Question For My Secular Humanist Friends
Dean
My 7-year-old son recently had a traumatic and disturbing experience:
A man in his 50s suggested to my son--this poor fragile 7 year old son of mine!---that God had created all the animals, dividing them into their Kinds, 5,000 or so years ago. Further, my vulnerable son was told that Noah had separated the animals out as they were put upon his amazing Ark. And my son was told that, contrary to the theory of scientists, all the variations of species had been pre-ordained by God at that point.
My poor little fragile 7-year-old boy heard this notion! He heard it with his own ears!
Can anyone give me any references or suggestions as to what I might do about the horrendous trauma inflicted upon my 7 year old boy? He was obviously traumatized by an IDEA that is QUESTIONED BY EVERYDAY SCIENTISTS. It's practically mind-rape, it is. What am I, as a responsible parent, supposed to do about this?
He was EXPOSED to an IDEA that is questioned by most biologists! What am I to do? What what what??!?!?!? HE HEARD A SCIENTIFICALLY DUBIOUS IDEA!!! AAAAAAAAAAH!!!! I AM SO FRIGHTENED AS A PARENT! WHAT SHOULD I DO?!?!??!?!?!??!?!?!
Related Posts (on one page):
- Final Post on ID, Evolution, Etc.
- Qui, Moi?
- Question For My Secular Humanist Friends
first you breathe. don't freak. It's ok. What you believe is always gonna be more important to him.
When you're ok, ask him what he thinks and why it bothers him. From what you and Ro have said, Jake seems pretty smart. Ask him what makes sense to him, and then explain what you think. Tell him what other people believe and why, and tell him that it's ok for him to believe whatever he wants to believe. I mean, you can talk about dinosaurs here, so this should be easy.
But the most important thing is to find out what part is bothering him and help him answer those questions and reassure him that his world isn't any different because of some fundamentalist boob.
This is a teaching moment, take advantage :)
Good luck.
I mean, most of your suggestions are entirely reasonable, but seriously:
Arent't most people just a little overwrought by this discussion? Whic was my real point?
dayweek (already) and my irony detector is broken. Anyone care to suggest a way to fix it?--|PW|--
Of exposing 20 year old (or 6 year old) minds to the notion that evolutionary theory might just be questionable in some fashion, I mean?
I would genuinely like to know.
Kind of like of schools were to teach about human-induced global warming?
"So we have a student group devoted to telling students to stay off drugs and alcohol, to not have sex until they're married, and to be generally kind to each other. And you oppose this?"
I have a theory that the total amount of intolerance in a given society is a constant, and that reduction of intolerance in one area must necessarily be followed by greater intolerance in others. I have no idea if it's true, but sometimes...
Did anyone every tell you you're a bit of an aggravator?
Penny, you probably aught to stay away from the Reasons to Believe web site. They have some very troubling data there. One might even call their ideas heretical.
Besides, if the story of Noah is now verboten we've lost a piece of our cultural heritage. (I realize a lot of the hardcore secularists believe that Western culture should in fact be destroyed as racist/sexist/homophobic, but screw them, ok?). If there's a major rainstorm going on and you quip that you saw pairs of animals lining up, most people will get the joke. That doesn't imply obedience to or belief in a specific religion any more than calling a fat guy "Buddha" or calling a place the "Mecca" of something does.
As smarter people than I have said, we have freedom *of* religion, not freedom *from* it. One of the things that makes America great is that we have people of literally every kind here. It's stupid to try and stamp out any of those kinds, even if they're the "majority".
Regardless, I'm sure the relationship you have with your son allows you the opportunity to address those aspects of this gentleman's message with which you don't agree (although I realize you were, uh . . . role playing). As a Christian (right?) you undoubtedly have many occassions in which you have to talk to your son about the differences between what he learns in church vs. what he learns elsewhere. So, no crisis. :)
1) People (Americans!) are responsible for global warming.
2) Nuclear energy is evil. Period.
3) ANY action taken to preserve the environment in your immediate area is good, regardless of its long-term effects on the environment as a whole.
And so on.
At least if people teach Creationism there really isn't much the poor mind-raped kids can actually vote on based on it as regards national or local policy. It's not like it's going to effect whether we should should ban all forms of nuclear energy - like the dogma above tells kids should be done.
And (sigh) no, I do NOT believe creationism should be taught in schools. I just think if we're going to worry about some dogma we should worry about ALL.
On a more serious note, tho, there are several flood myths/legends. Gilgamesh and Atrahasis come to mind. These are both Mesopotamian, and the Genesis account is similar. Other cultures around the world have cataclysmic flood legends as well. Even here in the PNW, there is scientific, geologic proof of a huge, ice-age flood: the Missoula flood. This caused permanent depressions/wetlands and gouged out entire swaths of land for miles.
Not to say that these are all connected, or all happened at the same time, or speak the "truth" about what happened, but clearly some great deluge/flood did occur somewhere at some time. As a Bible-believing Christian, these other myths/legends and geologic facts, IMO, merely reinforce my belief.
Oh, and it seems there are a lot of scientists who think the best explanation for the universe as currently observed is a Creator. Some of these folks are Nobel laureates. Some of them used to believe the opposite. None of them mentioned a belief in the ark, however.
I've read almost every popular work Stephen Jay Gould has written. I admire his scientific work very much. I think the scientists and philosophers quoted in The Case for a Creator would eat his lunch.
Yours,
Wince
Do I think that a single mention of Creationism in a child's hearing will somehow lead to him believing that the Sun circles the Earth rather than the other way around? Of course not.
I would be more than willing for my child to encounter 'intelligent design' in an academic context if I had any reason to believe that the issue would be examined in a rigorous way. I've sought out and read many of the more interesting books on the subject myself, because I really don't believe that my beliefs are worth much if they can't stand a challenge. (This explains my slavish devotion to your blog; I read it because you are intelligent and I disagree with approximately 80% of what you say. :-))
However, I don't believe this will happen. For one thing, I think it would be difficult to do a really good discussion of the issues involved on a 5th grade level. For another, I suspect that in any school district in which the school board was willing to force the issue, a teacher wouldn't be given the leeway to disagree with the notion.
Also, at some level, this is simply a values issue for me. It's not an issue of namby-pamby handwringing fear, it's a deep and passionate conviction that in our schools, our children should be taught the truth insofar as we know it - which is that science is silent on the subject of whether or not there is a Creator, but it has quite a lot to say on the subject of evolution.
I understand that my son will be exposed to beliefs I don't hold, that's the way life in a pluralistic society works. I'm not going to support legislation that would make it a criminal offense for a random adult to tell my son about Adam and Eve and the Ark and so on. If that adult is a teacher and is teaching that as part of the official science curriculum, damn skippy I'm going to make a fuss. And, to get back to your original question about state's rights in these matters, I just don't buy the notion that truth is somehow different in Alabama.
Creationism, in a nutshell, is the theory that a supernatural entity (called "God") created animals. I would challenge you to explain how teaching this in a public school does not run afoul of the First Amendment.
--|PW|--
I have a problem with child being told that creationism is science.
Just like I have no problem with my child reading her horoscope in the newspaper but would have a problem with my child being told astrology was science.
Science is a methodology; a powerful tool that uses observation, thought, deduction and rigor to create a model of existence.
You want to teach a religion class in school? Fine. You want to teach creationism within the context of that class? Fine. You want to teach creationism within the context of a literature class? Fine.
Just don't teach it as science.
I recently blogged about this very subject.
I would challenge you to demonstrate that the notion that maybe, must possibly, conceivably, there might have been (maybe) a creative force behind life amounts to "an establishment of a religion."
As an atheist, I ask you to explain this notion to me.
The test is not "any particular religion," but "religion, period."
--|PW|--
--|PW|--
And how, exactly, does teaching that the biblical story is false not run afoul of the first amendment?
I submit that having the state spend money and energy to squelch a religion is no more ammenable to the separation of church and state as embodied in the first amendment than is promoting one particular religion.
Imagine if the state curriculum included a course on why Islam is false, or that materialism is wrong because there is, in fact, a soul.
Full disclosure: I think that a literal interpretation of the bible is indefensible hogwash, though I can honestly recite the Apolstles' creed.
You can say that to your child. But I would prefer that when my child is in science class, that they be taught science.
How life began is a different subject from evolution. We know that evolution occurred. So saying we don't know, in the context of a science class, is misinformation.
To put my position more simply, why is it any more acceptable for the government to teach something which is irreligious than it is to teach something which is religious?
I'm not aware of any group, anywhere in America, which is saying that the notion that there might possibly (maybe) have been a creative force behind life as "truth." I cannot think of a single example of this in fact. Can you point me to an example of one? Because I'm not aware of any.
Mind you, I cannot understand why anyone who WOULD put forth such a notion as "truth" would amount to "an establishment of a religion." But that's a separate argument. I merely ask a more pertinent question: can you point me to any example of an effort to establish the notion of a creative force presented as "the truth" in any public schoolbook any time in the last 40 years?
I'd like to see an example of that. If it exists.
Again, you have a religion too. You cannot prove atoms exist. You cannot prove stars exist to a blind man who cannot in any way comprehend them without simply believing what you say (faith). You cannot prove millions of things you believe in. Simply stating something doesn't establish a religion.
And if you're so sure your theories are so perfect and undeniable, why are you so scared to let people hear other theories? As a religious person, I have no fear of letting my child hear about evolution as I'm well versed in Origin of the Species.
It strikes me that forcing people to go to classes where they are taught that their religion is wrong may interfere with the free exercise thereof.
I once called myself a "bright" but it offended so many people I dropped that term. Still, if you want an affirmative statement of what I belive, it probably looks like this:
"I DO NOT believe in God the Father Almighty. And I DO NOT believe in any Jesus Christ. If such a man ever even existed, he was not our Lord. He may have been crucified under a pontius governor named Pilate, but he was not son of any virgin. He was probably crucified, dead and buried, but he never rose from the dead. He never descended into any Hell, and he never ascended into any Heaven; indeed, there is no such thing as either Heaven nor Hell. He never sat upon the right or left hand of any Father, and he never shall come to judge either the quick or the dead. There is no Holy Spirit; there is no holy Church except in the imaginations of believers; there may be forgiveness of sins, but only among humans who choose to forgive other humans; and there is absolutely no resurrection of the flesh.
In short, I utterly reject Christianity.
That being the case: I continue to fail to see how teaching teenagers tht there might possiblky--just possibly--be some creative force in the universe amounts to "an establishment of a religion."
But maybe I'm just a creative reactionary.
Dean, part of the problem with pointing to somebody who tried to establish creationism as "truth" in schools is that most groups know that can't get away with banning evolution in school; all they can do is nibble around the edges.
I've seen some fairly serious efforts, however, to state that evolution is false and creationism must be true; efforts include the ridiculous "second law of thermodynamics" "proof" and other piffle.
The thing about religion vs. non-religion that I'm hitting on is this: if I teach evolution in a school, I can point to proof of the theory of evolution. It doesn't involve any supernatural force. I doesn't involve any metaphysical questions. It's just there.
As soon as I introduce creationism, I've introduced religion; under the Lemon test, that would be "advancing" the cause of religion. Simply teaching evolution and not commenting on creationism leaves the question of religion where it belongs ... with the student's parents.
Now, Sharp et al., riddle me this: If I have children in public school, what right do you have to mandate that my child endure what amounts to religious instruction in his science class?
--|PW|--
The First Amendment is exactly that--a prohibition of the establishment of ONE religion as the official religion. That is what the Founder's feared. If they had thought, for one moment, that society would interpret what they'd written to mean that "government cannot support any religion, even conceptually, or religion generally" they'd have rewritten the damn thing.
Jefferson did want to keep the priests/clergy from running the public school districts but he had no problem with clergy being teachers, and tempering their message and lessons to conform to a commonly accepted understanding.
The only "wall" the Founders intended was one that prevented ONE religion from being official. That's where it ends.
We are endowed by our Creator...
In God We Trust.
The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.
These are not the words of men who wanted government to deny religion or deny the existence of a God.
To deny the discussion of religious theory in classrooms or the public square is exactly the wall the Founders discussed and this is the argument being used?? That's back asswards! It is up to each school district and the taxpayers who support it, to determine the curriculum for their students. The taxpayers decide, not the FEDERAL Congress. That's why it says, "Congress shall make no law." This was never intended to be a blanket rule for everyone, living everywhere. Most of the original states HAD official religions--there was nothing which prohibited that in the First Amendment.
This has gotten nuts.
I HATE the teaching of creationism. I am an atheist. But if a locality decides that's on the curriculum I can: move, counter it with teaching of my own, enroll my child in a private school, homeschool them, or ask that my child be excused from that course. If you will not allow that, taxpayers deciding for themselves what should be included in the education they pay for, you are in direct conflict with Jefferson's pledge and have opted for a tyranny of your own--the tyranny of religious intolerance, and tyranny of the Federal.
No, you don't.
What we don't know is as important as what we do know, and frankly, scientifically, we DON'T know how life began. It is perfectly acceptable to ANY science teacher to tell the truth about not knowing something scientifically, and finding ways to answer the questions are as important to the scientific process as learning the stuff we already know. Yes, we know evolution happened and is happening, but we don't know the start point. All of those experiments have so far come to nothing. Ted's solution is perfectly reasonable until we can design an experiment to answer the question definitively.
No, you don't.
I do.
Perhaps you don't.
Which is fine.
To be clear, when I use the word we, I am referring to the body of scientific knowledge which is our legacy.
Believe me when I tell you, that without evolution theory, the vast amount of advances in the biological sciences, which includes things like stem-cell research, simply would not exist.
Also the vast majority of life saving/extending medicines and procedures whose benefits we will experince in the near and distant future, would not be possible.
Many people don't know how a car works but can benefit from the technology.
So it is with medical research; people may not realize how fundametal evolutionary theory is, but they will benefit from it anyway.
And all the while believe whatever they want.
I posted on this last week, here. Go to the links for info on species that have evolved.
True enough.
Which is why I specifically separated the "how life began" thing from evolution.
We really don't know how life began.
To go further, we are not even sure how evolution happens.
We do know, however that both life did begin and evolution has and is occurring.
So saying we don't know, in the context of a science class, is misinformation.
There is science and there is junk science. In many respects evolutioin falls in the the last. Not that I am fond of the creaton theory either. Both really require a lot of faith.
For example the missing-links theory. When they find something that biologically looks a little like this and a little like that walla! a missing link.
Unless evolution took some titanic leaps, there should be a lot more missing links laying around than pieces to link them too.
I don't ridicule the faith of the religious because they admit to their faith. I do laugh at science when it calls the faith-without-evidence in evolution as pure sicence.
Talkorigins.org addresses that here.
--|PW|--
By the same reasoning that allows teachers to directly contradict my religion with teaching on many matters, one of which may be science.
(As it happens, the incontrovertible facts on evolution don't bother my creationist faith one bit, and I'm willing to have a lot more humility on the rest than all the proponents of such frauds as "Piltdown Man".)
If I had my druthers, I'd forbid the handing out of condoms in public schools, and any arrangements they might have to facilitate teenage abortions, and sexual education. I'd also require that history students get taught about the Christian heritage behind such things as the Enlightenment, the Declaration of Independence, the abolitionist movement, and a whole host of other things.
But I don't get my druthers. On all the above topics, there are people who disagree, many of whom are reasonable people with good reasons for their advocacy, and on all of these issues, they have managed to persuade enough people of the correctness of their cause to ensure that their way wins. That's the way things are supposed to work.
I don't agree with creationism legislation. But it's hard not to see this as "my side" when my religious beliefs are held in open contempt in so many areas of school life, and then "separation of church and state" gets waved around the moment some pro-religious statement makes its way into a public school.
Because if church-state separation matters when it comes to being taught creationism, then it matters when it comes to being taught that oral sex is an acceptable outlet for sexual tension, for example.
Unfortunately, my relative does not have an identifiable father. Fortunately, he is the brightest light on the family porch.
Perhaps for Dean, his question might be categorized as a prelude to pre-manhood from his own son. On a practical basis, the question need not be answered. At this stage, a child seeks only to have assurance from his parent(s) that he is not being lead astray. The child is not asking for an answer to metaphysical questions nor required to make a decision, nor does the child have to make a political response to school educational philosophy re: creationism or religion by biased adult elitists.
The intelligent and yet average child will hold in abeyance instinctively or consciously any decision on such matters.
This messes up a lot of adult minds.
That, of course, would only place most of the theories regarding ancient speciation on a par with, say, Newtonian mechanics, a set of theories that are easily duplicated in labs but which are now discredited as anything besides a convenient set of engineering simplifications. But that would be better than the current state of "evolution science", which often contradicts itself even as it contorts to try and explain the available facts.
I do not know how life got to the place it did. I have faith that God was behind it, but I could no more tell you how he did it than I could tell you the Dow closing for this day 100 years from now. Neither can any of you, or any scientists. The more honest ones among you admit this.
And I'm one of these crazy evangelicals who think that the curriculum should not be determined by legislation of any type. Which means I'd be on your side--if you could just stop beating me on the head long enough to figure it out.
But sometimes, when I say this, people ask me how I can ally with "the enemies of faith". I try to tell them that the world isn't black and white, and that you can't look at the world like this. Usually, the "brights" (sorry, Dean!) are the ones making that lecture. I suggest you guys start listening to yourselves.
Religion is just a different method from the scientific. It begins with different premises and accepts/rejects different data.
I suppose if it actually worried you, Dean, you could use it to work with divvying scientific from religious method and encourage your son to able to use both methods as he wishes, when appropriate. There's value in each. I'm certain that when you became an Atheist, you're thinking was strengthened in a particular way- but you needed to be versed in religious thought to get there.
Insofar as an ACLU kinda thing- pfft. Whatever. They just work to keep people's minds closed.
well, what I know occurred is probably more correctly considered microevolution, including the homology of human and primate DNA, but I have those data linked in my post (that I linked above)....
Hunh.
Dean, you suck.
Heh.
Dean:
I would challenge you to demonstrate that the notion that maybe, must possibly, conceivably, there might have been (maybe) a creative force behind life amounts to "an establishment of a religion."
Sharp as a Marble:
No, the test is establishment of religion, not mentioning a religion or religious belief. My religion is more than the creation.
Marble's statement answers Dean's challenge. The problem with teaching Creationism isn't that it involves "the notion that maybe, must possibly, conceivably, there might have been (maybe) a creative force behind life", it's that "My religion is more than the creation".
There is simply no way to teach Creationism without letting the rest of the Christian belief system creep slowly but surely in. This is the difference between Creationism and Evolution. Evolution as a theory is more or less the convergence of all other relevant physical sciences. It is based on empirical data, observation, experimentation, and so forth. God's existence, as everyone is aware, can't be demonstrated in this way. The only basis for the existence of God is that so many people believe it, and it says so in a book.
OK, these are all the standard atheist arguments, but the conclusion doesn't matter for the purposes of determining whether Creationism is a valid scientific theory; by any criteria, it simply isn't. That doesn't mean it's not true, but it does mean that there's no way to teach it as a natural conclusion reached through the scientific method. It can only be taught as part of a separate belief system which requires accepting a number of highly unscientific tenets as a starting point.
One other thing to consider is that the word "theory" in science does not have the same connotation it has in common usage. Most people use "theory" to mean more or less "conjecture". Without even the slightest bit of science to support it, that's all Creationism amounts to. And I say this not to disparage -- both of my parents, particularly my mother, are strong believers in God -- but only to explain.
One other point I'd like to address, from Ian S.:
Secularism is a religion, it's just nobody likes to admit it.
If you were to say atheism is a religion, you might be able to convince me, but secularism? Secularism is just an acknowledgement that different, mutually exclusive belief systems exist, and that the best way to avoid conflict or oppression is to simply keep those belief systems from infiltrating too much into the public political discourse or education system. It's basically agreeing to disagree. I, as an agnostic/atheist*, am a secularist, but not all secularists are atheists. Many religious people are secularists, because they're aware of the historical results of religious conflict.
*I don't believe in God or any religion, but I acknowledge that I also can't prove through science that God doesn't exist, so I always leave open the possibility.
That is why it is called the theory of evolution and not the law. We have the law of gravity and the three laws of thermodynamics, but we DON'T have a law of eveolution.
Good science quickly abandons any model for a better one. Someday it may become the law of evolution, but until it does, it's still a theory and all comers are welcome to poke as many holes in it as they can. That's what science is all about. A search for the truty regardless of current theories.
I contend that to claim to be an atheist is illogical. An atheist says there is not god. To make that conclusion is to imply you have tested any and all possible cases for god in the universe. That is humanly impossible. It is the proverbial problem of trying to prove a negative.
You can logically conclude you are an agnostic, but not an atheist.
A God that could be disproved through science alone wouldn't be a God I would want to believe in.
Second, repeat First step.
A person can claim to be an Atheist and be truthful. Atheism is just another Ism after all- a specie of belief, not certitude of reality. If you're a religious man, you might say that only God had that certitude.
Ummm ... no more TV?
I saw a Bond movie on DVD last night ("Diamonds Are Forever") which had, among other things, a LASER destroying a submerged submarine. This is far easier to disprove than some Ark thing. CHILDREN could have seen it. VOTERS could have seen it for that matter. Yet, I bet that movie was NEVER picketed by "Scientists Concerned About Movie Silliness" or whatever they call themselves.
Its method of inquiry is more like (serious) history and archaeology, digging up the equivalent of ancient documents and such, and doing what amounts to forensic study of the sort that CSI-weenies would be familiar with on what is found. As more evidence turns up, and better technology and methods are used to study existing finds, existing theories are refined or tossed out. It may not be science in the notion that physicists, chemists, or other lab science types would accept as science, but if it is _invalid_, pretty much all forensic-type study (geology, etc) would also have to be regarded as invalid. This would include several branches of physics, ie cosmology (we obviously won't ever see or reproduce The Big Bang in a controlled lab environment in such a way to allow reproducible experiments to be done...)
Frankly, the tricky issue for teachers is in teaching these methods of inquiry, and showing the relative "strength" of conclusions from these different fields - and why science or other fields are never "done". This is what makes them cool :)
As for creationism, the tricky issue is that it _is_ religious and the religious root of the explanation should be emphasized. Also, this could jump into a discussion of various "revealed truths" from religion and the various disciplines, and how they vary. It would also be helpful if the notion that "science=true, religion=false" notion is avoided...
Maybe He is outside our ken. If so, it would be useful for science to acknowledge its limitation. Otherwise, press on with the inquiry.
Now, anyone who has read Fred knows he is about as far from a right-wing Christian as you can get. But even the irreligious can see the religiosity in the belief in evolution.
BTW, Dean, you'd get a bellylaugh from some of this guys writing on the War between the Sexes, such as it is.
Should believers in creationism ignore the problem of overuse of antibiotics and attempt to cure sepsis sufferers with prayer?
Science is pragmatic - if a theory works, use it. If it doesn't, toss it.
Most believers, even believers in atheism, agree that there is some sort of life force (energy, karma, God, the force) that's worth preserving.
The theory of evolution has proven, practical use. It can be used to improve and save lives. I'm not religious, but I do believe in God, and saving lives sounds like something that most believers would approve of.
What you are describing in bacteria is adaptation, not evolution.
Also, if animals and humans have immune systems which help them stave off infection in order to survive, why could not bacteria also have some sort of heretofore undiscovered immune system to help them stave off "medicines" designed to kill them? Bacterial adaptation is no more inconsistent with creation than the immune systems of animals and plants. In fact, what you describe could fairly be chategorized as conclusive evidence that even "primitive" organisms such as bacteria are more highly developed than we know.
(Quotation from some really famous person).
(1) If some trait that something has tends to make more of that something, then there will usually be more of that something. This frequently referred to as natural selection. It is the principle about which Steven J. Gould brilliantly remarked, "How stupid not to have thought of it before."
(2) #1 completely explains every living thing we see.
Note: the bible doesn't even say that it should be taken literally, so I think that a literal interpretation of the bible is nonsensical in the extreme. However, proposition #2 is not very plausible, either. It's even less plausible, by the way, when you study molecular biology. There are bacterial which propel themselves with a motor that uses gears and stuff. It's just insane.
The problem, by the way, is that we don't live in a plausible world. There are no simple, rational explanations for the utterly bizzare stuff that exists in this world.
At least according to modern physics, we live in a world where toaster can quantum migrate from one room to another, or from one room to another galaxy, in equally as much time. If you want an explanation of this world which is neat and tidy and mechanical and orderly, you're just stuck in the 1800s, when people knew very little about the universe, scientifically speaking.
That neat and tidy world is a pipe dream that will forever be out of reach. If God did not create this world, something equally strange and supernatural did.
For no reasonable definition of 'natural' includes quantuum phenomena — which can loosely be defined as the impossible happening frightfully often — yet quantuum effects happen all the time, and actually have macro-level consequences.
It's been discovered that even atheists must believe in miracles, even if they don't believe in a God to work them — Naturalism is a quaint superstition that was disproven decades ago.
But then I'm not a Creationist, nor again an Evolutionist, but an Emanationist. Neither point of view contradicts mine.
One day, through the primeval wood,
A calf walked home, as good calves should;
But made a trail all bent askew,
A crooked trail as all calves do.
Since then three hundred years have fled,
And, I infer, the calf is dead.
But still he left behind his trail,
And thereby hangs my moral tale.
The trail was taken up next day,
By a lone dog that passed that way.
And then a wise bell-wether sheep,
Pursued the trail o'er vale and steep;
And drew the flock behind him too,
As good bell-wethers always do.
And from that day, o'er hill and glade.
Through those old woods a path was made.
And many men wound in and out,
And dodged, and turned, and bent about;
And uttered words of righteous wrath,
Because 'twas such a crooked path.
But still they followed - do not laugh -
The first migrations of that calf.
And through this winding wood-way stalked,
Because he wobbled when he walked.
This forest path became a lane,
that bent, and turned, and turned again.
This crooked lane became a road,
Where many a poor horse with his load,
Toiled on beneath the burning sun,
And traveled some three miles in one.
And thus a century and a half,
They trod the footsteps of that calf.
The years passed on in swiftness fleet,
The road became a village street;
And this, before men were aware,
A city's crowded thoroughfare;
And soon the central street was this,
Of a renowned metropolis;
And men two centuries and a half,
Trod in the footsteps of that calf.
Each day a hundred thousand rout,
Followed the zigzag calf about;
And o'er his crooked journey went,
The traffic of a continent.
A Hundred thousand men were led,
By one calf near three centuries dead.
They followed still his crooked way,
And lost one hundred years a day;
For thus such reverence is lent,
To well established precedent.
A moral lesson this might teach,
Were I ordained and called to preach;
For men are prone to go it blind,
Along the calf-paths of the mind;
And work away from sun to sun,
To do what other men have done.
They follow in the beaten track,
And out and in, and forth and back,
And still their devious course pursue,
To keep the path that others do.
They keep the path a sacred groove,
Along which all their lives they move.
But how the wise old wood gods laugh,
Who saw the first primeval calf !
Ah! many things this tale might teach -
But I am not ordained to preach.
That's true. Adaptation is an entirely usable and useful theory. It can be proven, and it works.
In school, we were taught that evolution was a theory that was proven by various later discoveries.
We also learned a little about Biblical theory of evolution, and the Native American theories of evolution. One was the myth of God as ‘the Great Blue, the woman who holds up dreams.’ The earth was created when she was rescued from a dark place by birds and the animals who build a mound of earth to rescue her. This mound of earth, was held up by a turtle, who holds the earth up today. Of course, we never see their God, the Great Blue, or the turtle, but we never see ours, either.
Is there any reason why the theory of Great Blue should not also be taught side by side with creationism? Both are equally likely to be true. Of course, then you have the Hindu theories of creation to deal with, and the Buddhist theories, etc.
Everytime I come back there is about 15-20 more comments.. why do I get the idea there is a bunch of you just staying and refreshing the screen. :)
How ever did one get there from Dean's first sentence ?
"My 7-year-old son recently had a traumatic and disturbing experience".
And then to arrive at, “ in bacteria is adaptation, not evolution”
Thence to retro to: “Macro-evolution, or the notion that life was created spontaneously without any great extra-human intervension, qualifies as religioius belief…”
Alas, If creationism is to die a death let it be the long slow death of evolutionary protractedness should such exist..
As the poet says,
“We must start where all the ladders start at the foul rag and boneshop of the heart.”
1. Science
2. A religous tenet
It's a political tool employed by theocrats.
The word alone is offensive - 'creationism' wants to sound like a science. It is not. At all.
I don't mind teaching about various genesis stories, whether the stories attribute the world's existence to a monotheistic deity or a lotus flower or a kookaburra's yelp or whatnot. In Religious Studies class.
Divine or supernatural origins of the world are unsubstantiated conjecture, inherently unprovable ('argument by design'? don't make me laugh). If you believe it, congratulations, you're getting the point. But public schools should teach things that have a factual basis.
Whoever used Newtonian physics as an example - kudos! You exactly proved the point I need to make about evolution theory. Yes, we don't know exactly how it works. Yes, there are differing viewpoints as to how evolution occurs. Yes, there are a lot of unanswered questions.
Well, substitute 'evolution' with 'gravity' and be amazed - it fits!
Einstein did not invalidate Newton. Newton's 'simplifications' still apply on a macro scale. If you disagree, jump out a fourth story window and fly. Planck et al did not invalidate Einstein. GR and SR are still completely valid theories and a lot of it is experimentally verified. And some day we'll find out the Next Big Thing.
Just because we don't have the Universal Theory of Everything doesn't magically do away with gravity.
Just because we don't have the Universal Theory of Evolution doesn't mean that evolution is invalid.
It fits the vast body of experimental and observational data. Creationism doesn't. Neither does anything else.
As to secularism being a religion, I'll get back to that later. Work awaits.
Start with that good old primordial soup. Which system evolves first? Let's try a heart.
Oops. No nutrition, so it dies. No oxygen, so it dies. No nerves, so it dies. No skin to protect it, so it dies.
Pick any other system, or any three systems and you get the same result. If ALL the required systems don't evolve in close cooperation with each other, the organism dies.
I think that's why they call it the 'theory' of evolution. It may fit the fossil record as we can currently see it but fossils are about the only things it fits and it really hasn't proved anything yet.
As far as evolutionary theory being the basis for sundry scientific advances, most advances are based on previous learned FACTS, not unproved theories.
Where's Arnold Harris?
Yet another extremely interesting discussion of creation and evolution. Myself, I'm extremely glad that I read about all the ancient creation myths when I was a boy, the Egyptian, the Babylonian, the Greek, the Norse, the Mayan, the Hindu, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Hawaiian, the Hebrew, the Big Bang, and the evolution theory. Most fascinating!....
I was raised a christian, although I do not really conisder myself one. In fact I do not consider myself anything, including atheist. I dismiss true faith as I do not agree with many things I was raised to believe (such as a woman can not hold office over a man. Perposterous)
My personal theory is that perhaps a higher being/diety/race, insert your choice here, created the steps for evolution to take place.
Einstein said that all life is energy, and that energy is infinite. Therefor the enegry must go somewhere for something.
Reincarnation? Possibly, only problem with that is theres more people now than there was 5000 years ago. Animals as well. So that would mean new energy from a new source.
Gaia theory? Doubtful. Ultimately you can argue either Creationism or Evolution by merely asking "But what came before that?" and the other party is going to eventually say "We don't know"
So call it self assurance or what have you. I perfer to think there may be a higher being who set the Evolutionary wheels in motion.
Otherwise, to quote the movie Contact
"Its an awful waste of space"
Please note my above distinctions on the term 'evolution'.
#2 (the part which can contradict creationism) is history, not science. Worse, by its very nature evolution cannot make any genuinely falsifiable predictions that could be tested.
Note: I believe in evolution, and I think that a literal interpretation of the bible is ridiculous.
For example the missing-links theory. When they find something that biologically looks a little like this and a little like that walla! a missing link.
Unless evolution took some titanic leaps, there should be a lot more missing links laying around than pieces to link them too.
Excellent deduction.
In fact, there are many "missing links" lying around.
And we no longer rely on looks.
With the advent of DNA profiling technology, the tree of common ancestors has been rewritten.
2. An immune system is evidence of ongoing adaptation, it's just somatic adaptation rather than traditional (germ-line) adaptation.
Sheesh.
And as for evolution and creation coexisting, I wrote about that weeks ago, and linked it above.
Your use the past tense, i.e. "has been rewritten" is misleading. "is being rewritten" would be more accurate.
Species are constantly being renamed (and moved to other genera, etc) to better reflect philogeny.
Not to mention that "species" barely has a meaningful definition any more (if it ever did), especially when considering things like plants and even more so, bacteria.
But I wasn't aware that this was going on with fossils. Got any links about DNA sequencing of long-extinct species?
As for missing links, we KNOW who the missing links are. They are the black people from the jungles of Africa who are barely removed from being apes themselves. Darwin has spoken - All must believe. Maybe we should just put all black people in a zoo. Or perhaps we should let the apes, who are soon to be black people, run free in the streets. Perhaps we should encourage an interspecies breeding program to help the apes evolve quicker.
Any ladies out there want to volunteer to be the "wife" of a silverback ape? How about you guys? It would give a whole new meaning to the phrase, "Well I'll be a monkey's uncle."
Or perhaps the "scientists" out there could "prove" that one species of fish can successfully mate with another - say mackeral and swordfish, or babboon and a chimpanzee, or maybe even cross a tiger with a Persian cat, or a lion with a cheetah. Surely, there must be someone in the last 150 years that has attempted these things. We've even got science FICTION movies which show humans crossed with animals. So please, please, can some scientists give the world conclusive proof that such interspecies development is even possible?
Seems to me that chimps have white skin :)
Well, lions and tigers can mate and produce fertile offspring. I'm not sure what your point was, but does that qualify?
True 'nuff.
But I wasn't aware that this was going on with fossils. Got any links about DNA sequencing of long-extinct species?
Well obviously not fossils. But new techniques such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) allows for DNA profiling with just a tiny bit of DNA. And this has been useful for things like insects in amber, wooly mammoths and museum specimens.
In 1990, Nature magazine had a piece about scientists using PCR to evaluate a 17 million year old magnoilia leaf.
But the relatively new science of Molecular Anthropology has been greatly responsible for rewriting much of the evolutionary "family trees" as well as contributing to many other important discoveries regarding the origin of species. It is by using these techniques that we are pretty damn sure humans originated in Africa.
In other words, it's possible to question substantive aspects of the theory of evolution in a scientific manner and using empirical evidence as backup, but if one accepts Creationism, then only trivial matters are left open for debate, such as whether God actually based the timing of His grand project on the rotational day/night cycle of one of the planets He was in the process of creating. The exploration of Creationism can't yield answers about how the world works, because there is nothing empirical on which to base such exploration.
Now, I can admit one thing: the theory of intelligent design, if approached in a truly scientific manner, might be a different matter entirely. I know it's thought of by most non-religious people as "stealth Creationism", and it probably started out that way, but I would suggest that it might be possible to demonstrate scientifically that some particular mutation or series thereof could not have happened in the specific way it did without a conscious will intervening to cause it. I don't believe this is the case, but I do think it's substantively different from Creationism in that it does not establish a priori that the Christian God is the "intelligence" behind the "design". For all we know, investigation into the theory could yield a conclusion that we were all cooked up in the bubbling primordial stew by aliens from the planet Tralfamador, who have always been around at key points in our evolution to make just the right modification and lead us to where we are now.
The point is, there's a big difference between real scientific inquiry and religious dogma. Intelligent design might qualify as the first, but Creationism definitely falls under the second category.
Well, Scott, your argument, at the very least, "evolved" pretty quickly into a highly-developed straw man. I wonder if that mutation happened as a result of intelligent design?
Now the question is, is that an evolution joke or a creationism joke ?
I personally don't believe evolution happened. However, I love the point Dean is making here: if my kids (when I have them) are in public school, I as a Christian won't be scared away by the teachers teaching evolution (though I might have other issues with the school and homeschool the kids - depends on the district). I could never quite understand the hysterical reaction to teaching that some creator somewhere might have created stuff at some point and time that ended up being us. Well, I do have my theories, but they have nothing to do with the science of the matter. ;)
Bingo
Now, I can admit one thing: the theory of intelligent design, if approached in a truly scientific manner, might be a different matter entirely. I know it's thought of by most non-religious people as "stealth Creationism", and it probably started out that way, but I would suggest that it might be possible to demonstrate scientifically that some particular mutation or series thereof could not have happened in the specific way it did without a conscious will intervening to cause it.
The problem with this is that the whole "conscious will interveneing" thing is for the most part outside the domain of science.
It is mute about such stuff which is why science is not inherently atheistic. It is only perceived as being atheistic when it indavertently gores someone's sacred cow.
For instance, if invisible angels were the actual mechanism for enforcing Newtons Laws, science would never know about it.
And it wouldn't care.
Whether or not angels are ultimately responsible is not something science can determine. You can believe it or not and it changes nothing with regards to how science does its thing.
Now if a message was found embedded in the number pi, for instance, that might give a scientist pause to reconsider things a bit. But it still would not affect what science is and how it proceeds.
(hat tip to Carl Sagan for the message in a pi thing)
Alternative theories... like creationism!
The main problem here is that you guys are confusing history with science.
You cannot perform experiments with history, so it is outside of the domain of science. History is riddled with one-time events and other such things which make it particular unsuitable to the scientific method. History is often unreasonable.
Frankly, when you get down to it, it makes very, very little difference whether people are taught evolutionary history or nothing at all. It doesn't change anything in their lives. There are no decisions which a person is going to make in their life which are even in part based on the manner in which the world has come to aquire the species which it has. It's interesting, but that's it.
I think everyone discussing the particulars of micro- vs. macro-evolution and the Genesis story is missing my point--and Dean's, if I read him correctly. (And yes, I think micro-evolution is as settled a fact of science as anything science does.)
Open hostility to religion by a state-run organization is just as much a violation of the Establishment Clause as is open advocacy of religion. And open hostility--in the form of the teaching of sexual ethics, in much of the teaching of evolution, in history curricula which (for example) give long analyses of the Salem witch trials but can't be bothered to discuss the impact of Jonathan Edwards or Charles Finney on 18th and 19th century America--is what many of us faithful see running rampant in the schools.
It's not all bad. For example, the Equal Access Act, and its subsequent affirmation by the Supreme Court, has been monumental in its impact on students of faith in the public schools. And, as I've said before, I don't approve of the curriculum being a subject of legislation.
But I'd appreciate seeing some of that zeal for the Constitution applied to the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" part of the Establishment Clause. And maybe part of this creationism debate is a (misguided) attempt to do just that.
Good point. I mostly brought up the matter of intelligent design in order to point out the difference between opposition to the teaching of Creationism as a valid scientific theory, and opposition to any non-Darwinian theory.
A couple of good points have been made about teaching science vs. teaching history. Also, the article I cut and pasted had some valid points about the logically separable elements of the Theory of Evolution being illogically bundled for the express purpose of trying to provide an alternative theory for the origin of the species.
As far as evolution goes, Chris is correct. You cannot perform experiments on history, and from a scientific study point of view, it matters little what the origin of the species is. Evolution requires just as much faith as believing in a Creator, so evolution is merely faith dressed up in scientific clothes.
A Creator is just as plausible and explanation for life as is evolution. The only people who are "married" to the theory of evolution are those who have a psychological need to deny even the possibility of a God. That is not science, it is religion (or irreligion if you prefer.)
But those who insist, by faith, that there is no God MUST find an alternative to creation. Hence you find Evolution which attempts to provide an alternative theory for the origin on the species.
Who has more freedom of thought, one who has rejected the mere possibility of God, or one who is open to new discoveries and incorporates those discoveries into his faith?
Open mindedness does not require blind acceptance of any purported "scientific" discovery. For example:
We have heard that Global Warming is due to excessive burning of fuel. But just last month, it came out that the surface temperature of Mars is also increasing. Can "greenhouse gases" explain the heating of Mars. Perhaps it really is the alternative theory of sun storms. Perhaps the increase in surface temperature of the earth is a solar event beyond our control.
But in some circles, the failure to accept the theory of Global Warming being caused by the habits of modern mankind was pooh-poohed as an unwillingness to accept scientifically proven FACTS - when such theories were barely scientific, and certainly not proven FACTS.
A healthy skepticism is a vital component of scientific examination. There are all sorts of methodologies created such as double blind studies, and peer review to ensure that skepticism has its place in science. But with Evolution, those who approach the theory with skepticism are treated as scientific heretics. Why? Because the only plausible alternative to the theory of evolution is creation - something that just CANNOT BE TRUE elso it shatter some people's faith in Godlessness.
Or is it conceivable that there were multiple "Adams" and multiple "Eves." And if there were multiple Adams and Eves, then how do you explain the universal phenomenon of religion? Is it necessary for evolution that ALL evolved forms of mankind evolved as irrational beings dependent upon mythology and legend? Is it only modern man that has somehow been freed of this psychological crutch - or are children still born with the weakness for religion and must be educated out of their simpleness?
Evolution contradicts itself in so many ways, and also contradicts easily observable, verifiable phenomenon so often that only one who is religiously devoted to the theory can suspend their skepticism and believe it as fact.
Me thinks you have this backward. First, there is nothing about Evolution as a scientific assertion that precludes God's hand in creation. It is only so if you happen to believe that the world was created 5000 years ago and spang into existence all at once. Or you believe in some other myth that contradicts the evidence collected.
But if your idea of diety does not require you reconcile such a contradiction, then you are in like flint; you can believe in God and recognize the facts that underlie evolution.
Most do not come to evolution in order to "replace" religion; they come to it based on facts, evidence, and research. As a result, someone might conclude that there is no God. But again, science is ill equipped to deal with, let alone answer the question of the existence of God. So science generally leaves that particular discussion to others.
With reagrds to Global Warming it is clear that Global Warming has been occurring since, well, the end of the last Ice Age (hence the term, Ice Age). It is also evident that Evolution has been occuring since life on Earth began. What causes Global Warming has yet to be determined. To what extent, if any, humans play a significant role in Global Warming has not been determined no matter what the Europeans and other political organizations would like you to believe. The precise mechanisms (note the plural) of evolution is also under debate.
But none of these things contradict the fact of evolution or the fact of Global Warming.
Flat-earthers can insist on the flatness of the earth from now until eternity, but the stubborn fact of a round earth simply cannot be overcome. Why, you might ask, do some so-called "scientists" refuse to acknowledge such a universal and stubborn condition of man - the belief in God.
Finally, from an anthropological point of view, how do evolutionists explain the FACT the every primitive culture without exception, every single one, has a concept of God.
This is a non sequitur; the two "facts" above are not related.
As I pointed out above, there is nothing in the scientific theory of evolution that precludes deity.
However, I must point out that science does in fact preclude dualism. As a result, science would not be able to recognize a supernatural being as a matter of principle.
And while I believe in a "supreme being" I do not believe in a supernatural supreme being.
But I could be wrong....
Indeed, how does science explain the concept of morality. We have a psychological term for someone who acts without regard to morality - a pschotic. We recognize as a society that some level of morality is necessary for society, another scientifically dubious concept, to exist.
But how can we determine what morality is correct and what morality is not? Some animals routinely kill one another, and even eat their own young. So if man is just one more animal, what scientific basis is there for outlawing murder, or cannibalism.
Surely, teaching against murder and against cannibalism, and for honesty, and for society is a form of religious instructio for which there is no scientific basis. And all laws prohibiting some acts while encouraging others are merely a religious morality imposition on the freedom of individuals. And why is freedom valuable - from a scientific point of view of course?
And while we're at it, let's define science. Are valid sciences limited to the physical sciences, or are anthropology and psychology also considered science? Why or Why not?
You might say that I'm being ridiculous, but why do you say that? After all, "thou shall not kill" is a religious command. Why should we condone the teaching of such an obvious religious sentiment in the public schools. Weren't the gunman at Columbine merely expressing themselves? Why does a few dead kids invalidate the legitimacy of their expression - from a scientific point of view, of course?
Beyond that, you're into the realm of religion, politics, law, and philosophy, none of which are lessor endeavors, they are just not science.
My point exactly. What bothers me is those who attempt to invalidate "religion, politics, law, and philosophy, none of which are lessor endeavors" because they are not science.
There may be a philosophical or religious basis for rejecting the existence of God. But there is no valid scientific rationale for doing so. Those who argue against teaching the possibility of a Creator are not making a scientific argument - they are making a philosophical argument. And elevating one philosophy over another is the very definition of establishing a state religion - even if the proponents of such a philosophy refuse to acknowledge it as religion, per se.
Can't argue with that.
We are in complete agreement on this.
Science is simply a tool, a powerful tool to be sure, but "just" a tool. Too many people, those who do not really understand science, attempt to make it more than what it is and attempt to justify any number of absurd things with the words "it's scientific".
As I said at the beginning, I have absolutely no problem with teaching religion in a public school. And since public schools serve the public, so long as each religion of the community is represented, and the class is an elective, I see no problem whatsoever in provideing this.
The only thing that gets my back up is when people try to put psuedo-science and science on an equal footing specifically in a science class.
Other than that, I'm cool with it.