Replies

<< Yes, the seasons do have slight variances but as you said they are always within limits. That's all I meant by precise. >>

Then why didn't you say so, instead just repeating that it is "self-evident." "Slight variations" does not usually equate to "precise." If that is your argument -- it still falls apart, because it does not provide any evidence for a creator. Nor, of course, does it provide any evidence against one. Like I said -- it's a nothing argument.

And you still haven't answered my question about the reason for the changes in the seasons.

<< I think you are too caught up in the doubt thoughts in your head. >>

Uh -- nope. My doubt concerns your argument, which is not based on evidence or logic -- but religious belief. I would not want to argue you out of your religious beliefs, but I would also not want to allow you to dictate what is taught in science BASED on your beliefs -- without evidence.

For example -- I have taught students about how the calendar developed, and how we time the solstices and equinoxes, and how the months and years have been calculated -- but I was able to do that by using facts and evidence, without recourse to pushing any particular deity into the topic. If different ones of them prefer to think that their deities are involved along the way -- that's fine with me -- but it's not my place to teach such things, since they unknowable and not subject to scientific inquiry.

<< I'm sure you are aware that many of the great scientists of history were quite believers in God and related scientific discoveries with God. >>

Of course -- and I am sure you are aware of the many scientists who had widely divergent ideas about deities -- many of them in complete opposition to your beliefs. Which ones should we be teaching? Just yours? Or all of them?

I am sure you understand that the fact that some scientists -- perhaps even most of them -- have believed in a deity -- is not actually evidence for such a deity. If you believe this IS evidence -- then you would have to accept such "evidence" for the existence of Hindu deities. If you are a trinitarian, you would also have to deal with the fact that Isaac Newton -- who is often put forward as a "creationist with faith in God" -- was a staunch unitarian. Would that cause you to question your concept of the nature of God? If you are not prepared to accept that -- then what is the point of your argument?

The fact that many people believe in deities is not evidence for those deities. It is only evidence that many people believe in deities. And none of this has anything to do with the theory of evolution, which has nothing to say -- either way -- about deities.

<< Science does do God. >>

No -- science does the natural world. That's it. Theology does God. Philosophy does God. You came into the wrong classroom, Buddy! And I doubt you really want all those other ideas about God -- besides your particular one -- to be included. And I doubt you want YOUR particular ideas about God to be examined critically, as are all other ideas.
If you do -- then you can try to get such a class included -- maybe "Comparative Religions" or something. If you do not -- then you are playing the hypocrite by insisting that only your specific view be included and/or not questioned.

<< look at the incredibly complex dna code. More so than any computer code made by man. I think anyone looking at it somewhat objectively can see it was designed by someone. >>

Many thousands of scientists look at it objectively. Some of them believe in a god -- others do not. Whether they do or not -- that is not evidence of a deity. There is no scientific test for "deity" -- because "deities," by definition, transcend the natural world -- and as we keep having to explain, science only does the natural world.

When you can come up with a sound scientific test for "deity" that can be run scientifically -- let us know. Till then, all your examples have no force at all, in scientific terms. You are free to believe in a deity -- but that's not science. Why do you even NEED to cram that into science?

<< My faith is not shaken by evolution because I have looked into both sides and see the falsity of it. >>

First -- plenty of people accept evolution and still have faith in a god. There is nothing about evolution that should shake anyone's belief about a deity. Others have no faith in deities -- and their lack of faith is not shaken, either. This argument is meaningless -- since evolution has nothing to do with the "god" idea.

And I do not believe that you have really looked at the evidence for evolution and rejected it as false. Why do I say that? Because the things you have said give strong evidence that you do not know what you are talking about when you talk about evolution. You keep arguing as if the issue is evolution vs. theism -- but that is a false dichotomy. Specific deities have no more to do with science than socialism has to do with Einstein's relativity theories.

<< I could believe that God used evolution if it was supported by the facts but it simply isn't. >>

Plenty of people accept the evidence for evolution and believe that their god is using it. I believe you are rejecting evolution purely on religious grounds -- not because you have examined the purported evidence and found it lacking. I have yet to meet one person who truly understands the theory, and has looked at the evidence, and honestly rejects it as unsupported. I have met thousands who reject it because of their religious beliefs, and then they claim it is not based on sound evidence -- but their arguments give overwhelming evidence that they don't even understand what they are talking about.

Please give us some actual facts that you have found that do not support the theory of evolution. So far -- you have provided facts that do not impinge on the theory in the slightest -- seasons, DNA, "some believe in God," etc.

<< I don't want anything pushed on the kids but how about equal time without pushing any specific religion. What's wrong with that? >>

Equal time for WHAT? We are talking about a science class -- not comparative religions. Since different religions have different claims -- are you saying we should include ALL of them? On what basis? Why should science teachers be burdened with learning and presenting all those competing religious claims, instead of just teaching science, which is their job? That IS pushing religion on the kids -- even if you include all of them. And just when would they ever get around to science -- or any other subject -- or even eating and sleeping?

Evolution -- at this time -- is far and away the best explanation we have of the evidence. We teach evolution for that reason. If another theory could account for the facts better -- that other theory would be taught, instead. If two or more theories seemed of relatively equal value scientifically -- they would all be explained.

If there is no current theory to explain the evidence -- then various hypotheses would be discussed. For example -- I can give you five or six different hypotheses concerning the origin of life on this planet. None of them has, as yet, reached the level of a "theory." This is an area of ongoing study -- but we still don't have an answer that we are confident about. So -- we don't teach any of these ideas as "theories."

It appears that you don't really understand the theory you are trying to refute -- but I could be wrong. It is simply a matter of sound logic that one should not attempt to argue about something when he knows little or nothing about it. I teach my logic students that they are not ready to refute anything until they understand it -- and can explain what it actually IS -- and can do so in such a way that an honest proponent of it would say, "Yes, that is accurate." THEN you are ready to tear it apart, if you can.

On this basis, I would ask you a few simple questions, just to see if you really do understand what it is you are arguing against:

1) What is the scientific theory of evolution. What does it deal with? How is this question answered by those most knowledgeable in this area -- evolutionary biologists?

2) What are only a few of its major principles? Nothing particularly deep is needed here -- just a few simple overarching principles.

3) What is the evidence put forth to support these claims?

4) What predictions does the theory make -- and how have those predictions been tested?

6) How can it be falsified?

I won't ask you to answer all these questions in detail. There are libraries full of the answers! But you need to take a long, hard look at these questions and think long and hard about your understanding of evolution -- BEFORE setting out to give arguments against it.

I will warn you that I have asked these questions of hundreds of creationists -- and so far, not a single one has been able to answer even the first one without distorting it, mischaracterizing it, and bringing in all sorts of straw men and red herrings. How about it? Why not give it a try?