Proper Education Standards Prevail

[Harry Vest]

Evolution?
Creation?
Why can't they both be true??
When God was speaking to Adam and Eve he said "Go and replenish the earth"
REPLENISH = REPOPULATE DOES IT NOT????
Just a thought.

 

[BVS]

BVS,
Did you go to the original source yourself for the "2 meanings of creation" or are you just putting your trust in LivLuv being correct?

In Genesis 1:1, the Hebrew word for creation is BARAH and means "to create something from nothing."

Where is this other meaning?

It's been a long time, and I really don't have a computer of my own right now so don't have the time to look it up, but if I remember right it's "asah" which actually translates to something like "make" instead of create. I'll have to do more when I get my computer back.

 

[80sU2isBest]

It's been a long time, and I really don't have a computer of my own right now so don't have the time to look it up, but if I remember right it's "asah" which actually translates to something like "make" instead of create. I'll have to do more when I get my computer back.

So, you knew that before LivLuv said anything about it?

I had never heard anything about there being two different meanings, so I googled it. Barah (one of many spellings of the same word) was the only word I could find for "create". The only thing I could find that came close to 2 different meanings was someone on a message board claiming that the word could be "interpreted" to mean something else.

 

[Liesje]

So, you knew that before LivLuv said anything about it?

I had never heard anything about there being two different meanings, so I googled it. Barah (one of many spellings of the same word) was the only word I could find for "create". The only thing I could find that came close to 2 different meanings was someone on a message board claiming that the word could be "interpreted" to mean something else.

Um, anytime you just Google anything regarding creationism, you're likely to get a load of bullshit for the first 298054728975 hits. I think it would be a tad more helpful to actually study the source itself and not a bunch of .com op-eds and blogs.

 

[Liesje]

I personally attended and graduated from a private religious university. Our school taught evolution in all of it's scienced based curriculum, as the basic idea of evolution does not really oppose anything in Christianity. The origin of man and evolution are unfortunately frequently mistaken and confused by most conservatives/religion-based groups.

While I think intelligent design should not be taught in schools, I also think that teachers should not teach evolution as a way to "disprove the Bible or Christianity" as somehow unfairly seems to be more acceptable in a class room setting. As intelligent design can not (presently at least) be proven scientifically, evolution can also not spiritually or scientifically (presently at least) disprove anything taught in the Bible or religion. Both of these ideas are separate in my opinion, and I have problems with one form of "teaching" to somehow be acceptable while the other is not.

I had an identical experience and I pretty much agree with everything here.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Um, anytime you just Google anything regarding creationism, you're likely to get a load of bullshit for the first 298054728975 hits. I think it would be a tad more helpful to actually study the source itself and not a bunch of .com op-eds and blogs.

So, by saying you "studied the source", you are saying that you studied a Hebrew bible and that you can read Hebrew. Is that correct?

 

[Liesje]

So, by saying you "studied the source", you are saying that you studied a Hebrew bible and that you can read Hebrew. Is that correct?

I can't read Hebrew, really wish I could, but I've looked at it with several people who do, people I trust, people who've studied Hebrew their entire adult lives, people who have no reasons or unerlying motives for twisting these words around, people from a wide range of denominations and schools of theology (because I'm too much of a skeptic to take a single person's word at face value, or multiple people from the same school of thought), people who prefer to study the source rather than version upon version upon translation of the text. It's been great for me living just yards from a seminary.

The creation story has become very important to me in the past five years or so. I'd never looked at it from any angle other than the shallow, inconsistent version I'd been spoon-fed since birth. A lot of my questions have been answered, and many more have come up that I haven't found time to look into just yet. If you're going to challenge my religious beliefs based on what languages I've learned to date, I find that a tad rediculous and a tad more insulting. I'm not even old enough to be in seminary yet, how would I have learned Hebrew?! All I'm saying is that I don't generally look to Google for scholarly material, especially something so important to me personally.

What this has to do with creationism in the public schools, I'm not really sure...

 

[A_Wanderer]

You know what they oughtta do to solve this whole mess?

Just tell the kids this:

"It is now time to study the Origins Of Life. There is plenty of information about this subject on the internet, the library, and other places. If you are curious about the origins of life, please do your own research and believe what you think is most correct. Now, on to the next subject..."

And deny them a proper education, rob them of the chance to appreciate modern biology and essentially cut off a potential career in fields where it is applied, that is wrong.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I'm surprised we would look at any educational matter using a "who cares if it is flawed" standard. Any challenge to evolution is considered by many to be a religious act - which is intellectually dishonest.

I don't think so, if you produce to me a human skull sitting in precambrian stratigraphy then you have either completely disproven evolution or proven time travel, that would be an honest and non-religious challenge to evolution, The facts however do not work against evolution too well

Animals die
Animals reproduce
Animals are have slight variations within species
These variations may be heritable

From those basic principles a mechanism of evolution (say Darwinian natural or sexual selection) may function.

 

[A_Wanderer]

This issue seems like such a waste of time. Who cares of evolution theory is flawed? Religion or not, no human being can ever really have a definite answer. If ID is so important to these Republicans, they can start an ID Bible study group at their church or something.

I still find it ironic that this is actually an issue for public schools. Each of the private schools I went to taught evolution theory, as well as three or four other theories of creation. My highschool bio teacher was so into evolution, you'd think he was a collegue of Darwin's. What's that? Christians DO believe in evolution and ARE open to learning about it?

I care deeply if evolutionary theory is flawed, I care about important debates that can find the truth about punctuated equilibrium and spandrels or selfish genes and memes, they are productive avenues of discussion and debate - they improve knowledge (science is not the truth, it is the best approximation with the facts at hand and as such it is a progressive system of knowledge).

This is not an either/or proposition.

History shows us how scientific theories are changed, redefined or simply tossed out. It is an end result of continued examination and discussion.

For political reasons, there is a strong desire to end all discussion.

Yes, the history of science is one of progressive accumulation and acceptance or rejection of ideas and facts, but in the case of Creationism and ID the facts simply do not support the contention and there is no serious scientific debate over them.

The debates going on in evolutionary biology are on the mechanisms of variation, the rates of speciation and the how we see it today and in the fossil record, all parties involved have a framework of knowledge called evolutionary biology and it has proven itself every time to be the best explanation for the observed patterns and facts.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I think many are trying to get a discussion to occur in the classroom. We've seen repeated statements (in our FYM history on this subject) that the discussion should not even occur.

No it shouldn't: for the simple reason that in a curriculum the school can only allocate a limited number of resources to teaching science and things have to get covered quickly. By trying to "teach the controversy" you are presenting a skewed view of the state of the science (namely that ID is just not, there have been no peer reviewed and published papers in relation to biology) to the detriment of the students.

Teach the facts in the science classroom (namely evolution which is both a fact and a theory), demanding equal time in public schools is an abuse of young minds and tax dollars.

That is leaving alone the first amendment issues since ID is endorsing a religious viewpoint (see Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District).

 

[Angela Harlem]

I'm a teacher, so maybe I can shed some light on why many of us are so resistant to having ID taught in science classes.

Until intelligent design is thoroughly investigated in a structured and scientific manner like evolution, it isn't science, and simply, therefore, should not be taught in a science class. The scientific evidence supporting evolution so far overwhelms any scientific evidence of ID that it's ridiculous to consider them deserving of equal time in a SCIENCE class. My job as a teacher is to give my students the best available information and evidence. Anyone who has studied evolution in depth realizes that the evidence for it is overwhelming. Until ID can present a legitimate challenge to evolution based on scientific evidence, it doesn't need to be in the classroom.

And for those who say we might as well not teach anything about it and just tell people to research it for themselves and make up their own minds...that's ridiculous. That's like telling a student, "There are a lot of translations of this Latin poem on the Internet, so go find one and teach yourself some Latin." There is no substitution for learning in the classroom under the guidance of a more expert mentor.

Parents are, of course, advised to monitor what their children are learning in school, and if they want to, they can supplement those teachings with their own religious context--a religious context that does not need to be, and should not be, presented as science in public, non-religious schools.

Well said, HG.

 

[Angela Harlem]

So, by saying you "studied the source", you are saying that you studied a Hebrew bible and that you can read Hebrew. Is that correct?

would this be an undeniably unaltered bible?

 

[A_Wanderer]

It's silly to compare those issues to evolution. Slavery happened. The holocaust happened. We do not know that macroevolution of the human being happened (although that doesn't stop some people from teaching it as fact instead of theory).

Sorry? Homo Neanderthalis comes to mind as examples of homonids with morphological differences; the discovery of Homo floresiensis just two years ago also shows macroevolution of humans.

If you want to argue the point then why do we have a record of different and now extinct linneages of humans? Why do we see species radiation patterns that are consistent and why is the molecular evidence supportive of these observations? The morphological differences between human populations (races if you will) are a great example of macroevolution, not full speciation but variation by geographic and climatic condition.

 

[A_Wanderer]

As intelligent design can not (presently at least) be proven scientifically, evolution

It can be disproven, case in point the evolutionary pathyway for flagellum which was cited by Behe as the key example of Irreducable Complexity only to have the pathway discovered within years of publication of Darwins Black Box. The evidence used to support ID was in fact a piece that fit in with naturalistic evolution better.

can also not spiritually or scientifically (presently at least) disprove anything taught in the Bible or religion.

No, the bible is riddled with innacuracies, for instance Genesis and the double creation of man ~ and everything that we understand about the universe is inconsistent with an infinite and omnicient power acting within the physical world.

 

[Tania]

Sorry? Homo Neanderthalis comes to mind as examples of homonids with morphological differences; the discovery of Homo floresiensis just two years ago also shows macroevolution of humans.

If you want to argue the point then why do we have a record of different and now extinct linneages of humans? Why do we see species radiation patterns that are consistent and why is the molecular evidence supportive of these observations? The morphological differences between human populations (races if you will) are a great example of macroevolution, not full speciation but variation by geographic and climatic condition.

Great post A_W.

 

[silja]

While I think intelligent design should not be taught in schools, I also think that teachers should not teach evolution as a way to "disprove the Bible or Christianity" as somehow unfairly seems to be more acceptable in a class room setting.

I have yet to meet a teacher who teaches evolution as a way to disprove religious views. Your claim that biology teachers somehow find that doing so is ‘acceptable in the class room setting’ is close to slanderous. I have the highest respect for biology teachers doing their jobs in a admirable fashion despite being forced to teach in the middle of a fight between scientific progress and dogmatic religion.

As intelligent design can not (presently at least) be proven scientifically, evolution can also not spiritually or scientifically (presently at least) disprove anything taught in the Bible or religion. Both of these ideas are separate in my opinion, and I have problems with one form of "teaching" to somehow be acceptable while the other is not.

In the context of science it is surely immaterial whether evolution disproves anything written in the Bible, the Torah, the Qur’an, the Veddas, the Eddas, or any other religious text. Whatever conclusion you draw privately is your affair.

The crux of the matter is this: Intelligent design and creationism are not scientific theories because they cannot be disproved. They are based on the same initial claim: There is a divine maker. Unless you can come up with a way to disprove the existence of God then you cannot disprove either of these two otherwise entertaining philosophies. They therefore fail to meet the most basic demand for all scientific work: The demand for falsification formulated most clearly by Karl Popper.

If you disagree with this basic principle of science then I suggest you petition your local school board to discontinue science classes altogether.

 

[nbcrusader]

No it shouldn't: for the simple reason that in a curriculum the school can only allocate a limited number of resources to teaching science and things have to get covered quickly. By trying to "teach the controversy" you are presenting a skewed view of the state of the science (namely that ID is just not, there have been no peer reviewed and published papers in relation to biology) to the detriment of the students.

Teach the facts in the science classroom (namely evolution which is both a fact and a theory), demanding equal time in public schools is an abuse of young minds and tax dollars.

Willfully ignoring flaws in a theory is hardly the best way to teach. You don't need to "teach the controversy" (the backhanded way of bringing in ID). But you should pose tough questions like the mathematical probability (actual impossibility) that the first life could spontaneously begin.

 

[melon]

Regardless of the inherent uncertainty in the scientific theory of evolution--just as there is inherent uncertainty in every scientific theory--it does not mean that intelligent design automatically deserves a place as a "competing theory." It has failed key scientific tests, not to mention that it makes many unverifiable claims that cannot be tested. It is an arm of religion, not science. As such, it has no place in a science class.

The fact that we're even debating this issue as a country shows how woefully lacking science education is in society.

Melon

 

[A_Wanderer]

Willfully ignoring flaws in a theory is hardly the best way to teach. You don't need to "teach the controversy" (the backhanded way of bringing in ID). But you should pose tough questions like the mathematical probability (actual impossibility) that the first life could spontaneously begin.

Impossibility that is a fallacy since life exists in the universe period, in dismissing out of hand the mere possibility for a natural cause you are essentially writing off the state of knowledge that is consistent and leaving behind unprovable contentions, the direct evidence for the first life may be lost forever but indirect lines of evidence can still be used in reconstruction and understanding that eliminates certain hypothesis.

The origin of life is a complex field of research, we have made strides in out understanding by looking at the common molecular evidence (for instance RNA World Hypothesis), it is unfair to say that we can explain the origin of life well because we are looking back billions of years but it would be even more unfair to introduce untestable contentions (such as the probability of life; given that we don't have a good understanding of the preconditions to create metabolising replicating nucleotides).

Even if we don't look at the origin of life then it is moot in relation to the theory of evolution which would act upon the first single celled organisms and would leave the evidence in the fossil record if the nucleotide arose from chance (given the size and timescale of the "lab" in which permutations of these chemicals were going on insignificantly probable assemblages would inevitably arise by sheer number) or if the first life was created by aliens as ID posits.

The origin of the first life is not an impediment to evolution, in fact a naturalistic origin would lead to higher forms strictly through the processes of natural selection on these replicating and variable metabolising nucleotide sequences.

It is not a fundamental flaw in the theory of evolution, there are dissagreements and debates about the nature of evolutionary mechanisms but not in the basic principle of variation and differential reproductive success, in no way shape or form do these scientific debates lend credence to ID or Creationism; ideas which have existed for over a century in opposition to Darwinism and have failed at every point to make a convincing case to the scientific community.

Disprove evolution and the highest accolades of science would be bestowed upon you.

 

[BVS]

So, you knew that before LivLuv said anything about it?

Yes, and I don't appreciate your suggesting that I didn't.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I can't read Hebrew, really wish I could, but I've looked at it with several people who do, people I trust, people who've studied Hebrew their entire adult lives, people who have no reasons or unerlying motives for twisting these words around, people from a wide range of denominations and schools of theology (because I'm too much of a skeptic to take a single person's word at face value, or multiple people from the same school of thought), people who prefer to study the source rather than version upon version upon translation of the text. It's been great for me living just yards from a seminary.

I don't mean this to sound rude, but I don't know your friends from Adam, so I don't buy it that there's a second meaning that is akin to letting nature take over the creation process. I've never read it any commentary (and yes, the author of commentaries study Hebrew just like your friends), plus it would contradict other key passages in the scripture. For instance, if there was no Adam, no first man created by God, then Christ was a liar when he mentioned Adam and Eve specifically in the context of people who actually lived. And Paul would be a liar when he said that through one man, Adam, sin entered the world.

If you're going to challenge my religious beliefs based on what languages I've learned to date, I find that a tad rediculous and a tad more insulting. I'm not even old enough to be in seminary yet, how would I have learned Hebrew?! All I'm saying is that I don't generally look to Google for scholarly material, especially something so important to me personally.

BVS made that flippant remark about people around here not liking to go the original source, you agreed, and then later told me to go to the original source. And now you're surprised and insulted that I asked you if you have studied the Hebrew Bible and read Hebrew? The Hebrew Bible is the original source!

 

[80sU2isBest]

Yes, and I don't appreciate your suggesting that I didn't.

You made a flippant and condescending remark and now you're turning it around and getting upset with me for actually asking you to back up your flippant remark?

BVS, think about it. You made a flippant remark about people not going to the "original source" around here. What I should have asked you is the same thing I asked LivLuv:

Have you read and studied the original source, the Hebrew Bible, and found a second meaning for "creation" that is akin to letting nature take over and complete the creation process?

If not, you have no business making fun of others for not "going to the source". That has been my point during my entire line of questioning.

 

[Liesje]

For instance, if there was no Adam, no first man created by God, then Christ was a liar when he mentioned Adam and Eve specifically in the context of people who actually lived. And Paul would be a liar when he said that through one man, Adam, sin entered the world.

huh? Wait, were you thinking I believe there was no Adam?!?!

PS. I don't care if you're not reading a Hebrew Bible, but I do find it funny that you'd use Google searches to try to prove a pretty loaded point.

 

[80sU2isBest]

huh? Wait, were you thinking I believe there was no Adam?!?!

PS. I don't care if you're not reading a Hebrew Bible, but I do find it funny that you'd use Google searches to try to prove a pretty loaded point.

Most people who believe in evolution do not believe in Adam. The Christians who believe in evolution usually say that Adam wasn't a real man; that he was symbolic.

I'm not using Google to prove a "loaded point". I said that since I had never herad of this second meaning, I looked it up on Google. What I am using to support my argument is that through all my years of reading the Bible and commentaries, I have never heard of a Hebrew word for creation that means letting nature take over the the creation process.

If you don't care that I'm not reading the Hebrew Bible, why did you agree with BVS's remark, and also tell me to go to the "original source"?

 

[Liesje]

Most people who believe in evolution do not believe in Adam. The Christians who believe in evolution usually say that Adam wasn't a real man; that he was symbolic.

eh, if I may quote myself

Also unfair = assuming that accepting evolution excludes genuine belief in ID.

I'm glad a few posts on the Internet have got me labelled "most people" and "the Christians who". I don't recall ever saying one word in this thread on Adam (or Eve).

I still think that using Google to look for scholarly info on the Hebrew creation narrative is like looking for an objective biography about George W Bush. If you're confident in what you've learned from study, fine, I'm not challenging it. I'm not looking for you to start spitting out proof. I don't agree, but it's merely finer points I don't agree on. At the end of the day, we're still both Christians that believe God created creation, and I think that's as far as it needs to go in this particular thread.

 

[silja]

Also unfair = assuming that accepting evolution excludes genuine belief in ID.

I'm curious: How do you reconcile the two without either introducing a creator into evolution thus making it intelligent design or removing the ‘intelligence’ from ID thus making it evolution?

 

[Liesje]

I'm curious: How do you reconcile the two without either introducing a creator into evolution thus making it intelligent design or removing the ‘intelligence’ from ID thus making it evolution?

God either can do things himself, or simply allow them to happen. The idea that it's only God-willed if God physically does something is confining God to our human concept of action/creation. I've always had issues describing God's properties based on human characteristics. I'd rather have a more omnipotent, creative, and mysterious God who truly transcends any concept found in human thought. I don't have any issues with accepting that God created life to be so mysterious and complex (and cool!) that it is within its nature to evolve on its own. Christians except most other scientific discoveries and theories, this one is no different.

 

[anitram]

The Bible is a nice book.

To discuss in a philosophy or religion class. Along with its various translations and so on.

I don't understand why ID/creationism proponents insist it be mentioned or taught or discussed in biology class. It's laughable and embarrassing.

 

[silja]

Christians except most other scientific discoveries and theories, this one is no different.