Key points of Evolution

Rahvin says: Apology accepted. I have actually thought it over, and I like this phrase better: "God said it, and that settles it." It actually makes no difference whether I believe it!By the way, you seem to be overusing that phrase intellectual dead-end. You should try some variety. You have to admit that it is kind of funny though. lol. I think you saw my other post where I address this issue.No. I do not think that the supernatural can be taught as science. I don't think it can be included in any science theories or methods or whatever you call them. However, most of those people in the science classroom believe in God (according to the statistics I have researched). And as far as I know, it is not the classroom that is sacred, only the theories. It is not like it is a science temple or anything. So, there is no reason to annoy a bunch of people who believe in God, by trying to imply that their beliefs are not important.I don't know the answer to the problem. That is the whole purpose of this thread. Can evolution be taught in a way that is Christian or Theistic friendly? You can't include it in the science, but I think you can at least be friendly. I have no idea what they teach in science classrooms. However, it may be good to make sure the students understand this statement. All of these remarks are focused towards our public school system, and not the universities. People are required by law to attend those schools. I think this thread is in the Social and Religious Issues section. It may be that focusing on scientific objectivism is out of order."Nawuni ti gom"

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

Rahvin says: Sometimes I wonder if you read what you write. Do you really think this would solve the problem?You have to remember even though you think these people are ignorant, they are convinced that what they believe is true. They are convinced that you are wrong! So they cannot tell their children that you are right, and that they are ignorant. Do you see the dilemma?You have to admit that objectively there is a possibility that they are right and you are wrong. However small a percentage you would like to assign to that possibility.Here is the question. Is it possible to teach evolution to people that believe in God in a friendly manner?I don't know how, but I think it is possible.Edited by Wumpini, : spelling

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

The definition of friendly.I looked up some definitions and here are some that I like and think would apply.1. Not antagonistic or hostile.
2. Favorably disposed.
3. Having the temper and disposition of a friend.
4. Promoting the good of any person.
5. Behaving as though allied in a struggle or cause.
6. Acting as one who sympathizes with a group, cause or movement.Why did I bring up the question?The reason I brought up the concept of friendly is because that is how this entire thread began. It was based upon a book that claimed it was possible to teach evolution in a Christian friendly manner.Rhazd says: I believe there are those on both sides that are not friendly to the other side. Both sides claim to be right, and become unfriendly when they are challenged. I do not see the sides as science in general and religion in general. Scientists claim to have the truth because they have observed it as fact. Religious people claim to have the truth because it has been revealed to them so based upon their faith it is fact. You cannot have two contradictory explanations for the same event and both of them be factual.Based upon some of the exchanges I have seen and experienced on this forum, it is possible for either group to be friendly or unfriendly.I would think that it is more the religious people's rejection of evolution that is the problem rather than a science problem. I don't know if you saw the statistics but in 1991 - 47% of the population believed in creation within 10,000 years. If you get down into the Bible Belt you can probably increase that number significantly. With those large numbers, it would be difficult for a science teacher to get along very well in a community where most of the parents did not want their children taught that evolution is a fact. I think this would explain why most of the science teachers in Arkansas were not teaching evolution as late as last year. I think this also explains the significant exodus of students to home schooling and private schools. We must remember also that public school is mandatory in the United States. You must send your children to a public, private, or home school. I would think many of the people that this would apply to would not be qualified to home school their children, and could not afford a private school. So they are being forced by the government to go into these science classes. I am not trying to defend anyone. I am only stating a fact.So in effect, the government is forcing families to send their children to science classrooms that teach as fact something that contradicts a devout religious belief. Children expect those things which are taught to them to be true. It is at an early age that many people establish the faith that they will maintain for the remainder of their life. Many of the people that possess this faith would place much more value upon it, then they do upon any earthly knowledge. Therefore, the government is in effect placing these children in a position where their faith is being challenged, and this deeply concerns the parents. I do not believe that this is the government's intention. But, that is the effect it is having upon many of these young people. I don't know. That is an interesting question. I would not know where to put the blame.What is the solution?I would think Rahvin was on the right track for the solution. He just wasn't very friendly about it. Since there are many religious beliefs and supposedly only one fact being taught in science (At least until that fact is disproved, and makes way for another fact.) parents need to deal with the situation at home. They are the only ones who could completely understand what is being taught to their children that contradicts their religious beliefs. However, it would be beneficial if the government, schools, scientists, and others involved in the process developed a system to help parents deal with the problem.There could be education that explains how scientists claim their theories as fact because this is what has been observed in nature. I do not believe most people understand this concept. Parents need to understand that these theories have been tested and proven to be true without any consideration that a supernatural force could have ever taken place. Parents need to be taught to understand that their religious beliefs could be true, but they cannot be proven by science (creation could be true, even if many people on this forum believes it is a joke). Scientists could explain to parents and their children that if their religious beliefs contradict science and that if their beliefs could be proven through objective evidence, then the scientific theory would have to be changed.For example, I will try some logic again.premise - If your belief that God is real is true.premise - If your belief that God cannot lie is true.premise - If the Bible is literal and inerrant.conclusion - Then the scientific theories of evolution and origins are incorrect.If this logical argument could be explained to the public, then I think it would go a long way towards solving the problem. The attitude of some scientists may prevent them from having a desire to communicate this concept in a friendly manner. The attitude seems to be that science has proven that all these old fashioned mythical religious beliefs are false. Has science really done that? I don't believe so, and many on this forum have stated that the supernatural cannot be proven to be false. However, many times that idea does not come across in the communication process.Let me summarize my solution.Parents and their children need to be taught that nothing is being taught in government schools that is intended to challenge the faith of the students.Parents and their children need to be taught that their religious beliefs could be completely factual and true, however science deals with the natural world and has no possible way to deal with anything that cannot be observed and tested.Parents and their children need to be taught that those things taught as science in school will be what is observed even if it contradicts their religious beliefs.Finally, parents and their children need to understand that if their religious beliefs could be proven to be true, and if their beliefs contradict science, then it would prove that the scientific theory is incorrect, and it would have to be changed. (This is the communication that would make or break the solution.)If this could be done in a friendly manner, then I believe it would go a long way toward solving the problem.Edited by Wumpini, : changed wording

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

Defil says: I am not sure that we can compare these polls since there were different questions that were asked. All of the statistics that have been used up to now had similar questions. Maybe I am looking at the wrong Poll because I do not even see the 14% statistic that you are talking about. Give me a link if you have one. The poll I am using for this post is a June 2007 Gallup Poll regarding evolution.Here is a link to the 2007 poll:USA TODAY/Gallup Poll results - USATODAY.comIt is very difficult to conclude on these numbers. Here are some interesting points that I find though. Maybe your observations are better than mine.The percentage of people that believe in literal creation seems to be have increased significantly from 1991. Like I said before the questions are different, so it is like comparing oranges and tangerines.39% of Americans say that creation in the last 10,000 years is definitely true, while only 18% say that evolution is definitely true. That leaves 43% of Americans who are not certain of what they believe. I guess that is where all the propaganda is targeted towards.66% of Americans or two thirds say that creation in the last 10,000 years is definitely or probably true.Only 15% of the population say that creation in the last 10,000 years is definitely false. That means 85% of the population is not convinced that literal creation is false.I believe that these numbers give us a clear indication of the division in the American population on this subject. The scientific world is teaching what they have observed and tested as true, and that disagrees with what most of the American population believes to be true. Therein lies the problem.Edited by Wumpini, : No reason given.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

That's a relief. I thought America was in trouble. That means at least 81% haven't been proven to be completely mad or idiots, yet.What is even worse than that is if you look at the definitely true numbers.39% think creation is definitely true, but only 28% believe evolution is definitely false. That means 11% of those who know they were created 10,000 years ago think they could have evolved millions of years ago too.The evolutionists aren't off the hook either though becaue 3% of those who think they definitely evolved think they could have been created too. 18% said evolution was definitely true while only 15% said creation was definitely false.Obviously this is either a very bad poll, or many of the people in America have become totally confused.Edited by Wumpini, : changed wordingEdited by Wumpini, : Still didn't say what I meant

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

A definition I found for patronizing is:condescending: treating somebody as if he or she is less intelligent or knowledgeable than yourself.This is how I defined friendly in number 5 and 6.

quote:

---

5. Behaving as though allied in a struggle or cause.
6. Acting as one who sympathizes with a group, cause or movement.
  —wumpini

---

I know you probably could not read my mind but the idea I was trying to propose was that we are all part of the human race, the same cause. It would be friendly to behave as though we were all in this stgruggle together, and sympathize with one another because we all have difficulties in life.I know that is a little too much to expect from humanity. I think I still have a lot of idealism left in me for some reason. I agree!

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

Science or reality cannot be friendly or unfriendly. People are the only ones who understand what it means to be friendly. Even animals cannot be friends (although many would like to thinks so). We have a choice of how we present reality to others. If you are a doctor and you know a patient is going to die, you present that information to a relative in a loving manner (I hope) even though it is reality. You can tell by the posts on this forum. Some of the posts are friendly, and some are not even though they may be presenting the same information. I see these two compared a lot on this forum. It was inevitable that man figure out the shape of the earth. He is presently living on the earth, and it has a shape. If man evolved then why did it take him millions of years to figure this out? I don’t know. I guess that is a question for another thread. The point I am trying to make now is the age of the earth is different. Yes, the age of the earth is the age of the earth. It is a fact. However, we will never be able to determine the age of the earth through observation as we determined the shape of the earth. There is the necessity of too many unobservable assumptions.My computer connection is very, very slow. That precludes me from searching a lot of things on the internet. Therefore, I have not been able to search your forum for a many of the items that interest me. The age of the earth is one of those. Sooner or later I will throw out one of your PRATT’s, and all those that have been waiting for that opportunity will be ready to pounce. I assure you that when I do that it will be to attempt to stimulate my understanding through the exchange of ideas. Maybe we can both gain something.I did have an idea. I will run it by you. Do you remember that movie “Back to the Future?” If scientists could get on the ball and build one of those time machines then they could sell tickets to the creationists and take them back to the time when there were no people. Problem solved.I don’t think I would get overambitious and take them back to T=0. You might get squashed.Have a good day.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

Sorry to take so long to respond. My internet connection is back from the dead. My wireless card died, but I figured out how to use my cell phone as a modem. We should never lie. However, you can tell the truth with tact. If you were the one to tell a small girl that her mother had died, how would you tell her? Would you say, “Your mother’s dead! Get on with your life!” I think you would tell her the truth, but with some tact. In a friendly manner, considerate of her feelings. Scientifically, no. Biblically, yes. I keep being told on this forum that God cannot be included in any of your theories. Since my theories related to the age of the earth include God, it seems that our views would not compare. I don’t see how you can remove the effects of unknowns, when they are unknown. You continually attempt to remove the effect of God, when you do not know the effect. You assume the effect to be zero. I looked at the beginning of the thread, however as I said, my internet connection was trashed, so I couldn’t get very far. As to how I explain all of the evidence for an old earth, I don’t know the evidence. I am sure that God does. He created all of those things, so he ought to know their age. When I get to heaven, I will ask him and let you know.Have you ever considered the appearance of age? If God created a man, he created him full grown. That would mean he would appear to have age that did not exist. That means that when he was one day old he would be growing whiskers. Is God lying? One day old humans do not grow whiskers. However, grown men do grow whiskers!In your thread about tree rings, you give the indication that God would be evil to do something like that. To give the appearance of age when it did not exist. Well it is my opinion that he would be evil to do anything else. If God did not give the appearance of age, then scientists would not be able to figure out anything based upon nature. For example, if God created a full grown tree, would it have rings? If a tree appeared to be one thousand years old, would it have one thousand rings? If you were a scientist at that time, would God be fair to you if your examination of all new trees had rings, however created trees did not. How would you be able to develop a sound scientific theory relating rings to annual growth periods? You look at a tree that is obviously a thousand years old, and it has no rings. How would you be able to prove scientific theories? You could not! The question is what are you doing when you ignore God? In my opinion, you are ignoring reality, and playing with fantasy!

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

It is true that I am only now beginning to seriously look into the claims of scientists regarding evolution and the age of the earth. My point about assumptions, is that scientists do not really know much about the past. They make assumptions based upon the present. Those assumptions could or could not be true.For example, I recently purchased a child's textbook on evolution that was used in the public school system in Wisconsin a few years ago. It was titled, "Evolution - Change Over Time." I do not know what grade level it was for, but probably Elementary School Level.There is one section in this book that talks about Homo erectus which supposedly lived about 500,000 to 1,600,000 years ago. The book has a long description about these folks. It tells that they lived in caves, and used fires to provide heat and light for their caves. It says they did not know how to build fires, so they waited for lightning to strike in the bush, and carefully brought the fire back to the caves. It says that over these fires they cooked the meat of animals, and nuts and seeds. The description goes on to explain other characteristics of these people (I guess you would call them people). The point is the section ends with the statement:

quote:

---

This description is about all that is known of the life of the early human called Homo erectus.

---

Now I wonder how these scientists came to know all of this about some humans that lived half a million years ago. What kind of evidence led to these conclusions? There is no indication in this textbook that what is being taught is anything other than fact. Well I would say that the entire conclusion is based upon assumptions that go beyond what was observed today. Therefore, my term, most likely unscientific, unobservable assumptions.Later I may find that these early cave men left a diary or something to tell scientists about their lifestyle. However, I doubt that to be the case. I would attribute the description to the overactive imagination of some who would like to make conclusions with inadequate evidence.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

I would have assumed that a textbook for a child would contain factual information. It seems that you are saying that children's textbooks do not have to properly analyze the evidence, and come up with sound conclusions. It appears as though these textbooks on evolution are not meant to be accurate. They have fanciful pictures and stories of dinosaurs and prehistoric men. It appears to be fantasy, however it is all taught as fact.You are correct! If I want to know the truth about what scientists believe about the evolution of man, then I need to look at information that is more factual then a child's textbook.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

Yes, I have internet service through my cell phone provider. I was using a PCMCIA card that I plug into my computer, but it died. My phone has GPRS and I can connect it to a USB port. I didn't think of it earlier.Actually, the cell phone coverage in Africa is pretty widespread. They are building towers all over the place. You can go to a village where they are living in mud huts, and you can still use your cell phone.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

I never thought about who wrote the book. I thought if they were going to teach evolution in school that they would teach what scientists believe to be true. That puts a whole new twist into this controversy if what the schools are teaching are not even the accepted scientific theories. That was the whole point of my post. The book is very colorful and filled with pictures. I am sure that it would be very appealing for a young person to read. However, much of the information appears to be fanciful. They mix what appears to be scientific facts with a story line. How is a student to discern between what is fact, and what is made up? How are parents which read the book able to tell the difference between fantasy and what scientists believe to be their view of the past? With such a controversial topic as evolution, it seems that extra care should be taken to ensure that what is being taught in schools is actually good science! Here is the Textbook League link of their review of the book. It was obviously written for the middle school level rather than the elementary school level as I originally thought. It appears the book that I have was used in the school system for at least three years, since it has the name of three students in the front.Page not found - Text Book League - Aplikasi dan Website Buku OnlineThey seem to agree with my perception. Here is a quote from the textbook league reviw of this book.

quote:

---

But the text seems schizophrenic: It gives me the impression that its various sections have been written by different people, only a few of whom know what they are talking about.

---

That is the impression I got from the book also. That some of the sections had no idea what they were talking about. I am glad that someone agrees with me.You asked about the authors. There are a number of them ranging from a couple of professors at universities to science instructors. Here is a link that may help you see who they are. It lists some of the authors.http://www.amazon.com/...nce-Evolution-science/dp/0132255332Thanks

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

No, I did not see any pictures of the dinosaurs and men together. Although, I think that would have been pretty cool. It was probably an oversight on their part. They do have a volcano erupting, and a bunch of dinosaurs attacking another dinosaur. The book really does have a bunch of neat pictures. Actually, at least one other reviewer agrees with my evaluation. I will repeat the link for the textbook league review here also.Page not found - Text Book League - Aplikasi dan Website Buku OnlineThe reviewer makes the statement:

quote:

---

But the text seems schizophrenic: It gives me the impression that its various sections have been written by different people, only a few of whom know what they are talking about.

---

You see this is not all in my imagination. I truly am attempting to evaluate the evidence. How was I to know that the textbooks that are being used to teach our children are not scientifically accurate.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

Who are we to say what God needs or does not need to do? That is part of the problem. Men keep assuming they can know the mind of God. Man can never completely know the mind of God! I enjoy looking at nature like the big Redwoods and Sequoyas out in the western USA. What makes you think that God would not have wanted to make the beauty of nature available from the beginning? Do you think God would form a featureless globe with no beauty, and then place man upon it?If God wanted to create a thousand year old tree for men to enjoy for shade, and beauty, and construction, then that is up to Him. However, if God created a thousand year old tree, it would have all of the attributes of a thousand year old tree. It would not just appear to be a thousand year old tree, it would BE a thousand year old tree on the day of creation. Therefore, it would not be a lie! It would be a lie to make a thousand year old tree appear younger than it actually is. It all boils down to your point of view. God is not constrained by physical attributes such as time, space, and matter!This could be compared to a recently created full grown man having all of the attributes of any other full grown man. God would not be creating a man that appears to have age. God would be creating a man that was that age. If God created a thirty year old man, he would not only appear to be thirty years old, he would BE thirty years old in every sense of the word. A medical examination would not indicate that the man was not thirty years old. Do you think that God would create a man with no food or water in his system, because He was afraid that scientists would accuse Him of lying by creating someone who appeared to have eaten food and drank water in the past. That argument is ridiculous. Think about it! The same would be true of any other feature of nature that God created. What are you basing God's dishonesty upon? God has told the entire world that He is the Creator. When God created anything, it should agree in design and attributes with the natural laws that He has established. So, if man looks at nature and finds evidence that God is not the Creator, then it is entirely possible that man (the creation) is misinterpreting the evidence. Man is attempting to use God's own creation and His laws of nature, to imply that God could be dishonest.I am only beginning to review the arguments of scientists against God and His creation. Have scientists ever considered that they may be missing something. They may be overlooking a simple principle that should be part of their scientific models. They may have failed to consider a necessary element of their theories. It is possible that could explain the controversey that exists in this area of science.Thanks

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

I am sure that you have thought about many things more than I have. I am only attempting to develop theories that may reconcile those things that I believe to be true, to what scientists believe to be true. That is the whole point of this mental exercise. I am not doing this specifically to annoy you.I may, in the end, find out that it is not possible to reconcile our beliefs. Maybe you will have to change yours to agree with mine. lol. He has told you. You may have chosen not to listen.It appears that we have strayed from the original topic of this thread which relates to teaching evolution in schools.I truly believe that neither of us has considered all of the implications that would be involved if God were to instantly create a man, a tree, or anything else full grown. You say that you have dealt with these arguments many times. Maybe you can direct me to a thread where I can come to understand how you believe God (if there is a God) would instantly create (if he did create) something full grown.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce