Posted on 11/17/2004 7:13:45 PM PST by naturalman1975
Schools should teach the biblical creation story alongside evolutionary theory, Family First chairman Peter Harris said yesterday.
While his fledgling party - arising out of the Assemblies of God church - had no formal policy on school curriculums, Mr Harris said his personal view was that children should be taught both perspectives.
Asked at the National Press Club in Canberra whether he supported both perspectives being taught, he said: "Of course we'd like to see a balanced approach to education, and... all options and all viewpoints, world viewpoints, should be put forward and people should be entitled to make their own decisions," he said.
Mr Harris said his party had raised $1.2 million in donations for the federal election, but had none from the United States, where the religious right has become a political force.
There was diverse support for Mr Harris' views on teaching creationism alongside evolution.
Australian National University anthropologist Alan Thorne said there was nothing wrong with putting both views to students.
"A balanced view is better than an extreme view in education," he said. "From a scientific perspective, it would be very silly indeed to claim God went around poking fossils into rocks, (but) the two can be quite compatible. There's no reasons why they can't address different aspects of our development."
Labor's federal education spokeswoman Jenny Macklin said: "All young people should have an understanding of a range of religious beliefs."
But acting Australian Education Union Victorian president Ann Taylor warned schools should distinguish between established scientific fact and philosophical or religious belief.
Could it be that no questioning of the status quo is allowed? Not even a label? How about the fact that the pledge of allegiance is attacked in court? Or the symbols of religion? Does that not set a climate for what is happening? And it is not just Christians who think that the theory as espoused is flawed.
What significance does an emerging interface between biology and information science hold for thinking about evolution? It opens up the possibility of addressing scientifically rather than ideologically the central issue so hotly contested by fundamentalists on both sides of the Creationist-Darwinist debate: Is there any guiding intelligence at work in the origin of species displaying exquisite adaptations that range from lambda prophage repression and the Krebs cycle through the mitotic apparatus and the eye to the immune system, mimicry, and social organization? Borrowing concepts from information science, new schools of evolutionists can begin to rephrase virtually intractable global questions in terms amenable to computer modelling and experimentation. We can speculate what some of these more manageable questions might be: How can molecular control circuits be combined to direct the expression of novel traits? Do genomes display characteristic system architectures that allow us to predict phenotypic consequences when we rearrange DNA sequence components? Do signal transduction networks contribute functional information as they regulate the action of natural genetic engineering hardware?
Questions like those above will certainly prove to be naive because we are just on the threshold of a new way of thinking about living organisms and their variations. Nonetheless, these questions serve to illustrate the potential for addressing the deep issues of evolution from a radically different scientific perspective. Novel ways of looking at longstanding problems have historically been the chief motors of scientific progress. However, the potential for new science is hard to find in the Creationist-Darwinist debate. Both sides appear to have a common interest in presenting a static view of the scientific enterprise. This is to be expected from the Creationists, who naturally refuse to recognize science's remarkable record of making more and more seemingly miraculous aspects of our world comprehensible to our understanding and accessible to our technology. But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of inquiry. Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to validate the Creationists' criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science.
One thing this thread has proven is that many of you are products of your education. Schools teach evolution, so you believe it. And since universities teach that only uneducated people believe in creation, many choose to not even consider the possibility of creation for fear of being labeled crazy. As for myself, I have no such concerns. I think creation best explains the world and have read much on the matter.
Just one historical footnote. Before the Scopes, trial creation was the only version of "in the beginning" taught in schools. Then Darrow, an atheist and early founder of humanism, sued to get schools to accept Darwinism as a possibility. Now, 80 years later, ONLY evolution is being taught in schools. All many of us would like is to return to the post-Darrow ruling that both should be taught.
But evolutionist faith won't allow opposition. The humanist now have their own inquisition to stop alternative thought.
Politically. I knew it wasn't going to be "scientifically."
Evolution does not imply that the Scriptures are wrong. Modern science even allows for a literal reading of the Scriptures to be correct. If God used evolution as a tool to create all the life on earth, would that render the scriptures false? Would God still not have created everything?
If they are "driven away" because of this disagreement, they couldn't have been very strong believers in the first place.
You can agree or disagree with Scripture, that's your personal call. Many have tried to graft evolutionary theory on top of the plain reading of Scripture, but this imposition is not supported by a literal reading of Scripture.
I suspect this is done by some in an attempt to rectify the Bible with one theory of science so as to bring it into "modern" times. Wholly unnecessary, as there is plenty of evidence for creation. Conversely, evidence supporting evolution is more of a stretch to fit observable facts (notice I didn't use the words "unprovable assumptions") and certainly it is not based repeatable methodology. But then, creation was a one time event, and we have no way to repeat that experiment, either. But, we can observe the results, and they fit the observable evidence much better than blind evolution.
There was no need for God to use evolution in creation except to satisfy His critics and mollify those who don't believe the Scripture. It's hard to imagine that is a good enough reason for Him. But, some theory like "evolution" is absolutely neccessary if there is no God to do the creating.
As I say, if you choose to believe such a leap, it is your call, but it is not one supported by Scripture.
Who told you evolution is based on chance? It is based on laws of nature, not chance. It is based on the fact that some organisms are better suited for their environment than others and that those that are better suited tend to survive and reproduce.
I disagree with your assertion that evolution is incosistent with a plain, literal reading of the Scripture. You must first understand Einstien's theory of relativity. This theory states that time is not absolute, but rather depends on your reference frame. It is possible that a 24 hour period in the reference frame of the universe on the first day is equivalent to a period spanning billions of years in our current reference frame. Once the question of the time period is taken care of, the rest follows naturally. The order of creation given in the Scriptures is the same as the order that creatures arise as given by the theory of evolution. The Bible is short on detail about how God created the universe. It simply states what was created. (BTW, if you want to argue that God created Adam from dust and breathed life into him, is it not possible that this passage refers to the creation of the soul of Adam. Evolution has absolutely nothing to say about the creation of the soul.)
Are you really saying that God could not have used the big bang and evolution to create the universe? Evolution is not blind; it proceeds according to the laws of nature. If God created the universe and endowed it with certain laws of nature, is it not entirely possible that God created these laws in such a way as to make it inevitable that humans would evolve? Are you questioning God's ability to do so? Note that I am not saying that God cannot interfere with his creation; I am saying that He made it so perfectly that He doesn't have to interfere. To me, a God who creates the universe and then finds it necessary to meddle in it to fix things is not perfect. In that case, He would have made mistakes in creating the universe.
In the US, the Iroquois vs Pueblo theories could be taught, depending in which state a school district happens to lie.
Interesting. I suppose you mean that God had "no need" to use evolution because He has the ability to "blink" into existence whatever He wants.
But then you have the conundrum of "The Flood". Why, when God became disgusted and dissatisfied with his creation, did He "need" to engage in the elaborate ritual sadism of mass murder by drowning to get rid of it? Why didn't He just "blink" a new and more perfect world into existence?
Maybe because the flood story isn't intended to be literal, any more than the creation story? Maybe because these biblical tales were intended as moral lessons, and not historical recitation?
The hitch in this theory is the word used in the Genesis creation account to denote "day" is the Hebrew word, "yom". When this word is used in other places in Scripture, including references to the creation, it denotes a 24 hour day. This word would have to have a non-literal meaning in subsequent verses in the creation account, despite the fact that it's initial use Genesis 1:5 defines the period as a daily, cyclical sequence. It is used thereafter in that context as well the other places in Scripture. Genesis is also specific in emphasizing the term "morning and evening" as it goes through each "day". That is the same definitive time period in each case.
The order of creation given in the Scriptures is the same as the order that creatures arise as given by the theory of evolution.
Well, not exactly. On the "third day", He created vegetation. Then on the "fourth day", He created the sun, moon and stars. If these days are "eons", the vegetation would not have survived through the eons of darkness without sunlight, which is necessary for survival.
The Bible is short on detail about how God created the universe.
True. It is clearly not meant to be an extensive account but the outline. But what it says in Genesis is profound and is backed up in many other Books of Scripture as a miraculous "creation" by God himself. There is no evidence in Scripture supporting God using evolution as a method. That has to be assumed into the account.
What we're talking about is teaching school children. By definition not likely to be "strong believers in the first place".
I can think of no worse thing than government schools teaching Evolution vs. Creationism side by side and forcing young children to choose between them. That's a situation guaranteed to force many of those children to reject God for life. Had their religious leaders prepared them by telling them there was no conflict between Genesis and science, and not insisting on this Creationism silliness, then all of those students would be open to accepting God.
There was no need for God to use evolution in creation except to satisfy His critics and mollify those who don't believe the Scripture.
God uses what you see around for His purposes every day. Why do you think it would have been different long ago? He merely used parts of His creation to further His creation. Science calls it by many names, including Evolution. You can call it Divine, but there is no real difference between them.
Not at all. He is sovereign. All I am saying is Scripture does not support that view in the least.
Evolution is not blind; it proceeds according to the laws of nature. If God created the universe and endowed it with certain laws of nature...
Most evolutionists would disagree with you here. They assume the process proceeds by time and blind chance and somehow all we see has recombined from utter death to an organized, living system. How likely is that?
Besides that, the most firmly established "laws of nature" can most basically be termed as the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. Neither support evolution. In fact, they contradict the process of evolution.
... is it not entirely possible that God created these laws in such a way as to make it inevitable that humans would evolve?
Based on Scripture, mankind was created in a highly developed state. If anything, Scripture indicates mankind has tended to physically, mentally and morally degenerate from the original creation.
Are you questioning God's ability to do so?
Not at all. But if He has, He has certainly failed to inform us.
Note that I am not saying that God cannot interfere with his creation; I am saying that He made it so perfectly that He doesn't have to interfere.
By Scriptural account, it is not God who has interfered with His creation, causing "mistakes". It is Satan and a fallen mankind who have managed that. But, He allowed it through the agency of "free will".
There is a difference between "elaborate ritual" and "judgment". It is His creation, therefore He was within his rights to destroy it. But, in His grace, He decided to save it. Otherwise, we would not be having this conversation over His "sadism". Is that fact alone not just an indication of His Grace and Mercy?
Why didn't He just "blink" a new and more perfect world into existence?
He could have. But I suppose He felt you and I were somehow worth saving.
... Maybe because the flood story isn't intended to be literal, any more than the creation story?
I don't see how you can base that statement on anything except your own opinion.
Maybe because these biblical tales were intended as moral lessons, and not historical recitation?
That certainly isn't the view of Scripture, It's human authors, Jesus, the Apostles or anybody else involved in the "tales". Nor is it the view of known history or historical archeology, where actual facts are known.
You miss my point. I too am saying that the creation occurred during literally six 24 hour periods. These periods were 24 hours from the reference frame of the early universe, however. 24 hours in early universe = several billion years now. Another example of this type of phenomenon: Suppose you get on a very fast spaceship and fly to Alpha Centuri and back. When you get back, I ask you how long your trip took. You say it took 3 days. My calendar says it is now 2014, so I say it took a bit over 9 years. Who is right? We both are. 3 days from your frame of reference is equal to 9 years from mine. As far as your reference to vegitation, there certainly could be vegitation surviving before the sun was created; it could have arisen on planets other than ones in our solar system. Vegitation was created after there was light. One of the hypotheses regarding the origin of life on earth is panspermia, which holds that life came to earth from space. Do we know that this is incorrect? At this point, no. This isn't mentioned in the Bible, but many things that are now known to a pretty high degree of certainty are similarly unmentioned. General relativity, quantum theory, atomic theory, and the inverse square formula for universal gravitation are not mentioned in the Bible. The Bible is not a science text. It is apparent that evolution can be true at the same time as the Bible.
Gritty: Most evolutionists would disagree with you here. They assume the process proceeds by time and blind chance and somehow all we see has recombined from utter death to an organized, living system. How likely is that?
"...recombined from utter death to an orgainzed, living system." You seem to be conflating evolution and reincarnation. This needs some clarification.
Gritty: Besides that, the most firmly established "laws of nature" can most basically be termed as the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. Neither support evolution. In fact, they contradict the process of evolution.
Why does this long-abandoned chestnut of creationism keep rearing its head? I suspect you know full well that it is utterly incorrect. One of the more curious aspects of creationist argument is repeated regurgitation of simplistic falsehoods. It gives every appearance of recruitment of the gullible by sloganeering.
Stremba: Are you questioning God's ability to [employ evolution]?
Gritty: Not at all. But if He has, He has certainly failed to inform us.
Unless, of course, one looks looks up from the Bible now and again and takes a peek at the very world that God created. Do you presume that everything God has to say he's already said?
Well, I can. It is teaching children a singular view of a completely unproven theory, evolution, and calling it "scientific fact", thereby undermining the Word Of God without even a fair hearing.
That's fundamentally dishonest.
Had their religious leaders prepared them by telling them there was no conflict between Genesis and science, and not insisting on this Creationism silliness, then all of those students would be open to accepting God.
You have a point here. There is no conflict between Genesis and science.
But, what you refer to as "Creation silliness" does confuse children, especially when it is known as "evolution". This "evolution silliness" contradicts the Word Of God and thereby does tend to confuse children,... and adults, leading them to believe the Word Of God is wrong when there is no genuine evidence for that - only unproven theory.
How does this undermine the Word of God, unless you first teach these children that the Earth was made in 6 days, or whatever version of Creationism you believe in.
If you teach the children that the few hundred words in Genesis are actually confirmed by science, then no undermining takes place.
I'm getting tired of making this point to people who somehow can't get it. But teaching children Creationism sets them up to later reject God entirely because of the conflicts in science.
I can read Genesis, and I can read about Evolution, and I see no conflict between them. No problem.
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.