the moon landing.
   An active Christian, von Braun prayed for the safety of those on the manned missions he planned. He observed: "There are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of man or the system of the human eye?" He would not have agreed with the whip hand given evolution in today's classrooms: "To be forced to believe only one conclusion--that everything in the universe happened by chance--would violate the very objectivity of science itself."

   Physicist David Brewster (1781-1868) began the science of optical mineralogy, invented the kaleido-scope, and was founder and president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. He said: "Knowledge, indeed, is at once the handmaid and the companion of true religion. They mutually adorn and support each other." On his tombstone was written: "The Lord is my Light."

   Shall we add Joseph Henry (1797-1878), who invented the electromagnetic motor and galvanometer, was first secretary and director of the Smithsonian Institution, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science--and always prayed for divine guidance during any experiment? Or Nobel Prize winner Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919), co-discoverer of argon, helium, and the other "noble" gases, who wrote: "The works of the Lord are great, sought out of all them that have pleasure therein." Nobel Prize-winning physicist Robert A. Millikan (1868-1953), though critical of fundamentalism, said he would still choose it over atheism: "The God of science is the Spirit of rational order, and of orderly development. Atheism as I understand it is the denial of the existence of this spirit. Nothing could be more antagonistic to the whole spirit of science."

These are just a sampling of a few great minds, and it illustrates the point that I was trying to make earlier but through their own words and actions...

Sorry, if it was a long ,  !

Hope it helps...

[Chris1]

Hi Skylark,

Thank you for your interesting comments.  K

Children need to be encouraged to think for themselves-my initial post was about encouraging children to examine assumptions and to avoid the mental hammerlock that lack of self-confidence and over-reliance on authoritarian opinion can have. I think that we should encourage children to trust themselves and to value open-mindedness, objectivity and intellectual honesty. 

The validity of evolution rests on what the evidence says, not on what people say. There is overwhelming evidence in support of evolution and no valid arguments against it.
Many of the scientists in your list lived before the theory of evolution was published. Virtually all relevant scientists today accept the theory of evolution because of the supporting evidence.

Chris.

P.S.  What did you think of the Critical Analysis of Kent Hovind's “Age of the Earth “?

[Nikita]

I studied Biological Science at University, and also became a Christian at Uni. Over the years I have noticed that as a Christian I was not allowed to question and just had to accept things with blind faith. It made it difficult studying, for instance, 3rd Year paleontology and zoogeography which are very "earth is millions of years old" focused, with many proofs (or "proofs"...it is all just subjecture and opinion...no-one was actually there when the earth was evolving or created).
I have to say the 2 beliefs were at loggerheads and it was very confusing. But I am not one to blindly believe things, especially if the evidence leans the other direction. Which has put me at loggerheads with many Christians, especially my husband, who could not stand my questioning and open mind. (We are divorced now, and I shall be using that to my advantage...as I no longer have to obey him, I am able to teach my kids to be questioning and to look at all sides of an argument.)
I think that fence-sitting is a good position, as ardently supporting one position makes one likely to only read and believe that which supports that position.
I recommend people read the book "Telling lies for God" by Ian Plimer. I think he's a very honest person, and I believe what his book says is true. In it he shows up lies that the creationist group Creation Science Foundation, also known as Answers in Genesis, tell in order to try to prove their beliefs. It's for sale on Amazon. He is correct in that many scientists with that organisation arent what True scholars would consider experts in their fields, and their papers would not be taken seriously by universities or their peers. I have their literature, I have read their articles, I have their videos, and will let my kids use their teachings, but will have them read opposing viewpoints. Let them all read what they disagree with about the opposing side...

http://www.amazon.com/Telling-Lies-God-Reason-Creationism/dp/009182852X

[Tanikit]

I find this a very interesting discussion. I have been a Christian since childhood and yet have obviously come across many versions of the evolution theory and of course we were also taught Darwinism at school and even the big bang theory. Do I believe in creationsim? Yes. Do I believe in evolution - yes. And I do not believe that one contradicts the other either. I have even spent time trying to see how if I accepted the big bang theory could I do so and still believe in creationism - ie could God have created a big bang on one of the days of creation? I haven't got very far with this, but at the same time does it even matter? As long as I am asking the questions. I still believe in God and that the Bible is true but I am not sure that the world was created in 7 24h days. Does that change my relationship with God? No. Does it even really matter in the great scheme of things whether I believe in evolution of not? Probably not.

What will I teach my daughter? I'll teach her what I believe and teach her how to think for herself and then present facts and opinions as facts and opinions and let her question all she wants to.

[Chris1]

It has been argued that elementary maths has proven that evolution is impossible and I agree that if Darwinism were really a theory of random chance, it couldn’t work. This argument is flawed because Darwinism is not a theory of random chance. Natural selection starts with random mutation, but natural selection itself is the very antithesis of a chance process. 
Beneficial chance mutations are non-randomly recorded in the DNA of the species. The amount of luck required in each generation is believable and the accumulated luck over many generations results in the apparent improbability of the end product.

[Nikita]

Just wondering what the Moslem and Jewish and any other religion view is on evolution and creation?

[Nikita]

The only thing that gets me is how do we teach good moral values, and who determines them? where is the textbook, the guidebook, the standard on what is good behaviour? I read a quote today that said... science flies people to the moon. Religion flies people into buildings. which got me thinking on the brainwashing thing. So many people have done so many bad things for their religions. The more brainwashed people are the more likely they are to do bad things it seems.

[patreiche]

The most important scientific explanations are called “theories.” In ordinary speech, “theory” is often used to mean “guess” or “hunch,” whereas in scientific terminology, a theory is a set of universal statements that explain some aspect of the natural world. Theories are powerful tools. Scientists seek to develop theories that

    * are firmly grounded in and based upon evidence;
    * are logically consistent with other well-established principles;
    * explain more than rival theories; and
    * have the potential to lead to new knowledge.

The body of scientific knowledge changes as new observations and discoveries are made. Theories and other explanations change. New theories emerge, and other theories are modified or discarded. Throughout this process, theories are formulated and tested on the basis of evidence, internal consistency, and their explanatory power.
Evolution as a Unifying Concept

Evolution in the broadest sense can be defined as the idea that the universe has a history: that change through time has taken place. If we look today at the galaxies, stars, the planet Earth, and the life on planet Earth, we see that things today are different from what they were in the past: galaxies, stars, planets, and life forms have evolved. Biological evolution refers to the scientific theory that living things share ancestors from which they have diverged; it is called “descent with modification.” There is abundant and consistent evidence from astronomy, physics, biochemistry, geochronology, geology, biology, anthropology, and other sciences that evolution has taken place.

As such, evolution is a unifying concept for science. The National Science Education Standards recognizes that conceptual schemes such as evolution “unify science disciplines and provide students with powerful ideas to help them understand the natural world” (p. 104) and recommends evolution as one such scheme. In addition, Benchmarks for Science Literacy from AAAS’s Project 2061, as well as other national calls for science reform, all name evolution as a unifying concept because of its importance across the disciplines of science. Scientific disciplines with a historical component, such as astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology, cannot be taught with integrity if evolution is not emphasized.

There is no longer a debate among scientists about whether evolution has taken place. There is considerable debate about how evolution has taken place: What are the processes and mechanisms producing change, and what has happened specifically during the history of the universe? Scientists often disagree about their explanations. In any science, disagreements are subject to rules of evaluation. Scientific conclusions are tested by experiment and observation, and evolution, as with any aspect of theoretical science, is continually open to and subject to experimental and observational testing.

The importance of evolution is summarized as follows in the National Academy of Sciences publication Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science: “Few other ideas in science have had such a far-reaching impact on our thinking about ourselves and how we relate to the world” (p. 21).
Creationism and Other Non-Scientific Views

The National Science Education Standards note that, ” [e]xplanations of how the natural world changes based on myths, personal beliefs, religious values, mystical inspiration, superstition, or authority may be personally useful and socially relevant, but they are not scientific” (p. 201). Because science limits itself to natural explanations and not religious or ultimate ones, science teachers should neither advocate any religious interpretation of nature nor assert that religious interpretations of nature are not possible.

The word “creationism” has many meanings. In its broadest meaning, creationism is the idea that the universe is the consequence of something transcendent. Thus to Christians, Jews, and Muslims, God created; to the Navajo, the Hero Twins created; for Hindu Shaivites, the universe comes to exist as Shiva dances. In a narrower sense, “creationism” has come to mean “special creation” : the doctrine that the universe and all that is in it was created by God in essentially its present form, at one time. The most common variety of special creationism asserts that

    * the Earth is very young;
    * life was created by God;
    * life appeared suddenly;
    * kinds of organisms have not changed since the creation; and
    * different life forms were designed to function in particular settings.

This version of special creation is derived from a literal interpretation of Biblical Genesis. It is a specific, sectarian religious belief that is not held by all religious people. Many Christians and Jews believe that God created through the process of evolution. Pope John Paul II, for example, issued a statement in 1996 that reiterated the Catholic position that God created and affirmed that the evidence for evolution from many scientific fields is very strong.

“Creation science” is a religious effort to support special creationism through methods of science. Teachers are often pressured to include it or other related nonscientific views such as “abrupt appearance theory,” “initial complexity theory,” “arguments against evolution,” or “intelligent design theory” when they teach evolution. Scientific creationist claims have been discredited by the available scientific evidence. They have no empirical power to explain the natural world and its diverse phenomena. Instead, creationists seek out supposed anomalies among many existing theories and accepted facts. Furthermore, “creation science” claims do not lead to new discoveries of scientific knowledge.
Legal Issues

Several judicial decisions have ruled on issues associated with the teaching of evolution and the imposition of mandates that “creation science” be taught when evolution is taught. The First Amendment of the Constitution requires that public institutions such as schools be religiously neutral; because “creation science” asserts a specific, sectarian religious view, it cannot be advocated in the public schools.

When Arkansas passed a law requiring “equal time” for “creation science” and evolution, the law was challenged in Federal District Court. Opponents of the bill included the religious leaders of the United Methodist, Episcopalian, Roman Catholic, African Methodist Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Southern Baptist churches, along with several educational organizations. After a full trial, the judge ruled that “creation science” did not qualify as a scientific theory (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255 [ED Ark. 1982]).

Louisiana's equal time law was challenged in court, and eventually reached the Supreme Court. In Edwards v. Aguillard [482 U.S. 578 (1987)], the court determined that “creation science” was inherently a religious idea and to mandate or advocate it in the public schools would be unconstitutional. Other court decisions have upheld the right of a district to require that a teacher teach evolution and not teach “creation science” (Webster v. New Lennox School District #122, 917 F.2d 1003 [7th Cir. 1990]; Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, 37 F.3d 517 [9th Cir. 1994]).

Some legislators and policy makers continue attempts to distort the teaching of evolution through mandates that would require teachers to teach evolution as “only a theory” or that require a textbook or lesson on evolution to be preceded by a disclaimer. Regardless of the legal status of these mandates, they are bad educational policy. Such policies have the effect of intimidating teachers, which may result in the de-emphasis or omission of evolution. As a consequence, the public will only be further confused about the nature of scientific theories. Furthermore, if students learn less about evolution, science literacy itself will suffer.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

If you are interested in being fair to the debate, I suggest you read this article. It has moved most scientist toward believing evolution is pretty much an indisputable fact and not theory.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124235632936122739.html

The reason it is not a fact is because all the details of how it happen are not known and probably will not be known for some time. I hope you realize the fact that earth is not the center of the universe is still considered a theory and we know how much of a fact that is.

[luke6v38]

I was brought up in Communist China and was taught the theory of 'evolution' since school and never doubted about that until just a few years ago. I read the Bible as a folklore when I was very young and thought it was just a collection of fairytales.

But at the age of 24 I heard about the creator for the first time. I got to know that there was a loving and almight God and he created the whole universe including men and I accepted this. My life was completely changed since then. I enjoy my daily life with God and I cannot deny His existence since He is so real to me!

Bible did not say God created the heavens and the earth in 6*24hours. The English word of 'day' was translated from hebrew word Yom. Yom can mean a 24-hour solar day but it can also mean a long period of time. Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew definitions list definitions referring to long periods of time such as "year," "lifetime," and "time, period (general)."

I believe God himself is also a genius scientist - he has performed so many scientific wonders.

I look forward to Mandy's bits!

love xx

[Chris1]

There will be no sequels to The Golden Compass because of Catholic pressure
http://theframeproblem.wordpress.com/2007/12/28/the-golden-compass-as-an-atheist-indoctrination-tool-the-hypocrisy-oh-the-hypocrisy/

Religious belief is psychologically very comforting and has a strong emotional impact. A large part of the appeal of religion comes from the fear of death and nothing beyond and it also provides a sense of identity. A religious person will frequently take pride in irrational circular thinking and will consider it to be evidence of how good a believer they are.  Presenting hard evidence that contradicts a fundamental belief is unlikely to change minds because to do so would be a crisis of identity.

It is difficult to argue effectively against good evidence and the most common strategy is to avoid the discussion entirely- which is probably why there has been limited response to this topic.

document.getElementById('recent_loading').style.display = 'none';document.getElementById('recent_page_box').style.display = '';

Page: 1/4  

Loading...

Members

• Total Members: 214769
• Latest: Meobi

Stats

• Total Posts: 110526
• Total Topics: 19136
• Online Today: 353
• Online Ever: 826
• (January 22, 2020, 12:09:49 AM)

Users Online

• Users: 0
• Guests: 337
• Total: 337