While I understand that you can't ever assume that all Christians agree on any subject. I think that to a high degree Christianity does equel believing in ID.
The question is, at least for me, of how to best teach that accepting evolution does NOT mean denying God.
When you say "God" are you referring to the God of the bible? If so I would think that you have the hardest task of any view point. Because at least from my view point the two are completely uncompatable. If I come to believe in evolution I will no longer believe in God.
The question is, at least for me, of how to best teach that accepting evolution does NOT mean denying God.
When you say "God" are you referring to the God of the bible? If so I would think that you have the hardest task of any view point. Because at least from my view point the two are completely uncompatable. If I come to believe in evolution I will no longer believe in God.
ID is represented by organizations like the Discovery Institute and by scientists like Michael Behe, and they do not accept the God of the Bible, if by this you mean the God of the six-day creation and of Noah's flood. ID has very much in common with Old Earth Creationism, and very little in common with Young Earth Creationism, which represents the literal Biblical interpretation. So when you say this:
I think that to a high degree Christianity does equel believing in ID.
Most evangelical Christians accept God the creator of a young earth and of a recent global flood, but ID doesn't not posit either of these things. Intelligent Design not only doesn't posit a young earth or a recent global flood, it doesn't even posit that God did the creating.
I think what you're really trying to say is that Christianity equals acceptance of God the creator of the universe and of man as recorded in the Bible.
There should be, but isn't, considerable debate between traditional creationism and ID. The God of traditional creationism is definitely not the designer of intelligent design. The God of the Bible is not some designer/tinkerer like an engineer. The God of the Bible creates miraculously and instantaneously through an expression of his very nature and essence, not through some mundane design process.
In other words, ID and traditional conservative Christianity are not really compatible.
While I understand that you can't ever assume that all Christians agree on any subject. I think that to a high degree Christianity does equel believing in ID.
While you may believe that, it certainly is not fact. The fact is that over 10,000 US Christian Clergy signed on to a public letter supporting Evolution and the teaching of evolution and specifically went so far as saying that even considering the TOE as one theory among many "is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children."
When you say "God" are you referring to the God of the bible? If so I would think that you have the hardest task of any view point. Because at least from my view point the two are completely uncompatable. If I come to believe in evolution I will no longer believe in God.
That is very, very sad, pitiful even. And yes, I am specifically talking in this thread about the Christian Biblical God.
Accepting Evolution has nothing to do with God. All we learn from it is "How" God Did It.
As a Christian, a very devout and active Christian, I can tell you as a fact that that it is not necessary to give up a belief in GOD, the Biblical God, if evolution is accepted. I fully believe in the Biblical God, have personally helped start a new Christian Church Mission, personally helped build two churches, taught both adult and child Sunday school, been a Christian for over 60 years, had a Christian school education, currently design and maintain my church's website and at the present time am preparing a "Way of the Cross" presentation.
If you would like I would be happy to help you as you expand your belief system and come to know a far bigger, far grander GOD than is found in many Christian churches.
...when there are many other fringe-scientific theories and ideas that have been pushed for far longer than ID. Surely, if science teaching is going to open to multiple opinions, we should give them first crack before ID?
Young earth creationists should arguably get a foot in the educational door before I.D. It's a complete joke, but they have at least got something together to teach. It's I.D. with the "who did what and when?" questions filled in, and they've certainly been pushing it for far longer than the I.D. movement.
But fringe-science and psuedo-science aside, there are many good hypotheses in many fields that are not taught on science curriculums because there's insufficient evidence to support them. In evolution, the idea that our ancestors may have learned to walk upright in the water while living and hunting/fishing around marshland, rivers or lakes, for example. There's no real evidence for it, other than that we are the most aquatic of the apes, but it's a good idea, and if science teachers feel that they have spare time to fill in (which I doubt!) then it is far better spent on reasonable speculation than on fringe ideas involving invisible Gods, invisible intelligent designers, or, for that matter, invisible elves and fairies!
quote:At first I thought of listing all the facts (from my knowledge and veiws at least) one by one. But this would do nothing but duplicate the point for the entire forum.
Could you name just one or two?
Also, can you list some natural phenomena that we now understand more fully due to the application of ID theory?
Just so you know, the Catholic church, which is the most powerful and influencial christian church in the world, officially recognizes evolution as "truth" while dismissing creationism or ID.
Just so you know, the Catholic church, which is the most powerful and influencial christian church in the world, officially recognizes evolution as "truth" while dismissing creationism or ID.
Hasn't the present Pope, arch-conservative (and ex-nazi youth) that he is, been making sympathetic noises towards I.D. recently?
And why is it that I.D. always seems to appeal to right-wingers? We know it's a religious movement, but if it's political as well, then there's a double reason to be wary of teaching it in science classes.
Although evolutionary theory could be said to have religious implications in the minds of literalist interpreters of the Abrahamic religions, I don't see how it could possibly be political. Ultimately, it's just biology, and biology tells us nothing about how we should organize our socio-economic systems, and cannot be the property of either left or right.
In evolution, the idea that our ancestors may have learned to walk upright in the water while living and hunting/fishing around marshland, rivers or lakes, for example. There's no real evidence for it, other than that we are the most aquatic of the apes, but it's a good idea,...
quote:The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis posits that sparsity of hair is an adaptation to an aquatic environment, but it has little support amongst scientists and very few aquatic mammals are, in fact, hairless.
Note also the reply from EZscience at Message 67 regarding pigs being bare and not sweating, instead using wallowing in mud to compensate. I would think this would apply to an aquatic ape as well eh?
But at least it is a theory that attempts to explain existing evidence and make some predictions.
Hasn't the present Pope, arch-conservative (and ex-nazi youth) that he is, been making sympathetic noises towards I.D. recently?
Just to make it clear, supposedly, according to him, he was forced into the nazi youth. Well, if you were german you had to join it to live.
But yes, he has been very sympathetic to the creo and ID movement. However, much of the cardinals and church leaders are against creo and ID while advocating evolution. Also, Pope John Paul II officially recognized evolution as "truth" when he addressed the science council of Europe. The current pope hasn't made endorsed creo and ID in such a manner, not yet anyway.
And why is it that I.D. always seems to appeal to right-wingers? We know it's a religious movement, but if it's political as well, then there's a double reason to be wary of teaching it in science classes.
While I was in college a century ago, one of my biology professors gave us a reason why ID should not be taught in science classrooms, and to this day I still think this is the best reason out of all the reasons I have heard for us NOT to teach ID in school.
The reason is quite simple. So, let us recognize that there are signs of design all around us and that there must be an intelligent designer, whether it's the Judeo-christian god or not. Now what? Simply put, ID leads us to nowhere. It is little better than the age old "goddunit" reason to explain everything. There is absolutely no benefits (scientifically at least) to recognize a supernatural being pulling the strings of everything.
My bio prof said that he tried to find any literature or paper on ID to find if ID could possibly lead us to anything that would benefit mankind. He couldn't find any. Now, remember that this was quite a few years ago. To this date, there is still not a single benefitial aspect to society that ID could present. The theory of evolution has lead us to many discoveries that have saved countless lives. ID, on the other hand, seems to only want us to resort back to the old "goddunit" explanation for everything... you know like when we were in the dark ages.
Ultimately, it's just biology, and biology tells us nothing about how we should organize our socio-economic systems, and cannot be the property of either left or right.
There are several problems with the "aquatic ape" theory, some of which I have discussed on Thread
I agree that there are problems, and thanks for the links. I was merely using that theory (or hypothesis) as an example of one of many things which would take priority over I.D. in science teaching ( in relation to cavediver's O.P.) because, as you say:
RAZD writes:
But at least it is a theory that attempts to explain existing evidence and make some predictions
I expect you'd agree with that. In fact, I suspect that if a group of biologists were to sit down and made up a list of new things that could be included in current high school text books, I.D. wouldn't come in the top one hundred. It seems to me to be pure speculation with no substance at all.
Which is why I'd like to see an I.D. advocate reply to Nator's request in post 21 above.
Well here's a reason other theories that have been trying to get into curriculum should get first dibs on charity spots... (Hi I'm Aaron I'm new!)
ID is USELESS. It doesn't lead to any predictions, it's a system that explains everything with one answer, it has never been shown to be able to accurately predict natural behavior of an unknown.
It's a useless useless theorey, only someone who thought all biology was equally useless would consider it an important subject to cover.
Give the students something they can use... something that will help them in a scientific career, all ID is going to do is confuse them and lead to hypothesis that can't be tested. That's handicapping the next generation of scientists.
™ Version 4.2
