Teaching the Truth in Schools

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.

quote:

---

I'd be interested in being given an example of something that is inconsistent with the laws of nature that exist, the laws that creationists credit to the Creator.

---

I didn't say anything about the laws of nature. Any variety of creationism that denies common ancestry for humans and chimps has problems explaining the data. Any variety that postulates that all humans are descended from a single couple within the last 10,000 years is inconsistent with genetic data. I am assuming no subsequent miraculous tinkering with the genes in the population, of course. If someone wants to propose a model in which God created humans recently and then later erased the evidence by making our genes look exactly as if they'd evolved, I won't offer any scientific objections.

quote:

---

Perhaps you're refering to some technical questions that require a high level of expertise, that the laymen creationists you've encountered, didn't feel at all qualified to respond to. But if it's acceptable to you, I wouldn't mind mediating to a degree, any challenge to some folks I have in mind who I think would be capable of providing adequate responses, that is, just as adequate responses as you (and yours) could provide to such interactive possibilities.

---

Here's a reasonable starting point:
TheologyWeb Campus
Ask anyone you like. I've sent that list to a couple of creationist organizations, but have never gotten an answer. I'd love to see a serious attempt by a creationist to engage with genetic data.

quote:

---

Land o' Goshen! There's so much wrong here that I find it difficult to choose a starting place for reply. I'll simplify it by reemphasizing that one's perspective, one's (yes) presuppositions are all important.

---

The same empty words I've seen over and over. Don't tell me that presuppositions matter; tell me how they matter, and how different presuppositions would permit me to explain the data as well. Until you do, I am still left with one model that works and no alternative. (You might also note that my presuppositions, that is the assumptions I started with before I began to examine any data, were those of young-earth creationism. Exactly how do you think that skewed my thinking?)

quote:

---

I am a 9th grader, a Freshman in highschool, so I believe I have a say in this. I have NO objection in them teaching us evolution...
as long as they, one, do not stay on that subject for too long, and second, as long as they teach the truth, the alternative, Jesus Christ ---> They WON'T! So, I completely object to them teaching ONE theory and no alternive. That's like saying, believe evolution, or believe evolution!
Just a science student's perspective!

---

Jesus and evolution aren't alternatives -- you can believe in Jesus and accept evolution, believe in him and not accept it, not believe and accept, or do neither. Belief in Jesus is religion, and evolution is science. My attitude is that science classes should teach science, not religion. (Just a scientists's -- and a parent's, and a Christian's -- perspective.)

quote:

---

The Bible clearly states God made the Earth, the animals, and then man, all in 6 days. not over millions of years! that is just one contridiction between the two.

---

No, the Bible uses some rather obscure and highly mythological language to talk about creation. The author(s) no doubt were intending to convey a number of things with their account, but I very much doubt that a scientific description of Earth history was one of them.

quote:

---

The Bible also says that you cannot 'serve two masters'.

---

Um, yes, the two masters in question being God and money. Exactly what relevance does that have here? Myself, I'm of the opinion that God likes truth, so I figure looking for the truth is a way of honoring God. The facts I see say overwhelmingly that evolution is true.

quote:

---

Stop being a passivist Christian who would like to have everyone just be friends and slightly give in.

---

Let's see . . . Based on your complete ignorance of science, of me, and of my motivations, you're in a position to pass judgment (kind of a no-no for a Christian, isn't that?) on my beliefs? You're young enough that this kind of behavior is likely to inspire amusement rather than irritation, but either way, the effect is not going to be what you were looking for.

quote:

---

The truth is, macro-evolution DOESN'T happen!

---

The truth is, you have no way of knowing whether macro-evolution happens or not -- you demonstrate in other posts that you simply don't know enough about science to make any kind of judgment. Making bald assertions based on ignorance doesn't make for a very effective Christian witness.