There’s a church for sale a few blocks from my house. Everytime I walk by it, I think “I want to buy that and make it the First Unite Church of the Flying Speghetti Monster.”
there’s a case on at the moment with folks in the US trying to ban the teaching of ID in schools, could this also affect FSM? we want our freedoms respected too, dammit! boo to the separation of nonsense from the state!
The IDers have brought out their own computer game, too. You get to play a DI (Discovery Institute) think-tank shooting down falling pandas. I’m not really certain what their point is, but I suppose they’re attempting to “parody” how they have been represented by their opponents.
But it doesn’t work. For one thing, as many have pointed out, the pandas eventually win. And the game has this crappy techno soundtrack punctuated by this annoying chipmunk voice reciting so-called anti-ID “mantras”–one of which goes something like “Intelligent Design is just creationism in a cheap tuxedo.”
boo for the er….combination of….with um…unexplainable big bang that started everything yet everything requires a positor and it has no positor….that crap with real world views…..and er one that doesn’t feed ‘we’re better than you logic people’ and you’re all wrong. Fortunately in it’s recent attempt to pin that on my Christian group, or uni union has just wasted all it’s money and shown itself to be insane to the entire student population. Obviously a great indication of all the prejudice that the science lobby teaches and where it sends the minds of people. But hey i won’t tell you not to do that science people, coz you’re better than me, right?
How dare the Science Lobby™ suggest that we ought to teach science in science classes. Like you, I am outraged that a self-contradictory collection of fairy stories unsupported by the evidence is no longer at the core of our scientific study. That is why I support the introduction of FSMism into the curriculum. People need to learn about the pasta positor.
Thanks Ian. Oh and btw Robert you dont need to signpost your outrage since you’re always outraged, i know it (on many topics, IR for example, i quite welcome). Btw dibo you must have made a mistake in your post, the catalyst program i watched last week clearly said the US, with the President’s support, are trying to get ID taught in schools, not ban it.
Oh and just for the record of anyone who cares, the whole fairy argument is why i want stuff like ID and many other theories taught. Contrary to poular belief it aint to push my Christian barrow, as someone who spent most of his school life as an atheist and was taught evolution in schools, i’ve had first hand experience that teaching creationism or anything different to evolution very rarely in and of itself makes people believe in it. So in fact until i got to uni i didn’t care squat for having anything other than evolution taught at schools and unis. What happened? Well when i started uni, and meeting and talking to people, i discovered how bigoted (with a few excpetions granted) those teaching science, and many science students are. What they do, is not actually teach people evolution and say this is a theory about how the world started, the one supported by most scientists, here’s the evidence they put forward to it, they say look, here’s the evolution theory, it’s the only science one, there are other theories about how the world was created, but they’re all fairy stories (and btw i didn’t make ‘fairy stories’ myself, it was given in a lecture, exactly what i’m saying). It’s why when i talk with a scientist, and don’t debate the theory of evolution or creation or anything else, but merely point out that evolution is a belief, they are shocked and get angry. Why? Because they’re taught that the foundation of their belief in evolution is that it’s logical, that they are logical, the smart ones, the best ones, for believing in it, not those ‘fairy story’ people. In other words it shatters the foundation of their bigotry. Now i don’t blame the students, as if you’re taught bigotry you’re likely to adopt it. But it’s exactly why i want to see ID, and for that matter many other world view theories, religious and otherwise taught in science faculties, because it would force those bigoted staff to accept that believing in evolution does not make them better than anyone else, and they do not have an exclusive monopoly, intelligence or otherwise, on theories about how the world came to be and what people believe about them. It would force them to teach theories, not bigotry. That for the record is my position and reasoning for it, and something i would think even atheists support, because bigotry just ain’t on, whatever you believe. Oh and btw Rob, you’ll be pleased to know there was a landslide vote against the su at the recent elections and they are now gone, mainly because people were sick of their misappropriation of money. And most of those who voted them out were atheists:-)
I would happily accept the teaching of ID in science classes if there was any evidence to support it. But there isn’t, so ID can fuck off and come back when it’s supported by something other than blind faith.
Isn’t really the point though is it Robert? And even if it were, it might be appropriate, if, and i stress if, scientists didn’t apply it to every other possible view on the subject matter that evolution deals with. But they do, don’t they? It’s evolution or bust for them, just more of the bigotry i’m talking about. Like i’ve said heaps, my position really has very little to do with ID (coz my position is in relation to pretty much every view on how the world came into existence), it has far more to do with scientists needing to accept they can’t teach the subject matter with bigotry. Point being even if ID and other theories aren’t scientifically backed up, it’s irrelevant. Why? coz like evolution, they’re theories. The point of presenting them is to allow people to assess their voracity or lack thereof and make up their own minds. In essence the way evolution in science is now taught is totalitarianism without guns. Let me put it this way, i might, and i stress might, be ok with evolution being the only existence of the world theory being taught in science classes, IF i could find one scientist who could teach evolution as a theory rather than absolute fact, and without imparting to their students bigotry towards every other theory on the subject matter. The fact is you won’t find such a person Robert, because that sort of person doesn’t exist, and i know enough evolutionary scientists to know that’s the truth. And that, is the issue, not ID or anything else. But as usual the scientists would rather heap mud at everyone else than deal with the problems in their own backyard.
But evolution is is more than a theory, it is a science. The basis of evolution, things like natural selection and mutations, are scientific fact. The only reason anyone is worried about bird flu at the moment is if it mutates. On the other hand, it is not scientific fact that a variety of God, Flying Spaghetti Monster or otherwise, is causing these things to occur. Evolution is a sciencific theory and ID is a religious theory. One belongs in science classes, the other belongs in religion classes.
Science and religion are just two very different discourses—ways of knowing—that are never, ever going to get along with each other. Each one would like to fully convert the other, but neither one is prepared to consider giving even an inch to the other. It’s not really surprising when you think about it.
When Science hears the word “faith”, it reaches for its laser. I don’t think anything defines Science so much as what it rejects first and foremost. That same thing, however, is the foundation of Religion. Although a scientist might become a born-again Christian, or a Christian might renounce his or her faith after taking a science class, these are examples of individuals converting, not the discourse converting. To convert a discourse you’d have to beat it by its own rules. Science doesn’t know how to play by Religion’s rules. Science can’t make a case for itself while talking in terms of faith. And Religion can’t sell itself without saying the F-word (that’s “faith”, you understand).
Giving Religion a soapbox on Science’s territory won’t achieve anything. Giving Science a soapbox on Religion’s territory won’t achieve anything either. Just give them both their own space and make them both freely available to everyone. People can make their own minds up and consciously vote for one of the two discourses. The worst thing would be for someone to pick Religion thinking it was Science or to pick Science thinking it was Religion.
(Sorry, one of my units at university is Cultures, Identities & Texts and we’ve been talking about discourse for most of this semester. Writing this post has certainly helped me to better understand the unit’s concepts, but I don’t know if it’s been useful for anyone else or not. Ah, well.)
What’s sort of chucklingly ironic, is that i agree with what most of you have said, and while you’ve raised relevant issues you’ve totally wasted your time by failing to identify the issue that i was talking about, and paint your views on that. That’s self evidence in that what i was discussing, and seeking to raise discussion on, on had zippo to do with whether ID’s science or religion, or how or why we would try to prove one against the other, etc etc. So it would be welcomed if people would actually read a post i make before they respond to it, lest they not even bother to discuss the issue at hand. But that grumble aside i’ll be nice by addressing what i thought of what you guys said;
Stuart-of course evolution’s a science, i think what you have showed in how you approach the issue is you think that science and theories cannot co-exist and therefore science is absolute and theory has nothing to do with science. Which is of course laughable because pretty much all of science starts and goes through a process of theories being developed which are then examined and commented on etc etc. My point, of course evolution’s a science, but it’s a science theory. Which of course makes a mockery of what some people are trying to say about separating ‘religion’ and ’science’ because evolution’s a theory, just as any other theory on the same subject is a theory.
Robert-personally, i don’t think much of ID’s science, so i’m not going to bother attempting to analyse whether it’s a theory, hypothesis, or anything else. As i have said, my thoughts on the issue hang entirely on the fact that because i know that evolution deals with an issue (ie subject matter) of which is belief. Now the belief doesn’t necssarily have to be religious, but what it is is people making up their own minds on what they choose to believe, not bigots doing it for them. The point i made Robert, is although they miss the point, if the attitude of evolutionary scientists was just towards ID it MIGHT be acceptable (providing they articulated reasons that are assessable not just rage) because it would demonstrate they thought ID was not acceptable within the range of theories to be taught on the subject matter. The problem with evolutionary scientist’s position is that it’s not just in relation to ID, it’s in relation to everything. In other words they would like to live by a doctrine of absolutism which considers teaching nothing other than evolution acceptable, which is a key demonsrator of their bigotry.
Ian-i agree with your statement ‘Just give them both their own space and make them both freely available to everyone.’ Now i don’t agree with it in terms of boxing such ideas as ’science’ or ‘religion’ as i think there’s no need nor real purpose to doing this. I agree with it in the context of all of the theories on the subject matter evolution deals with though. The problem is as i said to Rob, the way evolutionary science is taught is dictatroship as it refuses to give airspace to anything else. And even if it did, to teach evolution to your students in such a way that you communicate a belief that they can be better people, logical and well informed, as a pose to ‘fairy story believing people.’ As i’ve said, my problem is not with evolution being taught, it’s with the way it’s taught. In other words not only do science (in schools and unviersities) teach only evolution, but they bring people into their fold, not by presenting evolution as a theory which is the most plausible of all on the subject matter and therefore should be believed, but by blatant bigotry and belief racism. After all, if your science professor tells you you can be a better person than millions of others (who he characterises as insane fairy story believing people) simply by believing in evolution, i think that’s a fairly attractive carrot for most impressionable people to deal with it. But it’s blantant bigotry and racism, and it’s not acceptable under any circumstances, period. Which of course is why it’snot justifiable even if evolution was true and was the only credible theory on the subject matter, which is why you should now see all of what you have all posted, while nice to read, actually has nothing to do with the issue i was discussing. Hence in future if i can respond to the issues other’s raise, i expect those same others to address the issues i raise.
Perhaps if your comments were more concise we’d be better able to recognise exactly what you want us to respond to.
I agree that science is based in a belief in empiricism and the scientific method, etc, and that point was made quite well in my high school science classes (though I can’t comment about others). But the appropriate forum to discuss other belief systems is in philosophy/religion classes, which should take you through a history of philosophical thought, explaining different versions and pointing out the pros and cons of each. I have no objection to that.
But you seem to be saying that in our science classes we should be debating metaphysics. I dispute that. I think it should be taught, but not in science (perhaps apart from pointing out that there are issues that will be discussed in philosophy).
Rob, point granted, though on the other hand i would’ve thought if one read through my post(s) the issue i was discussing was fairly obvious…i haven’t deliberately tried to make it difficult to decipher or anything. I certainly agree that a wide section of theories on the subject matter canvassed by evolution should be taught and students should be exposed to more than just one theory. So long as it happens i don’t think it really matters so much which class it’s in…though that would be an interesting subject to think about. What i was really wanting people to discuss…particularly because i know there are a few here involved with the science community…is why does the science community continue to teach evolution with bigotry rather than just trusting it’s facts to make students adopt it? and why does so much of that community, and wider people for that matter, consider such bigotry in this acceptable? Because so many people seem to be saying to me they think it’s acceptable because they think the facts support only evolution…and i’ve pointed out to them that even if this were the case it wouldn’t justify it. Anyways people display your views on that if you feel so inclined. And i wasn’t to my knowledge aware that i was advocating metaphysics.
Ian: I taught CIT for a few semesters a couple of years ago.
Wombat: the science community merely demands that for something to count as good science, it must be grounded in the scientific method and it must be supported by evidence. This applies to all of the natural and physical sciences, not just biology. And you don’t lay the groundwork for future good science by teaching pseudocience alongside bona fide science in the classroom and leaving students to “make up their own minds.” This would do those students a grave disservice. None of this is “bigotry”–unless you would also count as “bigotry” the exclusion of astrology and water divination from the science classroom.
Hmm. A former CIT teacher read my little piece and didn’t tell me if I was on the right track or not. That has to be ominous, right?
Oh, and a question for Wombat. Would it be OK if the science-minded people said, “Creationists believe in fairy stories, but that in itself doesn’t make them any less worthy as human beings than you or I”?
Ian: I do think you’re on the right track, but I have some reservations. First, I would argue that while religions are certainly in the business of converting, that doesn’t necessarily mean that scientists are. Science doesn’t care whether you believe in God (and won’t attempt to stop you from doing so), because the question of God’s existence lies outside the purview of science: which is concerned only with the natural and physical universe–about which it makes no capital-T truth-claims, by the way, only claims of fact supported by evidence, and subject to change upon the discovery of new evidence.
From the p.o.v. of science, science and faith have discrete fields of operation (the natural and physical for science; the supernatural and metaphysical for faith); from the p.o.v. of faith–and let’s face it, we’re really only talking about that minority of religions classified as fundamentalist or evangelical–there is no such demarcation. Hence, in the battle for people’s souls (which must be waged in the science classroom–and the maths classroom, and the English classroom, and the social studies classroom, etc.–as fervently as it is in the religious studies classroom), faith sees science as a rival, and a rival to be crushed (or at least bent to its will). Can science be “beaten by its own rules?” Of course–the IDists and creationists are trying to do this all the time. On the one hand, they tacitly accept the rules that make science “science” by insisting that their own theories qualify on such terms; on the other hand, they insist that the rules themselves be rewritten.
Must one have to choose between science and religion? No–not if you accept that these discrete ways of knowing have discrete fields of enquiry. If you accept that, then science and faith can co-exist peacefully: a person can accept evolution and yet still consider him or herself a Christian.
Firstly AV, i have to say in your first post, you’re either being horribly naive, you’re really not good at reading comments and identifying the issues within them, or you’re disappointingly being deliberately evasive. Thus your post becomes irrelevant as as i’ve said, the issue i’m discussing is the way evolution is taught, not creationism or any other world theory. Hence having a discussion about the ‘creationism passing the test of science or not’ thing is irrelevant, particularly as even if creationism and other world theories are not science, and therefore only evolution is taught, that doesn’t justify it being taught with bigotry. But of course you’ve missed that point, as it’s more convenient for you to.
Ian-thanks for the question. It would to some degree be better, better than the use of bigotry i was referring to, although i still know the use of the words ‘fairy stories’ in the way science teachers do is clearly bigotry and meant to hook people into supporting evolution as such. What i consider acceptable is evolution to be taught in such a way that says, ‘look this is the theory on how the world came into existence that most people support, here’s what it’s about, here’s the evidence for and against, now go and make up your own mind.’ The reality is science doesn’t do that. Hence i’d consider what they do wrong whether the prejudice was towards any world view dealing with this subject, not just creation. Because when you say to someone look evolution’s logic, factual, and all the other views on this topic are just crazy fair stories that illogical people believe in, so why would you be illogical when you can be a logical, rational person instead by supporting evolution? you’re clearly being a bigot, both in how you view people with a different view to yours…but clearly using that bigotry and prejudice to try and hook people in to support your view. Now i am paraphrasing, but i have had that paraphrase said to me by several science educators who teach evolutionary theory to their students.
To me it’s not only wrong, but scary that people are teaching young impressionable minds this way, not only because they are biasing them towards supporting a view that while impressive on the surface clearly has holes in it…but far more so because they are teaching their students bigotry, bias, intolerance, prejudice and to view others as lower than themselves…things i would have thought we would all be shocked at and ahbor…regardless of what forum they were taught to people in. As i’ve said repeatedly…what also shocks me as much as that people, particularly within the science community stand by and by their silence seem to condone this practice. So i’d like to hear people’s views on why they consider such bigotry in statements and teaching acceptable, or why they don’t (and you didn’t address that AV, and that was clearly the topic of discussion).
Anyways i know it’s another topic, but AV i have to ask about the statement ’science and faith can co-exist peacefully: a person can accept evolution and yet still consider him or herself a Christian’. Is that your view or someone else’s? Why do you believe this to be true? As far as i understand it and work through it, to believe the Bible you have to believe God created the world. Not only because if he is not the creator then he does not have the power of an Almighty that the Bible consistently claims and the ability to be able to deliver on the promsies he makes. Not only that, but if God were not the creator why would anyone believe in the Bible? After all if he were not it would not only make a mockery of Genesis, but mean there are no benefits to believing in God and none from not doing so (ie revelation). As far as i am concerned, to be a Christian you have to believe God is the creator the world, and thus you can’t be a Christian if you believe evolution to be true. But i’m happy to hear and discuss other’s views on the subject.
How can one be a Christian and yet accept evolution? It’s simple, really: evolution has nothing to say on the question of who created the world. It’s a theory about the origin of species, not the origin of the universe. But don’t take my word for it: ask the majority of non-biblical-literalist Christians (who, not being biblical literalists, might not count as Christians to you, but I’m not governed by your definition of “Christian”)–starting with the former Pope.
And I haven’t “missed” your claim that evolution is taught “with bigotry”: I’ve rejected it. For reasons I’ve already stated: for something to count as good science, it must be grounded in the scientific method and it must be supported by evidence. That might be inconvenient for creationism–insofars as it means that creationism, which is neither supported by evidence nor follows the scientific method (i.e. creationism presupposes its conclusions–namely, Scripture–and then looks for “evidence” to support them, which is the inverse of the way science is supposed to be done), doesn’t get a look-in on science curricula–but it does not constitute bigotry. Evolution is taught in the science classroom because it is supported by the evidence–well-supported–and because its conclusions are reached via the scientific method. And this doesn’t count as bigotry, either. Nor is it prejudice. Nor is it . . . erm . . . “belief racism” (lol).
No-one here or in the science community, as far as I can tell, finds the kind of “bigotry” you’re talking about acceptable. If a science teacher makes fun of you because of your religious beliefs, he or she is a bad teacher. If the science that the science teacher is teaching you happens to offend your religious beliefs–I’m sorry, but that’s just something you have to come to terms with. In this circumstance, the facts (as tenuous as they are in science) are in conflict with your own personal worldview–but that doesn’t mean that the facts should be censored so as to placate your religious beliefs. Teaching the facts (i.e. teaching that which is supported by evidence) does not constitute bigotry.
You say: “What i consider acceptable is evolution to be taught in such a way that says, ‘look this is the theory on how the world came into existence that most people support, here’s what it’s about, here’s the evidence for and against, now go and make up your own mind.’” Make up their minds? Is there an alternative credible scientific theory to evolution? What is it?
AV, to address your points;
Evolution may not as you claim it specifically deal with who created the world, but the Bible doesn’t just deal with this either. Ie Genesis doesn’t deal just with that God created a world and put people on it, but all that he put on it, and you’ll find the latter point deals with species, much as evolution does. The difference of course is that the Bible and evolution state that they came to be by different means, therefore the two theories are in conflict with each other. Now you are right to say not all Christians take creation as it is presented in the Bible literally, and i don’t consider them any less Christians, in fact many are my friends. However at it’s most basic level all Christians tend to agree that God created the world, they only disagree on the means by which he did it. Now this may in some senses leave room for these differences without contradictions between the theories, however the key is that evolution, by the fact of matter appearing without causation comes into conflict with Christianity, because Christians believe God created the world not only because the Bible tells us he did, but because for the earth to come to be there had to be matter, and that matter had to have causation, which is of course one of the reasons for a belief in a designer. In fact i know a few friends both from within the science community and outside who have become Christians for that reason.
And as regards to your rejection claim, you may have done so but you have done so in your mind, you have not addressed the issue and that is the point. And thats evidenced by that you claim you find such ‘bigotry’ unacceptable, yet you’ve not bothered to explain to the rest of us why it is then occurring. But hopefully you shall given the opportunity. Now i know by the paragraph you’ve written here you have not read or interpreted my post and responded to it, as as i clearly said ‘ i’m discussing is the way evolution is taught.’ Thus i’m not talking about the teaching of evolution and not other theories, i’m talking about the WAY it is taught, and that WAY has nothing to do with the science of evolution, but in the way it is presented and made attractive to students. In your next post attempt to address that, because it’s the issue.
Let’s also get something straight you’ve ignored, the issue has zip to do with my being offended or lack thereof. Firstly i don’t take offence, as a Christian anywhere, let alone among the science and university communities, you become desensitised to offence. Secondly and more importantly, the bigotry i’m discussing is displayed towards all beliefs, not just Christianity. Why? In the presenting of evolutionary theory, evolution is not presented as theory, it is presented as empirical fact. Furthermore it is presented to students that by believing in evolution you are a better person that everyone who does not believe in these so called facts. Thus the educator is presenting bigotry towards Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, and any other belief, religious or otherwise. And no i don’t have to come to terms with it, society does. For example one of the key reasons the Holocaust occurred was because the people were taught that only the Aryans could be a ‘pure’ race and thus the Jews must be eliminated. Now they weren’t taught that they could or should believe in it, they were taught it was fact. Now i’m not for a minute suggesting any evolutionists do or would behave in such abhorrent exteremes. What i am doing is illustrating how when left unchecked, how destructive bigotry can be, and can be to a whole society, not just groups. This is why bigotry is the concern of all of us, regardless of our beliefs, now you may bury your head in the sand AV, but i’d like to think that other people would have more concern for the consequences of denial rather than living in it.
Teaching someone that you are a better person by believing one theory than people who believe other theories on the subject matter, is clearly belief racism, clearly bigotry and has to be addressed. And unlike what you think, the facts do not need to be censored because the facts do not contain bigotry, the people presenting them and the way they present them do, and this is occurring, This is why you like many people defend what is going on by justifying the teaching of evolution on a science basis and thinks this deals with it. However it does not, because even if the facts jutsify teaching evolution and only evolution (which they may do) this does not justify teaching them with bigotry, bigotry which the facts do not contain, and does not have to be presented in order to present the facts, so is only presented to bias and pervert the hearers.
Whether there is an alternate theory to evolution, is irrelevant, first to the bigotry it is taught with, and secondly to people’s right to not believe evolution, and believe in alternatives. This why when i talk to people i know and simply state their belief in evolution is a belief (and don’t even challenge it, just say this) they get angry and even try and go phsyical in some cases, as they are not taught evolution is a belief, they are taught it’s empirical fact, and that belief in this fact makes them better than others, and like most people this power attract them, so when the source of that power is questioned, they get angry. The facts are, none of us were around when the world is created, so regardless of whether science justifies evolution or not, any view we adopt on how the world came to be, evolution or otherwise will be at least in some part a belief. Thus it transcends science, and people have the right to believe whatever they want, in support of or regardless of science, and any moves to say otherwise, and class people’s worth according to where they sit on that, is clear and pure bigotry. And the facts are, it is getting more widespread as i have heard from more and more friends it is happening, and more and more people are expressing their concern about it. And i can tell you from experience, most of those are atheists, who think evolution is right but know that does not justify the bigotry, and are concerned about tarred with that brush on account of those behaviours of their colleagues. It is something we should all be concerned with.
Wombat, you’re beginning to sound like a broken record, you know. You repeat your claim that “evolution is being taught with bigotry” again and again, without providing any concrete evidence of this, and yet you wonder why I reject your claim–which means that I reject the fact that it is occurring, at least on a systemic basis. Can you point to something in the Education Department curriculum documents that demonstrates this “bigotry?” Have there been studies conducted into the teaching of science in WA schools, or Australian schools, that illustrate your assertions? (I’ve never known science to be taught with bigotry, so in your next post I want to see your claims–regarding the WAY science is taught–backed up by some hard evidence. Hard evidence, mind you, not anecdote or hearsay.) And does this “bigotry” you’re talking about simply lie in the fact that non-scientific ideas on life, the universe and everything simply don’t get a look-in in the science classroom–or are you talking about something else? You haven’t been clear on this point.
Onto your other points:
1. Does a literal reading of Genesis conflict with modern cosmology and evolutionary theory? Of course it does. But so what? The Bible isn’t a science textbook–and you don’t have to accept that it is in order to be a Christian. And neither modern cosmology, nor evolutionary theory, nor anything else in science has anything to say whatsoever on the topic of ultimate causation.
2. Evolution is a theory presented as empirical fact because . . . (drum roll, please) . . . it is a fact. It is a scientific theory–”an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers”–well-supported by the evidence. See Claim CA201 (Talk.Origins).
3. In what way is evolution presented to students such that they will believe they are better people than those who don’t? “Better” in what sense? Again, I want to see some hard evidence, please. Like I said: a science teacher who ridicules you for your personal beliefs is a bad teacher. But if your self-esteem issues arise from the shortfall between your personal beliefs and scientific fact–that’s your own problem, not society’s. Console yourself with the possibility that it’s all in your head. Science teachers shouldn’t have to walk on eggshells in the process of carrying out their duties as science teachers (first and foremost of which, I would have thought, is to teach science–regardless of whether it clashes or appears to clash with some people’s personal religious beliefs).
4. Evolution is not a theory of “how the world came to be.”
AV, i’m not a broken record, unfortunately it appears that you just don’t read my post before asking questions that have already been answered *sighs.* But anyway i’ll address your points;
As to your need for evidence, thats easy, come to my uni, and spend a day or two in first year science lectures and tutes, in fact do so at many of the other unis with the same problem. If you want more ‘hard’ evidence, simply ask the educators in those places as to their view of evolutionary theory, and particularly how they teach it to their stduents, and how and what benefits they advise their students result from believing in evolution. See it’s the best evidence because instead of taking my ‘hearsay’ as you call it, you can get the evidence first hand. Opportunity is there, it is up to you what you do with it, just don’t complain to me about evidence if you don’t want to do what can be done to verify it.
As i’ve repeatedly made clear, i don’t see any bigotry in teaching evolution or only evolution in science classrooms. I see bigotry however in trying to hook your students in with the power carrot by telling them the key benefit of believing in evolutionary theory is that it makes you better than every other member of society who does not, and the interactional problems that will create in society once we have millions of people trained to act with and believe in that sort of bigotry. My point that i am addressing is quite clear, and i’m not going to continue to point out what my point is, because honestly it’s quite easy to understand.
As to the points;
1. Let me ask you then, if someone is a Christian but their faith and it’s outworking is not based on the contents of the bible, then what is it based on? The reality it is impossible to be a Christian without the Bible because answers to your questions as to what is a christian? what does it mean to be a christian? is christianity about faith or works? what does living as a Christian involve? what is promised to those who are faithful servants of God? etc etc and many other questions, the answers will be found in their most pure form, and often exclusively (ie people have written books about the bible, but only the bible has the entire body of the source material they’re discussing) from the Bible. So if you don’t believe the Bible to be true, you cannot answer these questions from it, and without them you can’t possibly even start to be or live as a Christian. Now given the Bible is essentially systematic (ie everything builds on the ‘blocks’ as it were from Genesis) if you believe in a theory that contradicts Genesis then it’s hard to see how you could believe in any of the rest of the Bible. Therefore it would be hard to see anyone being a Christian if you believe in evolution, particularly because if you suuport a theory that does contradict Genesis, then it’s clear you don’t believe Genesis to be true, in which case why would you believe anything else in the Bible is true? But i am certainly willing to discuss it, i’m interested to hear views, particularly from people who claim to be Christians believing in evolution.
2. Your use of the words ‘observations’ ‘hypotheses’ and ‘well supported by the facts’ clearly shows evolution is not absolute empirical fact, as if it were none of this such stuff would be needed. The reality is evolution is not empirical fact because much of it’s theory is questionable at best. However even if it were not, the reality is without clear irrefutable evidence (ie physical) evolution cannot truthfully claim to be absolute fact. The ‘well supported by the facts’ simply means that given what we know of how the world formed and came to be, evolutionary theory fits these pieces together better than any other theory on the subject. This does not mean it is absolutely correct, it simply means that at least in science terms, it is the best of what’s available. And that does not equal empirical fact.
3.I’m offended by you raising ’self esteem issues’ as you quite clearly know there are none, so you’re trying to be 1) condescending and 2) distract from discussing the actual issue. But i won’t stoop to your level. Now i have time and time again explained the issue i have raised. but one last indented time since you obviously keep not reading it, here goes;
‘Because when you say to someone look evolution’s logic, factual, and all the other views on this topic are just crazy fair stories that illogical people believe in, so why would you be illogical when you can be a logical, rational person instead by supporting evolution? you’re clearly being a bigot, both in how you view people with a different view to yours…but clearly using that bigotry and prejudice to try and hook people in to support your view. Now i am paraphrasing, but i have had that paraphrase said to me by several science educators who teach evolutionary theory to their students.’
And as to empirical evidence, this is in that i am not the only person to have heard such teachings, and it has been heard at different universities and other educational insititutions with different educators. Like i said, if you’re so convinced it isn’t a true claim, go to the source location of the claim. If i’m wrong you’ll quickly prove me so, if on the other hand i’m right about what is occurring you’ll find out.
Science teachers shouldn’t have to walk on eggshells, but being a bigot is not an accidental thing. It is so deliberate, intended to bias, pervert and hook people in, and based on one’s own wrong discriminatory views that no science educator can justify having it teaching it, particularly because the science and the theory has no bigotry (because as you said, science doesn’t care for people’s beliefs, so if you tell your students they will become great people for believing in evolutionary theory, and others are less for not believing it, this clearly comes from your personal views, not the curricula, so it has no place in a classroom).
4.Then what is evolution. After all evolution’s purpose may not be ‘how the world came to be’ (after all there’s no person behind the theory to investigate their purpose from) but this is the subject matter it deals with, so it is rightly discussed as a theory about that.
5.That wasn’t a question, so for what purpose are you using re-quotes and red highlightings. I don’t answer non existent questions, only ones that are asked.
6.As to the vatican thing, i know many people do not realise this, but Catholicism is not Christianity. Of course there are Catholics who are Christians (and also ones who are not) but Catholicism in and of itself is not Christianity. So you haven’t chosen an appropriate source for the supposed evidence, that said i’ll read it when i have time and respond to it if it warrants doing so.
As to your need for evidence, thats easy, come to my uni, and spend a day or two in first year science lectures and tutes, in fact do so at many of the other unis with the same problem. If you want more ‘hard’ evidence, simply ask the educators in those places as to their view of evolutionary theory, and particularly how they teach it to their stduents, and how and what benefits they advise their students result from believing in evolution. See it’s the best evidence because instead of taking my ‘hearsay’ as you call it, you can get the evidence first hand. Opportunity is there, it is up to you what you do with it, just don’t complain to me about evidence if you don’t want to do what can be done to verify it.
Nope: this doesn’t cut it. You might have had such experiences (though I can’t for the life of me think why), or you might believe that you have had such experiences. I might sit in on one of your science lectures (at which university, incidentally?) and not perceive this “bigotry” you’re talking about–indeed, I don’t expect to. But you’re claiming that this “bigotry” is widespread, and that requires something far more substantial by way of evidence–which is why I asked whether your information was derived from something like a formal study or survey, or whether, perhaps, you could point to something in a textbook or set reading that supports your assertions. That at least would go some way towards suggesting that “bigotry” is endemic in science education, and not just a matter of your own perception.
And no, there is no onus on me to prove a negative. You’re the one who’s trying to sell us the laughable claim that science educators are “trying to hook their students in with the power carrot by telling them the key benefit of believing in evolutionary theory is that it makes you better than every other member of society who does not”–so the onus is on you to provide us with evidence (hard evidence, mind you) that such is the case. Until you’re prepared to do that, stop whining. And stop accusing us of “condoning bigotry” in the teaching of science.
So if you don’t believe the Bible to be true, you cannot answer these questions from it, and without them you can’t possibly even start to be or live as a Christian.
The question, though, isn’t whether the Bible is “true.” The question is whether the Bible must be read literally–whether one can be considered a Christian if one does not adhere to Biblical literalism, as many Christians don’t.
The reality is evolution is not empirical fact because much of it’s theory is questionable at best.
How so?
The ‘well supported by the facts’ simply means that given what we know of how the world formed and came to be, evolutionary theory fits these pieces together better than any other theory on the subject. This does not mean it is absolutely correct, it simply means that at least in science terms, it is the best of what’s available. And that does not equal empirical fact.
Uh . . . yes it does. Insofar as what are considered “facts” in science are dependent upon current knowledge and evidence, and may be overturned upon the discovery of new evidence. Hence, there is a distinction between “fact” and “truth.” Now, in your view, does the Bible deal in “truth”, or does it deal in “facts?”
‘Because when you say to someone look evolution’s logic, factual, and all the other views on this topic are just crazy fair stories that illogical people believe in, so why would you be illogical when you can be a logical, rational person instead by supporting evolution? you’re clearly being a bigot, both in how you view people with a different view to yours…but clearly using that bigotry and prejudice to try and hook people in to support your view. Now i am paraphrasing, but i have had that paraphrase said to me by several science educators who teach evolutionary theory to their students.’
What seems more likely to me–since you’re not prepared to give us anything more substantial to go on than paraphrase–is that you’re viewing whatever these science teachers may have said to you through the lens of “I’m a Bible-believing Christian, the science I’m presented with in the science classroom contradicts my personal religious beliefs, ergo I’m being oppressed!” In the context of the science classroom, nonscientific theories such as Biblical creationism are–to all intents and purposes–”fairy stories.” But that is no insult–it simply means that they can’t be considered scientific theories since they don’t follow the scientific method and they aren’t supported by the evidence.
Then what is evolution.
“Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time. These changes are produced at the genetic level as organisms’ genes mutate and/or recombine in different ways during reproduction and are passed on to future generations. Sometimes, individuals inherit new characteristics that give them a survival and reproductive advantage in their local environments; these characteristics tend to increase in frequency in the population, while those that are disadvantageous decrease in frequency. This process of differential survival and reproduction is known as natural selection. Non-genetic changes that occur during an organism’s life span, such as increases in muscle mass due to exercise and diet, cannot be passed on to the next generation and are not examples of evolution.”
Nope. Nothing in there about how the world came to be.
That wasn’t a question, so for what purpose are you using re-quotes and red highlightings. I don’t answer non existent questions, only ones that are asked.
See those “red highlightings?” Here’s something you can try at home. Hover your cursor over the red highlightings. Woo-hoo! It changed into a pointing finger!! Yes, Wombat: they’re called “hyperlinks.”
As to the vatican thing, i know many people do not realise this, but Catholicism is not Christianity. Of course there are Catholics who are Christians (and also ones who are not) but Catholicism in and of itself is not Christianity.
Says you. Obviously I disgree. Why doesn’t Catholicism count as Christianity, in your view?
Ian: And everything I said in my reply to you, regarding the demarcation between science and religion, has been pretty much confirmed by what Wombat has had to say in his subsequent contributions.
Well AV to respond to your comments;
1. The ‘this doesn’t cut it’ doesn’t cut it either. You can’t be a hypocrit on one hand asking if my claims can be verified and then calling it ‘not good enough’ etc when i clearly explain how it can. Now yes you have the right to ignore what i’ve explained as to how it can be verified but if you choose not to do that then don’t continue to complain about their supposed voracity. The opportunity’s there and it’s clear and it’s up to you what you do with it, and regardless i won’t be losing any sleep over it.
2. As to your calls for evidence that it is ‘not of my own perception’ is the fact that it is an issue that has been raised with me by people in other campuses and other states, so their experiences clearly can’t be based on mine or anyone else’s perception. Furthermore part of how i’ve verified the things i’ve heard in lectures that i’ve found disturbing is to go out and talk to random people. Now one good example i can give you is when i do that, one of the things i do within a conversation is ask people why they believe in evolution and point out it’s a belief. What’s interesting is people are all too willing to explain evolution to me and what they think about it, until i point out that it’s a belief, and then they turn and get angry, in some cases bordering on physical, and pretty much consistently yelling lines to the effect of ‘evolution’s empirical fact, it’s logic, there’s nothing to believe’. Now both the fact that students are thinking like that, and are so intolerant of people challenging their belief which they refuse to accept as a belief, is one clear example of the bigotry that they’re being taught, and adopting. After all AV, go out on any nice day (there;s plenty of students sitting around to talk to-we bludge a lot) and conduct your own straw poll, you’ll find the same things i’m finding. Oh and before you say it, in said conversations i don’t tell people i’m a Christian or mention Christianity, at least not before not they crack it over the ‘belief’ thing.
3. I think you’ll find that i haven’t accussed you of condoning bigotry, i’ve accused the science community and society of that, and the accusations are correct because of the few to nil number of people in a position of knowledge about it prepared to speak out on it. Whether you’re one who condones or not is up to you and your own personal actions, it has nothing to do with what i think or say, so don’t try to pin it on me.
4. If your accusations of “I’m a Bible-believing Christian, the science I’m presented with in the science classroom contradicts my personal religious beliefs, ergo I’m being oppressed!” were right, then i would be against being taught evolution or any other science contrary to Christianity, i’d speak out against it, refuse to listen to people speak of it and campaign for it not to be taught. But i’m saying or thinking no such things. In fact both on and off this site i have long been a proponent of exposing people to all beliefs and viewpoints within teaching science curricula, so get your facts right before making such impossible accusations.
5.The question, though, isn’t whether the Bible is “true.” The question is whether the Bible must be read literally–whether one can be considered a Christian if one does not adhere to Biblical literalism, as many Christians don’t. Yes this is the issue. While in other issues among Christians such as Church teaching, interpretation is an issue, within the issue you raised with me of whether Christians can believe in evolution, the issue is authority. Being if you believe in evolution you reject the authority (truth) of Genesis and thus i fail to see how you can then accept the authority of the rest of the Bible and be a Christian. However according to you, if the question is not the truth of the Bible, then what is it?
7. Uh . . . yes it does. Insofar as what are considered “facts” in science are dependent upon current knowledge and evidence, and may be overturned upon the discovery of new evidence. Hence, there is a distinction between “fact” and “truth.” Now, in your view, does the Bible deal in “truth”, or does it deal in “facts?” Tell me then, if evolution is empirical fact then why does your evidence not say so, instead of giving it the wishy-washy label of ‘well supported by the facts’? Besides, if something can be overturned by new evidence then it never was empirical fact, it was merely the explanation that best fitted and supported the facts at the time, as i was pointing out. So thanks for proving my point for me, much appreciated.
8. Now, in your view, does the Bible deal in “truth”, or does it deal in “facts?”- I’ll answer that question for you when you define to me what you see as truth and facts and the difference between the two.
9.In the context of the science classroom, nonscientific theories such as Biblical creationism are–to all intents and purposes–”fairy stories.” But that is no insult–it simply means that they can’t be considered scientific theories since they don’t follow the scientific method and they aren’t supported by the evidence. Now this is rubbish AV. Your own evidence clearly states that evolution does not deal with beliefs nor care what people believe. So any reference to people’s beliefs by an educator in teaching evolution is not part of the curricula and out of line, and when that reference clearly rips into that belief without investigation, without evidence, without justifiability, and clearly for the purpose of making the theory that is being taught more atttractive, it is bigotry.
10. But that is no insult–it simply means that they can’t be considered scientific theories since they don’t follow the scientific method and they aren’t supported by the evidence. As you’ve repeatedly pointed out religion and beliefs are far different to the domain of science, so even trying to assess them in the lens of science is a very poor and error filled method.
11. If you go and do your research on ‘changes over time’ and the rest of evolutionary theory, you’ll clearly find evolution does deal with how the world came to be, it deals with the ‘evolving’ of humans and the other matter of the earth, which is clearly how it came to be. Don’t know how you missed that page.
12. Don’t go all slagging with your ‘red highlightings’, i spend half my degree building websites and dealing with hyperlinks and other text and images. What i was wondering is;
A. why did you bother structuring it like that when there clearly was no question in your copying?
B. what purpose would the use of hyperlinks serve?
C. and why would you bother to hyperlink to information that doesn’t support the criticisms you’re tying to mount
D. why wouldn’t you instead hyperlink to more of your info that supposedly makes light of my comments regarding evolutionary theory?
But hey go crazy with boring hyperlinks as much as you want.
13.Says you. Obviously I disgree. Why doesn’t Catholicism count as Christianity, in your view? I was thinking the same question, why do you ‘obviously disagree’ and think Catholicism is Christianity? Btw my comments regarding this topic are not about Catholicism ‘counting’ as Christianity, in some weird type of ‘earning’ capacity that you seem to be alluding to. I was simply pointing out to you that Catholicism is not Christianity (ie they are not the same thing). Why do you disagree?
14. Ian, poor Ian. Don’t tell my you’ve got tonsilitis. It’s not like you to let someone else do your work for you, no matter how much ’stamina’ he/she has.
Much as I would get a kick out of having a servant, Wombat, I think I could find better things for them to be doing than arguing with you about… Well, it’s been carrying on for so long, I’m not even sure what you and AV are arguing about anymore.
No, I think you’ll probably find that AV has taken this upon himself for his own reasons. I was simply observing that he has displayed great persistance so far, but after your latest post I wonder if he might throw in the towel. I mean, the posts are getting longer and longer but you’re not exactly any closer to reaching a consensus. I’m not sure how many people are actually following this debate besides yourselves and me, but I don’t think an awful lot rides upon the outcome (in the extremely unlikely event that one of you concedes, that is).
So, that’s why I’m not saying a lot, Wombat. I don’t think of it as a mission, and there are other things I’d rather be doing.
Well, for lack of better things to do I’ll happily continue this tete-a-tete with Wombat . . .
You can’t be a hypocrit on one hand asking if my claims can be verified and then calling it ‘not good enough’ etc when i clearly explain how it can.
But I wasn’t asking if your claims can be verified. I was asking you to verify them–by providing sufficient evidence (e.g. studies, citations from textbooks, syllabi and classroom materials, perhaps even lecture notes, and so on) that your experiences of “bigotry” regarding the teaching of evolution is typical of what goes in the science classroom. You’re the one who’s making that allegation: the onus is on you to back it up.
I mean, I could claim that the science community and society in general are ignoring the oppression of the little green goblins in orbit around Sirius B, but I could hardly expect to be taken seriously if I offered no evidence of such an injustice beyond: “Why don’t you fly to Sirius B and see for yourself?”
Now one good example i can give you is when i do that, one of the things i do within a conversation is ask people why they believe in evolution and point out it’s a belief. What’s interesting is people are all too willing to explain evolution to me and what they think about it, until i point out that it’s a belief, and then they turn and get angry, in some cases bordering on physical, and pretty much consistently yelling lines to the effect of ‘evolution’s empirical fact, it’s logic, there’s nothing to believe’.
Evolution is a “belief” only insofar as the notion that bona fide science seeks natural explanations for natural phenomena (the supernatural being outside its purview) is “just a belief.” This latter belief, however, underlies all of the natural and physical sciences–not just biology. (You yourself accept this belief, tacitly, every time you make the decision to visit your local GP rather than your local parson or witchdoctor to seek treatment for “that bug that’s been going ’round.”) Hence, people believe in evolution only to the extent that they accept that science ought to–and does–seek natural explanations for natural phenomena. And in that case, your real beef is with science–science as it is currently done–rather than evolution per se.
Having said that, I can’t for the life of me imagine why someone would get physically aggressive over a topic such as evolutionary biology.
I think you’ll find that i haven’t accussed you of condoning bigotry, i’ve accused the science community and society of that, and the accusations are correct because of the few to nil number of people in a position of knowledge about it prepared to speak out on it.
Hey–the few to nil number of people in a position of knowledge about the oppressed little green goblins in orbit around Sirius B don’t seem prepared to speak about that, either–but you don’t hear me complaining ;)
In fact both on and off this site i have long been a proponent of exposing people to all beliefs and viewpoints within teaching science curricula, so get your facts right before making such impossible accusations.
But what would be the point of, say, presenting creationism alongside evolution in a science classroom (in the spirit of, as you say, “exposing people to all beliefs and viewpoints”) if creationism isn’t a scientific theory? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate, as others in this discussion have suggested, to expose students to different beliefs and viewpoints in a religious studies classroom instead?
However according to you, if the question is not the truth of the Bible, then what is it?
The question is whether the Bible must be read literally–whether one can be considered a Christian if one does not adhere to Biblical literalism, as many Christians don’t.
While in other issues among Christians such as Church teaching, interpretation is an issue, within the issue you raised with me of whether Christians can believe in evolution, the issue is authority.
No, Wombat: Genesis is just as subject to interpretation as any other book of the Bible. Hence: the doctrinal differences between Young-Earth Creationists, Old-Earth Creationists, IDists, Theistic Evolutionists.
Tell me then, if evolution is empirical fact then why does your evidence not say so, instead of giving it the wishy-washy label of ‘well supported by the facts’?
Why is it “wishy-washy?”
I’ll answer that question for you when you define to me what you see as truth and facts and the difference between the two.
To cite Stephen Jay Gould: “In science “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.” I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.” Does the Bible deal in facts in this sense? (And if so, what is the point of doing science at all?)
So any reference to people’s beliefs by an educator in teaching evolution is not part of the curricula and out of line, and when that reference clearly rips into that belief without investigation, without evidence, without justifiability, and clearly for the purpose of making the theory that is being taught more atttractive, it is bigotry.
Well, I’m looking forward to the evidence of where this occurs systematically in our education system.
But that is no insult–it simply means that they can’t be considered scientific theories since they don’t follow the scientific method and they aren’t supported by the evidence. As you’ve repeatedly pointed out religion and beliefs are far different to the domain of science, so even trying to assess them in the lens of science is a very poor and error filled method.
Should I have instead argued that religious beliefs are scientific, do follow the scientific method and are supported by the evidence?
If you go and do your research on ‘changes over time’ and the rest of evolutionary theory, you’ll clearly find evolution does deal with how the world came to be, it deals with the ‘evolving’ of humans and the other matter of the earth, which is clearly how it came to be. Don’t know how you missed that page.
I see. Biologists–rather than astrophysicists or geologists–deal with the formation of the Earth. I muist have missed that page, too. Got a hyperlink for me, Mr. I.T. Support?
What i was wondering is;
A. why did you bother structuring it like that when there clearly was no question in your copying?
To hyperlink to sources that more adequately address your points than I–as a mere layman–ever could.
B. what purpose would the use of hyperlinks serve?
See above.
C. and why would you bother to hyperlink to information that doesn’t support the criticisms you’re tying to mount
It does.
D. why wouldn’t you instead hyperlink to more of your info that supposedly makes light of my comments regarding evolutionary theory?
I did.
Says you. Obviously I disgree. Why doesn’t Catholicism count as Christianity, in your view? I was thinking the same question, why do you ‘obviously disagree’ and think Catholicism is Christianity?
You have this annoying habit of answering questions with questions (which is a way of avoiding them). I would identify as “Christian” anyone who sincerely regards themselves to be Christian. Catholics–and I was raised as one, so I should know–therefore fit the bill nicely. Over to you.
AV;
1. As for your textbook etc evidence, you should know quite well it is not there in that context as it should not be. Why? Because the course material, the classroom materials, the theory of evolution, are not bigots, the people that teach them are, and they impart their own bigotry on science that has none to start with. After all if the actual curriculum had bigotry in it i like to think it wouldn’t even make it past the review stage of the education boards in each state. But as to you wanting evidence, well any day you come to my uni i’ll be more than happy to take you around and show you exactly what i’m talking about, as will any likeminded student on just about any uni campus across australia. So don’t whinge about the claims not being verified, it is only my job for me to make you aware of the issue, and how you can investigate it and form your own opinion on that, which is what i really would like to acheive with this topic. You’re an adult, it’s not my job to make you decide to find out whether what i am saying is truth or not. I have told you the way to get the answer to that, what you do is up to you.
As to your other points i fortunately was watching lateline last night and they had a piece on evolution vs id. Now i wasn’t planning to discuss it but it had some points very relevant to the issues we have been discussing, so here goes;
As to you denying the bigotry
A.Narrator; ‘Most mainstream museums consider creationism to be something of a joke, akin to believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden.’ He goes on to outline the creationist viewpoint and the objection the science lobby is having to ‘non science’ views on the subject matter of evolution. Now what this does is reminds us that most people in the science community think creationism, and any other belief not supported by science, to be a joke. Thus given those people are teaching people evolution, and these other beliefs have different things to say about the subject matter evolution deals with, it’s not just possible they will not accept this and thus will approach these other views with bigotry in the classroom, it’s highly likely, and it’s exactly what’s happening. Most independent unbiased people would say these facts and the likelihood of this bigotry being true and widespread warrants investigation to find out whether this is the case. But most people don’t. Why? Well i don’t know exactly, but presumably people don’t want to know, they want to think science is taught as it should be and bury their heads in the sand about anything else.
As to you saying evolution does not deal with how the world came to be;
B.Narrator; an overwhelming number of scientist support evolution, the idea that humans evolved from apes, that random mutation and natural selection accounts for the diversity of the species.
Now let’s see, deals with how humans came to be and when, how animals came to be and when, etc etc etc. Pretty much sounds like how huge chunks of the world came to be to me. Now granted the theory of evolution (particularly natural selection) may have other implications, meaning it does not solely deal with how the world came to be, however this is clearly one of the things it deals with. And most scientists, teachers and otherwise that i’ve ever heard say exactly that.
C. As to you saying an evolutionist can also be a Christian and me saying no because they contradict each other and believing in evolution rejects the authority of Genesis and hence much of what follows in scripture;
Thomas Sharp; Evolution as taught by Darwin and his disciples, advances ideas that would deny the reality of the Genesis record of origins, which would automatically undermine the authority of the scripture, which would completely remove the historical foundation for the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
As i have been discussing if you believe in evolution you reject the authority of Genesis, in other words you say it did not happen, and given the creation of all in Genesis and Adam and Eve’s actions were the necessitation and positor for all Jesus was and did in the new testament, if you believe in evolution and hence reject Genesis you also reject all that, so you can’t be a Christian. After all, yes evolution has nothing to say about God himself, however what evolution says is humans, animals etc came to be by a different process than what God says. So what this says, and therefore what any evolutionist believes, is that God is either a liar or he does not have authority-ie he did not have the power to create the world the way he said he did. Now this is critical, because if you believe God’s a liar well there’s no point being a Christian, and if you believe he doesn’t have the power that one would reasonably expect a God to have (ie to create the world) then you can’t be a Christian either, and even if you could there would be no point in that context. So someone who believes in evolution, to clarify believes that evolutionary theory is true, cannot be a Christian.
As to the bigotry also;
D.Sharp; it’s not a matter of ignorance, it’s a matter of their choice because they’ve been able to see through the debate and recognise the science that makes aeroplanes fly and computers work and the so called science that tells us the earth is billions of years old and we came from some type of an ape like ancestor.
Now this extends beyond creationism, to Buddhism, to Hinduism, to any religion and in fact anyone who simply rejects evolution. They are not ignorant, but teachers tell students they are, in fact they go even further, telling them these people are ‘crazy’ ‘illogical’ lesser people, and that there is no way anyone would be like that when they could be better by believing in evolution. Now i have no beef with Darwin here, he nor his theory have nothing to say about Christianity or any other world view. However the people who teach his theory do, which is clearly unjustifiable as it has nothing to do with teaching the science, is clearly intended to bias the decisions of their students, is clearly bigotry and clearly wrong.
Further to the bigotry;
E. Behe in this piece; ‘Many sicentists simply can’t comprehend this. They say to me well i just wish i could open your head, take a screwdriver and close it up and then you’d see things right.’
Now admittedly he’s talking about id, but the point remains that the majority of the science community has the attitude that anyone who does not believe in evoltuion (regardless of what they believe in instead) is not ’seeing thing right.’ This is bigotry and it is clearly wrong. What the majority of educators (well because of the way they teach they don’t even deserve to be called that) is that their job in science curricula is to teach the THEORY of evolution, not make their students believe in it. Yet they do, going to all lengths, even telling their students they can be ‘better people’ (which no science supports) by believing in it. Of course people would be jumping up and down if someone taught another theory they believed in and tried to convince their students to believe in it, but no one cares about scientist trying, and trying by bigotry to convince their students to believe in evolution, when this has nothing to do with teaching it.
As to you saying evolution is empirical fact;
F. Behe; Evolution has to arrange things in very tiny steps. You have to start with something that works and then very gradually improve it, but when you have a complex machine in it is very difficult to see how it can be put together gradually.’
While i don’t necessarily support his specific views here, the point remains, evolution is a theory, a theory of sequential situations that explain how humans and other species came to be, it is not empirical fact, and as you so kindly ignore (and yet accuse me of avoiding questions) even if it were would not justify teaching it with bigotry, as the science contains no such bigotry.
2. Not interested in Green Goblins, Sirius B or any other little gremlins that are off topic.
3. ‘Hey–the few to nil number of people in a position of knowledge about the oppressed little green goblins in orbit around Sirius B don’t seem prepared to speak about that, either–but you don’t hear me complaining ;)’ You’re wrong, because given most people i discuss this issue with are adamant it’s not going on, if they really believed it, they’d be speaking out left right and center with views and evidence to show there’s no bigotry going on. But they’re not.
4.’Evolution is a “belief” only insofar as the notion that bona fide science seeks natural explanations for natural phenomena (the supernatural being outside its purview) is “just a belief.” This latter belief, however, underlies all of the natural and physical sciences–not just biology. (You yourself accept this belief, tacitly, every time you make the decision to visit your local GP rather than your local parson or witchdoctor to seek treatment for “that bug that’s been going ’round.”) Hence, people believe in evolution only to the extent that they accept that science ought to–and does–seek natural explanations for natural phenomena. And in that case, your real beef is with science–science as it is currently done–rather than evolution per se.’
You can dress that all up as turkey as much as you want, but the point remains, evolution is not empirical fact, it is a theory, and given none of us can ever know whether it’s true or not, whether we accept it or any other theory as true is a matter of belief. Furthemore any ‘accepting that sicence ought to’ does not extend to bigotry that is not within the science, has nothing to do with the science and isn’t justifiable. That’s not my beef, in fact much of my aggreivedness with the bigotry being taught in evolution is i’ve done a lot of research on Darwin, and i’m yet to find anything that says he and evolutionary theory have any comment on other world views, or any comment on what people are based on how they see his theory. So therefore as far as i’m concerned the theory doesn’t justify telling students those who don’t believe in evolution are ‘crazy’ and you can ‘be better than them’ by believing in evolution. I have no beef with science or Darwin, i have a beed with so called educators putting in things that have nothing to do with the theory to squash down those of alternate views, and convince their students to believe evolution, something they have no mandate to do.
5.The question is whether the Bible must be read literally–whether one can be considered a Christian if one does not adhere to Biblical literalism, as many Christians don’t.
Actually i haven’t seen you raise that question. You’ve raised the question of whether an evolutionist can be a Christian and i say no because they reject implicity that Genesis is true and therefore God is lying there and in much of the rest of the Bible. Whatever ‘not adhering to Biblical literalism’ which i’m not sure what you’re referring to, has nothing to do with that issue.
6. No, Wombat: Genesis is just as subject to interpretation as any other book of the Bible. Hence: the doctrinal differences between Young-Earth Creationists, Old-Earth Creationists, IDists, Theistic Evolutionists. It would only be an intepretational issue if everyone started from the premise that Genesis was true. So for example on much of scripture different people read the text differently, so they have different views on what it is saying. But they all believe in basics that whatever is being said is true. Thus it’s an interpretational issue,. not an authority one, which is what you’re talking about. For example i know plenty of Christians who believe the ‘6 days’ in genesis are figurative and that God did not create everything in that time frame. But they believe he created it, that is why it’s an interpretational issue, which is not what you’re talking about, whether you realise it or not.
7. Tell me then, if evolution is empirical fact then why does your evidence not say so, instead of giving it the wishy-washy label of ‘well supported by the facts’?
Why is it “wishy-washy?”
Because if it were ‘empirical fact’ as you claim it to be, it would say that.
8. Let me summarise for you, the issues are as follows;
Does Darwin’s evolutionary theory justify in the teaching of it;
1. That teachers jobs is to convince students to believe in evolution, not to teach the theory.
2. That evolution gives them the evidence, and the right to say that it is empirical fact.
3. That evolution gives them the evidence, and the right to say that anyone who believes something other than evolution is ‘crazt’ and ‘illogical’.
4.That evolution gives them the evidence, and the right to say that people can be better than the people in point 3 by believing in evolution.
5. That this bigotry is acceptable as a necessary part of science.
In other words we are discussing whether science and evolutionary theory makes all these claims the teachers make, and whether teachers making these claims and doing these things is necessary to teaching the theory (ie it’s part of evolutionary theory itself). If the answer is no to all of the above then the bigotry is wrong and should be stopped. Point being you seem to ignore all these questions in favour of discussing other issues. It would be pertinent to actually address them.
9.I would identify as “Christian” anyone who sincerely regards themselves to be Christian. Catholics–and I was raised as one, so I should know–therefore fit the bill nicely. Over to you.
Couple of issues here. Obviously someone is not a Christian simply because they claim to be. I mean after all someone who goes around killing Christians is not a Christian just because they say they are, in fact their actions clearly indicate they are not. That said someone who says they are a Christian may well be one, but that’s it, may, it’s not automatically the case. Also the Bible makes clear that being a Christian, and what we will be judged on, is a matter of our own personal faith, not that of our parents, or what we were raised as, or how many times we went to a church or anything else. That is why the fact that i was not raised in any Christian way, and that many of my friends were, is of no relevance to whether any of us is a Christian. The only relevance to that is each of our personal faith, not that of religious tradition or our parents.
So now back to you, please explain why do you ‘obviously disagree’ and think Catholicism is Christianity?
10. Now, in your view, does the Bible deal in “truth”, or does it deal in “facts?”- I’ll answer that question for you when you define to me what you see as truth and facts and the difference between the two. This may be my error, but in reading your post repeatedly i can’t find you making a reference to this. So if you could define it then i will be happy to have a crack at answering the question.
11. It’s ok Ian, it’s long so you don’t have to read it. Sleep easy in the knowledge that AV’s doing a great job in your absence.
Apologies to Robert Corr–we’re not really trying to hijack your blog . . .
Wombat:
Because the course material, the classroom materials, the theory of evolution, are not bigots, the people that teach them are, and they impart their own bigotry on science that has none to start with. After all if the actual curriculum had bigotry in it i like to think it wouldn’t even make it past the review stage of the education boards in each state. But as to you wanting evidence, well any day you come to my uni i’ll be more than happy to take you around and show you exactly what i’m talking about, as will any likeminded student on just about any uni campus across australia.
See–this is the problem. If you were talking about a couple of isolated incidents, involving a couple of isolated teachers, within the limitations of your own experience, then that’s fine. I would be prepared to consider the possibility that you and some of your friends have encountered religious bigotry from a couple of dodgy science teachers, and that it might be more than a simple case of you taking something they’ve said the wrong way. What I would wonder, in that case, is why you and your friends haven’t stopped whinging and actually tried to do something about these teachers–surely there are mechanisms in place at your university for reporting teachers who are behaving improperly or unethically, and it puzzles me why you haven’t used them.
Your contention, however, is that science teachers across Australia exercise bigotry in their teaching as a matter of course. Given that all you have to go on is your own experience and that of a few likeminded friends (there are many university campuses and high schools in Australia, Wombat–you must a lot of “likeminded friends” in a lot of places!), you are simply in no position to level such an allegation. Hence, my call–and a reasonable one, at that–for something more substantial by way of evidence.
‘Most mainstream museums consider creationism to be something of a joke, akin to believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden.’ He goes on to outline the creationist viewpoint and the objection the science lobby is having to ‘non science’ views on the subject matter of evolution. Now what this does is reminds us that most people in the science community think creationism, and any other belief not supported by science, to be a joke.
But creationism–the kind of creationism targeted by the mainstream museums in that quote, the kind of creationism represented by Ken Ham and Thomas Sharp in that Lateline story–tries to pass itself off as a legitimate science. And to that extent, it is a joke, and it is akin to believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden. That’s not bigotry, by the way–it’s a fact. You yourself have indicated that you don’t think creationism is supported by science (you don’t, do you?).
Most independent unbiased people would say these facts and the likelihood of this bigotry be
Rob, I’m glad you have finally been touched by His noodly appendage.
I was touched a while ago…
Ramen to that.
So Rob, you’re the Pasta for this particular congregration, preaching the gnocchi gospel?
I particularly like the Chapter of Ravioliations!
I’m agnottistic
There’s a church for sale a few blocks from my house. Everytime I walk by it, I think “I want to buy that and make it the First Unite Church of the Flying Speghetti Monster.”
“Flying Speghetti Monster.�?
It’s spaghetti you heretic. Damn, schisms appearing already. This does not bode well.
there’s a case on at the moment with folks in the US trying to ban the teaching of ID in schools, could this also affect FSM? we want our freedoms respected too, dammit! boo to the separation of nonsense from the state!
Wow, good times guys! I am ‘down’ with the spaghetti monster.
“Speghetti” is the spelling for gnocchistic sects. It’s a sly dig at the noodly aspects.
Cool Does anybody else have waking-nightmare flashbacks of Old Ones when dabbling with the Spaghettio?
Yah Fyodor, tis the rumoured that Lovecraft was an early convert…
The IDers have brought out their own computer game, too. You get to play a DI (Discovery Institute) think-tank shooting down falling pandas. I’m not really certain what their point is, but I suppose they’re attempting to “parody” how they have been represented by their opponents.
But it doesn’t work. For one thing, as many have pointed out, the pandas eventually win. And the game has this crappy techno soundtrack punctuated by this annoying chipmunk voice reciting so-called anti-ID “mantras”–one of which goes something like “Intelligent Design is just creationism in a cheap tuxedo.”
Well, as it turns out…
(Apologies for my poor command of tags . . .)
Perhaps the pandas are falling due to Intelligent Falling, AV?
Panda’s Thumb has great coverage of the current court case. Fascinating stuff.
No worries about the formatting — I fixed it for you. Instead of
try
Grazie, Roberto.
Mike Argento’s columns in the York Daily Record’s coverage of the case are worth a read, also.
boo for the er….combination of….with um…unexplainable big bang that started everything yet everything requires a positor and it has no positor….that crap with real world views…..and er one that doesn’t feed ‘we’re better than you logic people’ and you’re all wrong. Fortunately in it’s recent attempt to pin that on my Christian group, or uni union has just wasted all it’s money and shown itself to be insane to the entire student population. Obviously a great indication of all the prejudice that the science lobby teaches and where it sends the minds of people. But hey i won’t tell you not to do that science people, coz you’re better than me, right?
How dare the Science Lobby™ suggest that we ought to teach science in science classes. Like you, I am outraged that a self-contradictory collection of fairy stories unsupported by the evidence is no longer at the core of our scientific study. That is why I support the introduction of FSMism into the curriculum. People need to learn about the pasta positor.
Ahhh…
Welcome back, Wombat.
Thanks Ian. Oh and btw Robert you dont need to signpost your outrage since you’re always outraged, i know it (on many topics, IR for example, i quite welcome). Btw dibo you must have made a mistake in your post, the catalyst program i watched last week clearly said the US, with the President’s support, are trying to get ID taught in schools, not ban it.
Oh and just for the record of anyone who cares, the whole fairy argument is why i want stuff like ID and many other theories taught. Contrary to poular belief it aint to push my Christian barrow, as someone who spent most of his school life as an atheist and was taught evolution in schools, i’ve had first hand experience that teaching creationism or anything different to evolution very rarely in and of itself makes people believe in it. So in fact until i got to uni i didn’t care squat for having anything other than evolution taught at schools and unis. What happened? Well when i started uni, and meeting and talking to people, i discovered how bigoted (with a few excpetions granted) those teaching science, and many science students are. What they do, is not actually teach people evolution and say this is a theory about how the world started, the one supported by most scientists, here’s the evidence they put forward to it, they say look, here’s the evolution theory, it’s the only science one, there are other theories about how the world was created, but they’re all fairy stories (and btw i didn’t make ‘fairy stories’ myself, it was given in a lecture, exactly what i’m saying). It’s why when i talk with a scientist, and don’t debate the theory of evolution or creation or anything else, but merely point out that evolution is a belief, they are shocked and get angry. Why? Because they’re taught that the foundation of their belief in evolution is that it’s logical, that they are logical, the smart ones, the best ones, for believing in it, not those ‘fairy story’ people. In other words it shatters the foundation of their bigotry. Now i don’t blame the students, as if you’re taught bigotry you’re likely to adopt it. But it’s exactly why i want to see ID, and for that matter many other world view theories, religious and otherwise taught in science faculties, because it would force those bigoted staff to accept that believing in evolution does not make them better than anyone else, and they do not have an exclusive monopoly, intelligence or otherwise, on theories about how the world came to be and what people believe about them. It would force them to teach theories, not bigotry. That for the record is my position and reasoning for it, and something i would think even atheists support, because bigotry just ain’t on, whatever you believe. Oh and btw Rob, you’ll be pleased to know there was a landslide vote against the su at the recent elections and they are now gone, mainly because people were sick of their misappropriation of money. And most of those who voted them out were atheists:-)
Wombat
I would happily accept the teaching of ID in science classes if there was any evidence to support it. But there isn’t, so ID can fuck off and come back when it’s supported by something other than blind faith.
Isn’t really the point though is it Robert? And even if it were, it might be appropriate, if, and i stress if, scientists didn’t apply it to every other possible view on the subject matter that evolution deals with. But they do, don’t they? It’s evolution or bust for them, just more of the bigotry i’m talking about. Like i’ve said heaps, my position really has very little to do with ID (coz my position is in relation to pretty much every view on how the world came into existence), it has far more to do with scientists needing to accept they can’t teach the subject matter with bigotry. Point being even if ID and other theories aren’t scientifically backed up, it’s irrelevant. Why? coz like evolution, they’re theories. The point of presenting them is to allow people to assess their voracity or lack thereof and make up their own minds. In essence the way evolution in science is now taught is totalitarianism without guns. Let me put it this way, i might, and i stress might, be ok with evolution being the only existence of the world theory being taught in science classes, IF i could find one scientist who could teach evolution as a theory rather than absolute fact, and without imparting to their students bigotry towards every other theory on the subject matter. The fact is you won’t find such a person Robert, because that sort of person doesn’t exist, and i know enough evolutionary scientists to know that’s the truth. And that, is the issue, not ID or anything else. But as usual the scientists would rather heap mud at everyone else than deal with the problems in their own backyard.
But evolution is is more than a theory, it is a science. The basis of evolution, things like natural selection and mutations, are scientific fact. The only reason anyone is worried about bird flu at the moment is if it mutates. On the other hand, it is not scientific fact that a variety of God, Flying Spaghetti Monster or otherwise, is causing these things to occur. Evolution is a sciencific theory and ID is a religious theory. One belongs in science classes, the other belongs in religion classes.
Wombat, ID is not a theory. It’s barely a hypothesis.
Science and religion are just two very different discourses—ways of knowing—that are never, ever going to get along with each other. Each one would like to fully convert the other, but neither one is prepared to consider giving even an inch to the other. It’s not really surprising when you think about it.
When Science hears the word “faith”, it reaches for its laser. I don’t think anything defines Science so much as what it rejects first and foremost. That same thing, however, is the foundation of Religion. Although a scientist might become a born-again Christian, or a Christian might renounce his or her faith after taking a science class, these are examples of individuals converting, not the discourse converting. To convert a discourse you’d have to beat it by its own rules. Science doesn’t know how to play by Religion’s rules. Science can’t make a case for itself while talking in terms of faith. And Religion can’t sell itself without saying the F-word (that’s “faith”, you understand).
Giving Religion a soapbox on Science’s territory won’t achieve anything. Giving Science a soapbox on Religion’s territory won’t achieve anything either. Just give them both their own space and make them both freely available to everyone. People can make their own minds up and consciously vote for one of the two discourses. The worst thing would be for someone to pick Religion thinking it was Science or to pick Science thinking it was Religion.
(Sorry, one of my units at university is Cultures, Identities & Texts and we’ve been talking about discourse for most of this semester. Writing this post has certainly helped me to better understand the unit’s concepts, but I don’t know if it’s been useful for anyone else or not. Ah, well.)
What’s sort of chucklingly ironic, is that i agree with what most of you have said, and while you’ve raised relevant issues you’ve totally wasted your time by failing to identify the issue that i was talking about, and paint your views on that. That’s self evidence in that what i was discussing, and seeking to raise discussion on, on had zippo to do with whether ID’s science or religion, or how or why we would try to prove one against the other, etc etc. So it would be welcomed if people would actually read a post i make before they respond to it, lest they not even bother to discuss the issue at hand. But that grumble aside i’ll be nice by addressing what i thought of what you guys said;
Stuart-of course evolution’s a science, i think what you have showed in how you approach the issue is you think that science and theories cannot co-exist and therefore science is absolute and theory has nothing to do with science. Which is of course laughable because pretty much all of science starts and goes through a process of theories being developed which are then examined and commented on etc etc. My point, of course evolution’s a science, but it’s a science theory. Which of course makes a mockery of what some people are trying to say about separating ‘religion’ and ’science’ because evolution’s a theory, just as any other theory on the same subject is a theory.
Robert-personally, i don’t think much of ID’s science, so i’m not going to bother attempting to analyse whether it’s a theory, hypothesis, or anything else. As i have said, my thoughts on the issue hang entirely on the fact that because i know that evolution deals with an issue (ie subject matter) of which is belief. Now the belief doesn’t necssarily have to be religious, but what it is is people making up their own minds on what they choose to believe, not bigots doing it for them. The point i made Robert, is although they miss the point, if the attitude of evolutionary scientists was just towards ID it MIGHT be acceptable (providing they articulated reasons that are assessable not just rage) because it would demonstrate they thought ID was not acceptable within the range of theories to be taught on the subject matter. The problem with evolutionary scientist’s position is that it’s not just in relation to ID, it’s in relation to everything. In other words they would like to live by a doctrine of absolutism which considers teaching nothing other than evolution acceptable, which is a key demonsrator of their bigotry.
Ian-i agree with your statement ‘Just give them both their own space and make them both freely available to everyone.’ Now i don’t agree with it in terms of boxing such ideas as ’science’ or ‘religion’ as i think there’s no need nor real purpose to doing this. I agree with it in the context of all of the theories on the subject matter evolution deals with though. The problem is as i said to Rob, the way evolutionary science is taught is dictatroship as it refuses to give airspace to anything else. And even if it did, to teach evolution to your students in such a way that you communicate a belief that they can be better people, logical and well informed, as a pose to ‘fairy story believing people.’ As i’ve said, my problem is not with evolution being taught, it’s with the way it’s taught. In other words not only do science (in schools and unviersities) teach only evolution, but they bring people into their fold, not by presenting evolution as a theory which is the most plausible of all on the subject matter and therefore should be believed, but by blatant bigotry and belief racism. After all, if your science professor tells you you can be a better person than millions of others (who he characterises as insane fairy story believing people) simply by believing in evolution, i think that’s a fairly attractive carrot for most impressionable people to deal with it. But it’s blantant bigotry and racism, and it’s not acceptable under any circumstances, period. Which of course is why it’snot justifiable even if evolution was true and was the only credible theory on the subject matter, which is why you should now see all of what you have all posted, while nice to read, actually has nothing to do with the issue i was discussing. Hence in future if i can respond to the issues other’s raise, i expect those same others to address the issues i raise.
Wombat.
Perhaps if your comments were more concise we’d be better able to recognise exactly what you want us to respond to.
I agree that science is based in a belief in empiricism and the scientific method, etc, and that point was made quite well in my high school science classes (though I can’t comment about others). But the appropriate forum to discuss other belief systems is in philosophy/religion classes, which should take you through a history of philosophical thought, explaining different versions and pointing out the pros and cons of each. I have no objection to that.
But you seem to be saying that in our science classes we should be debating metaphysics. I dispute that. I think it should be taught, but not in science (perhaps apart from pointing out that there are issues that will be discussed in philosophy).
Happy now?
Rob, point granted, though on the other hand i would’ve thought if one read through my post(s) the issue i was discussing was fairly obvious…i haven’t deliberately tried to make it difficult to decipher or anything. I certainly agree that a wide section of theories on the subject matter canvassed by evolution should be taught and students should be exposed to more than just one theory. So long as it happens i don’t think it really matters so much which class it’s in…though that would be an interesting subject to think about. What i was really wanting people to discuss…particularly because i know there are a few here involved with the science community…is why does the science community continue to teach evolution with bigotry rather than just trusting it’s facts to make students adopt it? and why does so much of that community, and wider people for that matter, consider such bigotry in this acceptable? Because so many people seem to be saying to me they think it’s acceptable because they think the facts support only evolution…and i’ve pointed out to them that even if this were the case it wouldn’t justify it. Anyways people display your views on that if you feel so inclined. And i wasn’t to my knowledge aware that i was advocating metaphysics.
Wombat.
Ian: I taught CIT for a few semesters a couple of years ago.
Wombat: the science community merely demands that for something to count as good science, it must be grounded in the scientific method and it must be supported by evidence. This applies to all of the natural and physical sciences, not just biology. And you don’t lay the groundwork for future good science by teaching pseudocience alongside bona fide science in the classroom and leaving students to “make up their own minds.” This would do those students a grave disservice. None of this is “bigotry”–unless you would also count as “bigotry” the exclusion of astrology and water divination from the science classroom.
By the way: have you all heard about this?
Yeah. I think the Daily Flute is on the money.
Hmm. A former CIT teacher read my little piece and didn’t tell me if I was on the right track or not. That has to be ominous, right?
Oh, and a question for Wombat. Would it be OK if the science-minded people said, “Creationists believe in fairy stories, but that in itself doesn’t make them any less worthy as human beings than you or I”?
“God said it. I believe it. That settles it.”
Ian: I do think you’re on the right track, but I have some reservations. First, I would argue that while religions are certainly in the business of converting, that doesn’t necessarily mean that scientists are. Science doesn’t care whether you believe in God (and won’t attempt to stop you from doing so), because the question of God’s existence lies outside the purview of science: which is concerned only with the natural and physical universe–about which it makes no capital-T truth-claims, by the way, only claims of fact supported by evidence, and subject to change upon the discovery of new evidence.
From the p.o.v. of science, science and faith have discrete fields of operation (the natural and physical for science; the supernatural and metaphysical for faith); from the p.o.v. of faith–and let’s face it, we’re really only talking about that minority of religions classified as fundamentalist or evangelical–there is no such demarcation. Hence, in the battle for people’s souls (which must be waged in the science classroom–and the maths classroom, and the English classroom, and the social studies classroom, etc.–as fervently as it is in the religious studies classroom), faith sees science as a rival, and a rival to be crushed (or at least bent to its will). Can science be “beaten by its own rules?” Of course–the IDists and creationists are trying to do this all the time. On the one hand, they tacitly accept the rules that make science “science” by insisting that their own theories qualify on such terms; on the other hand, they insist that the rules themselves be rewritten.
Must one have to choose between science and religion? No–not if you accept that these discrete ways of knowing have discrete fields of enquiry. If you accept that, then science and faith can co-exist peacefully: a person can accept evolution and yet still consider him or herself a Christian.
Firstly AV, i have to say in your first post, you’re either being horribly naive, you’re really not good at reading comments and identifying the issues within them, or you’re disappointingly being deliberately evasive. Thus your post becomes irrelevant as as i’ve said, the issue i’m discussing is the way evolution is taught, not creationism or any other world theory. Hence having a discussion about the ‘creationism passing the test of science or not’ thing is irrelevant, particularly as even if creationism and other world theories are not science, and therefore only evolution is taught, that doesn’t justify it being taught with bigotry. But of course you’ve missed that point, as it’s more convenient for you to.
Ian-thanks for the question. It would to some degree be better, better than the use of bigotry i was referring to, although i still know the use of the words ‘fairy stories’ in the way science teachers do is clearly bigotry and meant to hook people into supporting evolution as such. What i consider acceptable is evolution to be taught in such a way that says, ‘look this is the theory on how the world came into existence that most people support, here’s what it’s about, here’s the evidence for and against, now go and make up your own mind.’ The reality is science doesn’t do that. Hence i’d consider what they do wrong whether the prejudice was towards any world view dealing with this subject, not just creation. Because when you say to someone look evolution’s logic, factual, and all the other views on this topic are just crazy fair stories that illogical people believe in, so why would you be illogical when you can be a logical, rational person instead by supporting evolution? you’re clearly being a bigot, both in how you view people with a different view to yours…but clearly using that bigotry and prejudice to try and hook people in to support your view. Now i am paraphrasing, but i have had that paraphrase said to me by several science educators who teach evolutionary theory to their students.
To me it’s not only wrong, but scary that people are teaching young impressionable minds this way, not only because they are biasing them towards supporting a view that while impressive on the surface clearly has holes in it…but far more so because they are teaching their students bigotry, bias, intolerance, prejudice and to view others as lower than themselves…things i would have thought we would all be shocked at and ahbor…regardless of what forum they were taught to people in. As i’ve said repeatedly…what also shocks me as much as that people, particularly within the science community stand by and by their silence seem to condone this practice. So i’d like to hear people’s views on why they consider such bigotry in statements and teaching acceptable, or why they don’t (and you didn’t address that AV, and that was clearly the topic of discussion).
Anyways i know it’s another topic, but AV i have to ask about the statement ’science and faith can co-exist peacefully: a person can accept evolution and yet still consider him or herself a Christian’. Is that your view or someone else’s? Why do you believe this to be true? As far as i understand it and work through it, to believe the Bible you have to believe God created the world. Not only because if he is not the creator then he does not have the power of an Almighty that the Bible consistently claims and the ability to be able to deliver on the promsies he makes. Not only that, but if God were not the creator why would anyone believe in the Bible? After all if he were not it would not only make a mockery of Genesis, but mean there are no benefits to believing in God and none from not doing so (ie revelation). As far as i am concerned, to be a Christian you have to believe God is the creator the world, and thus you can’t be a Christian if you believe evolution to be true. But i’m happy to hear and discuss other’s views on the subject.
Wombat:
How can one be a Christian and yet accept evolution? It’s simple, really: evolution has nothing to say on the question of who created the world. It’s a theory about the origin of species, not the origin of the universe. But don’t take my word for it: ask the majority of non-biblical-literalist Christians (who, not being biblical literalists, might not count as Christians to you, but I’m not governed by your definition of “Christian”)–starting with the former Pope.
And I haven’t “missed” your claim that evolution is taught “with bigotry”: I’ve rejected it. For reasons I’ve already stated: for something to count as good science, it must be grounded in the scientific method and it must be supported by evidence. That might be inconvenient for creationism–insofars as it means that creationism, which is neither supported by evidence nor follows the scientific method (i.e. creationism presupposes its conclusions–namely, Scripture–and then looks for “evidence” to support them, which is the inverse of the way science is supposed to be done), doesn’t get a look-in on science curricula–but it does not constitute bigotry. Evolution is taught in the science classroom because it is supported by the evidence–well-supported–and because its conclusions are reached via the scientific method. And this doesn’t count as bigotry, either. Nor is it prejudice. Nor is it . . . erm . . . “belief racism” (lol).
No-one here or in the science community, as far as I can tell, finds the kind of “bigotry” you’re talking about acceptable. If a science teacher makes fun of you because of your religious beliefs, he or she is a bad teacher. If the science that the science teacher is teaching you happens to offend your religious beliefs–I’m sorry, but that’s just something you have to come to terms with. In this circumstance, the facts (as tenuous as they are in science) are in conflict with your own personal worldview–but that doesn’t mean that the facts should be censored so as to placate your religious beliefs. Teaching the facts (i.e. teaching that which is supported by evidence) does not constitute bigotry.
You say: “What i consider acceptable is evolution to be taught in such a way that says, ‘look this is the theory on how the world came into existence that most people support, here’s what it’s about, here’s the evidence for and against, now go and make up your own mind.’” Make up their minds? Is there an alternative credible scientific theory to evolution? What is it?
AV, to address your points;
Evolution may not as you claim it specifically deal with who created the world, but the Bible doesn’t just deal with this either. Ie Genesis doesn’t deal just with that God created a world and put people on it, but all that he put on it, and you’ll find the latter point deals with species, much as evolution does. The difference of course is that the Bible and evolution state that they came to be by different means, therefore the two theories are in conflict with each other. Now you are right to say not all Christians take creation as it is presented in the Bible literally, and i don’t consider them any less Christians, in fact many are my friends. However at it’s most basic level all Christians tend to agree that God created the world, they only disagree on the means by which he did it. Now this may in some senses leave room for these differences without contradictions between the theories, however the key is that evolution, by the fact of matter appearing without causation comes into conflict with Christianity, because Christians believe God created the world not only because the Bible tells us he did, but because for the earth to come to be there had to be matter, and that matter had to have causation, which is of course one of the reasons for a belief in a designer. In fact i know a few friends both from within the science community and outside who have become Christians for that reason.
And as regards to your rejection claim, you may have done so but you have done so in your mind, you have not addressed the issue and that is the point. And thats evidenced by that you claim you find such ‘bigotry’ unacceptable, yet you’ve not bothered to explain to the rest of us why it is then occurring. But hopefully you shall given the opportunity. Now i know by the paragraph you’ve written here you have not read or interpreted my post and responded to it, as as i clearly said ‘ i’m discussing is the way evolution is taught.’ Thus i’m not talking about the teaching of evolution and not other theories, i’m talking about the WAY it is taught, and that WAY has nothing to do with the science of evolution, but in the way it is presented and made attractive to students. In your next post attempt to address that, because it’s the issue.
Let’s also get something straight you’ve ignored, the issue has zip to do with my being offended or lack thereof. Firstly i don’t take offence, as a Christian anywhere, let alone among the science and university communities, you become desensitised to offence. Secondly and more importantly, the bigotry i’m discussing is displayed towards all beliefs, not just Christianity. Why? In the presenting of evolutionary theory, evolution is not presented as theory, it is presented as empirical fact. Furthermore it is presented to students that by believing in evolution you are a better person that everyone who does not believe in these so called facts. Thus the educator is presenting bigotry towards Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, and any other belief, religious or otherwise. And no i don’t have to come to terms with it, society does. For example one of the key reasons the Holocaust occurred was because the people were taught that only the Aryans could be a ‘pure’ race and thus the Jews must be eliminated. Now they weren’t taught that they could or should believe in it, they were taught it was fact. Now i’m not for a minute suggesting any evolutionists do or would behave in such abhorrent exteremes. What i am doing is illustrating how when left unchecked, how destructive bigotry can be, and can be to a whole society, not just groups. This is why bigotry is the concern of all of us, regardless of our beliefs, now you may bury your head in the sand AV, but i’d like to think that other people would have more concern for the consequences of denial rather than living in it.
Teaching someone that you are a better person by believing one theory than people who believe other theories on the subject matter, is clearly belief racism, clearly bigotry and has to be addressed. And unlike what you think, the facts do not need to be censored because the facts do not contain bigotry, the people presenting them and the way they present them do, and this is occurring, This is why you like many people defend what is going on by justifying the teaching of evolution on a science basis and thinks this deals with it. However it does not, because even if the facts jutsify teaching evolution and only evolution (which they may do) this does not justify teaching them with bigotry, bigotry which the facts do not contain, and does not have to be presented in order to present the facts, so is only presented to bias and pervert the hearers.
Whether there is an alternate theory to evolution, is irrelevant, first to the bigotry it is taught with, and secondly to people’s right to not believe evolution, and believe in alternatives. This why when i talk to people i know and simply state their belief in evolution is a belief (and don’t even challenge it, just say this) they get angry and even try and go phsyical in some cases, as they are not taught evolution is a belief, they are taught it’s empirical fact, and that belief in this fact makes them better than others, and like most people this power attract them, so when the source of that power is questioned, they get angry. The facts are, none of us were around when the world is created, so regardless of whether science justifies evolution or not, any view we adopt on how the world came to be, evolution or otherwise will be at least in some part a belief. Thus it transcends science, and people have the right to believe whatever they want, in support of or regardless of science, and any moves to say otherwise, and class people’s worth according to where they sit on that, is clear and pure bigotry. And the facts are, it is getting more widespread as i have heard from more and more friends it is happening, and more and more people are expressing their concern about it. And i can tell you from experience, most of those are atheists, who think evolution is right but know that does not justify the bigotry, and are concerned about tarred with that brush on account of those behaviours of their colleagues. It is something we should all be concerned with.
Wombat.
(Sigh.)
Wombat, you’re beginning to sound like a broken record, you know. You repeat your claim that “evolution is being taught with bigotry” again and again, without providing any concrete evidence of this, and yet you wonder why I reject your claim–which means that I reject the fact that it is occurring, at least on a systemic basis. Can you point to something in the Education Department curriculum documents that demonstrates this “bigotry?” Have there been studies conducted into the teaching of science in WA schools, or Australian schools, that illustrate your assertions? (I’ve never known science to be taught with bigotry, so in your next post I want to see your claims–regarding the WAY science is taught–backed up by some hard evidence. Hard evidence, mind you, not anecdote or hearsay.) And does this “bigotry” you’re talking about simply lie in the fact that non-scientific ideas on life, the universe and everything simply don’t get a look-in in the science classroom–or are you talking about something else? You haven’t been clear on this point.
Onto your other points:
1. Does a literal reading of Genesis conflict with modern cosmology and evolutionary theory? Of course it does. But so what? The Bible isn’t a science textbook–and you don’t have to accept that it is in order to be a Christian. And neither modern cosmology, nor evolutionary theory, nor anything else in science has anything to say whatsoever on the topic of ultimate causation.
2. Evolution is a theory presented as empirical fact because . . . (drum roll, please) . . . it is a fact. It is a scientific theory–”an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers”–well-supported by the evidence. See Claim CA201 (Talk.Origins).
3. In what way is evolution presented to students such that they will believe they are better people than those who don’t? “Better” in what sense? Again, I want to see some hard evidence, please. Like I said: a science teacher who ridicules you for your personal beliefs is a bad teacher. But if your self-esteem issues arise from the shortfall between your personal beliefs and scientific fact–that’s your own problem, not society’s. Console yourself with the possibility that it’s all in your head. Science teachers shouldn’t have to walk on eggshells in the process of carrying out their duties as science teachers (first and foremost of which, I would have thought, is to teach science–regardless of whether it clashes or appears to clash with some people’s personal religious beliefs).
4. Evolution is not a theory of “how the world came to be.”
5. “The facts are, none of us were around when the world is created, so regardless of whether science justifies evolution or not, any view we adopt on how the world came to be, evolution or otherwise will be at least in some part a belief.”
Further to Wombat’s claim that evolution is incompatible with Christianity: “Vatican: Faithful should listen to science.”
AV, i’m not a broken record, unfortunately it appears that you just don’t read my post before asking questions that have already been answered *sighs.* But anyway i’ll address your points;
As to your need for evidence, thats easy, come to my uni, and spend a day or two in first year science lectures and tutes, in fact do so at many of the other unis with the same problem. If you want more ‘hard’ evidence, simply ask the educators in those places as to their view of evolutionary theory, and particularly how they teach it to their stduents, and how and what benefits they advise their students result from believing in evolution. See it’s the best evidence because instead of taking my ‘hearsay’ as you call it, you can get the evidence first hand. Opportunity is there, it is up to you what you do with it, just don’t complain to me about evidence if you don’t want to do what can be done to verify it.
As i’ve repeatedly made clear, i don’t see any bigotry in teaching evolution or only evolution in science classrooms. I see bigotry however in trying to hook your students in with the power carrot by telling them the key benefit of believing in evolutionary theory is that it makes you better than every other member of society who does not, and the interactional problems that will create in society once we have millions of people trained to act with and believe in that sort of bigotry. My point that i am addressing is quite clear, and i’m not going to continue to point out what my point is, because honestly it’s quite easy to understand.
As to the points;
1. Let me ask you then, if someone is a Christian but their faith and it’s outworking is not based on the contents of the bible, then what is it based on? The reality it is impossible to be a Christian without the Bible because answers to your questions as to what is a christian? what does it mean to be a christian? is christianity about faith or works? what does living as a Christian involve? what is promised to those who are faithful servants of God? etc etc and many other questions, the answers will be found in their most pure form, and often exclusively (ie people have written books about the bible, but only the bible has the entire body of the source material they’re discussing) from the Bible. So if you don’t believe the Bible to be true, you cannot answer these questions from it, and without them you can’t possibly even start to be or live as a Christian. Now given the Bible is essentially systematic (ie everything builds on the ‘blocks’ as it were from Genesis) if you believe in a theory that contradicts Genesis then it’s hard to see how you could believe in any of the rest of the Bible. Therefore it would be hard to see anyone being a Christian if you believe in evolution, particularly because if you suuport a theory that does contradict Genesis, then it’s clear you don’t believe Genesis to be true, in which case why would you believe anything else in the Bible is true? But i am certainly willing to discuss it, i’m interested to hear views, particularly from people who claim to be Christians believing in evolution.
2. Your use of the words ‘observations’ ‘hypotheses’ and ‘well supported by the facts’ clearly shows evolution is not absolute empirical fact, as if it were none of this such stuff would be needed. The reality is evolution is not empirical fact because much of it’s theory is questionable at best. However even if it were not, the reality is without clear irrefutable evidence (ie physical) evolution cannot truthfully claim to be absolute fact. The ‘well supported by the facts’ simply means that given what we know of how the world formed and came to be, evolutionary theory fits these pieces together better than any other theory on the subject. This does not mean it is absolutely correct, it simply means that at least in science terms, it is the best of what’s available. And that does not equal empirical fact.
3.I’m offended by you raising ’self esteem issues’ as you quite clearly know there are none, so you’re trying to be 1) condescending and 2) distract from discussing the actual issue. But i won’t stoop to your level. Now i have time and time again explained the issue i have raised. but one last indented time since you obviously keep not reading it, here goes;
‘Because when you say to someone look evolution’s logic, factual, and all the other views on this topic are just crazy fair stories that illogical people believe in, so why would you be illogical when you can be a logical, rational person instead by supporting evolution? you’re clearly being a bigot, both in how you view people with a different view to yours…but clearly using that bigotry and prejudice to try and hook people in to support your view. Now i am paraphrasing, but i have had that paraphrase said to me by several science educators who teach evolutionary theory to their students.’
And as to empirical evidence, this is in that i am not the only person to have heard such teachings, and it has been heard at different universities and other educational insititutions with different educators. Like i said, if you’re so convinced it isn’t a true claim, go to the source location of the claim. If i’m wrong you’ll quickly prove me so, if on the other hand i’m right about what is occurring you’ll find out.
Science teachers shouldn’t have to walk on eggshells, but being a bigot is not an accidental thing. It is so deliberate, intended to bias, pervert and hook people in, and based on one’s own wrong discriminatory views that no science educator can justify having it teaching it, particularly because the science and the theory has no bigotry (because as you said, science doesn’t care for people’s beliefs, so if you tell your students they will become great people for believing in evolutionary theory, and others are less for not believing it, this clearly comes from your personal views, not the curricula, so it has no place in a classroom).
4.Then what is evolution. After all evolution’s purpose may not be ‘how the world came to be’ (after all there’s no person behind the theory to investigate their purpose from) but this is the subject matter it deals with, so it is rightly discussed as a theory about that.
5.That wasn’t a question, so for what purpose are you using re-quotes and red highlightings. I don’t answer non existent questions, only ones that are asked.
6.As to the vatican thing, i know many people do not realise this, but Catholicism is not Christianity. Of course there are Catholics who are Christians (and also ones who are not) but Catholicism in and of itself is not Christianity. So you haven’t chosen an appropriate source for the supposed evidence, that said i’ll read it when i have time and respond to it if it warrants doing so.
Nope: this doesn’t cut it. You might have had such experiences (though I can’t for the life of me think why), or you might believe that you have had such experiences. I might sit in on one of your science lectures (at which university, incidentally?) and not perceive this “bigotry” you’re talking about–indeed, I don’t expect to. But you’re claiming that this “bigotry” is widespread, and that requires something far more substantial by way of evidence–which is why I asked whether your information was derived from something like a formal study or survey, or whether, perhaps, you could point to something in a textbook or set reading that supports your assertions. That at least would go some way towards suggesting that “bigotry” is endemic in science education, and not just a matter of your own perception.
And no, there is no onus on me to prove a negative. You’re the one who’s trying to sell us the laughable claim that science educators are “trying to hook their students in with the power carrot by telling them the key benefit of believing in evolutionary theory is that it makes you better than every other member of society who does not”–so the onus is on you to provide us with evidence (hard evidence, mind you) that such is the case. Until you’re prepared to do that, stop whining. And stop accusing us of “condoning bigotry” in the teaching of science.
The question, though, isn’t whether the Bible is “true.” The question is whether the Bible must be read literally–whether one can be considered a Christian if one does not adhere to Biblical literalism, as many Christians don’t.
How so?
Uh . . . yes it does. Insofar as what are considered “facts” in science are dependent upon current knowledge and evidence, and may be overturned upon the discovery of new evidence. Hence, there is a distinction between “fact” and “truth.” Now, in your view, does the Bible deal in “truth”, or does it deal in “facts?”
What seems more likely to me–since you’re not prepared to give us anything more substantial to go on than paraphrase–is that you’re viewing whatever these science teachers may have said to you through the lens of “I’m a Bible-believing Christian, the science I’m presented with in the science classroom contradicts my personal religious beliefs, ergo I’m being oppressed!” In the context of the science classroom, nonscientific theories such as Biblical creationism are–to all intents and purposes–”fairy stories.” But that is no insult–it simply means that they can’t be considered scientific theories since they don’t follow the scientific method and they aren’t supported by the evidence.
“Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time. These changes are produced at the genetic level as organisms’ genes mutate and/or recombine in different ways during reproduction and are passed on to future generations. Sometimes, individuals inherit new characteristics that give them a survival and reproductive advantage in their local environments; these characteristics tend to increase in frequency in the population, while those that are disadvantageous decrease in frequency. This process of differential survival and reproduction is known as natural selection. Non-genetic changes that occur during an organism’s life span, such as increases in muscle mass due to exercise and diet, cannot be passed on to the next generation and are not examples of evolution.”
Nope. Nothing in there about how the world came to be.
See those “red highlightings?” Here’s something you can try at home. Hover your cursor over the red highlightings. Woo-hoo! It changed into a pointing finger!! Yes, Wombat: they’re called “hyperlinks.”
Says you. Obviously I disgree. Why doesn’t Catholicism count as Christianity, in your view?
This AV fellow has stamina.
By the way, AV, thanks for the assessment of my comment.
Ian: And everything I said in my reply to you, regarding the demarcation between science and religion, has been pretty much confirmed by what Wombat has had to say in his subsequent contributions.
Googling “Intelligent design”
Well AV to respond to your comments;
1. The ‘this doesn’t cut it’ doesn’t cut it either. You can’t be a hypocrit on one hand asking if my claims can be verified and then calling it ‘not good enough’ etc when i clearly explain how it can. Now yes you have the right to ignore what i’ve explained as to how it can be verified but if you choose not to do that then don’t continue to complain about their supposed voracity. The opportunity’s there and it’s clear and it’s up to you what you do with it, and regardless i won’t be losing any sleep over it.
2. As to your calls for evidence that it is ‘not of my own perception’ is the fact that it is an issue that has been raised with me by people in other campuses and other states, so their experiences clearly can’t be based on mine or anyone else’s perception. Furthermore part of how i’ve verified the things i’ve heard in lectures that i’ve found disturbing is to go out and talk to random people. Now one good example i can give you is when i do that, one of the things i do within a conversation is ask people why they believe in evolution and point out it’s a belief. What’s interesting is people are all too willing to explain evolution to me and what they think about it, until i point out that it’s a belief, and then they turn and get angry, in some cases bordering on physical, and pretty much consistently yelling lines to the effect of ‘evolution’s empirical fact, it’s logic, there’s nothing to believe’. Now both the fact that students are thinking like that, and are so intolerant of people challenging their belief which they refuse to accept as a belief, is one clear example of the bigotry that they’re being taught, and adopting. After all AV, go out on any nice day (there;s plenty of students sitting around to talk to-we bludge a lot) and conduct your own straw poll, you’ll find the same things i’m finding. Oh and before you say it, in said conversations i don’t tell people i’m a Christian or mention Christianity, at least not before not they crack it over the ‘belief’ thing.
3. I think you’ll find that i haven’t accussed you of condoning bigotry, i’ve accused the science community and society of that, and the accusations are correct because of the few to nil number of people in a position of knowledge about it prepared to speak out on it. Whether you’re one who condones or not is up to you and your own personal actions, it has nothing to do with what i think or say, so don’t try to pin it on me.
4. If your accusations of “I’m a Bible-believing Christian, the science I’m presented with in the science classroom contradicts my personal religious beliefs, ergo I’m being oppressed!” were right, then i would be against being taught evolution or any other science contrary to Christianity, i’d speak out against it, refuse to listen to people speak of it and campaign for it not to be taught. But i’m saying or thinking no such things. In fact both on and off this site i have long been a proponent of exposing people to all beliefs and viewpoints within teaching science curricula, so get your facts right before making such impossible accusations.
5.The question, though, isn’t whether the Bible is “true.” The question is whether the Bible must be read literally–whether one can be considered a Christian if one does not adhere to Biblical literalism, as many Christians don’t. Yes this is the issue. While in other issues among Christians such as Church teaching, interpretation is an issue, within the issue you raised with me of whether Christians can believe in evolution, the issue is authority. Being if you believe in evolution you reject the authority (truth) of Genesis and thus i fail to see how you can then accept the authority of the rest of the Bible and be a Christian. However according to you, if the question is not the truth of the Bible, then what is it?
7. Uh . . . yes it does. Insofar as what are considered “facts” in science are dependent upon current knowledge and evidence, and may be overturned upon the discovery of new evidence. Hence, there is a distinction between “fact” and “truth.” Now, in your view, does the Bible deal in “truth”, or does it deal in “facts?” Tell me then, if evolution is empirical fact then why does your evidence not say so, instead of giving it the wishy-washy label of ‘well supported by the facts’? Besides, if something can be overturned by new evidence then it never was empirical fact, it was merely the explanation that best fitted and supported the facts at the time, as i was pointing out. So thanks for proving my point for me, much appreciated.
8. Now, in your view, does the Bible deal in “truth”, or does it deal in “facts?”- I’ll answer that question for you when you define to me what you see as truth and facts and the difference between the two.
9.In the context of the science classroom, nonscientific theories such as Biblical creationism are–to all intents and purposes–”fairy stories.” But that is no insult–it simply means that they can’t be considered scientific theories since they don’t follow the scientific method and they aren’t supported by the evidence. Now this is rubbish AV. Your own evidence clearly states that evolution does not deal with beliefs nor care what people believe. So any reference to people’s beliefs by an educator in teaching evolution is not part of the curricula and out of line, and when that reference clearly rips into that belief without investigation, without evidence, without justifiability, and clearly for the purpose of making the theory that is being taught more atttractive, it is bigotry.
10. But that is no insult–it simply means that they can’t be considered scientific theories since they don’t follow the scientific method and they aren’t supported by the evidence. As you’ve repeatedly pointed out religion and beliefs are far different to the domain of science, so even trying to assess them in the lens of science is a very poor and error filled method.
11. If you go and do your research on ‘changes over time’ and the rest of evolutionary theory, you’ll clearly find evolution does deal with how the world came to be, it deals with the ‘evolving’ of humans and the other matter of the earth, which is clearly how it came to be. Don’t know how you missed that page.
12. Don’t go all slagging with your ‘red highlightings’, i spend half my degree building websites and dealing with hyperlinks and other text and images. What i was wondering is;
A. why did you bother structuring it like that when there clearly was no question in your copying?
B. what purpose would the use of hyperlinks serve?
C. and why would you bother to hyperlink to information that doesn’t support the criticisms you’re tying to mount
D. why wouldn’t you instead hyperlink to more of your info that supposedly makes light of my comments regarding evolutionary theory?
But hey go crazy with boring hyperlinks as much as you want.
13.Says you. Obviously I disgree. Why doesn’t Catholicism count as Christianity, in your view? I was thinking the same question, why do you ‘obviously disagree’ and think Catholicism is Christianity? Btw my comments regarding this topic are not about Catholicism ‘counting’ as Christianity, in some weird type of ‘earning’ capacity that you seem to be alluding to. I was simply pointing out to you that Catholicism is not Christianity (ie they are not the same thing). Why do you disagree?
14. Ian, poor Ian. Don’t tell my you’ve got tonsilitis. It’s not like you to let someone else do your work for you, no matter how much ’stamina’ he/she has.
Wombat
Ha!
Much as I would get a kick out of having a servant, Wombat, I think I could find better things for them to be doing than arguing with you about… Well, it’s been carrying on for so long, I’m not even sure what you and AV are arguing about anymore.
No, I think you’ll probably find that AV has taken this upon himself for his own reasons. I was simply observing that he has displayed great persistance so far, but after your latest post I wonder if he might throw in the towel. I mean, the posts are getting longer and longer but you’re not exactly any closer to reaching a consensus. I’m not sure how many people are actually following this debate besides yourselves and me, but I don’t think an awful lot rides upon the outcome (in the extremely unlikely event that one of you concedes, that is).
So, that’s why I’m not saying a lot, Wombat. I don’t think of it as a mission, and there are other things I’d rather be doing.
Holy shit.
Well, for lack of better things to do I’ll happily continue this tete-a-tete with Wombat . . .
But I wasn’t asking if your claims can be verified. I was asking you to verify them–by providing sufficient evidence (e.g. studies, citations from textbooks, syllabi and classroom materials, perhaps even lecture notes, and so on) that your experiences of “bigotry” regarding the teaching of evolution is typical of what goes in the science classroom. You’re the one who’s making that allegation: the onus is on you to back it up.
I mean, I could claim that the science community and society in general are ignoring the oppression of the little green goblins in orbit around Sirius B, but I could hardly expect to be taken seriously if I offered no evidence of such an injustice beyond: “Why don’t you fly to Sirius B and see for yourself?”
Evolution is a “belief” only insofar as the notion that bona fide science seeks natural explanations for natural phenomena (the supernatural being outside its purview) is “just a belief.” This latter belief, however, underlies all of the natural and physical sciences–not just biology. (You yourself accept this belief, tacitly, every time you make the decision to visit your local GP rather than your local parson or witchdoctor to seek treatment for “that bug that’s been going ’round.”) Hence, people believe in evolution only to the extent that they accept that science ought to–and does–seek natural explanations for natural phenomena. And in that case, your real beef is with science–science as it is currently done–rather than evolution per se.
Having said that, I can’t for the life of me imagine why someone would get physically aggressive over a topic such as evolutionary biology.
Hey–the few to nil number of people in a position of knowledge about the oppressed little green goblins in orbit around Sirius B don’t seem prepared to speak about that, either–but you don’t hear me complaining ;)
But what would be the point of, say, presenting creationism alongside evolution in a science classroom (in the spirit of, as you say, “exposing people to all beliefs and viewpoints”) if creationism isn’t a scientific theory? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate, as others in this discussion have suggested, to expose students to different beliefs and viewpoints in a religious studies classroom instead?
The question is whether the Bible must be read literally–whether one can be considered a Christian if one does not adhere to Biblical literalism, as many Christians don’t.
No, Wombat: Genesis is just as subject to interpretation as any other book of the Bible. Hence: the doctrinal differences between Young-Earth Creationists, Old-Earth Creationists, IDists, Theistic Evolutionists.
Why is it “wishy-washy?”
To cite Stephen Jay Gould: “In science “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.” I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.” Does the Bible deal in facts in this sense? (And if so, what is the point of doing science at all?)
Well, I’m looking forward to the evidence of where this occurs systematically in our education system.
Should I have instead argued that religious beliefs are scientific, do follow the scientific method and are supported by the evidence?
I see. Biologists–rather than astrophysicists or geologists–deal with the formation of the Earth. I muist have missed that page, too. Got a hyperlink for me, Mr. I.T. Support?
AV;
1. As for your textbook etc evidence, you should know quite well it is not there in that context as it should not be. Why? Because the course material, the classroom materials, the theory of evolution, are not bigots, the people that teach them are, and they impart their own bigotry on science that has none to start with. After all if the actual curriculum had bigotry in it i like to think it wouldn’t even make it past the review stage of the education boards in each state. But as to you wanting evidence, well any day you come to my uni i’ll be more than happy to take you around and show you exactly what i’m talking about, as will any likeminded student on just about any uni campus across australia. So don’t whinge about the claims not being verified, it is only my job for me to make you aware of the issue, and how you can investigate it and form your own opinion on that, which is what i really would like to acheive with this topic. You’re an adult, it’s not my job to make you decide to find out whether what i am saying is truth or not. I have told you the way to get the answer to that, what you do is up to you.
As to your other points i fortunately was watching lateline last night and they had a piece on evolution vs id. Now i wasn’t planning to discuss it but it had some points very relevant to the issues we have been discussing, so here goes;
As to you denying the bigotry
A.Narrator; ‘Most mainstream museums consider creationism to be something of a joke, akin to believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden.’ He goes on to outline the creationist viewpoint and the objection the science lobby is having to ‘non science’ views on the subject matter of evolution. Now what this does is reminds us that most people in the science community think creationism, and any other belief not supported by science, to be a joke. Thus given those people are teaching people evolution, and these other beliefs have different things to say about the subject matter evolution deals with, it’s not just possible they will not accept this and thus will approach these other views with bigotry in the classroom, it’s highly likely, and it’s exactly what’s happening. Most independent unbiased people would say these facts and the likelihood of this bigotry being true and widespread warrants investigation to find out whether this is the case. But most people don’t. Why? Well i don’t know exactly, but presumably people don’t want to know, they want to think science is taught as it should be and bury their heads in the sand about anything else.
As to you saying evolution does not deal with how the world came to be;
B.Narrator; an overwhelming number of scientist support evolution, the idea that humans evolved from apes, that random mutation and natural selection accounts for the diversity of the species.
Now let’s see, deals with how humans came to be and when, how animals came to be and when, etc etc etc. Pretty much sounds like how huge chunks of the world came to be to me. Now granted the theory of evolution (particularly natural selection) may have other implications, meaning it does not solely deal with how the world came to be, however this is clearly one of the things it deals with. And most scientists, teachers and otherwise that i’ve ever heard say exactly that.
C. As to you saying an evolutionist can also be a Christian and me saying no because they contradict each other and believing in evolution rejects the authority of Genesis and hence much of what follows in scripture;
Thomas Sharp; Evolution as taught by Darwin and his disciples, advances ideas that would deny the reality of the Genesis record of origins, which would automatically undermine the authority of the scripture, which would completely remove the historical foundation for the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
As i have been discussing if you believe in evolution you reject the authority of Genesis, in other words you say it did not happen, and given the creation of all in Genesis and Adam and Eve’s actions were the necessitation and positor for all Jesus was and did in the new testament, if you believe in evolution and hence reject Genesis you also reject all that, so you can’t be a Christian. After all, yes evolution has nothing to say about God himself, however what evolution says is humans, animals etc came to be by a different process than what God says. So what this says, and therefore what any evolutionist believes, is that God is either a liar or he does not have authority-ie he did not have the power to create the world the way he said he did. Now this is critical, because if you believe God’s a liar well there’s no point being a Christian, and if you believe he doesn’t have the power that one would reasonably expect a God to have (ie to create the world) then you can’t be a Christian either, and even if you could there would be no point in that context. So someone who believes in evolution, to clarify believes that evolutionary theory is true, cannot be a Christian.
As to the bigotry also;
D.Sharp; it’s not a matter of ignorance, it’s a matter of their choice because they’ve been able to see through the debate and recognise the science that makes aeroplanes fly and computers work and the so called science that tells us the earth is billions of years old and we came from some type of an ape like ancestor.
Now this extends beyond creationism, to Buddhism, to Hinduism, to any religion and in fact anyone who simply rejects evolution. They are not ignorant, but teachers tell students they are, in fact they go even further, telling them these people are ‘crazy’ ‘illogical’ lesser people, and that there is no way anyone would be like that when they could be better by believing in evolution. Now i have no beef with Darwin here, he nor his theory have nothing to say about Christianity or any other world view. However the people who teach his theory do, which is clearly unjustifiable as it has nothing to do with teaching the science, is clearly intended to bias the decisions of their students, is clearly bigotry and clearly wrong.
Further to the bigotry;
E. Behe in this piece; ‘Many sicentists simply can’t comprehend this. They say to me well i just wish i could open your head, take a screwdriver and close it up and then you’d see things right.’
Now admittedly he’s talking about id, but the point remains that the majority of the science community has the attitude that anyone who does not believe in evoltuion (regardless of what they believe in instead) is not ’seeing thing right.’ This is bigotry and it is clearly wrong. What the majority of educators (well because of the way they teach they don’t even deserve to be called that) is that their job in science curricula is to teach the THEORY of evolution, not make their students believe in it. Yet they do, going to all lengths, even telling their students they can be ‘better people’ (which no science supports) by believing in it. Of course people would be jumping up and down if someone taught another theory they believed in and tried to convince their students to believe in it, but no one cares about scientist trying, and trying by bigotry to convince their students to believe in evolution, when this has nothing to do with teaching it.
As to you saying evolution is empirical fact;
F. Behe; Evolution has to arrange things in very tiny steps. You have to start with something that works and then very gradually improve it, but when you have a complex machine in it is very difficult to see how it can be put together gradually.’
While i don’t necessarily support his specific views here, the point remains, evolution is a theory, a theory of sequential situations that explain how humans and other species came to be, it is not empirical fact, and as you so kindly ignore (and yet accuse me of avoiding questions) even if it were would not justify teaching it with bigotry, as the science contains no such bigotry.
2. Not interested in Green Goblins, Sirius B or any other little gremlins that are off topic.
3. ‘Hey–the few to nil number of people in a position of knowledge about the oppressed little green goblins in orbit around Sirius B don’t seem prepared to speak about that, either–but you don’t hear me complaining ;)’ You’re wrong, because given most people i discuss this issue with are adamant it’s not going on, if they really believed it, they’d be speaking out left right and center with views and evidence to show there’s no bigotry going on. But they’re not.
4.’Evolution is a “belief” only insofar as the notion that bona fide science seeks natural explanations for natural phenomena (the supernatural being outside its purview) is “just a belief.” This latter belief, however, underlies all of the natural and physical sciences–not just biology. (You yourself accept this belief, tacitly, every time you make the decision to visit your local GP rather than your local parson or witchdoctor to seek treatment for “that bug that’s been going ’round.”) Hence, people believe in evolution only to the extent that they accept that science ought to–and does–seek natural explanations for natural phenomena. And in that case, your real beef is with science–science as it is currently done–rather than evolution per se.’
You can dress that all up as turkey as much as you want, but the point remains, evolution is not empirical fact, it is a theory, and given none of us can ever know whether it’s true or not, whether we accept it or any other theory as true is a matter of belief. Furthemore any ‘accepting that sicence ought to’ does not extend to bigotry that is not within the science, has nothing to do with the science and isn’t justifiable. That’s not my beef, in fact much of my aggreivedness with the bigotry being taught in evolution is i’ve done a lot of research on Darwin, and i’m yet to find anything that says he and evolutionary theory have any comment on other world views, or any comment on what people are based on how they see his theory. So therefore as far as i’m concerned the theory doesn’t justify telling students those who don’t believe in evolution are ‘crazy’ and you can ‘be better than them’ by believing in evolution. I have no beef with science or Darwin, i have a beed with so called educators putting in things that have nothing to do with the theory to squash down those of alternate views, and convince their students to believe evolution, something they have no mandate to do.
5.The question is whether the Bible must be read literally–whether one can be considered a Christian if one does not adhere to Biblical literalism, as many Christians don’t.
Actually i haven’t seen you raise that question. You’ve raised the question of whether an evolutionist can be a Christian and i say no because they reject implicity that Genesis is true and therefore God is lying there and in much of the rest of the Bible. Whatever ‘not adhering to Biblical literalism’ which i’m not sure what you’re referring to, has nothing to do with that issue.
6. No, Wombat: Genesis is just as subject to interpretation as any other book of the Bible. Hence: the doctrinal differences between Young-Earth Creationists, Old-Earth Creationists, IDists, Theistic Evolutionists. It would only be an intepretational issue if everyone started from the premise that Genesis was true. So for example on much of scripture different people read the text differently, so they have different views on what it is saying. But they all believe in basics that whatever is being said is true. Thus it’s an interpretational issue,. not an authority one, which is what you’re talking about. For example i know plenty of Christians who believe the ‘6 days’ in genesis are figurative and that God did not create everything in that time frame. But they believe he created it, that is why it’s an interpretational issue, which is not what you’re talking about, whether you realise it or not.
7. Tell me then, if evolution is empirical fact then why does your evidence not say so, instead of giving it the wishy-washy label of ‘well supported by the facts’?
Why is it “wishy-washy?”
Because if it were ‘empirical fact’ as you claim it to be, it would say that.
8. Let me summarise for you, the issues are as follows;
Does Darwin’s evolutionary theory justify in the teaching of it;
1. That teachers jobs is to convince students to believe in evolution, not to teach the theory.
2. That evolution gives them the evidence, and the right to say that it is empirical fact.
3. That evolution gives them the evidence, and the right to say that anyone who believes something other than evolution is ‘crazt’ and ‘illogical’.
4.That evolution gives them the evidence, and the right to say that people can be better than the people in point 3 by believing in evolution.
5. That this bigotry is acceptable as a necessary part of science.
In other words we are discussing whether science and evolutionary theory makes all these claims the teachers make, and whether teachers making these claims and doing these things is necessary to teaching the theory (ie it’s part of evolutionary theory itself). If the answer is no to all of the above then the bigotry is wrong and should be stopped. Point being you seem to ignore all these questions in favour of discussing other issues. It would be pertinent to actually address them.
9.I would identify as “Christian” anyone who sincerely regards themselves to be Christian. Catholics–and I was raised as one, so I should know–therefore fit the bill nicely. Over to you.
Couple of issues here. Obviously someone is not a Christian simply because they claim to be. I mean after all someone who goes around killing Christians is not a Christian just because they say they are, in fact their actions clearly indicate they are not. That said someone who says they are a Christian may well be one, but that’s it, may, it’s not automatically the case. Also the Bible makes clear that being a Christian, and what we will be judged on, is a matter of our own personal faith, not that of our parents, or what we were raised as, or how many times we went to a church or anything else. That is why the fact that i was not raised in any Christian way, and that many of my friends were, is of no relevance to whether any of us is a Christian. The only relevance to that is each of our personal faith, not that of religious tradition or our parents.
So now back to you, please explain why do you ‘obviously disagree’ and think Catholicism is Christianity?
10. Now, in your view, does the Bible deal in “truth”, or does it deal in “facts?”- I’ll answer that question for you when you define to me what you see as truth and facts and the difference between the two. This may be my error, but in reading your post repeatedly i can’t find you making a reference to this. So if you could define it then i will be happy to have a crack at answering the question.
11. It’s ok Ian, it’s long so you don’t have to read it. Sleep easy in the knowledge that AV’s doing a great job in your absence.
A victory for the Wombats of the world . . .
Apologies to Robert Corr–we’re not really trying to hijack your blog . . .
Wombat:
See–this is the problem. If you were talking about a couple of isolated incidents, involving a couple of isolated teachers, within the limitations of your own experience, then that’s fine. I would be prepared to consider the possibility that you and some of your friends have encountered religious bigotry from a couple of dodgy science teachers, and that it might be more than a simple case of you taking something they’ve said the wrong way. What I would wonder, in that case, is why you and your friends haven’t stopped whinging and actually tried to do something about these teachers–surely there are mechanisms in place at your university for reporting teachers who are behaving improperly or unethically, and it puzzles me why you haven’t used them.
Your contention, however, is that science teachers across Australia exercise bigotry in their teaching as a matter of course. Given that all you have to go on is your own experience and that of a few likeminded friends (there are many university campuses and high schools in Australia, Wombat–you must a lot of “likeminded friends” in a lot of places!), you are simply in no position to level such an allegation. Hence, my call–and a reasonable one, at that–for something more substantial by way of evidence.
But creationism–the kind of creationism targeted by the mainstream museums in that quote, the kind of creationism represented by Ken Ham and Thomas Sharp in that Lateline story–tries to pass itself off as a legitimate science. And to that extent, it is a joke, and it is akin to believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden. That’s not bigotry, by the way–it’s a fact. You yourself have indicated that you don’t think creationism is supported by science (you don’t, do you?).