Science academies around world urge evolution lessons

[Nero's Fiddle]

Back to the OP, of sorts (Should Evolution/Creationism be taught in the (American) classroom?), should Science not be taught in the Science Classroom, and Religous Education in the Religous Education Classroom?

My point exactly. Evolution, in the broader scope thereof, in not only unobserved, but unobservable. Therefore, even if evolutionists believe they have good reason to suspect that the universe derived from a Big Bang, that life originated utterly by chance from non-life, and that the vast, complex systems of life we see today all somehow developed through a minute, hit-and-miss process, it does not fit the category of empirical science anymore than does creationism, for which we also have our evidence.

We are not asking that theories of origin not be taught- only that they not be taught as fact.

Whether it is intrinsically such or not, evolution is a vital component of humanism, without which it cannot stand. Humanism, which is taught in every portion of the public education system, has become state-sponsored religious indoctrination.

Evolution-only (implicitly, therefore, as factual) teaching in public schools merely serves to further that end.

Think about it: evolution is unproven, yet (at least in America) the school system is so jealous of its status as unquestionable truth that the vast majority of states have refused cries by non-evolutionists to simply place stickers in textbooks reminding students passively that evolution is a theory, and not intended to be put forth as unchallengable.

Why would this be so unless people believing in evolution had enough faith (NOT necessarily religious faith!) to believe that an unproven and unobserved process was absolute truth?

(Interesting aside: Remember our poster boy, Darwin? His acceptance of evolution was actually a very interesting religious progression, seldom mentioned in classroom instruction. He was not a scientist, but had trained to be a minister. He had struggled with the notion that God would send people to hell, being unable to understand it and unwilling to accept it.

He began reading a book: this book had caused quite a stir in that day by teaching that creationism was outright disproven by the just dicovered rock layer pattern (which we now know to exist in that exact order in only one area of the planet).

The man who wrote this book was deeply motivated by an outspoken hatred for Christianity and all it entailed; this sentiment was a major force in the book, as it sought to describe a world system that could exclude God.

Darwin, already struggling with an element of Christianity he found terribly "distasteful", boarded a certain ship, and took a certain trip, the deatails of which we all know.)

[Nero's Fiddle]

My point, ladies and gentlemen, is that if evolution really was the flawed mess of a philosophy you people call it, then a lot more scientists would clue in, don't you think?

Forgot to deal with this.

While there are probably those who actually accept evolution as scientifically true based only on consideration of evidence (though that evidence is usually skewed), many have an ulterior motive for guarding evolution through every blow it sustains.

Without evolution, science has yet to develop an even vaguely workable theory that could exclude a God in which many do not wish, or are not willing, to believe.

They begin with the notion that there must be a natural explanation, and can find only evolution to be that explanation.

[dd_8630]

While there are probably those who actually accept evolution as scientifically true based only on consideration of evidence (though that evidence is usually skewed), many have an ulterior motive for guarding evolution through every blow it sustains.

Without evolution, science has yet to develop an even vaguely workable theory that could exclude a God in which many do not wish, or are not willing, to believe.

They begin with the notion that there must be a natural explanation, and can find only evolution to be that explanation.

Firstly, what other reason is there to accept evolution?

Secondly, an ulterior motive? Could this be to advance the 'Homosexual Agenda' (forgive my satire)? Scientists are scientists because they have an interest in science, no more. Could you hint as to what motive these scientists have? I honestly can't think what else it could be.

Science tends to the explinations that do not need God because there is no reason to conclude a God; to many, it is a cop out to simply relegate it to some higher power. Science works by observation (in this case of fossils and other relics from way back when) and inference:

Current organisms have a very similar geno- and pheno- types, which grow in similarity the further back in time you go (as evidenced by the fossil record (The evolutionary record of the equine family is famously complete in showing this)). Thus, one infers that at one point far, far in the past, there was a common ancestor. A brief and probably undetailed look at evolution, forgive any mistakes, it is early.

Science in its entierity begins with the notion that there must be a natural explination (although why God should be seen as beyond the natural, and therefore beyond the observable, I don't know), since it works through observation and inference. How one is supposed to arrive at the same conclusion for organic origins as genesis is going to be difficult, since Gen 1:25-27 (humans created after beasts) and Gen 2:4-25 (humans created before beasts) are contradictory!

My point exactly. Evolution, in the broader scope thereof, in not only unobserved, but unobservable. Therefore, even if evolutionists believe they have good reason to suspect that the universe derived from a Big Bang, that life originated utterly by chance from non-life, and that the vast, complex systems of life we see today all somehow developed through a minute, hit-and-miss process, it does not fit the category of empirical science anymore than does creationism, for which we also have our evidence.

One: it has been observered ('micro'evolution is a certainty, and speciation (one organism differentiating into two non-breedable organisms) has also been observed, in the form of the Hawthorn Fly, among others).

Two: lack of direct observability does not exclude something from the empirical, since there is always inference from indirect observations.

Three: Creationism is different in that it has a conclusion it wants to back up, while 'Evoutionism' has facts it wants to explain with a conclusion.

Whether it is intrinsically such or not, evolution is a vital component of humanism, without which it cannot stand. Humanism, which is taught in every portion of the public education system, has become state-sponsored religious indoctrination.

What, is the problem with humanism? A philosophy that deals with human issues? Further, how is evolution a 'vital component of humanism'? Evolution scientifically explains the origins of life, while humanism focuses on exalting human traits (without holding that only humans can have such traits) and the problems that lie therein. How are they intrinsically intertwined?

Think about it: evolution is unproven, yet (at least in America) the school system is so jealous of its status as unquestionable truth that the vast majority of states have refused cries by non-evolutionists to simply place stickers in textbooks reminding students passively that evolution is a theory, and not intended to be put forth as unchallengable.

While the proof of evolution is arguable, I fail to see the error of most states not allowing stickers that undermine the foundations of scientific progress in a childs education. I can understand that if you disagree with evolution you want something done about its being taught, but you fail to understand what is meant by 'theory' in the context of science. Also, since when is evolution presented as unchallengable? Scientific falsification is all about challanging the established theory with new theories.

Why would this be so unless people believing in evolution had enough faith (NOT necessarily religious faith!) to believe that an unproven and unobserved process was absolute truth?

It is not so much to protect the absolutism of evolution, but to halt Religion being wedged by force into the scientific curriculum. I have not observed the fossils with my bare hands, but I have 'faith' that they exist. I have not handled and sampled the artic ice-cores with my own equipment, but I have 'faith' that they exist. I have not sat down and speciated an insect, but I have 'faith' in the reports that it has been done. My point is that I 'believe' it to be true insomuch as I have not gone out and looked at the evidence firsthand, and have faith in the truthtelling of my fellow scientist (unless, of course, the entire scientific community is out to confuse and dupe me), but like you said, it is not religious faith, but nor is it an absolute truth. We have observed facts which lead to the inference of an evolutionary process that gave rise to the complexity of life today from simpler origins.

(Interesting aside: Remember our poster boy, Darwin? His acceptance of evolution was actually a very interesting religious progression, seldom mentioned in classroom instruction. He was not a scientist, but had trained to be a minister. He had struggled with the notion that God would send people to hell, being unable to understand it and unwilling to accept it.

He began reading a book: this book had caused quite a stir in that day by teaching that creationism was outright disproven by the just dicovered rock layer pattern (which we now know to exist in that exact order in only one area of the planet).

The man who wrote this book was deeply motivated by an outspoken hatred for Christianity and all it entailed; this sentiment was a major force in the book, as it sought to describe a world system that could exclude God.

Darwin, already struggling with an element of Christianity he found terribly "distasteful", boarded a certain ship, and took a certain trip, the deatails of which we all know.)

Darwin reads a book 'disproving' Creationism, and then goes on his famous Beagle trip. Historically fascinating, but what does it have to do with anything?

[dd_8630]

Are these similarities in types due to evolution or is it because they all have a common Creator? Your referral to the, “evolutionary record of the equine family is famously complete in showing this…” is nothing more than ignorance on your part. The “mythical story” of horse evolution that for years was taught as fact showing the “transitional” development of horses from some mythical five-toed creature to the modern horse was completely debunked by the respected paleontologist, George Gaylord Simpson, in his book Horses. If you are going to propagate evolutionary fables you should at least update your database with the most current fables.

On the contrary, the horse has never stopped being a triumph of evolutionary predictions (namely, that fossils may exist that chart the horses evolution from the small first member of the Eocene family, Hyracotherium, 55 million years ago, to the modern day Equus ~2 million years ago. The 'mythical 5-toed creature' has been found all over, as well as over 30 other 'transitional' (for want of a less linear word) species and subspecies. Comparitive DNA and protien testing, a multitude of dating methods, and examinations of morphological changes in the remains, all corroborate the evolution of the horse.

www.talkorigins.com have an article on equine evolution, and one reference is:

Simpson, G.G. 1961. Horses. Doubleday & Co., New York. (An interesting and readable, though outdated, account of horse evolution. Written for the intelligent non-scientist by a prominent paleontologist.)

No 'complete debunking' at all; rather, GG Simpson traces horse evolution in terms the layman can understand. If you have misunderstood even this account, I really do dispear at America's education. Vive les Anglais!

Why would any Creator create such a baffling array of highly related organisms? And how does one infer a common Creator? Why not many Creators to account for the variation in organisms? Unless it is all one practicle joke, of course.

You need to get out more often. Scientists are like any other folks – some honest, some not so honest. Please note the following exceprt from a book review on Judson’s work on the dishonesty found in some scienticif circles:

The Great Betrayal: Fraud In Science, Horace Freeland Judson

“Science as a discipline is not immune to fraud, as Horace Freeland Judson demonstrates in his study The Great Betrayal: Fraud In Science. Judson is the former director of the center for History of Recent Science: his background lends to his survey of dozens of cases where scientific fraud and aberrant scientists have threatened the very reliability and foundations of the scientific process.

Fraud permeates all types of institutions today and now the world of science, the last bastion of respect and trust, is no exception. Dozens of cases have been uncovered in the past quarter-century-and the headlines continue. We can no longer shrug off fraud in science as the work of aberrant individual scientists, Horace Freeland Judson argues.”

Nice, starting with an insult.

Given the peer review nature of scientific research, flaws in major experiments, and many minor ones, are soon found out. Even if a rogue scientist were to publish deliberatly or accidentally flawed work, he or she would quickly get discredited. Perhaps this is why not one Creationist paper has even been presented for peer review, hmm?

Edited June 28, 2006 by dd_8630

[Nero's Fiddle]

Firstly, what other reason is there to accept evolution?

Secondly, an ulterior motive? Could this be to advance the 'Homosexual Agenda' (forgive my satire)? Scientists are scientists because they have an interest in science, no more. Could you hint as to what motive these scientists have? I honestly can't think what else it could be.

Thought I explained that pretty clearly . When evolution is the only "workable" theory that allows for no supernatural influence in origins, etc, people who want that sort of explanation are, as you are fond of stating, backing up a foregone conclusion with a theory that can allow for it.

It comes down to this: If God made the world, then He has the right to claim the authority to make rules and call to accountability those who break them.

This is completely against the mentality of rebellious mankind, who longs to "remove the yoke" from his shoulders. If evolution is true, if God did not create the world, we are accountable to nothing but our own desires.

it is a cop out to simply relegate it to some higher power.

Imho, it is unfortunate that Christians have not made the effort to "study to shew thyself a workman approved...".

Creation science does not merely state that God did it and that's all we know. One of the reasons I came to believe so adamantly in Creationism (other than that it's in the Bible) is that I actually studied the scientific end of it.

I would challenge you to watch the Creation Science Seminar series (17 hours long, unfortunately ) by Dr. Kent Hovind. The videos are intended for a Christian laymen audience and are purposefully injected with humor.

However, some truly stimulating and engaging evidences for creationism and against evolution, from the scientific angle, are presented therein.

A brief and probably undetailed look at evolution, forgive any mistakes, it is early.

Forgiven. Good morning (it is late night as I post this) )

How one is supposed to arrive at the same conclusion for organic origins as genesis is going to be difficult, since Gen 1:25-27 (humans created after beasts) and Gen 2:4-25 (humans created before beasts) are contradictory!

No, they're really not. The latter describe God forming each of these creatures for the specific purpose of showing each one to Adam and allowing him to name them, and to look for one to be "an help meet for him". Why does this forming have to correspond to that of Genesis 1?

(Another argument based on Hebrew, which I do not know so cannot claim, states that verse 19a is like a recap: more like a God had formed them kind of thing. The focus of the verse is God bringing them before Adam, but it begins with an overview statement that God's original action had been forming them. Don't know Hebrew. You?)

The point is, why on earth would a book so punctilious in the rest of its entirety make such a stupid mistake separated by less than a page of text? It makes no sense; furthermore, do you really think that, were it a real inconsistancy, after six thousand years it would be discovered only by this generation ?

One: it has been observered ('micro'evolution is a certainty, and speciation (one organism differentiating into two non-breedable organisms) has also been observed, in the form of the Hawthorn Fly, among others).

Two: lack of direct observability does not exclude something from the empirical, since there is always inference from indirect observations.

Great argument for creationism. Thanks!

What, is the problem with humanism? A philosophy that deals with human issues?

Trust me, I know humanism very intimately (at least the American version). It has as a clear premise that mankind is the ultimate level of sentience, and that mankind is answerable to no law other than the law of humanity.

While the proof of evolution is arguable, I fail to see the error of most states not allowing stickers that undermine the foundations of scientific progress in a childs education.

By reminding them that, though they may be taught only evolution in their classroom, it is an unproven theory amongst other theories?

you fail to understand what is meant by 'theory' in the context of science. Also, since when is evolution presented as unchallengable?

I do not fail to understand. A school system that teaches only evolution fails to understand. If you were taught only positive views of America in a history class, you would consider it propaganda.

I have not observed the fossils with my bare hands, but I have 'faith' that they exist. I have not handled and sampled the artic ice-cores with my own equipment, but I have 'faith' that they exist.

You also have faith that they indeed indicate the inferences evolutionists draw from them. In much the same way, I have examined the evidence available to me and concluded that it is more in support of creationism than evolution.

Darwin reads a book 'disproving' Creationism, and then goes on his famous Beagle trip. Historically fascinating, but what does it have to do with anything?

It is an example of someone with an ulterior motive for accepting evolution, which you questioned at the beginning of the post I'm responding to. Darwin wanted to disbelieve that there was a God who sent people to hell. He found a reason to do so. The man who wrote that book hated Christianity, and found a means to "disprove" creationism.

Religious motivation to accept evolutionism in order to remove the necessity for God.

[dd_8630]

Of course you are free to believe any fable you choose but I would highly recommend you check out some real scientific sites (you are aware that they exist

[dd_8630]

Thought I explained that pretty clearly . When evolution is the only "workable" theory that allows for no supernatural influence in origins, etc, people who want that sort of explanation are, as you are fond of stating, backing up a foregone conclusion with a theory that can allow for it.

It comes down to this: If God made the world, then He has the right to claim the authority to make rules and call to accountability those who break them.

This is completely against the mentality of rebellious mankind, who longs to "remove the yoke" from his shoulders. If evolution is true, if God did not create the world, we are accountable to nothing but our own desires.

Evolution does not go out to dismiss the supernatural. Indeed, the supernatural may be behind the exact mutations which occur, guiding the random process. In any case, there will always be traditionalists resitant to change. Atheists prefer evolution because it is, in its most general form, the only mainstream one available. Given the definition of atheists (of which the majority of scientists are comprised), they won't be accepting a theistic explination anytime soon, if only because they have examined and objectively rejected it. Anyway, I digress.

You say that a Creator, eg God, has the right to claim authority over rules & punishments thereof; how? Does this right extend to parents? Are parents not held accountable if they brutally rape, torture, or murder their children as some (though thankfully few) do? Just because you create something does not give you free reign over it. One of the few things that is seen throughout mankinds psyche is that infringement on anothers free will is (morally) bad (hence the difference between theft and gift, murder and euthanasia, making love and rape, etc etc). Holding God as excusable for anything simply because He begat us is morally ignorant and irresponsable.

Evolution has an intrinsic morality of self-preservation (or rather, 'seeding of your wild oats' at the expense of others) in lone animals, and societal-preservation in social animals (leading to altruistic and occasionally homosexual traits, since self-sacrifice leads to the societies benefit, and homosexuals in an all-male hunting group or all-female nursing group (particularily in the Primates) leads to more cohesive and efficient groups). True, there is no 'punishment' for breaking such intrinsic morality (from which instincts and emotinos stem), because societal breakdown is no longer possible by such means in the majority of todays societies.

Furthermore, to attack evolutions validity on the grounds that it has 'undesireable' implications is such a basic logical fallacy of Creationists that that's all I'm going to say on it. *puffs on pipe in pretentious manner*

it is a cop out to simply relegate it to some higher power.

Imho, it is unfortunate that Christians have not made the effort to "study to shew thyself a workman approved...".

Creation science does not merely state that God did it and that's all we know. One of the reasons I came to believe so adamantly in Creationism (other than that it's in the Bible) is that I actually studied the scientific end of it.

I would challenge you to watch the Creation Science Seminar series (17 hours long, unfortunately ) by Dr. Kent Hovind. The videos are intended for a Christian laymen audience and are purposefully injected with humor.

However, some truly stimulating and engaging evidences for creationism and against evolution, from the scientific angle, are presented therein.

Believe it or not, I have watched his seminars (not all, but most of them)! Interesting stuff, and one of the most convincing Creationists I know. However, some things irked me (besides the 'Evolutionary Philosophy leads to the evils of Nazism, Communism, Socialism, Humanism etc' (since when was Communism/Socialism/Humanism evil?), and the 'Evolutionary history v Biblical history' (even going as far as to say that there are no other versions of history *smack*)). One being the example of the eye, the dissmissing of Deep Time (eg, 12-13 Byo universe, 4Byo Earth), the appeals to authority and ridicule etc. He does show up the holes and incompletness of evolution, to his credit, but this does not disprove it, merely shows it to be a work in progress. It was never espoused as complete and absolute; undoubtedly it will change (evolve, if you will) as time goes by. Further, dispite his obvious intelligence and effort he put into his presentations, he uses New King James Version! Quite different from the original hebrew translated straight to modern english (but lets not start a Biblical Innerrancy debate, unless you want PM me That would be fun)

Anyway.

No, they're really not. The latter describe God forming each of these creatures for the specific purpose of showing each one to Adam and allowing him to name them, and to look for one to be "an help meet for him". Why does this forming have to correspond to that of Genesis 1?

(Another argument based on Hebrew, which I do not know so cannot claim, states that verse 19a is like a recap: more like a God had formed them kind of thing. The focus of the verse is God bringing them before Adam, but it begins with an overview statement that God's original action had been forming them. Don't know Hebrew. You?)

The point is, why on earth would a book so punctilious in the rest of its entirety make such a stupid mistake separated by less than a page of text? It makes no sense; furthermore, do you really think that, were it a real inconsistancy, after six thousand years it would be discovered only by this generation ?

1: I think this is open to interpritation and translation of the tenses and temporal words involved. Lacking any knowledge of Ancient Hebrew (or whatever they used) besides the etymology of YHVH, I'm not going to venture.

2: Hah, agreed. Hebrew is a lil harder than (ie, completely different to) the Russian I study, soz! Must be someone who knows it...

3: I disagree. Philosophers and theologans since before Christ (such a hippocritcal temporal reference on my part, argh!) have disputed the literal translation of the Bible. Even during the iron-fisted reign of the Catholic Church inconstitences, theodicies, and reinterpritations were rife. The even the Western illiteracy that plagued the Dark Ages didn't stop Middle- and Far- Eastern writers from discrediting their versions of the Bible (obviously different from KJV since it hadn't been written yet). Point? The hebrew bible, as far as I know, wasn't accepted at all by non-Jews, so there wasn't much dispute. The Christian Bible, with its initally (and unfortunatly occasionally continually) prosthletising followers was/is simply asking for a much more indepth and 'scientific' examination. Hence the influx of inconsitancies that have arisen over the past 2K years, and more so in our liberal and telecommunicated (qv Internet) age.

One: it has been observered ('micro'evolution is a certainty, and speciation (one organism differentiating into two non-breedable organisms) has also been observed, in the form of the Hawthorn Fly, among others).

The number you have dialed has not been recognised. Please call back and try again.

Great argument for creationism. Thanks!

If you can find indirect observations that infer a Creator, please, let's hear them!

Trust me, I know humanism very intimately (at least the American version). It has as a clear premise that mankind is the ultimate level of sentience, and that mankind is answerable to no law other than the law of humanity.

I can see a Christians (and other religious') problem with man being at the top, given that it ousts God from his moral highness. Point taken.

While the proof of evolution is arguable, I fail to see the error of most states not allowing stickers that undermine the foundations of scientific progress in a childs education.

By reminding them that, though they may be taught only evolution in their classroom, it is an unproven theory amongst other theories?

It is a scientific theory, not a theological one. There are not contending theories, and it has a world of evidence behind it (Ask Google, and ye shall recieve). I'd also like to point out that an 'unproven theory' is a bit redundant, as a theory is de dicto unproven, else it would be scientific Law.

I do not fail to understand. A school system that teaches only evolution fails to understand. If you were taught only positive views of America in a history class, you would consider it propaganda.

Hah, I like your analogy But evolution (at least, here in England) is not taught as watertight, complete, and absolute. We acknowledge its assumptions, potholes, and basic lack of completeness. But, we also acknowledge the lack of other scientifically credable counter-theories. Even the Big Bang had Steady State theory, and that's now all but gone (though String theory may yet open the question of infinites before the Bang).

If the contrary is taught o'er the pond, then I see your angst and resistance to it; I would too, though prehaps not abandon it entierly.

You also have faith that they indeed indicate the inferences evolutionists draw from them. In much the same way, I have examined the evidence available to me and concluded that it is more in support of creationism than evolution.

A fair comment, and I won't insult you by attacking your conclusion

I don't have faith in evolutionists inference of evolution, I have worked it out for myself (insofar as my 17yo intellect and free time will allow). I was most quizzical, for example, at how plants know what colour and smell to evolve to attract the right types of insects, but then it hit me in a rather clich

Edited June 29, 2006 by dd_8630

[CSLewis]

Each of the great Western monotheistic traditions sees God as truth, love, and knowlegde. Each and every increase in our understanding of the natural world should be a step towards God, and not, as many people assume on this board, a step away. If faith and reason are both gifts from God, then they should play conplementary, not conflicting, roles in our struggle to understand the world around us.

Understanding evolution and its description of the processes that gave rise to the modern world is an important part of knowing and appreciating God. As a scientist and as a Christian, that is exactly what I believe. True knowledge comes only from a combination of faith and reason.

A nonbeliever, of course, puts his trust in science and finds no value in faith. And I certainly agree that science allows believer and non-believer alike to investigate the natural world through a common lens of observation, experiment and theory. The ability of science to transcend cultural, political, and even religious differences is part of its genius, part of its value as a way of knowing. What science cannot do is to assign either meaning or purpose to the world it explores. This leads some to conclude that the world as seen by science is devoid of meaning and absent of purpose. It is not. What it does mean is that our human tendencies to assign meaning and value must transcend science, and ultimately must come from outside of it. The sciene that results, I would suggest, is enriched and informed from its contact with the values and principles of faith. The God of Abraham does not tell us which proteins control the cell cycle. But He does give us a reason to care, a reason to cherish that understanding, and above all a reason to prefer the light of knowledge to the darkness of ignorance.

As more than one scientist has said, the truly remarkable thing about the world is that it actually does make sense. The parts fit, the molecules interact, the darn thing works. To people of faith, what evolution says is that nature is complete. God fashioned a material world in which truly free, truly independent beings could evolve. He got it right the very first time.

In obvious ways, the various objections to evolution take a narrow view of the capabilities of life- but they take an even narrower view of the capabilities of the Creator. They hobble His genius by demanding that the material of His creation ought not to be capable of generating complexity. They demean the breadth of His vision by ridiculing the notion that the materials of His world could have evolved into beings with intelligence and self-awareness. And they compel Him to descend from heaven onto the factory floor by conscripting His labor into the design of each detail of each organism that graces the surface of our living planet.

Sadly, none of this is necesarry. If we can accept the day-to-day actions of living organisms are direct consequences of the molecules that make them up, why should it be any more difficult to see that similar principles are behind the evolution of those organisms? If the Creator uses physics and chemistry to run the universe of life, why wouldn't He have used physics and chemistry to produce it too?

The discovery that naturalistic explanations account for the workings of living things neither confirms nor denies the idea that a Creator is responsible for them. To believers, however, it does signify something important. It shows that our God created not a creaky little machine requiring constant and visible attention, but a true, genuine, independent world in which our existence is the product of material forces. Those who choose to reject God already know (and so do we) that they need not live in fear of His hand reaching into the sandbox to check our childish actions. God loves us, but He is perfectly willing to allow us to make our own mistakes, commit our own sins, make war on ourselves, and ravage the planet that is our home.

To some, the murderous reality of human nature is proof that God is absent or dead. The same reasoning would find God missing from the unpredictable fits and turns of an evolutionary tree. But the truth is deeper. In each case, a Deity determined to establish a world in which intelligent creatures would face authentic choices between good and evil, would have to fashion a distinct, material world and then let His creation run. Neither the self-sufficiency of nature nor the reality of evil in the world mean God is absent. To a religious person, both signify something quite different- the strength of God's love and the reality of our freedom as His creatures.

[dd_8630]

CSLewis, that is a most fascinating, if prescripted, read! I especially loved the bit about the religio-scientific synergy and benefits thereof. Young Earth Creationists disagree with pretty much most science, so I doubt they would appreciate the grandour of your post, but for the most part I reckon everyone who reads that would like it! Hah, look (?) at me, the arrogance, I'm reviewing Admitidly, this is partly a bump post, but I wanted to give my thanks for the post anyway, it reminds us that religion and science needn't be exclusively contradictory.

Anyways.

One question I have for any YEC-ists out there is: you say the Earth is 6000 years old. That means there was no history before 4000 BCE. But, what about civilisations before that? The Early and Late Ubaid cultures? The archaeological finds that predate 4000 BCE? The biological organisms that are quite older than 6K? I can understand disputes over the very old ages of the order of millions and billions of years, but a few millenia? We can date things to the month, even week if we're lucky, from those eras. So, given that you would have to otherwies somehow disprove all of paleoarchaeology, how can you deny an old Earth, at least one quite older than 6000 years?

[dd_8630]

I am not sure exactly what your definition is of a