Teaching the Truth in Schools

Martin,You live in a fantasy world. You expect us to agree that everything you 'believe' is supported by evidence, even though you're unwilling or unable to present any of this evidence. Similarly, you expect everyone on this site to forget everything he or she has ever learned about science merely because you produce a statement like The large body of "evidence" that is intended to bolster the idea of evolutionism is itself largely theoretical out of thin air.Please give us all a little more credit for our education and intelligence. We're not all brainwashed minions of the vast evolutionist atheistic conspiracy. We understand the methodology of naturalistic science has produced results. We know that belief in the supernatural is an individual philosophical position, but that it has never aided science.If you'd like to convince us that naturalism constitutes bias, you'll have to show us the leaps in scientific understanding that supernaturalism has generated. Otherwise, you're on thin ice.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

quote:

---

The large body of "evidence" that is intended to bolster the idea of evolutionism is itself largely theoretical. The provable stuff is just as consistent with creationism.

---

You might have a point here if your statement were true. From everything I have observed, it's not. That is, the "provable stuff", the basic data, in my field is not consistent with creationism. Or at least I've never found a creationist who made even a half-hearted attempt to explain it. So on the one hand I have a scientific theory, evolution, that explains and predicts lots of data that I work with every day, and on the other hand I have cretaionism, that talks a lot about presuppositions but never actually explains a damn thing. It seems like a no-brainer which one I should choose.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
King of the Nats
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gracious. I do believe I've been at least a bit misunderstood (or perhaps just misrepresented). If it wouldn't be too much trouble (but, of course, not if it would be impossible), please paste some things I've written that substantiate your claim that I think that everything I believe is supported by evidence. On the contrary, I have acknowledged repeatedly the metaphysical and philosophical aspects of my model of beliefs that are unprovable as well as those of the nats. Oh, and in response to your title ("King of the Nats"), by "nats" I mean "naturalistically assumptive, temporally speaking" (not just "naturalists" or whatever). This leads to my next point. Contrary to your diatribe, I don't expect anyone on this site to forget anything. Go ahead and keep your beliefs. Just please perceive their strengths and weaknesses accurately. Be willing to admit the limitations of the provability of your beliefs also. What would be refreshing to me is if a nats-ician--just one for right now would suffice--could acknowledge that some fundamental requirements, some foundational beliefs, of evolution at large (including cosmic evolution and beyond), is unprovable, untestable, etc., and could accurately be described as a mere hypothesis that evolutionary scientists try to confirm with data that is (admittedly) more than hypothetical (but that doesn't actually prove macroevolution). That would be a good start. But I'm leary of a "science" that proceeds headlong into "investigations" where only a particular outcome could be accepted, or that train students at least indirectly to favor one metephysical conclusion over another; now I'm not complaining necessarily about the idea of using evolutionism in the academic setting because the existing power structure has identified it as the best metaphysical philosophy to date that supposedly correllates all of the data of the observable universe--my complaint is that instead of it being identified for what it is (assumptive evolutionary philosophy), it is taught as fact. I know that the philosophy appeals to absolute facts in order to support the idea, but contrary to the Asimovian flavor of instruction that runs through textbooks, macroevolution is not as factual as the belief that the Earth orbits the Sun. I do give you credit for those things. But I do also think that you are brainwashed to some extent. The manner in which evolutionism is presented in educational settings has a lot to do--mega-obviously--with the degree of certainty people walk away with about the notion. Many people are as sure about "the fact" of macroevolutionary philosophy as they are about 1 + 1 = 2, and perhaps you're one of them . . . but it's nowhere near that cut and dried. Multitudes of high school graduates are like that, pitifully so. Yes we do. As I've indicated elsewhere, the philosophical mode through which scientists operate does not prevent an accumulation of "results." One can be in error with regard to underpinning philosophy that provides a conceptual foundation, and still harvest a lot of usable data that can be proven, thus moving science forward in many ways. Again, that is why evolutionary and creationistic scientists agree on so much stuff, although parting company on philosophical levels. I just say be honest and don't try to make naturalistic philosophy synonymous with science in the schools. We also know that belief in metaphysical naturalistic philosophy is an individual position, but that it has never aided science (although if people get busy with whatever undergirding philosophy, as I have indicated, there will be a growth of provable and beneficial knowledge accumulated). My point right now is not that supernaturalism has produced leaps in scientific understanding (although something does come to mind that I'll mention in a bit). The "results," the amount of scientific understanding that has been generated by those who are basically accepting of the assumption of evolutionism (i.e., well-meaning products of our educational settings), is a result of the great numbers of people who are establishing and developing knowledge, and not due to the idea that evolutionism is actually true. People can learn factual things as they work, even though the general philosophy they ascribe to is far less than true. And, of course, even in science, people can emphasize things that tend to support a favored philosophy, and de-emphasize, or totally ignore, things that undermine such a philosophy.The issue might be, think of all of the advances that could've been made over histoy if we were to seriously consider Biblical supernaturalism as a possibility, instead of wasting all of that time with naturalism in a rather blind walk through the centuries that was subconsciously trying to catch up to what was there all the time--this following information provides a microcosm of sorts to demonstrate that possibility. I've read some information about anachronously advanced scientific knowledge in the Bible that I thought was interesting and that might be relevant to our discussion. For example, certain procedures are mentined in the old testament that have medical implications. Exodus 15:26 says, "If you diligently heed the voice of the Lord your God and do what is right in His sight, give ear to His commandments and keep all His statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you which I have brought on the Egyptians . . ." Grant Jeffrey, in The Signature of God, wrote about how the Jews had lived as slaves among the pagan Egyptians, and had learned the traditional folk medicine and remedies of them. Jeffrey spoke of his examination of the medical remedies of these pagan cultures of the Middle East and their appalling ignorance of even the most rudimentary medical knowledge as we know it today. But the laws of Moses contained laws and sanitation procedures that, if followed, would eliminate the diseases that afflicted the Egyptians of that day . . . a disproportionate amount of the medicines described in documents from ancient Egypt included dung from either humans or animals . . . Due to the total lack of knowledge of germs and infection, almost any serious illness or injury treated by the medical system of pagan Egypt would result in tradgedy. Now, get this, the Bible records that Moses was adopted by and grew up as the son of "Pharaoh's daughter." Moses would have had access to the knowledge of the royal and priestly colleges of Egypt . . . the book of Acts (7:22) tells us: "And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians." There are no references to the disgusting and dangerous ancient Egyptian medical practices in the five books of Moses. Any intelligent reader, writes Jeffrey, must ask this question: Where did Moses obtain his incredibly advanced medical knowledge? (which will be shared in just a bit) This advanced and accurate knowledge reveals a profound understanding of germs, infectious transmission routes, human sanitation needs, and many other medical advances unknown outside the Bible during the last thirty-five centuries. Moses abandoned the medical ignorance of the Egyptians when he left the palace in Egypt and spent the next eighty years of his life in the wilderness . . . Jeffrey writes that medical science did not know of the existence of germs and their methods of transmission of infection until the end of the last century. Doctors until this century believed that the presence and transmission of disease were entirely haphazard and governed by simple chanc or bad luck. Those who were sick with deadly diseases were cared for in the home without any awareness of the contagious transmission of disease from one sick individual to others around them. People had no idea that invisible and deadly microscopic germs could exist on eating and cooking utensils . . . The children of Israel were no doubt saved from countless invisible germs and diseases by following these religious laws and prohibitions given by their God through the prophet Moses, for example, "This is the law when a man dies in a tent: All who come into the tent and all who are in the tent shall be unclean seven days; and every open vessel, which has no cover fastened on it, is unclean. Whoever in the open field touches one who is slain by a sword or who has died, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days. And for an unclean person they shall take some of the ashes of the heifer burnt for pruification from sin, and running water shall be put on them in a vessel" (Numbers 19:14-17, NKJ). Also, until this century, Jeffrey continues, most doctors who did choose to wash their hands did so in a bowl of water, which obviously would allow germs to remain on their hands.There's actually quite a bit of stuff like this available. Yes, I can read your response even now as I'm typing this. (You're unmoved by this kind of stuff because . . .)------------------

Martin Could you please explain which metaphysical philosophy you are speaking of?

quote:

---

I suppose I assign a level of certainty to this at least as high as the level of certainty that died-in-the-wool nats assign by faith to their belief that nothing caused everything.

---

Excuse me?I don't know a single naturalist that would say that "nothing caused everything."First of all, what does the above have to do with the change in allele frequencies in a population over time?Second, I would hazard a guess that moth naturalists wuld say that they don't know what the cause of "everything" is, because the evidence of what "caused everything" is pretty thin.

quote:

---

I don't claim that I have a crowd pleasing answer to that--any more than nats have such for their unprovable philosophical assumptions that are inherent to their faith.

---

Tell me, does your faith in God change according to physical evidence discovered here on earth?If you are attempting to equate your religious faith with the kind of faith that is based upon evidence and experience of nature (such as my faith that the Earth spins on it's axis and is in orbit around the Sun, for example), then you have a very strange kind of religion.

quote:

---

My point is that textbooks and other media should be based on science, and not upon one particular philosophical creed (such as evolutionism or creationism).

---

Agreed.Can you please, as requested, explain to me how it is that the predictions of Evolutionary Theory have so far been borne out if it is all simply philosophical and not evidenciary in basis?

quote:

---

Of course an all powerful God can do inexplicable things.

---

The thing is, ever since science supplanted superstition as the main means of understanding nature, the "inexplicable" acts of God have become smaller and smaller.All you have done is inserted God into the gaps of our understanding. What happens when something that you once considered "inexplicable" and evidence of the hand of God is explained by science? Does your faith die, or do you simply move it to another unexplained phenomena, as has been done by your predecessors for centuries?

quote:

---

He transcends even the laws of nature he created. One of the differences between you and I is that I believe in a power that is capable of getting the job done.

---

Another difference is that you simply believe, and we want to understand.By saying that God is the answer to every question, you actually answer no questions at all.

quote:

---

There's plenty of non-science things that are a part of the belief in evolutionism also,

---

...such as what? Please be specific.

quote:

---

Evolutionism is an undergirding philosophy that colors the affected peoples' thinking.

---

Um, whatever you say.I was talking about the Theory of Evolution and the evidence behind it, which you have, as yet, failed to address. You have simply engaged in a bunch of handwaving instead of getting into specifics.I suspect you don't actually know much about the specifics of Evolutionary theory, but here's your chance to show that I'm wrong.Please provide a brief explanation of how Biologists define evolution.

quote:

---

Creation scientists and Evolution scientists agree on vast amounts of things.

---

There's no such thing as Creation scientists. That is, they aren't actually playing by the rules of science, so they aren't doing science.

quote:

---

These things, at least generally speaking, are science. Those groups part company on the unprovable things that tie into the philosophy that governs each group's belief.

---

Sorry, nothing is actually "proven" in science. There is either support of evidence or their isn't.I was wondering if you were going to provide any actual evidence, borne-out predictions, or anything at all in scientific support of Creation 'science' any time soon?

quote:

---

I'm talking about such things or processes that nats-ic scientists believe in that they can't see or experiment on in the direct sense.

---

OK, you must not believe that electrons exist, then, correct?Nobody has ever directly observed an electron, so according to you, they don't exist.

quote:

---

Why do they believe in such processes? Because the postulation of such processes provide what they call the best theoretical explanation for large bodies of data, as you alluded to.

---

And this is how ALL science is done.Tell me, do you object to the inferences made in particle physics? Why or why not?

quote:

---

But in my view, the naturalist dilemma exists in the fact that nats are unable or unwilling to distinguish between unseen processes that can be uncontroversially extrapolated from empirical realities, and unseen processes that are inherently metaphysical in nature.

---

It's not a dilemma.Science ignores the supernatural.Science can never validate your faith because science is emperical.Get over it.

quote:

---

The large body of "evidence" that is intended to bolster the idea of evolutionism is itself largely theoretical.

---

Wrong, wrong, wrong.It is nonsensical to cal evidence "thoretical".Evidence is a bone of hundreds of species of dinosaur in certain layers of rock that have never, ever been found in any other layer around the world, evidence is a species of bacteria which becomes resistant to penicillin, evidence is the fact that descendents from certain survivors of the Black Plague in medieval Europe have partial to total immunity to HIV because thety share a mutation that conferred a survival advantage.There are millions and millions of individual pieces of evidence which all point to the fact of evolution ocurring.It is simply a very sad thing that your religion forces you to choose between your faith and your intellect.

quote:

---

The provable stuff is just as consistent with creationism.

---

I think you are quite unaware of the staggering, overwhelming amount of evidence for Evolution.

Martin, I have to tell you that Grant Jeffrey is not a reliable source.In fact the Egyptians were very advanced medically for their time. The Hebrews were nowhere near that class.Consider for instance this http://www.neurosurgery.org/cybermuseum/pre20th/epapyrus.htmlI had a conversation on a mailing list a few years ago on this subject. It turned out that Grant Jeffrey was the source of at least one misrepresentation of the Bible - presenting Leviticus 6:28 as a cleanliness law rather than the ritual observance it clearly is.I suggest you really do read Leviticus for yourself rather than trusting to someone elses interpretation.

Martin J. Koszegi,A response to Message 65 as you promised, please.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Martin,Your lack of a realistic basis in the history of science is appalling. If you expect people here to nod in agreement when you produce a howler like We also know that belief in metaphysical naturalistic philosophy is an individual position, but that it has never aided science, you're absolutely deluded. Who's 'we,' Martin? This is absolutely priceless. Evidently you expect us to forget that for literally millennia, all knowledge was the domain of supernaturalists and religious orders. The only knowledge that is still relevant from these Dark Ages is that which wasn't transformed by Biblical literalism into pure garbage. You also expect us to forget that the revolutionary scientific programs that brought the world out of this ignorance were formulated by believers who nonetheless adhered to the naturalistic assumption: Newton's physics and Pasteur's biology. Maybe you should take a look at an introductory primer to the history of science so you can put these things into context. If you'd like to persist in your ignorance, please don't pretend we're all doing the same.Again, your insistence that naturalism constitutes bias is groundless. You want us to believe that supernaturalism is on equal footing with the naturalistic methodology that has given us all the significant knowledge we currently possess concerning natural phenomena. But we know better.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

I take great exception to this bald assertion. However, in the interests of allowing you to present evidence in favor of your position, I hereby offer three challenges for you to address using recourse to the supernatural, the Bible, God, or any miracle you'd care to reveal. These scientific challenges are real world examples. Two of them have been answered by evolutionary biology, and in the third case a serious and potentially dangerous error was averted by the same methods. If, as you say, evo biologists are simply ignorant, brain-washed automata who are unable to see the Truth (tm) because of their presuppositions, it should be fairly simple for you to provide a creationist response. OTOH, if you cannot, then your assertion of validity for this paradigm is falsified. Good luck.1. Sorghum asiatica is an important cereal crop for a large percentage of Africa. The parasite Striga hermonthica destroys an estimated $8 billion of this grain annually. How would creationism solve this problem?2. The introduced food plant cassava (Manihot esculenta) has become the staple food crop of a large portion of Africa. The cassava mealy bug (Phenacoccus manihoti), which has no endemic enemies in Africa, has devastated huge swaths of this crop throughout the continent, with losses averaging 80% per infected field. Some 300 million Africans who rely almost exclusively on cassava for food are at imminent or near-term risk of starvation. How would a creationist use the supernatural or recourse to the Bible to solve this problem?3. The European green crab (Carcinus maenas) was accidently introduced into the Pacific coastal waters of the US where it has no known enemies or predators. It is an aggressive animal that readily out-competes endemic crabs. It has, in less than a decade, become a serious threat to coastal crab fisheries. The only known biological control for this exotic is the parasitic barnacle Sacculina carcini. Explain in detail how creationists would use their theistic non-evolutionary "science" to determine whether or not to release S. carcini on the Pacific coast in order to control this pest.According to your own words, all that is needed is: "Exodus 15:26 says, 'If you diligently heed the voice of the Lord your God and do what is right in His sight, give ear to His commandments and keep all His statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you which I have brought on the Egyptians . . .'" Fine. Explain how the Word of God does better at solving these problems. Each problem does, in fact, need the conceptual framwork to valid before a solution can be attempted. IF evo bio is wrong, then your supernaturalism is correct. Solve the problems.------------------
"It is as useless to argue with those that have renounced the use and authority of reason as to argue with the dead." -- Thomas Paine

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: King of the Nats
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Question: Is Grant Jeffrey's claim that there are records of the ancient Egyptian era that give indication, for example, that dung was a part of the Egyptian medical practice, false? If so, please provide the data if possible. If he's wrong, he's wrong. Also, I'm not denying that the Egyptians had some advanced medical abilities in some areas--did they use dung in their medical practices? If not, I'll accept correction. I think the point is that the ritual observance has, incorporated within it, guidance that has medical implications that were superior to the medical knowledge of that day. If following the ritual actually protected the people in the medical sense, because its a ritual, shouldn't diminish the point. I have read Leviticus many times. Interpretation isn't really the issue here. If the ritual's instructions contained anachronistic medical principles that protected people, then I think its very significant. No?

Paul:There is no Leviticus, Chapter 6, Verse 28.Please give corrected reference so I can better understand and enjoy this thread. Thanks.

Leviticus 6:28 is the correct reference.

Okay, Paul, I looked it up in "KJV" and there is a Leviticus 6:28 which corresponds with 6:21 in the Schocken Bible I'm using for a more direct translation from Hebrew. Anyway, the way I read it is, "Now a vessel of earthenware in which it was boiled is to be broken; if it was in a copper vessel that it was boiled, it is to be scoured and rinsed with water." The footnote available for the verse says "earthenware was considered porous, and therefore could not be washed and purified." As you may know, earthenware vessels made even today are "low fired" ceramics in which one can boil directly on a flame without the vessel cracking; however, the low-fired clay is not vitrified sufficiently to prevent its taking up some of the contents into the body of the clay vessel, and therefore indeed cannot be cleansed sufficiently to prevent food poisoning.

Try reading it in context. It is NOT a general rule at all. The limits on its application mean that it has no significant health benefit.

Martin, I advised you to read Leviticus for yourself - and you didn't did you ? Leviticus 6:28 does not have any significant medical benefits. All you have to do is read it - so why does Grant Jeffrey try to say otherwise ?It is quite simple. Leviticus does not show any sign of advanced medical knowledge comparable to the Edwin Smith Surgical papyrus. Instead it has many "cleanliness" laws some of which have benefits and some of which have none at all and we would now class as taboos or superstitions. For an example consider Leviticus 15:22 - or 15:29-31.