Christian Teacher in Ohio Battles Tyrannical Evolution Pushers

Members of the anti-Christian, communist Left are obsessed with banishing the presence of Christian expression from all areas of the public square. They are probably the most fervent in this crusade in the government-run public school classrooms, where teachers are persecuted for displaying even a hint of Christianity.

I have written before about a California teacher, Brad Johnson, who is fighting back against a tyrannical school district that ordered him to remove patriotic banners from his classroom walls—banners that simply included the name of God in their sayings. These banners had long been hanging in his classroom, but the God-hating tyrants in his school district decided they could no longer abide even the written mention of the name of the Lord in that classroom. How very like Satan that is!

Mr. Johnson’s appeal is still pending in the courts, and the Thomas More Law Center has vowed to take it to the Supreme Court, if necessary.

There is another American teacher being persecuted for his Christian faith. This is a case out of Mount Vernon, Ohio.

“The Rutherford Institute has appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of John Freshwater, a Christian teacher who was fired for keeping religious articles in his classroom and for using teaching methods that encourage public school students to think critically about the school’s science curriculum, particularly as it relates to evolution theories. Freshwater, a 24-year veteran in the classroom, was suspended by the Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education in 2008 and officially terminated in January 2011. The School Board justified its actions by accusing Freshwater of improperly injecting religion into the classroom by giving students ‘reason to doubt the accuracy and/or veracity of scientists, science textbooks and/or science in general.’ The Board also claimed that Freshwater failed to remove ‘all religious articles’ from his classroom, including a Bible.”

Here we have the case of a Christian teacher encouraging his students to approach the unproven, unobserved theory of evolution with the skeptical eye it deserves. The anti-Christian crusaders in our world are so viciously against any teachings that declare God is the Author of the universe and all that is in it that they will fiercely defend a terribly flimsy theory—or hypothesis, rather—that seeks to explain the origins of life in this amazing world in which we live. The hypothesis of evolution—which is not even a plausible explanation, with its gaping, fossil record holes and fantasy mechanisms—is the best the godless among us have come up with, and they cling to it with a fanatical fervor.

The fact that this school district even cited Mr. Freshwater for having a Bible in his classroom is also chilling and disgusting. We must remember that our God-given rights do not end just because we become teachers in the public school system. There is no such thing as the fabled “separation of church and state” as the Left insists. The only constitutional mandates are against the federal government establishing an official national religion in America, which it has never done, and interfering with Americans’ freedom to practice their faith, which it is doing more and more each year.

“Despite objective evidence demonstrating Freshwater’s consistent excellence as an eighth-grade science teacher for over 20 years, and despite his immaculate employment record, Freshwater came under intense scrutiny following a 2008 incident in which a common classroom science experiment with a Tesla coil used safely by other teachers for over 20 years allegedly produced a cross-shaped mark on one student’s arm.

While the Referee who investigated this incident ultimately determined that ‘speculation and imagination had pushed reality aside,’… community hysteria resulting from rumors about Freshwater and the incident prompted the [School] Board to launch a full-scale inquisition into Freshwater’s teaching methods and performance. This sweeping critique focused entirely on trace evidence of Freshwater’s religious faith which allegedly appeared in the classroom. On January 10, 2011, the Board adopted a Resolution terminating Freshwater’s employment contract based upon a recommendation issued by Referee R. Lee Shepherd, Esq., on January 7, 2011 that Freshwater be terminated for ‘good and just cause.’”

The supposed “good and just cause” was Mr. Freshwater’s allowing his students to examine both sides of the evolution debate and teaching them to recognize issues in printed materials that could be questioned or debated, in other words, he was teaching his students critical thinking! The godless School Board also found offense in the fact that some of Mr. Freshwater’s counterpoints to the hypothesis of evolution involved—GASP!—arguments for Creationism or Intelligent Design. Oh, the horror!

According to the School Board, this “good and just cause” amounted to “Failure to Adhere to Established Curriculum.” That sounds like something out of Nazi Germany! Absolutely NO God talk allowed here, comrades!

Mr. Freshwater was also accused of “Disobedience of Orders,” because he was told to remove certain items from his classroom, which he did, but there was a patriotic poster featuring Colin Powell that he did not remove, but said he did not recall being told to remove it. That poster was handed out to teachers by the school office and was displayed in other classrooms in the district besides his. He also had a couple of school library books: one was a Bible, and one was titled “Jesus of Nazareth.” Because he had these things in his classroom, he was accused of “defiance.”

This is an outrageous injustice, and this case is extremely important for the future freedoms of teachers and students alike. As the President and founder of the Rutherford Institute, John Whitehead, stated,

“Academic freedom was once the bedrock of American education. That is no longer the state of affairs, as this case makes clear. ... What we need today are more teachers and school administrators who understand that young people don’t need to be indoctrinated. Rather, they need to be taught how to think for themselves.”

The godless people who aggressively push the hypothesis of evolution in our public schools cannot tolerate opposing viewpoints, and if Mr. Freshwater ultimately loses this battle in the courts, all of America will have lost yet another chunk of our Christian liberty at the hands of anti-Christian tyrants.

As reported by the Rutherford Institute, two lower courts have already sided with the School Board against Mr. Freshwater, ignoring the First and Fourteenth Amendment violations by the school district.

“The [School] Board's actions constitute a violation of the First Amendment academic freedom rights of both Freshwater and of his students, of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, and of Freshwater's right to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Because of its significant implications for academic freedom in public schools and the continued vitality of teachers' First Amendment right to openly practice and discuss their religious faith, the case is one of monumental public concern. As no reviewing court has yet examined these critical civil liberty components of this case, Freshwater prays that this Court will grant his petition and undertake that essential analysis.”

We should all be praying that Mr. Freshwater is given a victory over this anti-Christian, public school district. Ultimately, we are all Mr. Freshwater, and if he loses, we all lose.

We should also pray for, and consider financially supporting, the Rutherford Institute, which is made up of front-line, legal warriors who provide free legal services to people who have had their constitutional rights threatened or violated. From the Institute’s information page,

“The Institute’s mission is twofold: to provide legal services in the defense of religious and civil liberties and to educate the public on important issues affecting their constitutional freedoms.

Whether our attorneys are protecting the rights of parents whose children are strip-searched at school, standing up for a teacher fired for speaking about religion or defending the rights of individuals against illegal search and seizure, The Rutherford Institute offers assistance—and hope—to thousands.”

To assert what you are saying is to assert that Christianity is useless. Not to mention that the qualifier you’ve added has not been present in the conversation up to now. The declaration that Creationism (Christianity) is useless has been categorical. It’s too late now for a retreat into reasonableness (not without admitting an omission of epic proportions).

That is making a huge leap from what I said. The creation story is absolutely useless as a scientific methodology. It is also useless for cooking, architecture, civil engineering, musical composition and performance, etc. Just because it is useless for any number of human activities doesn't mean it is useless for its apparent intended purpose, which is to give us insight about our standing with God.

Also, I do not use the terms "creationism" and "Christianity" interchangeably, nor do I recall seeing others use those terms interchangeably. The Christian faith (of any denomination) is far greater than a few passages in Genesis, and being a Christian is not contingent upon believing that every word in Genesis is literal. The truth of this is especially apparent when considering that many portions of the Bible are understood to be metaphorical.

But, aside from that, your qualifier remains inadequate still. Absent Christianity, we may expect that the Tuskegee Experiment would have continued to its conclusion with none the wiser and no lessons learned (let’s hope that there have been lessons learned). Absent Christianity, there would have been no careful moral evaluation before E=MC2 was applied to two cities in Japan.

We do not know how the Tuskegee experiment would have played out in a society with different ethics than ours. I do know that early in the 1900s, the Japanese conducted particularly brutal human experiments... I've heard accounts, and seen pictures which are completely stomach-turning. The Germans also conducted horrific human experiments during WWII. One of those societies was not Christian, the other was... it seems to me that ethics are formed by more than Christian faith, although Christianity provides a template on which to base ethics.

Methodology without morality is lethal.

Not necessarily. Plenty of scientific research can be performed without ever considering morality.

Which is why the term “Creationism” is substituted for “Christianity” in so many posts on this forum (the fallacy of the “smuggled concept”). Which is why I spend even some of my time contesting the abuse of the term “Creationism” used in the many attacks launched against Christianity.

As I said above, I do not use the terms interchangeably, nor have I seen anyone else use the terms interchangeably in this thread. I try to be very careful to specify that I'm not even talking about creationism in general. All of my comments specifically address the idea that the creation story in Genesis is literal. I do not appreciate the fact that scientists are routinely called liars, accused of fabricating data, accused of following some oddball "Darwinism" religion, and all of the other nasty things literal young-earth creationists (YECs) say about us. Apparently YECs feel perfectly okay saying those nasty things just because we're in the business of documenting the physical world around us, and our observations don't support the young earth story.

She asked where it came from, not what it is...

Indeed, tpanther, that was my very question, which exDemMom simply ignored.

Let me put the question another way: How does an inorganic molecule become an "organic" one in the first place?

ORGANIC: adjective
"relating to or derived from living matter":
Chemistry relating to or denoting compounds containing carbon (other than simple binary compounds and salts) and chiefly or ultimately of biological origin. Compare with inorganic [adjective denoting "not consisting of or deriving from living matter"].

So, how does an inorganic molecule become an organic one? This transition would involve a non-living entity becoming a living entity. How does this happen?

I gather that since biochemistry has no answer to this question, exDemMom, Ha Ha Thats Very Logical, and allmendream simply dismiss it "by sleight of hand" as it were, and refuse to engage it.

As Robert Godwin has noted, "In their attempt to account for the origins of life (and discourage creationists), biochemists like to blur the distinction between life and matter. so now they talk about a period of 'pre-life' preparing the way for the emergence of life." And yet,

Really, this kind of "junk metaphysics" is an attempt to sneak the principle of natural selection into the universe before there is a biology for it to operate on. In any event, it makes no philosophical sense, for the term "pre-life" assumes something — life — which supposedly did not exist and could not have been predicted by merely looking at its molecular constituents. If a period of pre-life did in fact prefigure life, then it is unnecessary to qualify it as "pre-," because it was part of the process of life and therefore indistinguishable from it. In other words, if we wish to be intellectually honest, we must place "pre-life" on the life side of the matter/life divide, not on the matter side, unless we fatuously rename life "post-matter."...

If the materialistic explanation of life is true, it can't be true: matter is dead, life is matter. therefore life is dead. Nevertheless, most scientists take it for granted that life does not exist as anything separate and distinct from matter. In the fashionable reductionist view, this is simply the way it must be: biology is in the end nothing more than an unlikely but mildly interesting property of physics. (Why interesting? Why should matter be interested in anything?) But this is hardly a suitable explanation for such a profound mystery. Rather, it is a "question-begging fallacy" that "demands an initial acceptance of the doctrine of naturalism before any explanation is offered." In other words, only matter is ultimately real, so that life may be reduced to, and fully explained by, the electrical and chemical properties of atoms and molecules.... Knowledge must always be a one-way, bottom-up affair:

[Godwin cites Robert Rosen here], "One must never pass to a larger system in trying to understand a given one, but must invoke simpler sub-systems.... From simple to complex is only a matter of accretion of simple, context-independent parts." [emphasis mine]

But unfortunately, this means that biology can never be reached by physics — you can't get here from there. Instead of looking "forward" at what all the parts of an organism are converging upon — that is, the living organism — biology looks backward at that which the organism uses to express its functional wholeness, thus destroying the very thing — life — it is attempting to explain. This is odd, because it is not possible to even begin a discussion of life without an unstated intuition of the dynamic wholeness that is always manifested through it.

The "organic molecule" DNA seems to have something to do with the expression of that "dynamic wholeness" in living organisms. But many if not most scientists today believe that "wholes" are merely the "sum of their parts," and nothing more.

In closing, it appears our biochemicist correspondents here believe that the electrical and chemical properties of atoms and molecules plus "chance" plus "evolution" gives us an explanation of life.

But I believe that "chance remains a glorious cover-up for ignorance." I also note that strict determinism "is refuted by the very freedom whereby it is posited." As Godwin cites Barfield: "Chance, in fact = no hypothesis."

No wonder we "creationists" can never get on the same page with "Darwinist materialists."

Thank you ever so much, dear tpanther, for your astute observation, and for writing!

She asked where it came from, not what it is...

Indeed, tpanther, that was my very question, which exDemMom simply ignored.

I answered how DNA can form from the atoms that are already present. All it takes is presence of the atoms and an energy source, and the atoms will assemble into a large variety of molecules. The atoms already exist all over the earth, where they coalesced from space dust many billions of years ago. The energy comes from the sun and from radioactive decay on the earth.

According to physics, neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed (although, to a limited extent, matter can be converted to energy). So, as for where the atoms came from in the first place, some 14 billion years ago, I'm not concerning myself with that. The big bang? I dunno.

Let me put the question another way: How does an inorganic molecule become an "organic" one in the first place?

An inorganic molecule does not contain the correct atoms to be an organic molecule, and will never become organic.

By scientific definition, organic molecules contain carbon and hydrogen. It is really that simple.

It was once thought that organic compounds were strictly associated with living organisms, and that is how they got their name. However, there is no need for the presence of living things in order for organic molecules to form: the only requirements are the presence of carbon, hydrogen, other elements, and an energy source. Carbon forms a highly diverse set of molecules according to the laws of physics.

Examples of organic molecules include benzene, DNA, methane, ethanol, isopropanol, ether, aldehydes, ketones, etc. As you can see, many of these aren't derived from living organisms, and in fact, are quite poisonous.

So, how does an inorganic molecule become an organic one? This transition would involve a non-living entity becoming a living entity. How does this happen?

I gather that since biochemistry has no answer to this question, exDemMom, Ha Ha Thats Very Logical, and allmendream simply dismiss it "by sleight of hand" as it were, and refuse to engage it.

As I just explained, organic molecules are not intrinsically alive. And there is no way to turn an inorganic molecule into an organic one. Sure, you can use an inorganic molecule in a chemical reaction which produces an organic molecule--but you destroy the inorganic molecule in the process. And by simply doing a chemical reaction, you do not cause a thing to be alive.

Here is an example of a chemical reaction involving organic and inorganic components:

CH₄ + Cl₂ + energy --> CH₃Cl + CH₂Cl₂ + CHCl₃ + CCl₄ + HCl

The Cl₂, CCl₄, and HCl are all inorganic molecules. The rest are organic.

But unfortunately, this means that biology can never be reached by physics — you can't get here from there. Instead of looking "forward" at what all the parts of an organism are converging upon — that is, the living organism — biology looks backward at that which the organism uses to express its functional wholeness, thus destroying the very thing — life — it is attempting to explain. This is odd, because it is not possible to even begin a discussion of life without an unstated intuition of the dynamic wholeness that is always manifested through it.

Biology is absolutely governed by physics. Within this universe, there is no escaping the invariant laws of physics. My own discipline, biochemistry, contains the subdiscipline of biophysics, which is devoted to studying the physics of biochemical processes. Not that I can escape studying the physics of the living processes that I study--but biophysicists go into far more depth than I do.

Now, as for what quality it is that imparts life to a conglomerate of chemical processes, I cannot answer that. In other discussions, where I attempt to describe prenatal humans, I always say that asking when human life begins is the wrong question, since the property of being alive is present in the egg and sperm before they fuse to become a zygote, as a result of their being formed by the mother and father. No one has ever seen something that is not alive become alive. Once life departs, it does not return.

DNA is not what makes us alive, although it is necessary for life to exist. It is only a molecule. It is not, itself, alive. If I want, I can make DNA through chemical reactions in the lab--but that is a rather tedious process, and a number of companies will gladly make any (small) DNA molecule that I specify, for a small fee. I can extract DNA from any kind of living organism. I can put DNA into many kinds of living organisms, and they will use it. There really is nothing all that special about it, in a chemical/physical sense.

In closing, it appears our biochemicist correspondents here believe that the electrical and chemical properties of atoms and molecules plus "chance" plus "evolution" gives us an explanation of life.

No, they do not give us an explanation of life. But they do give us a whole lot of information about the physical properties of living things.

I don't know who Godwin or Barfield are, but that quote is just plain incorrect. If, instead of "chance", I use the term "probability", then it is an integral part of hypothesizing. It is necessary for interpretation of scientific data. Without accounting for "chance", there cannot be science.

Did you understand a single thing I wrote in my last????

I did. And I addressed it all.

What I understand is that you are looking to science for answers that the scientific method cannot provide, and you blame (if that is the right word) science for not being able to answer those questions.

Science, of any discipline, is no more and no less than a description of the physical universe. No matter how you pose the questions, you aren't going to get any more than that out of science. I have the impression that you want science to affirm your faith--it cannot do that!

Yes, I am passionate about science; the physical world holds wonders beyond imagination. I am also quite aware of what science is, of the types of questions the scientific method can and cannot answer. Decades ago, I learned to accept the fact that science simply is not the tool to answer questions about faith. It is normal to have doubts, to wonder if, in reality, this physical world is the only existence we will ever know. But what I decided, long ago, is that even if we cannot prove in a tangible manner (in other words, by using the scientific method) that there is a basis for our faith--that it really is possible to trust in Jesus and to be assured of a place in Heaven--there is no reason to live as if we don't have that assurance. Science simply cannot answer metaphysical or philosophical questions, and we must accept that:

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.

I like to think that I know the difference.

I gather that since biochemistry has no answer to this question, exDemMom, Ha Ha Thats Very Logical, and allmendream simply dismiss it "by sleight of hand" as it were, and refuse to engage it.

I can't speak to what the answer is as well as exDemMom has. (And I'm disappointed that you can only answer "yada yada yada" to a post she obviously spent a lot of time and thought on, and that you might be able to learn from if you were willing. Talk about "without grace"!) But I can offer my own reactions to your post (which, yes, I read and understood--it wasn't that complicated).

You quote Godwin (not a biologist or biochemist, I note, but a psychologist) as saying that "biochemists like to blur the distinction between life and matter." But he is begging the question: he's assuming without proof that "the" distincition between life and matter is clear and discernible. What if it's not? You may have heard of the ideas that proteins or RNA might have been the first self-replicating molecules. Is a self-replicating RNA molecule alive? Can you or Godwin explain why a rock is just matter, and a self-replicating RNA molecule is just matter, but single-cell, asexually reproducing algae is alive? If RNA is still used in living creatures, would it really be wrong to call self-replicating RNA "pre-life"?

As you can see, I don't dismiss the question. I'm comfortable saying, "I don't know." I also don't know why the sun's magnetic field is rebuilding asymmetrically this time. But that doesn't lead me to assert that because science can't answer the question right now, it must be because God has all of a sudden decided to reach in and tweak His creation.

“That is making a huge leap from what I said.

Really? I think it is you making the “huge leap.” It is beginning to occur to you that other important value judgments exist besides “scientific” value judgments. It’s just that these other values have become so woven into our culture that in your mind they have become axiomatic. Besides, in college “the subject never came up.”

“The creation story is absolutely useless as a scientific methodology.”

Already you have to walk back a flat assertion with a qualifier which did not exist in the conversation prior to my post #143. Now you elect to retrospectively make it specific to scientific methodology. Not credible (nor accurate).

“It is also useless for cooking . . .

Tell that to an observant Jew.

“architecture . . .

Witness the many edifices (both high and low) raised to the glory of the Creator.

“civil engineering . . . ”

Well . . . you got me. I can’t think of a single thing impelling a civil engineer to ethical behavior. Perhaps a civil engineer will be willing to enlighten us.

“musical composition and performance . . . ”

Sing praises to God, the Creator of Mankind and of the Universe. The concert repertoire is rife with references to the Creator.

“Just because it is useless for any number of human activities doesn't mean it is useless for its apparent intended purpose, which is to give us insight about our standing with God.”

Meaning what? That the Judeo-Christian God has no relevance in our day-to-day, ordinary existence, that is, to “any number of human activities”? I know of no Judeo-Christian who does not, as an article of faith, believe that God created Mankind and the Universe, and that He is relevant to all “human activities.” Do you? What, then, is our “standing with God”?

It is this issue (our “standing” with God) that drove Jefferson to observe that just as society is made for man, so man is made for society (emphasis mine). It is this issue that drove Franklin to observe that God governs in the affairs of men (“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?”) And let us note that Franklin was careful say “governs” not “rules,” thereby acknowledging the existence of Mankind’s free will (another gift of the Creator).

When Jefferson wrote that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights (the most famous words since the words of Christ), he was not speaking only his thoughts, but the thoughts of a whole people. God, the creator of Natural Law; God the giver of law to Man; the equality of all Men the gift of The Creator; unalienable rights the gift of The Creator. The Founding Fathers make it undeniably clear that the Creationist philosophy of Judeo-Christianity is central to their public and private perspectives regarding liberty. Look up the etymology of the word “Creator” (with a capital “C”), and its development following the printing of the KJV of the Holy Bible. It is said that that the KJV changed a nation, a language, and a culture.

To rip out Creationism from Judeo-Christianity is to rip out the heart of the religion and leave but a husk. If God is not the creator of Mankind and of the Universe, then why is He worshiped by over two billion followers? And, why do one and a half billion more people try to piggyback their faith on the early events precipitated by the Judeo-Christian Creator?

”We do not know how the Tuskegee experiment would have played out in a society with different ethics than ours.”

Irrelevant. The experiment “played out” in this society . . . with the ethics appearing retrospectively to the preponderance of the experiment. We can guess how the Tuskegee Experiment might have “played out” in the Japanese society you mention (the Japanese society before 1946) or in the Nazi culture of Dr Mengele . . . very much like it was playing out here until Science learned late in the game that a society with a Judeo-Christian Tradition has ethics.

“Plenty of scientific research can be performed without ever considering morality.”

Are you proposing, as did one staunch “defender” of Science (now self-exiled to the icy confines of Darwin Central), that scientific research has no point? So desperate was he to establish that no cultural values were tied to Science. Is science research really done purely for its own sake, divorced from any human values?

“I do not use the terms interchangeably” (Creationism & Christianity)

As you properly should not. Creationism is not a religion . . . in the context we are discussing here, it is the most fundamental tenet of the Judeo-Christian religion – that the Judeo-Christian God is the creator of Mankind and the Universe. Creationism does not inform the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is the Judeo-Christian religion that informs Creationism.

“All of my comments specifically address the idea that the creation story in Genesis is literal.”

Literal, like a science textbook? Not hardly. Yet in any lesser vein must we accept the Biblical creation story as “existentialist nonsense” or, “thought meandering”? The some sixty-six odd books of the KJV translation all existed before anyone ever heard of a science textbook. As did the original transcripts from which the KJV was drawn, as well as the apocrypha, which was the task of one whole “company” of KJV translators, as well as the additional books of the RC bible. All are meant to convey the meaning of God’s Word and are to be interpreted literally, metaphorically, allegorically, historically, doctrinally and literarily. How are we to receive “In the beginning” if not literally?

“I do not appreciate the fact that scientists are routinely called liars, accused of fabricating data, accused of following some oddball "Darwinism" religion . . . ”

When have I done those things?

“. . . and all of the other nasty things literal young-earth creationists (YECs) say about us.”

If your quarrel is with the YECs (or some part of them), why do you cast aspersions on a whole religion rather than take up your dispute specifically with YECs?

Some time ago I described to you a group of scientists (or a group who represent themselves as scientists or spokesmen for scientists) who cited Science, specifically evolution, as being sufficient cause to deny the existence of God. You denied any knowledge of such a group, repudiated any connection with them, and rejected any responsibility for their behavior. Yet, somehow you expect me to now accept ownership of the behavior of a group with whom I enjoy no association other than a common religion.

Why?

You're still making a big leap to conclusions. Please point out the post, in this or any other thread, where I said, overtly or implicitly, that science is a system of values or morality. I have never said that. I have, very clearly and on several occasions, stated that the practitioner of science brings their values to the profession, not the other way around. Perhaps you have read creationist websites where those selling literal creationism flat-out say that science is a religion, and you are projecting that belief on me?

Already you have to walk back a flat assertion with a qualifier which did not exist in the conversation prior to my post #143. Now you elect to retrospectively make it specific to scientific methodology. Not credible (nor accurate).

I used exactly the same qualifier in post #137; I have "walked nothing back." Even in allmendream's posts, where he didn't put "scientific" and "useless" in the same sentence about creationism, it was clear by the context that he was referring to the utility of creationism to guide scientific inquiry.

Tell that to an observant Jew.

Um... okay. So if I decide to cook a Passover dinner for one of my orthodox Jewish friends, I'll just pull out the Bible instead of Googling Passover recipes. Right.

Witness the many edifices (both high and low) raised to the glory of the Creator.

Sing praises to God, the Creator of Mankind and of the Universe. The concert repertoire is rife with references to the Creator.

Witness the number of edifices used by Planned Parenthood. Listen to the number of songs glorifying atheism, socialism, or foul treatment of women. The evidence indicates that morality is brought to, not imparted by, the profession. I cannot think of a single profession where that is not true.

Meaning what? That the Judeo-Christian God has no relevance in our day-to-day, ordinary existence, that is, to “any number of human activities”? ...

You're taking things way beyond the scope of what I said. I thought I made it clear previously that I do not care to discuss philosophy, and you dove head-first into it here. That said, I can point out that there are large numbers of people who have not accepted the relevance of a Judeo-Christian God--there are many Buddhists, Zoroastrians, pagans, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, etc., who see a completely different faith-based relevance to their daily lives. What I meant by "our standing with God" is our personal understanding of our relationship with God.

How much time have you spent actually discussing the Tuskegee experiment, and its relevance to the evolving field of ethics in medical research? Are you aware that everyone involved in the Tuskegee experiment believed in the rightness of what they were doing, that they were doing something good for the research subjects? The big moral lapse that occurred during the Tuskegee experiment was that when a treatment for syphilis was developed, the treatment was not offered to the research subjects, and the experiment continued. Had no treatment for syphilis been invented, and the experiment continued, there may not have been an outcry at all. Although there was the matter of all the subjects being poor black men... which might have raised outrage, but for a different reason.

aAre you proposing, as did one staunch “defender” of Science (now self-exiled to the icy confines of Darwin Central), that scientific research has no point? So desperate was he to establish that no cultural values were tied to Science. Is science research really done purely for its own sake, divorced from any human values?

So what if a main motivation for doing research is for the sake of feeding one's curiosity? You can find any number of professionals who chose their profession because of a personal passion. Being personally driven to do a particular kind of work does not make that work pointless. Would you also say that the work of our many men and women in uniform has no point as well, because many of them joined the military purely for the sake of being in the military?

If your quarrel is with the YECs (or some part of them), why do you cast aspersions on a whole religion rather than take up your dispute specifically with YECs?

Throughout the course of these discussions, I've made an effort to be very clear about the fact that I am criticizing YECs, and not Christians in general. If I were trying to disparage all of Christianity, I would never have stated that there is no reason to believe that being a scientist and being a Christian are incompatible.

Dear exDemMom, I have no problem with the idea that science "is no more and no less than a description of the physical universe." I do have a problem with the idea that the entire universe reduces to the physical, or the material; that there is nothing more to it than that. Even an atheist should know better. (If he didn't, how could he explain himself?)

If I needed science to affirm my faith, then my faith wouldn't be "faith."

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. — Hebrews 11:1

Setting religion aside here, I believe the universe has a metaphysical extension. I do understand that science does not and cannot address this aspect of the universe. And that's okay. We have philosophy — and theology — to do that.

To me, whose background is in philosophy, history, and culture, the two most foundational questions one can ask were originally posed by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, a great German mathematician and philosopher: (1) Why are things the way they are, and not some other way? and (2) Why is there anything at all, why not nothing? Obviously, these are not scientific questions. But this doesn't mean they do not refer to something real; that they are not worth asking. They are, of course, metaphysical questions, the answers to which seem ever elusive.

As a working scientist, such questions are, of course, irrelevant to what you do. But in a certain sense, these open-ended questions refer to the very context in which everything in the universe happens, including the conduct of science.

I don't mind that science must confine itself to the phenomenal. What alarms me is the seeming hostility of some scientists towards all things nonphenomenal. I sense this in the attitude of Nobel Laureate molecular biologist Jacques Monod, for example, who evidently believed that the universe is essentially matter + "pure, blind chance."

Or the seeming hostility of evolutionary biologist and geneticist Richard Lewontin regarding nonphenomenal aspects of reality.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

And he seems to know the downside of this sort of thing:

… When faced with questions that they really don’t know how to answer — like “How does a single cell turn into a mouse?” or “How did the structure and activity of Beethoven’s brain result in Opus 131?” — the only thing that natural scientists know how to do is turn them into other questions that they do know how to answer. That is, scientists do what they already know how to do.

Forgive me, but this looks like rigging the game to me.

In effect, this last quote seems to be an admission that life and consciousness cannot be directly addressed by science at all. Which may very well be true. After all, both are "intangibles," non-observables.

And yet we have biologists who insist that consciousness (mind) is "merely" an epiphenomenon of the physical brain. IOW, they are telling a "just-so story": they don't have a clue what consciousness is (or life for that matter), so they simply reduce it to emanations of brain activity. Jeepers, that doesn't strike me as even a good guess.... I doubt it is a testable one.

My concern here is the impact this sort of thing has on the culture in which we live. Science enjoys such prestige nowadays, that most of the public simply, uncritically accepts what scientists say as "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

When I asked if you understood "a single thing I wrote in my last," it was with respect to the issues of nonphenomenal reality I was trying to raise. I apologize for my rudeness to you, ExDemMom. It was both uncalled for (your essay/post at #151 was wonderfully informative) and unhelpful.

You said you didn't know who Owen Barfield was. He was a highly-influential British philosopher whose main work was devoted to the evolution of consciousness, "exploring its development through the history of language" as his Estate's website puts it. His book, Saving the Appearances: A Study in Idolatry —

...is about the world as we see it and the world as it is; it is about God, human nature, and consciousness. The best known of numerous books by the British sage whom C.S. Lewis called the "wisest and best of my unofficial teachers," it draws on sources from mythology, philosophy, history, literature, theology, and science to chronicle the evolution of human thought from Moses and Aristotle to Galileo and Keats. Barfield urges his readers to do away with the assumption that the relationship between people and their environment is static. He dares us to end our exploitation of the natural world and to acknowledge, even revel in, our participation in the diurnal creative process.

— as the book description goes.

He is dealing with a much "larger universe" (so to speak) than that accessible by means of the scientific method.

Robert Godwin is a clinical and forensic psychologist and philosopher.

Jeepers, I hope you don't disparage these outstanding thinkers simply because they're "philosophers!"

Thank you so much, ExDemMom, for your excellent essay/posts!

I guess I still don't see what your beef with Darwinian evolution is, then.

I can understand being impatient with scientists who insist that "the entire universe reduces to the physical, or the material," or that we know what we don't know. As a subscriber to some alternative health practices, I'm well aware that a lot of people refuse to accept anything they don't understand. I remember sitting at a dinner party next to a doctor who was scoffing at the idea that someone's mood could affect their health outcome. A couple of years later, headline in the paper: "Mood affects health outcome, doctors say." (Anecdote slightly edited, of course.)

But while individual scientists, like the ones you quote, might make that kind of argument, "science" doesn't, nor does "evolution." I don't think it's a bad thing to investigate whether consciousness is an epiphenomenon or emergent property of a physical brain. But the whole single-cell creatures to multicell creatures, dinosaurs to birds, proto-humans to humans edifice doesn't depend on that answer.

Robert Godwin is a clinical and forensic psychologist and philosopher. Jeepers, I hope you don't disparage these outstanding thinkers simply because they're "philosophers!"

The only reason I mentioned his background is that he's insisting on a firm dividing line between life and matter and disparaging biochemists who see a fuzzier division. I couldn't help but wonder whether if he were a biochemist himself, he might have a deeper understanding of the question. I'd wonder the same thing about a biochemist disparaging a psychologist's statement about human behavior.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.