Posted on 04/01/2009 6:24:14 AM PDT by seanindenver
Some time ago, a highly charged argument was set in motion. It pitted evolution against creationism. One side of this debate relies on scientific inquiry and the other relies on ancient mythological texts.
That's my view. That's what I intend to teach my children.
Yet, I have no interest in foisting this curriculum on your kids. Nor am I particularly distressed that a creationist theory may one day collide with the tiny eardrums of my precocious offspring.
Which brings me to the Texas Board of Education's recent landmark compromise between evolutionary science and related religious concerns in public school textbooks.
The board cautiously crafted an arrangement that requires teachers to allow students to scrutinize "all sides" of the issue. This decision is widely seen as a win for pro-creationists — or are they called "anti-evolutionists"?
(Excerpt) Read more at denverpost.com ...
I think of it as this site's version of the "Two Minutes Hate" as portrayed in Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Can God make the Red Sea part?
Can God impregnate a virgin?
Can God become man?
Does your faith allow for those incidents, and much, much more? As a Christian, do you look forward to an afterlife?
How about "science"? How can evolution explain how it all began? They don't even agree on when, or where, and can't seem to find any of the keys!
Evolution doesn't attempt to explain how it all began. It is about how life changes once it is in existence and subject to selective pressure upon genetic variations.
Moreover no scientific study can explain WHY the universe was created, just a bit of minutiae about how the universe works.
Discovering how planets and stars form no more removes God as the creator of the heavens and the Earth than discovering how life changes removes God as the creator of life and all living things.
Agreed, but you're not answering the questions asked. As a Christian, do you believe that can God make the "sun stand still", even if it defies the physical laws of science?
Can God make the Red Sea part?
Can God impregnate a virgin?
Can God become man?
Does your faith allow for those incidents, and much, much more? As a Christian, do you look forward to an afterlife?
I am not posing "trick questions". I am indeed in a quandary.
My theology on the intersection of faith and science is nearly indistinguishable from the current and previous Popes; both of whom have acknowledged the strength of the theory of evolution.
Well, that settles it! The Pope is certainly the authority. (should I add the /sarcasm?) Your faith is in your church. My faith lies in the Blood of Christ, the ONLY Intercessor.
We disagree, and no, I don't wish to get into a discussion about how your church is the only one. There are lot's of those claims, too. Evolution can easily be explained within the realm of the Roman theological view. Creation can be easily explained within the realm of faith.
2 Tim 2: 10You, however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, 11persecutions, sufferings—what kinds of things happened to me in Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, the persecutions I endured. Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them. 12In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Uh, except that you'd miss the entire point of the article, which is an argument for school choice.
The author chose the unfortunate term of "mythological texts" right at the beginning. His jaded view of creationism doesn't overwhelm the validity of his argument for school choice, however. He's saying your children should not be forced into studying evolution if you find it objectionable.
Isn't that a good reason to keep reading ?
Ping !
You speak to the point - your faith.
Faith is not science and never has been nor should it ever be. Faith presumes and is therefore not objective. Do not be so naive as to think that because you believe something is false (or worse arrogantly assume to know the will of God) that it must be.
Leave science to us scientists.
The "Will of God" is easy to know, if you believe the Scriptures. There is no arrogance in exposing Truth.
Science is speculation. It assumes, then goes on a course of "proving" it. Many segments of "science" are reliable. Evolution has yet to be among those.
I do speak to my point, since all the hope of mankind is in that faith. If I believe Jesus lived, died, and was resurrected, as recorded in those Scriptures, then I must share His message.
At 62, I am hardly naive, but thanks for the message. I get it. Evolutionary Science is an exclusive club, and if you don't believe, you're an apostate, or heretic...
Your faith is more difficult to believe!
Puhleeeze.
The attitudes and worldview underlying socialism vastly pre-date the theory of evolution. The royalists going back to ancient Egypt believed the same things, albeit with the "divine right of kings" thrown in.
There's no relationship between the two.
Now if you said there's a relationship between eugenics and evolution, I'd agree. The eugenicists were trying to "help" evolution along, in their own nasty way.
"Macroevolution" has been observed too. There's direct genetic evidence, fossil evidence, morphological evidence, geographical evidence, etc.
I finally got curious enough to look up this fallacy you cite so often. And it seems to me that it could apply to the entire scientific method, if you want it to. The method is based on forming a hypothesis, making a prediction based on it, and testing the prediction. Successful predictions are usually considered evidence in favor of the hypothesis. It is true that the method calls for trying to disprove the prediction rather than confirm it, so strictly speaking it would be fallacious to say "gravity predicts this ball will fall if I let go of it, the ball fell, so gravity is confirmed." But unless you can show that biology or paleontology does that kind of thing more than other sciences, you have no basis for your statement.
No, that's known as the fallacy of the single cause.
To sum. First we had the fallacy of reverse ad hominem followed by the twin fallacies of equivocation and affirming the consequent. Now we add the fallacy of the single cause.
This is why I said, "Once again we see the multiplication of logical fallacies surrounding evolution. It is simply a consequence of and quite necessary to support that belief."
I’m sorry but what does your age have to do with naivity?
By saying that you know the will of God you are presuming that no other interpretation of scripture can be correct. That is astonishing. If only I were so wise I wouldn’t have to attend services twice each week.
You do not seem to understand that the scientific method is based on the null hypothesis. The primary assumption in experimentation is that a theory is false. If the null hypothesis is invalidated by experimentation then the next question is asked, again with null as the primary result. This proceeds forwards step wise until the acceptance of the null or the failure to accept null. A theory is a process by which a subject may be understood and tested and only when there is a failure to prove null does it evolve into law (gravity, thermodynamics, et al).
Religion does not suffer such tests and cannot be considered a scientific pursuit in biology. To think tht it can is again - naive.
Bingo !
That's the position I take.
If I had intended to "imply" that, I would have stated that. I didn't.
Evolution permeates politics and philosophy and as such it set the foundation for socialism.
Creation (as understood in a Judeo/Christian context) assumes that man was created by God in his image. That was the understanding of our founders. Being made in the image of God gives men worth as individuals and not merely as worker ants in the socialist colony.
For this reason nearly all socialists believe that man is the product of an evolutionary process independent of God and that man is merely a product of his environment and as such his value is determined by society and not by the creator.
The founders of the country recognized that as a created being Man has unalienable rights. But if man is an evolved creature and is merely the product of mutations and accidents, then man has no more rights than those who are more powerful than them will grant them.
Without a firm belief that man was a created being, the United States would never have existed.
In every godless culture where evolution is the accepted explanation for the existence of man on the earth, individual liberty either does not exist, or it only exists insofar as it benefits those who rule over the people. This is not a coincidence.
Mock Creation at your peril. Your unalienable rights and liberty derive solely from the fact that you were created by God. Without God they are not only alienable, but they are wholly illusory.
Depends on how you define 'scientific method', I suppose. But I don't see how justifying fallacious lines of reasoning lends any support to 'science'. If 'science' is truly based on fallacy, it's still fallacy and 'science' is discredited on that basis alone.
"The method is based on forming a hypothesis, making a prediction based on it, and testing the prediction. Successful predictions are usually considered evidence in favor of the hypothesis. It is true that the method calls for trying to disprove the prediction rather than confirm it, so strictly speaking it would be fallacious to say "gravity predicts this ball will fall if I let go of it, the ball fell, so gravity is confirmed.""
The fallacy applies wherever the antecedent is unobserved yet is claimed to be true because the consequent is observed. If that applies to broad sections of what you consider 'science', then it points to a problem w/ your understanding of what science is and is not.
"But unless you can show that biology or paleontology does that kind of thing more than other sciences, you have no basis for your statement."
This is known as the 'burden of proof' fallacy but it also demonstrates a curious behavior that evolutionists typically display. When confronted w/ evidence that their beliefs are based on fallacy, they will go to great lengths to justify fallacy rather than reject their beliefs.
To summarize. So far we have seen the following fallacies in defense of evolution: reverse ad hominem, equivocation, affirming the consequent, single cause and now burden of proof.
The evidence continues to accumulate in support of my statement that, ""Once again we see the multiplication of logical fallacies surrounding evolution. It is simply a consequence of and quite necessary to support that belief."
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.