God's Country by Peter Jennings and Todd Brewster

The ghost of William Jennings Bryan smiles on Aiken, S.C. -- where the debate between evolution and creationism still rages

tanganda

01/16/2003 07:36:27 AM

By banning creationism from schools you allow fundies to pretend the scientific world is trying to "suppress truth" or is "afraid of competing theories" or some such twaddle. About the worst thing that could happen to creationists is for us to say "OK, go ahead, teach this drivel. But remember, if you present it as a scientific theory we can attack it." Once it's out in the open and subject to scientific criticism most of the brighter students will soon see that creationism is garbage. As for those students that cling to creationist trash… well they were probably going to believe the creationists anyway.

ilawin

11/22/2002 08:59:37 AM

Creation exists within God. Is it possible that Evolution exists within Creation? Within God's plan? Why could it not have taken billions of years for Creation to happen? God has eternity. Billions of years is not too much for God. Creationism is a sign that some men's minds cannot comprehend God's expanse. Is some men's mind too small to take in eternity so thus Creationism reduces time of God's that it took for God to work? Is Creationism a concept that could fit into some men's minds better? Science too is not a threat to God. It is not a threat to faith or religion. It is only a threat to men's minds. Can spirituality and science go hand in hand? Yes. There do exist people of faith who work in science. AND it is how people everywhere will imbue spirit into the applications of science. If people of faith continue to attempt to separate science and faith, then how can we imbue spirituality into scientific applications?

ilawin

11/22/2002 08:06:18 AM

Creationism theory comes from human pride, not Scientific fact or God Himself. God Himself is bigger then scientific fact and God is bigger then the Bible. Creationism limits God. Creation exists within God, not God some one place or time in Creation. The Bible does not contain God and have copyrights or intellectual rights on God. Neither does any one book or religion. Is Creationism theory humans in their pride trying to make God smaller to fit within the size of human minds? Humans wrote the Bible with Divine Inspiration. Is it possible that when it was inspired thousands of years ago, God only revealed part of the truth about Creation at that time, the part that humans could comprehend at that time? God is everywhere. He reveals Himself everywhere. His Truth is not only found in the Bible. Is it possible that to discover Evolution and the Big Bang that God is revealing his Creation more and more---at our human rate of comprehension?

yourmissingsock

10/03/2002 08:04:35 PM

Kids learn about science in the classroom, and about God in the church. The integrity of both are kept this way, even if science is fighting religion, and religion is fighting science.

Starrrrr

09/26/2002 03:50:03 PM

creationism from a scientific perspective ..is an oxymoron.

Starrrrr

09/24/2002 11:17:11 PM

Science uses empiracle evidence to devise theories to explain natural phenomena. The empiracle evidence supporting evolution can not be thrown out in an attempt to replace science with theology. Creationism takes faith. Creationism is faith. Creationism needs no empiracle evidence, and it needs no public classrooms. Why some people feel the need to make it a science, I have no idea.

Gal2_20

09/14/2002 06:14:26 AM

SCIENTIFIC VIEW: For creationism from a scientific perspective browse to the following link: http://www.creationism.org/topbar/links.htm FAITH: The foundations of creation and evolution theories are based on faith and built with science. You are doing the truth and yourself a great injustice if you believe that one is merely faith and the other merely science.

KenS

09/10/2002 11:14:39 AM

Valueadder wrote: "For instance, if Big Bang theory is true, we expect the universe to expand at slower rate" This is false and reveals nothing other than Vlaueadder's misuderstanding of the theory. The rate of expansion is determined by the amount of matter in the Universe. The idea of a Big Bang is consistent with either slowing or speeding of expansion. It is the expansion itself that is evidence (among other things such as background radiation) of the Big Bang. There is NO serious scientific challenge to the idea that the Universe began in a Big Bang of some sort - and there hasn't been for nearly forty years. There have been differing ideas regarding the mechanics of the event - but not the event itself. Ken

mmarston

09/10/2002 10:05:31 AM

hey dolphin, you said, "How do we tell right from wrong? Is there a meaning to life? The scientific method doesn't work on these questions, so other methods must be used". however, if there is trauma to the prefrontal cortex, the ability to tell right from wrong can be diminished severely, or irradicated. this has been proven by science. "do unto others" is a product of reasoning, as are all tenets of the good values in all religions. there is no separation between science and spiritual quest, only those who would turn, anything, into a territorial driven competition. following our basic animal drives will only see us go backwards. following logic can only see us go forward. mm

hopewithoutdogma

09/09/2002 01:11:42 PM

You're right valueadder, I have strayed from the topic. So I'll to the point. Should Creationism be taught alongside evolution? In my humble opinion, no. Evolution is self-consistent and is starting to get some pretty powerful evidence in its favour. Do I believe that the theory is complete? No way, it needs a lot of work. As an ongoing process, evolution is getting stronger by the day. It doesn't however give a good explanation of the initial conditions it needed to work within. Creationism on the other hand has a similar amount of evidence as me writing on a bit of paper, "Life was created by superman." I'm not denying that The Bible has many historically true elements, and I think that Jesus was an incredibly wise man. But it requires a leap of faith to accept. Creation myths from other religions are just as valid.

zarabeth

09/09/2002 12:41:30 PM

I've always admired Peter Jennings, but to me the dichotomy in this essay is a false one. Also I question that 47% of Americans believe in Creationism. Science and religion are not contradictory, they are two "lenses" through which to view the world. It really bothers me to see the word faith used to mean fundamentalism. Faith is a trusting relationship with God; it is not the same as turning the bible into a history textbook of literal "facts."

MaCara

09/09/2002 11:51:46 AM

To equate the biblical creation story with the Darwinian scientific theory of evolution is ridiculous. One is based on science and the other on religious faith. I agree with the part of this article which placed biblical discussions in a class about comparitive religion.

valueadder

09/09/2002 08:48:11 AM

For instance, these we know, not conjectures or extrapolation. 1) We have independent verifications of global flood stories all around the world. (Scientists now believe that there was a global flood in Mars. I put in Mars because it is a hypothesis). 2)Fossilization requires rapid burial/preservation. That is why we do not have fossils of buffaloes in the U.S. 3) We have evidences of marine fossils graveyards even on the top of the highest mountains. 4) We have fossil graveyards around the world with contorted and broken bones piled several feet high in a mud typical of flood mud. 5) What would you say happen using Ockham's Razor and Galielo's Knife? 6) All these evidences are consistent with the Bible.

valueadder

09/09/2002 08:41:57 AM

HopeWithoutDogma ... you are straying everywhere in dicussion. Our ignorance is not the same as truth. Thus base our deduction on everything on what we know. Continuing our previous discussion, the following we know, not conjectures

hopewithoutdogma

09/09/2002 08:09:20 AM

There's an error in my previous posting. It should say _intuitively_ illogical in the first sentence of the 4th paragraph.

hopewithoutdogma

09/09/2002 07:52:44 AM

The Bible states that after Noah had lived for so long, God decreed that no person would live beyond 120 years. How do you explain the current age record being set by a 121 year old French woman? In the Bible the flood covered all of the Earth, but the physical evidence is that the Caspian did indeed flood, but not over the entire Earth. The Bible says that homosexuality in unnatural, but Urang-Utans have been seen to perform oral sex male-to-male. Hundreds of other animals, including bats, have exhibited such behaviour. Just because something is illogical doesn't mean it isn't true, e.g. The Earth is roughly spherical even though it looks pretty flat to us. Talking about evidence most of your exmamples are emotive, and lacking in evidence themsleves. Your bad use of the induction hypothesis to prove that there must be maker fails, the logical conclusion is that the universe or more generally existence has been going forever and didn't have a beginning.

valueadder

09/09/2002 02:41:30 AM

Galileo Galilei could reconcile his scientific findings with the Bible. It was the church who rejected the Bible and followed Aristotelian thinking who had strayed. Do you know that renaissance emerged because the monks during the "Dark" ages accumulated the knowledge of the world in search for the truth? Without this systematic accumulation of knowledge, we would still be in the dark ages. Do you know that Harvard and Yale were built to serve Jesus? Harvard was named after Reverend John Harvard. Do you know that it was the love ideology of Jesus that make the idea of hospitals to be so prevalent. All I ask is to base your belief on knowledge or at least make it consistent with knowledge and evidences, not conjectures on top of conjectures.

valueadder

09/09/2002 02:34:48 AM

HopeWithoutDogma, have you seen a table created itself? If someone in a remote village see a car for the first time, is it logical for him to think that the car evolves or is it more logical to think that it has a maker? How about a more complex products? From what we know we have the Law of Maker. While we cannot know where God come from, based on what we know, there has to be a Maker based on the Law of Maker.

valueadder

09/09/2002 02:29:57 AM

HopeWithoutDogma, do you what what must happen for fossil creation? Rapid burial and preservation process. Otherwise the organisms will simply decay and rot to dust. While we have many evidences that fossilization can happen in a very short time (know/knowledge), we do not have any evidences of fossilization happening for millions of years, do we? Scientists now can also produce oil and coal similar to the fossil types within days. That is what we know.

valueadder

09/09/2002 02:25:56 AM

Bacteria become resistant to anti-biotics as it mutates, a process of devolution, but the bacteria never evolves. This is the same as radiation bombardment that scientists do to fruit flies to increase the possibility of evolution. They get deformed and devolved fruit files, and never evolved fruit flies though the radiation is supposed to increase the evolution process. Evolution is simply a conjecture. While we see devolution everywhere, we have yet to see evolution. Devolution is scientific (including mutation and speciation). Biological evolution is only a conjecture without any scientific evidences.

valueadder

09/09/2002 02:17:15 AM

HopeWithoutDogma, when something is true, everything we know, not just believe, will be consistent with it. So far, the Bible has been consistent with everything we know. If a theory is not consistent with what we know, then it is most likely false unless we have other causes that interfene. For instance, if Big Bang theory is true, we expect the universe to expand at slower rate. However, now we know that the universe is expanding at a faster rate. Thus, there is a flaw in the theory. If the universe were expanding at a slower rate, Big Bang might not be true, but at least it was consistent with what we know, and thus had better probability of being true.

cweb2048

09/08/2002 02:49:20 PM

Schools must teach how to explore, allow and respect different views. Part of this is to teach kids from an early age how dangerous it is for a belief to be given the status of absolute truth. All creations of the human mind - including the Bible, the Koran, our understanding of the laws of physics, our political systems, ..... - are incomplete, transient, prone to innacuracies. Teach this in schools -then there will be much more intelligence, wisdom, compassion, humility and respect - the highest morality.

rsielin

09/08/2002 01:01:56 PM

I wish the fundamentalists would leave science alone. There are so many parts of science that just a few years ago were unthinkable. Relativity, gravity's space time curvature, wave/particle nature of light, information through thin air, black holes and evolution to name just a small fraction of confirmed mind-boggling natural phenomenon. The layperson often is stretched beyond belief to understand. But that alone does not make the science wrong. Feel free to “believe” what you want but if you can't do the math, you best stay on the sidelines and watch. Creation science and intelligent design, while interesting to the layperson, has not yet produced any hard evidence other than quotes from the Bible that can stand any rigorous peer review testing. Yes, Evolution Theory is not complete. However, the facts in favor of evolution grow exponentially and mesh ever more tightly with the rest of science. This is not a conspiracy. No facts are being withheld. The solid part of this science is not going to go away.

hopewithoutdogma

09/08/2002 09:06:44 AM

Theservant, you have taken my comments out of context. The benefits of Christian society that valueadder mentioned, in particular Hospitals and Higher Education, were endeavours started by the Greeks. They only really started to resemble their modern forms after the dark ages. Being an Academic/educator I'm sure you know why they're called the _dark_ ages. I don't deny that people of all beliefs (or lack thereof) are being tortured and killed even today, but that has no real relevance to the point of valuadder's I was countering. That is unless you're countering my statement that Creationism has no proof, if so please do enlighten me.

karenwick1

09/08/2002 01:07:41 AM

I agree with wigglydoo (love that name!). Evoulutionary theory and creationist belief are not both theories. A theory can be either proven or disproven. A religious belief can'. Apples and oranges.

karenwick1

09/08/2002 01:07:16 AM

I once lived in an area where our polling place was at a local evangelical church school. I remember voting in a classroom that had pictures of dinosaurs living with the cavement (drawn by children!). These poor kids, having been taught in this type of setting, won't understand what "real" science is. They will be taught that their religious belief is a "theory" just like evolution. These people may be sincere, but they are also fearful of the unknown (they need "literal truth") a well as ignorant. How sad! By the way, I work in a public school setting and I am happy to say that science is indeed still being taught, and that children actually are allowed to discuss their beliefs freely (at least in our school). It's a low- to middle-income school, the parents have chosen to have the kids wear uniforms and we have a code of conduct. We've done quite well without having the Ten Commandments posted. (unfortunately, we still have that "under God" thing in the pledge).

DolphinSmile

09/07/2002 07:08:15 PM

Scientists use their senses and measurements to understand the world. They figure out how physical, material things work whether it is a volcano or a thunderstorm or a human body. Religion, on the other hand, answers not how do things work, but why. Why are we here? How do we tell right from wrong? Is there a meaning to life? The scientific method doesn't work on these questions, so other methods must be used. Not everyone who believes evolution are atheists, and not everyone who are religious don't in evolution. The only people that have a problem with it are fudamentalists, both religious and scientific. On the one hand you have the Christian fundamentalists saying everything in the Bible is literally true, and on the other hand you have some scientists who say everything in the Bible is NOT literally true, so the whole thing is a bunch of BS. I personally thing both these views are too narrow for such an complex world.

TheServant

09/07/2002 06:12:13 PM

Hopewithoutdogma, ummmm, atheists and agnostics are being tortured and killed today. I would suggest you do more reading what happens to these folks (and Christians as well) in the Middle East. You have obviously read something of history, but only to answer what you wanted to know. Read more and then come back. ts

hopewithoutdogma

09/07/2002 01:28:24 PM

Valueadder, all that you have proved is that the historical aspects of Luke's Gospel are true, not that the Bible is true as a whole. There is no physical evidence to support Creationism. Now you could argue that God put fossils in the ground as a test of faith, or we share 50% of out DNA with bananas because God has a sense of humour. What about bacteria that develop/evolve defences to anti-biotics in a matter of days or months? Is God bored and having a tinker with them? Also the benefits you mention of Christian countries wouldn't have happened unless Europe got out of the dark ages, and people could be atheist and agnostic without fear of being tourtured and killed by clergymen. People on the side of evolution aren't asking much, they just want people to think rather than regurgitate dogma.

mmarston

09/07/2002 11:27:41 AM

hoo boy. look. god is in us, everywhere, no more or less present in a field of lillies, than in a building called 'church' or 'school'. we can't 'throw' god, anywhere... "Our children need to know that there is meaning to their lives…[that] we have been created for a purpose. That purpose is to worship and serve the almighty creator, God. When we thwart that purpose and throw God out of our schools, we allow chaos to reign."

mmarston

09/07/2002 09:59:19 AM

(oops. continued, from, below) so, frequently we find ourselves at war, inside of us, as the reasonable human tries to control the autopilot responses of a flight or fight reaction, which reaction is usually out of place in civilized groups. the kindest, most loving and peaceful person can be turned in to 'monster' if they are under enough stress and they have perceived that their livelihood, security, is in danger. people who grow up in environments of abuse, malnutrition, and absence of education, may be operating almost solely out of this desperate chemical place. is this the core of the problems of the whole world? i think it is. the world is screwed up, guys, and we have the keys to calm it down, heal it. why don't we focus on that?continued, from below)

mmarston

09/07/2002 09:56:54 AM

god is alive and well and living in my prefrontal cortex...:)....yours, too, probably. this is quite a claim, not provable, i suppose, but it may stand to reason. what is provable is that there is a war in us, in our brain anatomy, between the survival driven animal, and the enlightened, reason driven human. all sins are products of a fearful animal in us, defending territory, acting, but not thinking. fear is not an 'emotion' as much as a chemical reaction, hormonally based. (continued below)

valueadder

09/07/2002 01:36:09 AM

The whole teachings of the Bible are founded on the First and Second Greatest Commandments: to love Yahweh our Elohim with all our heart and all our soul and all our mind, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. The First Greatest Commandment unifies the world into peace under one CEO. Both commandments creates universal agape-love that builds up the world. Preferences that God hates destroy the world. Preferences that God loves build up the world. That is why Christian societies have brought so much benefit to the world including hospitals, humanitarian work, and higher education. Do you know that Harvard was built to serve Jesus. It was named after Reverend John Harvard.

valueadder

09/07/2002 01:30:11 AM

This is how we know that the Bible is true: ignorant people thought of it as to contain many errors; as people get knowledgable, they see its truth. For instance, people used to falsely think that Luke made many errors. However, the latest archeological findings showed Luke to be an extremely accurate historian. I did not understand the organizational management principles of the Bible in benefiting the world until my knowledge in personal and organizational development has become advanced enough.

Abrownback

09/07/2002 01:12:16 AM

cweb- When I read your post, I was frustrated. I felt as a Christian I needed to respond to your claims. But then I reread your post and realized there is no need. Your gross generalizations about all religions take away any point you were trying to make.

cweb2048

09/06/2002 10:56:52 PM

Beliefs are formed as part of our search for truth. Beliefs should be treated as transient features of our spiritual search. Beliefs are like drops of water in a river. Fundamentalists try to grasp a single drop and pretend it lasts forever - until it stagnates or evaporates. A spiritual explorer seeks to feel the flow of the river - clinging to nothing. A scientist tries to analyze the mechanisms that drive the whole thing. Teach this in public schools.

cweb2048

09/06/2002 10:39:33 PM

How do we know what God says? You say the Bible is God's Word because the Bible says so? Wacko logic - only a dim wit would belief such circular nonsense. Men wrote the Bible. They were not inspired by spiritual wisdom. They were not inspired by science. They were not inspired by Truth. They were inspired by hate, anger, domination complexes, ego, limbic system drives, tribal conflicts, the occasional vision of something mysterious - whose healing force was lost in egotistical drives. Same goes for all religions. I believe that belief must never be held up as absolute truth. Science questions belief and emphasizes self-critical investigation. Science's weakeness is that it doesn't always acknowledge its limitations and incompleteness. Religious fanatics weakness is that they rarely acknowledge same. That is why science (i.e. evolution) should be taught in schools and creationism should not.

Masterspork

09/06/2002 10:38:45 PM

“If Gods word says he created us, then it is so, GOD cannot lie,” The Bible never says HOW it humanity was made, so why would evolution not be possible? Also what is a day to God? “Evolution is a lie straight from the mouth of Satan, and anyone who believes it , believes a big lie.” http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

con-oo

09/06/2002 09:58:35 PM

If Gods word says he created us, then it is so, GOD cannot lie, he is perfect. Evolution is a lie straight from the mouth of satan, and anyone who believes it , believes a big lie.

rsielin

09/06/2002 09:41:54 PM

The creationists are barking up the wrong tree. They need to be working the university scientists. Local school boards can't create new science. They don't have any science credentials. If our children are going to major in a science as their life’s work, the high school sciences must devote all their precious little classroom time to topics that are also included in college. Not something that will have to be “unlearned” at the university later. The only way for creationism to earn any science legitimacy is to compete at the best “level playing field" for evaluation of scientific claims that has ever existed in history; scientific peer review. If it is deemed science there, only then is it legitimate science for our children.

TheServant

09/06/2002 07:04:21 PM

Creationism is not a Science, per se, and does not need teaching in public school. Most of our High School kids are graduating semi-literate and this Creationism curriculum would only bog them down more. Most can't find the USA on a world map and haven't a dither of an idea who their Senator, Governor, Vice President or President is and cannot comprehend an employment application. I dare say the teaching of this subject should not be attempted at home either since so many Christians, parents or otherwise, are fairly clueless on what the Bible teaches about any Biblical subject let alone Creationism. ts

TheServant

09/06/2002 07:03:55 PM

I suspect we would not be in this quandary if we took our children to Church more often where the message of Creation is taught. I suspect we would be a lot farther down the road towards a meeting of these two mind thoughts if this would happen. Because the parents won't get involved in either issue, school or Church, the issue tends to make us choose sides often and more times than not settling nothing at all really except "who has the stupidest ideology".

spiritseeker

09/06/2002 05:39:44 PM

Do followers of other religions that also have a creation "myth" also have trouble reconciling their faith to science?

DominoTriumverate

09/06/2002 04:17:00 PM

That settles it. My kid[s] will be home-schooled. I'm tired of these Xian fools jamming thier overblown mythology down our throats. I guarantee you that if this twit and the others like him succeed, it wont be the Old Northern Way, Navajo, or Kemetic creation "theories" they are teaching. Christian Nation my lily white posterior. Not my kids.

FaeryDragon

09/06/2002 01:37:10 PM

Few things I would like to point out, todays' theory of evolution does not teach how life started on earth. The science theories for this is abiogenesis and biogenesis. Darwin's theory is natural selection, not evolution. Actually the theory of evolution was thought up by someone else before Darwin(do not remember the person's name, maybe someone else out there knows?). Believing in creationism does not have to clash with believing in evolution. If you believe in God then who is to say how God created things to come about?

wigglydoo

09/06/2002 11:19:41 AM

The Evolution Theory is just that; a scientific theory. Creationism is Faith-Based belief; it is neither science nor a theory. It is not the job of public schools to teach faith in any way; public schools teach academia which helps us understand and define our world. I have never understood why this distinction is difficult to understand.

JamesComerota

09/06/2002 10:37:35 AM

DolphinSmile- Very well stated!

JamesComerota

09/06/2002 10:22:41 AM

If exposure to real science is so confusing to youngsters, perhaps their parents should stop filling their heads with fairy tales. -Just a thought

JamesComerota

09/06/2002 10:20:14 AM

aprovo22- Please remove the foot from your mouth and justify these two arguments: - Adopting this "theory"(evolution), because everyone else is doing it, is like my mother saying to me "If everyone one would jump off a bridge, would you do it too?" - (I) was brought up to believe in the Bible, because it is God's Word. I will continue to support the Bible.

DolphinSmile

09/06/2002 10:17:40 AM

I think what the schools really need to do is to teach their students better about how science works! If anyone thinks that the Theory of Evolution and Creationism are equal then they have a bad understanding of how science works. (continued below)

DolphinSmile

09/06/2002 10:17:11 AM

(continued from above) They say that evolution is "just a theory. Well, a "scientific theory" is a really big deal. In order to come up with a theory, a scientist has to first come up with an idea, and then find proof, LOTS of proof. Then other scientists have to go out and look at the proof themselves, and if lots of scientists agree with all this proof, then they have a scientific theory. The theory can then be ASSUMED TRUE, and used to prove other theories until there is compelling evidence to prove that the theory is wrong. Nobody says the Theory of Gravity is "just a theory", but Evolution went through the same things gravity went through to gain "theory" status.

DolphinSmile

09/06/2002 10:16:42 AM

(continued from above) The Theory of Evolution, like other big theories, has a LOT of proof behind it. Or else it wouldn't be a theory, it would be a hypothesis. Creationism, on the other hand, has NO proof, or at least very little. Nothing like what evolution has. And as the years go by since Darwin wrote The Origin of Species, new facts being discovered have actually proven his theory EVEN FURTHER, or maybe only slightly modified it. His basic idea has held up. Okay, yeah, there is always uncertainty in science. But we are PRETTY DARN SURE Darwin was at least mostly right, and we have lots of PROOF to back it up.

DolphinSmile

09/06/2002 10:16:12 AM

(continued from above) Evolution is science. It is a theory that has gathered lots of proof behind it and has been used to prove lots of other theories with success. And it just keeps on gathering more and more proof. It should be taught in schools, along with how science actually works so that people can see for themselves how theories are proven and disproven. That way they can see for themselves why Evolution is such a big deal.

aprovo22

09/06/2002 09:48:13 AM

If the schools are allowed to teach the "Theory of Evolution", then they should be allowed to teach the other side of the spectrum too, and teach "Creationism". If the Theory of Evolution is taught as "Science" in school, that is not fair to those who strongly disagree that is NOT a science, and has always been a "theory". They should even the playing field and bring in the Bible teaching on creation. Then it should be up to the student and their family to support the beliefs they have. I don't think it is fair to force children, who were taught to believe in the Bible, and when they get to school are told that what they believe in is a fairy tale, and they should believe in a Theory, that science can not, as of yet, prove to be true. It is confusing for children. It should be equally taught to children so they are aware of the theory of evolution and creationism, and parents and families can then show their children why the family believes in what they do.

aprovo22

09/06/2002 09:25:59 AM

Evolution is a THEORY. It is NOT a science. It was Darwin's Theory. People have adopted it because they want to understand something. Adopting this "theory", because everyone else is doing it, is like my mother saying to me "If everyone one would jump off a bridge, would you do it too?" I was brought up to believe in the Bible, because it is God's Word. I will continue to support the Bible. My faith is important to me, and adopting a theory to replace my faith because everyone else is doing it, goes againt what I believe as a Christian. We need to stand up for what we believe in, and not cop out and do what is most popular.

bardmountain

09/06/2002 09:06:19 AM

It would seem that ultimately this is a question for the scientific community to resolve. Having lay people determine what theory of life's origin to teach at school would be akin to having a school board determine whether you need a kidney transplant or not. We should leave scientific findings up to scientists. Although you will always have a few rogue scientists outside of the mainstream, the overwhelming majority have found the evidence vastly supports evolutionary theory. That is not to say that evolutionary theory is complete - we will always have new findings that will cause us to re-evaluate pieces of our understanding. Who knows - maybe it will be proven hogwash one day. But until then, we should go with the mainstream opinion of the scientific majority.

slimtim336

09/05/2002 11:44:21 PM

The answer is simple: teach science in science class and religion in religion class. Creationism is NOT science. Evolution IS science. It's not perfect. It's not complete. The theory of evolution has itself evolved much since first proposed by Darwin. But it is the best we've got. We take it and run with it until someone shows how to improve upon it; that's what science is all about.

mmarston

09/05/2002 10:53:00 PM

so, uh, does it matter that we know or don't know, really, exactly how the universe, or we, were 'created,' or how we have evolved over time? the kids will either weigh or not weigh the information given them from various sources, including those provided at school, and eventually form their own opinions. or, they will parrot their parents' opinions. if any of these kids are truly interested in either of these subjects, they can always look stuff up online, you know, if they even care. (continued below)

mmarston

09/05/2002 10:51:59 PM

what is at stake here, anyway, being 'right'? 'protecting' children? can children be protected from information, opinions, irrational beliefs? it seems that creation can be regarded as 'fact' since, you know, here we are; however we got here. evolution, too, has happened, though how this occurred is and probably always remain murky, while we are living anyway... you cannot change a child's thinking after they have rooted their own concepts....unless they are 'brainwashed' and then they'll have to figure some way to 'evolve' outta that...mm

bardmountain

09/05/2002 08:35:21 PM

FaeryDragon raises an excellent point!

FaeryDragon

09/05/2002 07:57:54 PM

A serious question to ponder and bring up: if it was agreed that creationism would be taught in public schools, then which religion's or religions' version of creationism should be taught?

morn_sun

09/05/2002 07:14:58 PM

What's sad is alot of the hosility that's displayed by the scientific community in general is not presently Creation or Intelligent design.. ...it's the presentaton of the problems and holes the evolutionary throry posses.

cfortunato

09/05/2002 04:26:34 PM

I say that they should teach creationism in science classes on one condition: that there actually IS a scientific theory of creationism to teach. But ooops: there isn't one. So how on earth could they possibly teach it in science class?

sonofthunder

09/05/2002 04:16:05 PM

The fact that the authors of this article are framing the debate in terms of "science vs religion" and "reason vs faith" demonstrates that they are sadly ignorant of both the philosophy behind science and the rationality of faith. There is no "war" between science and faith. There is only a "war" between people who do not understand either.

gwydionoak

09/05/2002 01:59:41 PM

"I have to say this in view of the attacks of those known as Creationists, some of whom deny all this on Biblical grounds." He points out, with many examples, both the obvious strengths and the weaknesses of applying Darwin's original theory of evolution universally. The real question, he said (and I personally at least agree) is not WHAT happened. It is rather whether it was simple random chance, or some purpose that sparked and fueled the development of life on earth. And that is something no one really KNOWS.

gwydionoak

09/05/2002 01:54:36 PM

Perhaps one of the best books I have ever read on this subject is The Great Evolution Mystery by Gordon Rattray Taylor. He goes into great detail about the history of the theory of evolution, from Darwin's original paper to the anamolies that shed doubt on its universal application. Taylor was no creationist. He says in his introduction: "The fact that an evolutionary process occurred is not in doubt. It is only the mechanism that brought it about that is being questioned.Any rational man who examines even a part of the evidence must be convinced that life started as very simple cells , which associated in more and more complex forms, which branched into many variants, over an extremely long period of time."

gwydionoak

09/05/2002 01:48:01 PM

I went to the site THICH mentioned. It illustrates precisely what I said in an earlier post. Both sides present their views as if they were obvious truth. Both ignore clear facts in the process. Creationists ignore the obvious examples of evolution in living species to the point that they invite ridicule. Evolutionists, or Neo-Darwinists to be more accurate, ignore substantial evidence that more than random chance may have been involved in the evolution of life on earth. Darwin himself was far more humble about it. He clearly demonstrated how small changes, like the shape of beaks in finches was the result of mutation, and gradual evolution. The eye of an eagle, with the countless millions of "chance mutations" which would have to have occured, he wasn't so sure of. He said "When I think of the eye, I shudder."

THICH72

09/05/2002 01:14:39 PM

Creation Science, or Intelligent Design, should only be allowed in the science classroom when actual, verfiable science is produced to support the ideas its proponents propagate. With all the debates, books, controversies and general hullabaloo the creationists have produced, they have yet to produce one idea that can stand up to real scientific scrutiny. Check out www.natcenscied.org for the truth behind the "debate".

gwydionoak

09/05/2002 12:30:27 PM

And here we all are, back into the science "vrs" religion. Evolution 'vrs' creationism. While I don't personally buy into the intelligent design theory, at least those who have introduced it to me do NOT see science and religion as enemies or adversaries. They recognize science and religion as different ways to approach why and how the earth, the universe, etc. is here. Theory is fine, and can cover a lot...as long as theory doesn't become dogma and if it isn't taught as if it were absolute truth. Creationism has more holes in it than a swiss cheese... Evolution may explain the HOW a whole lot better, but the WHY is totally missing. The funny thing to me about this whole debate is that NO ONE REALLY KNOWS. I haven't personally met a single person who was here when it all started ...I certainly wasn't. Maybe if we all had the humility to admit this simple fact, there wouldn't be this great fight over whether one theory or another should be included in or excluded from the schools.

jkopanko

09/05/2002 12:14:23 PM

The point is, religion has perfect free reign to teach whatever it sees fit within a religious context. However, it does nto have the right to abuse the religious freedom clause to hijack science education in a purely secular context.

jkopanko

09/05/2002 12:11:20 PM

Abrown, Your point (with regard to what was said earlier) got lost somewhere, please pardon if my response is not accurately referring to what you're trying to say.

jkopanko

09/05/2002 12:07:55 PM

"Hmm, maybe after 100 years of you people continually proving us right? " ... huh?

jkopanko

09/05/2002 12:06:51 PM

"First of all, Not all scientists believe in Evolution." Also, "first of all", not all religious believe in Creationism. Yes, it's true: "scientist" is not a designation that can be equated with "god": There are wacky "scientists" just as there are wacky preachers, politicians, or custodians. What is your point?

Abrownback

09/05/2002 11:46:08 AM

I am a creationalist- First of all, Not all scientists believe in Evolution. I suggest you check out books like Darwins Black Box, and others. Second, Not all creationalists agree with the literal interpretation of Genesis 1. There is strong support that it is not a outline of how the world was created, but of who created it. It is the apologetic theory which was written mainly to refute pagan myths of the time. Science has yet to prove evolution on a macro scale, and creationalists have not been able to prove that there is a God. I personally believe that the facts point toward intelegent design, not random chance.

worksferme

09/05/2002 11:36:11 AM

I have never had a problem reconciling religious faith with my belief in evolution. Nonetheless, I like creationists. They have the courage of their convictions. And I do believe there are more important things than logic.

kaveh500

09/05/2002 10:57:31 AM

"When did we get to the point in this country that "religious"="reactionary hick"?" Hmm, maybe after 100 years of you people continually proving us right?

jkopanko

09/05/2002 10:53:47 AM

When did we get to the point in this country that "religious"="reactionary hick"? That's the real issue we all should be confronting. Talk about "hijacking"...

jkopanko

09/05/2002 10:34:49 AM

We needn't look to an archeological specimen of some isolated former-confederate Hickville to see this kind of wackiness. The fact of the matter is, MOST of the evangelical media broadcasts springing from this region and pumped throughout the country (CBN, Kennedy, etc.) are propagandizing this "evil Darwinists taking the Bible out of America" bunk, creating "an issue" where none exists school districts in less prosperous or progressive spots around the country. It's really disturbing: (continued below)

jkopanko

09/05/2002 10:34:25 AM

(continued from above) It's really disturbing when we let "freedom of religion" subvert science, in the arena of science education. It's really disturbing when we let "freedom of religion" subvert civil rights in issues of employment, accommodation, etc. It's really disturbing when we let backwoods bigots with a grudge against the world for "taking away their [backwoods] America" sanctimoniously set up quasi-religious political lobbies to overturn any act of progress which their literalist interpretations of 3000 year old mythology prevent their brittle minds from coming to terms with.

kaveh500

09/05/2002 10:31:09 AM

"Just how can a religious nation reconcile faith with science and reason?" Easy: you discard faith and accept science and reason.

JRT

09/05/2002 09:23:45 AM

continued from previous post.Remember that to destroy a theory all that is required is solid evidence to the contrary. If that should happen with evolution the one of two things would happen --- modify the theory to accommodate the new facts --- throw the theory out and start over. After all this has happened numerous times. Who has ever heard of caloric, or plogiston, or the aether or, indeed, Darwin's other theory. Even if the theory were to be discarded that would still not leave creationism as the only alternative for the very simple reason that there are no facts to support it.

JRT

09/05/2002 09:21:34 AM

In a very real sense evolution is a both a fact and a theory. It is a fact in the sense that the fossil record clearly indicates that life forms have changed dramatically over the course of time ---that is the FACT part. There is however the theory part ---what are the exact mechanisms that drive evolution? On that point there is a very lively debate in the scientific community --- that is the theory part. We could compare this with gravity. Like evolution the fact of gravity cannot be contested and it can be accurately described in great detail ---we call this the Law of Gravity. But,like evolution there is a very lively debate as to the how and why of gravity ---is it a wave? ---is it a particle? --- is it a curvature of space-time?

KenS

09/05/2002 08:51:15 AM

Interestingly enough, the biggest threat to this non-science is cosmology. Had I been one of their number, I would have lobbied heavily against funding the Hubble Telescope - which produces a constant stream of pictoral evidence that the universe is billions of years old. Does this mean that I am not a Christian? Of course not - it simply means that I am not an heretical literalist. Ken

KenS

09/05/2002 08:51:05 AM

Creationism (at least in terms of the 10,000 year-old universe variety) is only an issue for heretical literal Biblicists - persons who worship the Bible rather than God. It is nonsense and has no place in a scientific curriculum. I find it amusing that "authority" on evolutionary biology is conferred on a nuclear engineer; I suppose that next we will allow geologists to perform brain surgery. It is even more amusing to read of slicked-hair Baptist preachers with phoney doctorates from unaccredited "Bible colleges" lecture their uneducated congregations on the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is really all too much - and, as a southerner, personally shameful that this ignorance seems to be concentrated in my region. (cont)

morn_sun

09/05/2002 03:55:00 AM

Creation, Intelligent Design, as well as Evolution take a manner of faith to believe in one or the other. All sides can take the same piece of evidence and offer plausible and well thought out explanation regarding the evidence. The big problem is many would rather see Evolution as a point-blank fact when it is just a theory. Evolution as a theory has quite a few holes that not many evolutions want to see discussed. But for an open and honest discussion...they should be. Otherwise we're being indoctrinated with only one side of the argument. Rather ironic since Creationists or those for Intelligent Design speak, that's what the Evolutionsts accuse them of without seeing what they themselves have been doing for how long now.

Cold_Light

09/05/2002 02:01:43 AM

What evolution is, is the theory best supported by known facts. If you want creationism in school, show how it fits the facts better than evolution. No one goes on FAITH of evolution. Scientists are always looking for different ways of explaining our world to see if they are better. I feel much of the confusion in this area surrounds the word "Theory". Most people just use the word as a synonym of "guess". They think a theory is just a guess. In science a theory is an explanation which is supported by evidence, usually lots of it. In the case of evolution, lots and lots. Evolution is not a hypothesis or a law, it is a theory. Creationists need not attack evolution, this is useless, it is a theory, it is not expected to be perfect. Instead they need to show how creationism fits the facts better then evolution. As it stands now, Creationism is just wishful thinking. Quite complaining about evolution and show the support for (and I am being nice) your hypothesis.

non-croyant

09/05/2002 01:37:47 AM

People like Glenn Wilson are an embarrassment to the United States of America. The people here, in this very discussion, who agree with him should be ashamed. Edify yourselves.

Abrownback

09/04/2002 11:06:45 PM

Eplax41- Your kidding yourself if you think Macro evolution is fact. If is a hypothesis. Second, there is a lot of evidence in favor of intelegent design, therefore if one is taught both should be taught. I am not saying that kids should be reading out of the Bible, however there should be choices other than just going on the FAITH of evolution. That's right evolution is no where near FACT, its a belief with holes, just like Genesis, and every other theory on how we got here. Thank you

bugsnfastey

09/04/2002 10:46:25 PM

i am actually very confused. i believe in seperation of church and state, yet i still suggested they teach creationism. now that i actually think about it there really is no science behind creationism(thats y they call it FAITH...duh)in the name of futility im not going to even defend my first post. no it not okay to discriminate against people of other religion(unless their ideas are as ignorant and not well thought out as my first post)schools should only force children to learn secular science and then offer an elective religions class. because creationism is religious in nature the government should never force anyone to take it(especially young children as they are not old enough to thourly understand it then decide for themselves) thanx for critiquing my post as it makes me relize to think more logically.

eplax41

09/04/2002 10:30:15 PM

bugs you are a very confused individual. research child... --- Macroevolution today is treated like a law when it is still only theory. --- First off, macro evolution is merely a culumilation of micro evolution. The seperance of two was part of the yec rhetoric to include SOME evolution but not to admit too much. --- both be taught as only theories and nothing more. --- Theres no science behind creationism, therefore it doesnt belong in the classroom. --- since most people in America are mostly an Abrahamic faith the Genisis version should be taught.It is hard to be minority in a democratic nation where majority rules but thats the way the cookie crumbles(this should only apply when not discriminating) ---- So its okay to discriminate against non-abrahamic religions? Do you know what your even talking about? --- . and if some person wants to introduce their faith's creationist story it should be consideredd just as valid. --- In sunday school --- Doug

bugsnfastey

09/04/2002 08:55:21 PM

Macroevolution today is treated like a law when it is still only theory. evolution and creationism should both be taught as only theories and nothing more. since most people in America are mostly an Abrahamic faith the Genisis version should be taught.It is hard to be minority in a democratic nation where majority rules but thats the way the cookie crumbles(this should only apply when not discriminating). and if some person wants to introduce their faith's creationist story it should be consideredd just as valid. Besides,discussions in the classroom gets kids interested in the class which equals hire grades and such.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

DiggDeliciousNewsvineRedditStumbleTechnoratiFacebook