Tough Assignment: Teaching Evolution To Fundamentalists

Ft. Wayne Journal Gazette ^ | 03 December 2004 | SHARON BEGLEY

[Wallace T.]

Unguided, random evolution presumes that all things in nature, including the origin of life, are explainable through natural processes that may be measured or at least positively identified. There is no need for the intervention of a intelligent designer. An advocate of such a position, when reaching an area that he cannot solve, considers it a "black box" that future scientists may unravel. For example, Darwin developed his theory of the evolution of species prior to present day knowledge of genetic theory. The mechanism of evolution was not known to him and was a mystery. Since his day, evolutionists believe they have solved at least some of that mystery.

The advocate of such a position basically does not need the existence of God to explain the origins of the universe. If God exists, he would be an even more detached being than the "watchmaker" god of Deists like Thomas Paine or Thomas Jefferson. For someone who is an atheist, a skeptic, or a believer in a supernatural being who is less than omniscient or all powerful, the evolutionary process and an old earth and old universe are necessary elements for his cosmology.

OTOH, a theist, one who believes in an all-powerful and omniscient God, would believe that this being would not control the development of the universe through whatever mechanism he chooses: fiat creation, intelligent design, or guidance of the evolutionary process.

The position held by mainstream science, that of random, unguided evolution, reflects the philosophies of naturalism and materialism. Because of these presuppositions, the position does directly address the origins of life and the universe. It is also in conflict with any theistic system.

[PatrickHenry]

The position held by mainstream science, that of random, unguided evolution, reflects the philosophies of naturalism and materialism.

Not quite. This has all been addressed many times before. You keep using the expression "random, unguided evolution." Mutations only appear to be random, because we can't predict them (too many variables), but they are determined by the laws of physics and chemistry. Natural selection isn't random either. The survival and reproductive success of various individuals is likewise determined by their ability to deal with their environment. It seems random, but only because of all the factors involved. In principle it's predictable.

Science does not embrace the philosophy of "naturalism and materialism." But procedurally, science has no choice but to work with the materials at hand. If you can figure out a way to verifiably work with spiritual phenomena, science will explore your evidence.

[RadioAstronomer]

We have been thru all this before:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1183712/posts?page=79#79

[stremba]

Capillary action.

[stremba]

If they are both religions, then I am waiting for a fundamentalist pastor to start presenting evolution from the pulpit on Sunday morning. When that happens, then I will be okay with creationism in a science class.

[stremba]

It doesn't matter if EVERY learned, credentialed scientist believes that God created the universe, the earth and all life on it. That idea is still not science. Please do not confuse the personal beliefs of scientists with the theories of science. Even if all scientists believed in creationism, the theory of evolution would still be the only scientific theory that explained the diversity of life (or there would be no scientific theory, as was the case pre-Darwin.)

[Junior]

Auburn = Alabama Usually Beats Us Red Necks.

[Wallace T.]

Your point, then, is that what currently appears to be random may at some future date be explained via the "laws" of physics and chemistry. But "laws" in the customary sense imply a lawmaker. The USA Patriot Act, for instance, was drafted by the Bush Administration, debated, modified, and then passed by the U.S. Congress, and finally signed by the President. To an orthodox Christian or an observant Jew, the moral law in the Old Testament was created by God and transmitted via Moses and the prophets to humanity. "Laws" in the sense you use the term do not imply a lawmaker, however. Scientific law and theory are based on observations and conclusions drawn by scientists, who define, but do not make them. Their validity is only as good as the supporting research and the reasonableness of the conclusions.

If nature is proven to be a closed system, entirely supportable through observable scientific laws without the need for a "watchmaker", then any sort of theism, in the sense of an all powerful, omniscient God, is invalid. This view may not necessarily preclude the existence of supernatural phenomena. For example, the Soviets studied the existence of ESP and "auras" of human souls while being firmly materialist in ideology. However, this area would be essentially irrelevant, except as a curiosity. The only valid metaphysics would be that of materialism and naturalism. If that is the case, theism of any sort would be invalid. If the propositions of Scripture are false, Christians would then be, in the words of the apostle Paul, the greatest of fools.

[D Edmund Joaquin]

LOL. I heard the religion moderators are scientologists, not to be confused with "christian" scientologists

[RadioAstronomer]

From an NSF abstract:

“As with all scientific knowledge, a theory can be refined or even replaced by an alternative theory in light of new and compelling evidence. The geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth was replaced by the heliocentric theory of the earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence.

In science, the word "hypothesis" conveys the tentativeness inherent in the common use of the word "theory.' A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world. Through experiment and observation, hypotheses can be supported or rejected. At the earliest level of understanding, hypotheses can be used to construct more complex inferences and explanations. Like "theory," the word "fact" has a different meaning in science than it does in common usage. A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed over and over. However, observations are gathered by our senses, which can never be trusted entirely. Observations also can change with better technologies or with better ways of looking at data. For example, it was held as a scientific fact for many years that human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes, until improved techniques of microscopy revealed that they actually have 23. Ironically, facts in science often are more susceptible to change than theories, which is one reason why the word "fact" is not much used in science.

Finally, "laws" in science are typically descriptions of how the physical world behaves under certain circumstances. For example, the laws of motion describe how objects move when subjected to certain forces. These laws can be very useful in supporting hypotheses and theories, but like all elements of science they can be altered with new information and observations.

Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have."

[Dr. Eckleburg]

[Wallace T.]

Morris and Hovind may not have done original research. But would a researcher not draw upon the findings of others? Galileo and Copernicus no doubt used findings made by astronomers who believed that the earth was the center of the universe. However, their conclusions differed from their predecessors. Darwin probably utilized works of advocates of creationism as well as those who held to pre-Darwinian theories of evolution.

If Morris and Hovind are in error, it would be in the lack of reasonability of their conclusions.

[D Edmund Joaquin]

The Butterfly Effect common to chaos theory, is also known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions. Just a small change in the initial conditions can drastically change the long-term behavior of a system.

Life is chaotic, like a kid's room. It just carries on, there's no "evolution", if anything, it's de-evolution. (Note also, some of us went beyond the 5th grade and actually know where to place apostrophes)

[D Edmund Joaquin]

The evolutionists don't like this too much

[stremba]

You still confuse methodological materialism with the philosophy of materialism. Science utilizes methodological materialism. This means that science must study the universe as if no supernatural phenomena exist. That is not equivalent to the statement that science must assume that no supernatural phenomena exist. It simply means that if there are supernatural phenomena then science has nothing to say about them. For example, evolution states that the vast diversity of life arose from the processes of genetic variation (through several mechanisms, including but not limited to mutations) and natural selection. It does not say that this process was or was not guided by God, since science simply cannot deal with the concept of God. In this respect, science IS compatible with theism. Scientists need not assume that God does not exist; the existence of God is an open question as far as science is concerned. Science, in fact, is most consistent with the doctrine of essential agnosticism. Unlike some agnostics, who believe that there is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not God exists, essential agnostics believe that it is impossible in principle to ever determine whether God exists. That is the view of science in general. Individual scientists are, of course, free to believe as they wish.

[RadioAstronomer]

Note also, some of us went beyond the 5th grade and actually know where to place apostrophes

Pardon? Please clarify this statement.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The evolutionists don't like this too much.

I figured it's pretty basic, but I just bought it.

I'm so far behind you guys...where it's safe. 8~)

[D Edmund Joaquin]

We Creationists have been referred to repeatedly as uneducated and stupid and sly references made to our inadvertant typos

[BJungNan]

It doesn't matter if EVERY learned, credentialed scientist believes that God created the universe, the earth and all life on it. That idea is still not science.

We must not be understanding each others points. The idea that God created the universe is not supposed to be science. It is the study of science that causes people to believe that there is a God. Do you understand this point?

[RadioAstronomer]

We Creationists have been referred to repeatedly as uneducated and stupid and sly references made to our inadvertant typos

What typo are you referring to?