Replies

"As for your original post, I think it did suggest that what you call moral decline was somehow related to the teaching of evolution."

Yes. And I still think it is related, just not in the way you first construed.

At the heart of the matter is the BIG QUESTION though:

How does someone KNOW something?

A "scientist" (which we shall not even begin to define or describe at this point) trusts his five senses.

Or is it six?

Or how much science does one actually experience firsthand with one's own senses? And how much is based on trusting reliable "sources"?

Last night I woke up at 2am and could not go back to sleep. For some reason I decided to reread most of Einstein's book on relativity (by that name).

It is very interesting not just because of his eloquence (though it is translated from German I think) and for his insight into the nature of the universe, but more significantly (to me at least) how we arrive at our deductions.

Einstein believed in evolution from what I have read. He also believed in God (though his theology was probably pantheistic).

I have never discussed this book with anyone before, but if you follow his logic you will soon find yourself persuaded that the way we tend to perceive the universe naturally is actually quite wrong when it comes to velocities near to the speed of light (as measured by an observer).

Anyway, I don't expect we will settle the evolution vs. creation issue any time soon to the satisfaction of most freepers, but I still think that this one point is critical to the whole discussion. How does a person KNOW anything?

I cannot buy into evolutionary theory as a means for either the origins of man or origins of species in general. I do think some of the observations about adaptation are critical to understanding biology and they have historical merit as well.

Evolutionary theory relies on a combination of many scientific specialties which are totally independent of one another. This fact alone mandates that most people must accept it blindly on faith alone simply because not everyone has the expertise in multiple disciplines to verify the conclusions that have been drawn. And I am saying that without regard to the validity of the theory.

By way of comparison, do you believe the doom and gloom prophets of global warming? If not, why? Maybe you even go along with this as "scientific", but you must certainly agree that some scientific claims exist where bias has played a role.

Are you sure that systematic and systemic bias does not exist among evolutionists? How can you be sure? Can you honestly say no scientist would have a reason for providing misleading or inaccurate data on this subject?

You could even blame it on the current political atmosphere. If a scientist discovered a piece of information that completely undermined evolutionary theory, do you think it might be possible it would be downplayed if for no other reason than it would provide ammunition for dissenters to the theory?

It is easier to me to accept certain scientific propositions more readily when I experience them personally and firsthand. For example, principles of electromagnetism have real-world consequences like the ability to turn on a light, listen to the radio, etc. So I have greater reason to presume that this theory is correct even if there may still remain special exceptions (the way Einstein's theories became a special exception to Newtonian theories).

Back on point - I do not have any firsthand, real world experience to confirm or deny evolutionary theory DIRECTLY. However, my experiences do validate the authenticity of the claims of the Bible. So I have a greater reason to believe in Creation than evolution (in regard to the origin of man).

Without regard to whether it is appropriate to teach science vs. philosophy vs. religion vs. history, etc. consider why you believe in evolution for the origin of man.

How do you believe someone can KNOW anything?

I do not have any firsthand, real world experience to confirm or deny evolutionary theory DIRECTLY. However, my experiences do validate the authenticity of the claims of the Bible. So I have a greater reason to believe in Creation than evolution (in regard to the origin of man).

Your mistake is to read a word-for-word littalisim into Genesis. There are two creation stories in Genesis. Gen 1:1 and Gen 2:4. They are both sequences (claims otherwise notwithstanding, as there is wording in Gen 2 that "B" did not happen, because "A" had not). And these sequences do not agree.

Yes, there are ways to interpret them to ignore the apparent problems. But once you establish that you can rationalize verses, then it's easy to rationalize Evolution into Genesis as well.

Do you believe in a 6000 year old creation? If you rationalize that "day" is not a 24 hour day (as most believers do), then you have already rationalized word-for-word litteralism out of Genesis. Go ahead and insert Evolution in between some verses.

God doesn't describe nuclear forces and gravity and electromagnetisim in Genesis either. Yet obviously He created them.

There is no contradiction between Genesis and science. Only contradictions in humans interpretation of the verses. So what's new?