Science academies around world urge evolution lessons

[dd_8630]

No, this is very purposeful. I AM is the name of God. It identifies Him as the eternally self-existant... that is, there was never a point when He didn't exist.

In this statement, Christ is doing a play on words, identifying Himself as the eternally self-existant, thus as God.

I was referring here to the "with God, 1000 years is AS one day, and one day is AS 1000 years" part of Smalcald's quote. I'm aware of 'I am that I am' (hope I got that right); I'm quite impressed with it in all honesty, it's a good line.

Parents can only be held responsible for anything because it violates morality, and there is a higher authority to check that violation. Since God created ALL things, He is the standard for morality and good. He is not only the higher authority, but the code by which all that is good operates.

Again I disagree. Holding the Biblical God as a moral standard is, in my opinion, irresponsible again. Who was it who annihilated untold numbers with a flood? Levelled the cities of Sodom and Gomorra? Killed the first-born children of the Egyptians? Turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt merely for looking? Ordered the stoning of a man collecting wood for a fire on the Sabbath day? (More here; god bless the internet).

If a child decided that it was wrong that its parent didn't give it ice cream for dinner every night, would that make the parent wrong and immoral? No.

The parent in this scenario isn't wrong or immoral because they havn't done anything particularily wrong or immoral. From the child's point of view, the lack of nightly ice-cream is a want unfulfilled, but the child is incapable at that age of serioulsy realising the consequences of the alternative. It's the short-term good vs the long-term evil dilemma (or phenomenon).

Free will... ahhhhh. You're speaking a Christian's language again! In order to give us free will to love Him by our own choice, He was willing to allow us to sin... Which caused Him to have to give up His Son to die on a cross. The epitome of selfless love.

God sent his only son down to Earth in the full knowledge that he'd be brutally humiliated and murdered? This was the solution God chose to clense us of our sins? Selfless love indeed.

Also, how does this negate the moral 'badness' (for want of a better word) of free-will infringement? The purpose of free will, whether God-given or otherwise, doesn't really have much bearing on it.

He didn't "beget" us. Jesus is His "only begotten Son". He created us.

To begat something is to cause it's existence, most often via reproduction and procreation. A minor detail, at any rate.

Smoking is bad for you.

It's not bad if you bake it in a cake ^^

If there are holes and incompleteness, then it DOES require some degree of faith (not religious necessarily) to believe that the missing pieces are out there to be found.

Agreed, although I wouldn't use the word faith, as this has heavy religious connotations. Also, how much bigger are the holes in a fundamentalist Christian viewpoint? And the pieces that are missing are things like the incompleteness of the fossil record; we can extrapolate their likely structure and geographic location, but they may never be found.

Yep. I studied German and Spanish in high school... I've started studying Hebrew on my own but am still at the transliteration level. I hope to take Hebrew and Greek classes, if my schedule is ever less than completely packed.

It is quite a thrill (well, mild tingle) when you can look at some text and pronounciate it (to a certain extent). When I look at, say, Arabic, all i see is a line with squiggles above and below it. Clearly they mean something, but I havn't the foggiest (naturally)

"soz"?

'Sorry'. It's a common British contraction; don't you have it o'er the pond?

I'm not talking non-Jews. I'm talking the people who built their lives around the intense study of the Scriptures. I'm talking the original recipients of the texts. Are we really so arrogant as to think that we are the first people to learn how to read with comprehension?

Of course not. I can't see how not one studier of the Torah found an error in it, yet we find nigh-on hundreds today (Excluding, of course, the New Testament). The translation into English can't have helped.

The stickers do not name any other theories. They simply remind students that evolution is, in fact, a theory... one would think that the word theory would be enough to give away that it is unproven, but American society proves otherwise.

True, theory over there is seen as a hypothesis (a distinction which is, admittedly, not entirely quantitative). But why not put such stickers on the Bible? It claims absolute truth, which science textbooks do not.

Have you read American textbooks? Even children's books? Evolution is presented as fact. Some textbooks have an eeny-weeny little section that says "Some people don't believe in evolution, etc." but paints those people as foolish, or "outsiders" to science, and continues in teaching evolution.

From the earliest age in pubic school, tenets of evolution are taught in no uncertain terms as being TRUE. If this is not the case in England's public schools, mabye we're on different wavelengths here.

I expected as much, given America's reputation for education. But then again, evolution has been evidenced, speciation observed etc. It may be a theory, but it's a damn solid one.

quote]Do you Englanders start college at seventeen? If so, congratulations on your matriculation!

Edited July 13, 2006 by dd_8630

[Smalcald]

Hi dd,

Ooops missed your request.

This is from second Peter it was what I was quoting; there are other passages, which speak of time invariance of God.

8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Do you want to look at some other scripture which goes with this? We are way off topic now from our original discussion though. But I don

[dd_8630]

Many Christians including myself feel that only people who have been inspired by the Holy Spirit would seek discussion on Christian boards. I am not quite sure why you would laugh, but rest assured no one here can convert you, only the Holy Spirit working faith through the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ has any ability to convert you. Which was my point earlier, nobody can become a Christian through their own logic or resources or mind, it is only through the direct intervention of a supernatural process the working of the Holy Spirit that causes us to believe. It is a different way of knowing of being. Most people come to faith in Christ because the Holy Spirit creates in them the knowledge of their need for a Savior and the need for rescue from their sins, and the knowledge of His great love for all of us. Then of course as Lewis points out, Jesus and His Gospel just have that ring of truth about them that most real things do. The eyewitness accounts are believable, I believe Peter when He speaks about seeing the resurrected Christ. But not all come to Christ this way and there is no one correct way. But I also enjoy speaking to non-Christians etc and in no way want to discourage you from speaking and posting here.

Perhaps I was a bit harsh when I said I'd laugh, but I was merely trying to get across the insensitiveness felt by the proselytisee (ie, the one who is being converted). You believe what you believe, I believe what I believe. Let's leave it that, yes?

But the inner court is not open to disputes about the validity of the Christian faith, as this is a Christian posting board, that kind of discussion is meant for the outer court area.

Agreed. Lets move back on topic, yes? The validity of evolution needn't lead to a debate to Christianity's validity, so we should be safe from the powers-that-be.

[Smalcald]

Sure I have no problem leaving it be.

Spreading the Word is a commandment for Christians from Christ, but it is also a command to not get into worthless disputes, which can only lead to division and confusion. To me if you have questions about Christianity and what we believe and why I would feel very compelled to answer them, but that is not the topic at hand.

So where were we on evolution?

One of the problems I think is that we need to back up in our educational process or improve it, and teach kids what the scientific method is. The differences between hypothesis, theory, scientific laws, controlled study, etc, what does evidence mean in the scientific sense. Then talk about what is being discussed in philosophy and what is being discussed in religion. They are all slightly different topics. Certainly they have intersections, but they are all different. For example the scientific advances over the past one thousand years still do not mitigate or reduce the need for reading what Aristotle or Plato said.

[dd_8630]

One of the problems I think is that we need to back up in our educational process or improve it, and teach kids what the scientific method is. The differences between hypothesis, theory, scientific laws, controlled study, etc, what does evidence mean in the scientific sense. Then talk about what is being discussed in philosophy and what is being discussed in religion. They are all slightly different topics. Certainly they have intersections, but they are all different. For example the scientific advances over the past one thousand years still do not mitigate or reduce the need for reading what Aristotle or Plato said.

Agreed. People nowadays (says I the 17yo) seem to equate theory with hypothesis (establish but unproven explination of observations, with a suggested explination. Hypothesis is kind of like a proto-theory), which is where the old argument of 'it's just a theory' comes from. So yes, proper education in scientific terms would end the unproductive debates going on. However, I don't think the scientific theory and the religious theory should be taught in the same context, since they are quite different fields discussing a similar unknown.

[Nero's Fiddle]

"The parent in this scenario isn't wrong or immoral because they havn't done anything particularily wrong or immoral."

Who says? You? Society? What I'm saying is that, if God is truly the Creator of ALL things, including the Creator of morality, then who else could possibly be the determining standard of morality? "What is good is good because God is good."

"From the child's point of view, the lack of nightly ice-cream is a want unfulfilled, but the child is incapable at that age of serioulsy realising the consequences of the alternative."

EXACTLY. We are the children in the picture... we do not understand the full implications of our actions, God's actions, or anything else, really. God does what is best... we simply are not always capable of gettin' it.

"God sent his only son down to Earth in the full knowledge that he'd be brutally humiliated and murdered? This was the solution God chose to clense us of our sins? Selfless love indeed."

This German hymn lyric might help explain this:

"O Wunderlieb, O Liebesmacht,

du kannst was nie kein Mensch gedacht;

Gott seinem Sonn abzwingen!

O Liebe, Liebe, du bist stark!"

"O wondrous love, O power of love,

you are able to do what no man ever thought;

God and His Son to force apart!

O love, love, you are strong!"

The sacrifice made by both the Father and the Son in Jesus' death is amazingly acute.

"Also, how does this negate the moral 'badness' (for want of a better word) of free-will infringement? The purpose of free will, whether God-given or otherwise, doesn't really have much bearing on it."

The point is that we HAVE free will... there are consequences for the choices we make, but it is ours to make them.

"It's not bad if you bake it in a cake ^^"

What?

"Of course not. I can't see how not one studier of the Torah found an error in it, yet we find nigh-on hundreds today."

Well, that's a loaded issue. I have researched the various so-called errors, and have heard some completely satisfactory responses and explanations. But that is not a discussion for this topic.

"But why not put such stickers on the Bible?"

The government does not force students in the public education system to study and memorize the tenets of the Bible.

"Point is, the mutations in this case arn't cumulating into a new system; they are modifications of a preexisting system. So, such mutations (likely point substitution) are not redundant untill all mutations are complete; they are fully functional from go."

That's why I said it was a bad example of an important point. A better example might be the development of systems of sexual reproduction, or another similar set of mutations toward a distict purpose.

"Since we are in the year 6000 (roughly) (taking year 0 as the first year; ie, Creation), and since the spacetime continuum & the energy-matter exchange unvierse have been around for 6000 years (ie, time began at year 0), how could there be time (ie, History) before year 0?"

Sorry . It was very late when I wrote my response, and I thought I saw "4000 years ago" instead of "4000 B.C."

"Oh joy, my friend is telling me I'm going to Hell for sins I didn't do. If he died to take away my sins, then what more do I need?"

First of all, are you seriously saying that, were the God of the Bible real and His standards THE standards, you have never sinned? You've never lied? Had an "indelicate" thought? Been angry with someone without just cause?

Secondly, that's the beauty of free will. Jesus died to make forgiveness of sin a free gift... but He does not force His love on anyone, just as God did not force it on Adam and Eve in the Garden. He simply asks you, by faith, to receive that gift. That's what makes it yours.

"Proselytism only serves to weaken my respect for you. You can try to convert me, but quite frankly I'll laugh in your face."

Pleasing my God, who happens to care very much about you, is more important to me than your respect.

If it was the respect of people who don't believe in my God that I wanted, I would hush up about the things of Christ and follow my original plan to go into some prestigious, academic, intellectual profession.

As it is, I'm training to be a missionary, so I can tell MORE people about my Savior, who has changed my life and my eternity.

Laugh away. It's my job, man.

[dd_8630]

Who says? You?

Says the ethical system I outlined.

If God is truly the Creator of ALL things, including the Creator of morality, then who else could possibly be the determining standard of morality? "What is good is good because God is good."

Creating the physical universe does not mean creating morality. Your God may have shared his beliefs on what is moral and immoral, but morality is only a concept. It isn't anything real, just something humans use to the mutual benefit of society.

EXACTLY. We are the children in the picture... we do not understand the full implications of our actions, God's actions, or anything else, really. God does what is best... we simply are not always capable of gettin' it.

Possible, of course. We may simply be incapable of grasping God's intentions. But if that is the case, we must make our own descisions.

"O wondrous love, O power of love,

you are able to do what no man ever thought;

God and His Son to force apart!

O love, love, you are strong!"

The sacrifice made by both the Father and the Son in Jesus' death is amazingly acute.

Granted, the loving bond between father and son is very strong, and it takes a strong heart to sacrifice ones child. But this is the Judaeo-Christian God! Why choose to sacrifice your only son when there are much less greusome ways to interfere with mans affairs.

I have researched the various so-called errors, and have heard some completely satisfactory responses and explanations.

Let's sidetrack a little.

Gen 1:25-27 says humans were created after animals, but Gen 2:18-19 say before.

Gen 1:27 says men and women were created simultaneously, whereas Gen 18-22 says man first, then animals, then woman.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/ for a nice long list. But enough sidetracking.

The government does not force students in the public education system to study and memorize the tenets of the Bible.

No, but that is what Creationists are pushing for. Although, do you not have Religious Education classes in America?

That's why I said it was a bad example of an important point. A better example might be the development of systems of sexual reproduction, or another similar set of mutations toward a distict purpose.

Keyphrase there being 'toward a distinct purpose'. Evolution does not have a purpose; we are simply the latest in a long line of mutations. Sexual reproduction, briefly, most likely began when two asexually reproducing organisms had a chance collision during mitosis, their DNA combined, and the resulting offspring (ie, what would otherwise be clones of the original pair) shared genetic information from both. From there, hermaphrodites and later sexually seperate organisms evolved.

First of all, are you seriously saying that, were the God of the Bible real and His standards THE standards, you have never sinned? You've never lied? Had an "indelicate" thought? Been angry with someone without just cause?

Secondly, that's the beauty of free will. Jesus died to make forgiveness of sin a free gift... but He does not force His love on anyone, just as God did not force it on Adam and Eve in the Garden. He simply asks you, by faith, to receive that gift. That's what makes it yours.

It's a bit of the stick-and-carrot really. I have the choice to accept Jesus etc, with consequences of both, only denying Jesus means I get burnt forever. Wonderful. Why should I be punished for what I believe? I am not a bad person (non-Biblically, of course), I try to be altruistic and kind and helping blah blah blah. Besides, I don't beleive in the Bible, nor the Judaeo-Christian god. So I have no worries.

Pleasing my God, who happens to care very much about you, is more important to me than your respect.

If it was the respect of people who don't believe in my God that I wanted, I would hush up about the things of Christ and follow my original plan to go into some prestigious, academic, intellectual profession.

I'll admit, I didn't mean to sound so harsh. I was trying to get across how insensitive it is to proselytise by being insensitive to you. If you're happy, fine.

As it is, I'm training to be a missionary, so I can tell MORE people about my Savior, who has changed my life and my eternity.

What if people don't want to be told? I'm sure they know about Christianity well enough.

[Nero's Fiddle]

Creating the physical universe does not mean creating morality. Your God may have shared his beliefs on what is moral and immoral, but morality is only a concept. It isn't anything real, just something humans use to the mutual benefit of society.

God didn't just create the physical universe. He created consciousness as we know it... before God created the angels, His was the only consciousness. Morality exists only because God chose to include the mechanism for it in us. He designed it, and His morality is the only independantly existant one, as His consciousness is the only independantly existant consciousness.

Possible, of course. We may simply be incapable of grasping God's intentions. But if that is the case, we must make our own descisions.

The children in the example didn't fully grasp the consequences of eating ice cream, but they did understand their parents' instructions not to do so. Therefore, they were not left to make their own decisions, but were responsible to follow the instructions of the parents.

Granted, the loving bond between father and son is very strong, and it takes a strong heart to sacrifice ones child. But this is the Judaeo-Christian God! Why choose to sacrifice your only son when there are much less greusome ways to interfere with mans affairs.

There was NO OTHER CHOICE except to leave man to the consequences of his sin. God is just, so sin had to be accounted for in some way. Either man paid his own penalty (eternal separation from God), or the sinless Son of God Himself became the Sacrifice to pay for the sins of man for him.

Gen 1:25-27 says humans were created after animals, but Gen 2:18-19 say before.

I already discussed this briefly.

Gen 1:27 says men and women were created simultaneously, whereas Gen 18-22 says man first, then animals, then woman.

Genesis 1:27 does not say they were created simultaneously, only that they were both created after the animals. Even a cursory reading of verses 26-28 demonstrates clearly that this passage is not meant to be an in depth description of the creation of man, but rather an explanation of God's commission to man.

Although, do you not have Religious Education classes in America?

No, we do not. America's systems and people have been railroaded into the ridiculous assertion that this would violate our constitution... All we are allowed to have in public schools are "World Religions" classes that briefly outline the main tenets of major religions, almost always with little and biased representation of Christianity, so as not to "favor" it.

Wonderful. Why should I be punished for what I believe? I am not a bad person (non-Biblically, of course), I try to be altruistic and kind and helping blah blah blah. Besides, I don't beleive in the Bible, nor the Judaeo-Christian god. So I have no worries.

Non-Biblically is the key phrase. I said "Were the God of the Bible real...". According to the Bible, "There is none righteous, no, not one."

In the OT it is written that all the works of righteousness which we have done are as "filthy rags". That term refers to the rags lepers used to wipe their sores (Leprosy has always been representative of sin in the Bible). Unless we are made clean from our sins, any work we can do is contaminated by them.

I'll admit, I didn't mean to sound so harsh. I was trying to get across how insensitive it is to proselytise by being insensitive to you. If you're happy, fine.

If I had the cure for cancer in my pocket and walked through a room of terminally ill cancer patients, not offering it to anyone, it would be horrible on my part.

Jesus has done something amazing for me, giving me life when I was dead. If I didn't tell people about the ETERNAL cure, don't you think, from MY perspective, that would be pretty terrible?

What if people don't want to be told? I'm sure they know about Christianity well enough.

Unfortunately, that's not the case. There are thousands upon thousands of people in the world who have never even heard Christ's name, much less His true gospel.

I grew up in supposedly Christian America, in an Episcopal church. Until I read it on the internet less than three years ago, I had never heard (at least understandably) the REAL gospel of Christ, that it is not my works that atone for sin and bring eternal life, but the blood of Christ only.

[dd_8630]

God didn't just create the physical universe. He created consciousness as we know it... before God created the angels, His was the only consciousness. Morality exists only because God chose to include the mechanism for it in us. He designed it, and His morality is the only independantly existant one, as His consciousness is the only independantly existant consciousness.

I thought we were created with an independant conciousness? And just because God's sense of morality existed before our own doesn't mean its correct (assuming there is a correct moral code, of course).

The children in the example didn't fully grasp the consequences of eating ice cream, but they did understand their parents' instructions not to do so. Therefore, they were not left to make their own decisions, but were responsible to follow the instructions of the parents.

The difference between the analogy and reality is that the parents have an active say in what the kids do. They didn't leave a note (Bible) and leave them to it. If they did, the children would almost certainly ignore it and eat ice-cream anyway. The analogy is flawed.

There was NO OTHER CHOICE except to leave man to the consequences of his sin. God is just, so sin had to be accounted for in some way. Either man paid his own penalty (eternal separation from God), or the sinless Son of God Himself became the Sacrifice to pay for the sins of man for him.

No other choice? Why would God create a universe where one could forgive the sins of ones creations only by sacrificing ones only son/self? Whatever happened to omnipotence?

I already discussed this briefly.

Quite.

Gen 1:25 "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind... and God saw that [it was] good.", 1:26-27 "Let us make man in our own image...So God created man in his [own] image". Right? Animals then man.

Gen 2:18 "[it is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.", 2:19 " And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field...". Right? Man then animals.

Explain.

EDIT: I have to go now, but will finish 2moz (GMT)!

Edited July 15, 2006 by dd_8630

[Smalcald]

One of the problems I think is that we need to back up in our educational process or improve it, and teach kids what the scientific method is. The differences between hypothesis, theory, scientific laws, controlled study, etc, what does evidence mean in the scientific sense. Then talk about what is being discussed in philosophy and what is being discussed in religion. They are all slightly different topics. Certainly they have intersections, but they are all different. For example the scientific advances over the past one thousand years still do not mitigate or reduce the need for reading what Aristotle or Plato said.

Agreed. People nowadays (says I the 17yo) seem to equate theory with hypothesis (establish but unproven explination of observations, with a suggested explination. Hypothesis is kind of like a proto-theory), which is where the old argument of 'it's just a theory' comes from. So yes, proper education in scientific terms would end the unproductive debates going on. However, I don't think the scientific theory and the religious theory should be taught in the same context, since they are quite different fields discussing a similar unknown.

I don't think they should be taught in the same context either.

For me I don't want a science teacher talking about a subject he or she may no nothing about, namely religion or philosophy, the same would hold for a person who is schooled in theology or philosophy talking about science.

If the scientist claims, "well there is no God because of what I know about science" they would be far overstepping and simply wrong about what they could possibly know, however if the theology teacher claims well "we know evolution or astrophysics is wrong on this point scientifically", they would also be overstepping and entering into a discussion they are not trained for.