Key points of Evolution

Maybe that would solve this entire controversy. We should allow those who want to make God the root assumption the freedom to do so. Those who choose otherwise can give God a value of zero, as you would. Obviously, we will reach different conclusions.You also need to remember that I am not alone.45% of Scientists also have included God's involvement in the creation as their root assumption.40% of scientists said - Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.5% of scientists said - God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.Now, I have been told that the 40% of the scientists believe that the tool that God used for creation was the natural process of evolution. I have started a thread to attempt to clarify my understanding of what they believe. However, it still appears that their root assumption is God as the creator.I have not reached the point yet where I believe that the tool God used was evolution over a long period of time. You see God could have done it however he wanted to. I do agree that some type of evolution is being observed in the world today. Who said I was testing the truthfulness of the Biblical story? I don't recall mentioning the Biblical story of creation. I am merely attempting to clarify my understanding of how all of the scientific evidence that has been observed can relate to God as the creator. One of the alternatives is that God created man, and some living things full grown. Obviously, 45% of scientists have already been able to accomplish this task, and reconcile science to their belief in God. However, there may be explanations that I, they, and possibly you have not considered.I am confused though because it seems that scientists test the truthfulness of all of their theories by assuming their theories are true. What is your point?

---

"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 wonder about a lot of things, and I am continuing to find out as much as I can. It takes time.I really do not understand what the big deal is about the textbook. I was only trying to make the point that it seemed as though the textbook was making a lot of conclusions (I incorrectly used the word assumptions - I need to work on building my scientific and logical vocabulary) without much evidence. It did not seem to me to be very accurate. I was basing this comment upon the study that I am doing with other books, and on the internet. Since that time, I have been continually responding to posts attempting to explain myself.I have been told that scientists do not write textbooks. I was given a link by someone, and I followed that link. The reviewer said that in many places throughout the textbook, that the authors did not seem to know what they were talking about. He described the pictures as garish, where I described them as fanciful.The book was obviously not a good textbook to be used for teaching evolution to middle school students. It appears from the responses that I received that there may be many inaccurate textbooks used for teaching students all kinds of subjects. I did not know that this problem existed. I do now!As for the picture of the ark. I would consider that picture fanciful also. It may be appropriate for teaching toddlers, and kindergarden age children, but I would surely not use it for older children.

---

"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 does not seem to be as simple as you are making it out to be. If the evidence is so overwhelming, then why do the majority of the people in the United States of America prefer Creation over Evolution. In the most advanced and powerful country in the world, only 18% of the population last year said that evolution was definitely true. That means 82% of the population in America has doubts about evolution. That is significant. And, that indicates to me that the evidence cannot be as overwhelming as this website is making it out to be. Based upon this statement, most of the American population is either ignorant, or not objective. I can assure you that the number is even more swayed toward creation in the area of the world where I live. Why is that? In the 21st century, is man so entrapped by ancient mythical beliefs that they cannot think rationally and objectively?Or, is it possible that those who are trying to narrow life down to an objective reality are missing something? Most of the world believes that there is a reality beyond the objective evidence that the world of science sees. It is only a small minority in the world that takes the position that what we see objectively is all that exists. Is it possible that to find the truth we must combine the two? Must we take into account both objective and subjective reality? I have intentionally avoided creationist websites while I have discussed various topics on this forum. I have actually spent most of my time following links that have been given me here, such as talk origins. The arguments and the theories are my own based upon my examination of the evidence and an attempt to reconcile that evidence to a Creator. If it appears that I am making creationist arguments, then it is because I believe in a Creator. I think we both need to look into this further. I know you are convinced, but there is always that possibility that you may be missing something. It is possible that there is a subjective reality that is even more real than the objective reality that science depends so much upon.

---

"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 agree that the existence of God is not scientifically testable. I also agree that the existence of God has no affect on scientific theories. However, it appears that the existence of God has some implication for science. See below. It appears to me that if God used supernatural power then that means your observations would be misinterpreted.For example:If you observed five thousand people being fed fishes and loaves then scientifically you would conclude that they could
not have started with only a few fishes and loaves. (Jesus feeds five thousand people with a few loaves and fishes.)If you observed a man named Lazarus walking around, then scientifically you would conclude that the man had not been dead for the last four days, and had not been decomposing earlier in the day. (Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead.)If you observed a man walking on the ocean, then scientifically you would conclude that something was holding Him up besides water. (Jesus walks on water.)Do you see how a supernatural event could affect your observations?

---

"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 not trying to be difficult, but it is not as simple as some are trying to make it seem. It is like "groupthink." It appears that many scientists have went into this little room and agreed that this is the position and these are the answers to every question, no matter what the evidence. However, you are forgetting that 45% of scientists have looked at the overwhelming evidence, and come to the conclusion that God exists. If my understanding is correct then all of them believe that God is behind man's creation. They differ in what means God used to achieve this feat. Over 10% of these scientists believe that God created man fully formed around 10,000 years ago. If the evidence is so overwhelming then how can so many scientists, who should know the evidence, believe as they do. When almost half of all scientists hold personal beliefs such as these, then it makes me wonder about what I am being told. What evidence do they have that contradicts what you believe? It also makes me be very cautious when someone tries to make the issue as clear-cut as many do. And who do you think is responsible for this problem. We have physicians who appear to be divided on this issue. They should have been trained in science. It is the physician who prescribes these drugs even though they should know that they are ineffective and overused. Why don't they tell the patients the truth?Here is a quote from the article where the poll that was taken:

quote:

---

It is believed that when patients ask their physicians for antibiotics, even for illnesses for which antibiotics are ineffective, many physicians prescribe them.

---

My question would be, Why? Are you including the 45% of scientists? Or, are you saying that those who believe in God can also think rationally and objectively? As a scientist, I believe that you know the answer to that question. God does not perform supernatural acts to confuse scientists, and to convince them that they must disregard the naturalistic theories that they have established. We are told that the reason Jesus performed miracles is so we would believe that He is who He claimed to be. God intends for science to search out these naturalistic explanations. However, God never intended that He be discounted to a position of nonexistence. According to this forum, 40% of scientists have been able to reconcile their religious beliefs to the objective reality of science. It appears that when they encounter supernatural acts (miracles) they are able to place these in a separate category, and they do not affect their scientific objectiveness.I don't know if you are familiar with Plato. If I understand some of his teachings, he proposed that those things in the physical world that you can see and touch were not reality. It was his idea that until you could move beyond the objective world, you were blind. Everything that you see until you can break free from this physical existence is only a shadow of reality. He suggests that those who are trapped are mistaking the things they see in the physical world as reality when in actuality they are only illusions. Is it possible that science by denying the existence of a reality beyond the physical world is hampering their ability to find the ultimate truth?We can accept that both exist. We can accept that there is an existence and concepts that go beyond the physical world. That does not mean that we walk around in a state of psychosis. We believe and understand the objective world around us, with the knowledge that there is a deeper reality that underlies what we are seeing.Jesus Christ was crucified. Many people witnessed this fact. After He was raised from the dead over 500 people witnessed that he was alive. It seems that all of Jesus' apostles, except one, were put to death for teaching the fact of his death and resurrection. We have many eyewitnesses to this event (objective evidence). This was not a natural event that could be explained by science.My point is there is a lot more evidence for the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ than there is for many of the scientific theories that are in existence today regarding physical origins. When you begin talking about primordial soup, and astronomical odds resulting in the origin of life then it may be time to begin looking into the other reality that is being ignored by much of the scientific world.

---

"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

Is eyewitness testimony solid evidence? That seems to be a lot better evidence then we have for the origin of life and the origin of the universe. As I said, I do not walk around in a state of psychosis. Actually if I was psychotic, that is what I would say isn't it? Is that a hyperbole when you say that you "find no evidence for ... what-have-you?"

---

"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

They are scientists, and probably educated people, therefore they would seem to need evidence to be convinced of anything.However, maybe you are correct. Maybe many of these scientists have limited knowledge of the evidence for evolution, and are only saying they believe in evolution because it is an accepted scientific theory. It is also possible when they encounter evidence to the contrary that it is discounted because they don't want to be seen as disregarding something that is accepted by the scientific community. That would sure change the meaning of the survey for me. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.Based on your argument, we have almost half of scientists saying that they believe God was involved in the creation of man, and stating that they believe the tool God used to achieve this feat was evolution when they may not even be knowledgeable of the evidence to support the theory of evolution. So, are you saying that we should deny everything that ever happened in the history of the world if there are not eyewitnesses alive today to testify to the event?The eyewitnesses recorded the event of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ during their lifetime. There were many other people alive at that time that could have refuted this testimony. They did not even though it would have been to their advantage!Their eyewitness testimony lives on today, just as the eyewitness testimony of the assasination of the American president Abraham Lincoln lives on today, and the eyewitness testimony of many other historical events lives on today with no one alive to stand up in court and testify.

---

"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 have looked at the link, and some of the information, and I would agree that eyewitness testimony is not always the best source of evidence.However, this situation appears to be different. First, the eyewitnesses are many, and many of them knew Jesus personally. Second, we are not talking about details, such as what kind of nails that were used, or what was said while Jesus was on the cross, or what time He was crucified. We are talking about very general ideas such as life and death.There were many eyewitnesses that saw Jesus die on the cross, that saw Jesus buried, and then saw Jesus later on alive. Jesus spent at least six hours on the cross, and then spent 40 days on earth after His resurrection. These are very general concepts that would be difficult to misconstrue.

---

"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

You seem to be making some pretty huge assumptions yourself. How would the question of whether these scientists' belief in God came about before or after becoming scientists have anything to do whether this belief is based upon evidence. Without any evidence how can you assume that most believed in God before they became scientists? How do we know when these scientists became convinced of the existence of God? Would the question of when their belief in evolution came about determine whether this belief was based upon evidence? If their belief in God or evolution is not based upon evidence, then what is it based upon? You are the one that brought up contrary evidence.

quote:

---

What makes you assume they have evidence? Have you never encountered people who hold on to beliefs in spite of evidence to the contrary? They may be scientists who work in fields totally unrelated to evolution and therefore have had no exposure to the evidence.
  —Wounded King

---

I am sure that there are many scientists who believe there is contrary evidence. At least the 5% who believe in creation in the last 10,000 years must base that belief on something. I have only began to study some of this evidence, but we don't need to act like it does not exist. The only thing we can question is whether the evidence is strong enough to sway either one of us to believe in something different then we already believe.

---

"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 was talking about 10% of the 45% (these scientists) which comes to 4.5% (The 5% YEC is greater than 4.5%). I am not trying to change any numbers. It is just the way you look at them. It is not intentional. I guess I need to ignore posts that are getting totally off topic like who wrote the Gospels and when. I will try to move back in the right direction.Believe it or not, somewhere along the line I was attempting to make a point that relates to teaching evolution in schools. I was talking about the scientific evidence related to the theories of origins, and evolution. They seemed to be able to look at this evidence, and it did not affect their belief in God (Assuming they believed in God before they looked at the evidence). It appears they were able to fit God into the scientific theories as the Creator without compromising their objectiveness. I have not determined exactly how they did this, but it may be that they believe that God willed the universe into existence, primed it for life, and then used evolution as a tool for the diversity that we see.I wonder how this reconciliation of religion and science affected the scientists' view towards the written word of God. I would imagine that the evidence changed their view towards the Bible. It is possible they even had to compromise their beliefs.If a significant portion of scientists believe that God was involved in creation, then why are we having this controversy. Can't they work out a theory that allows for the existence of God? I know that it is a variable that cannot be calculated. I know that because of parsimony that the theory works without God. I know I have been told that God does not belong in the science classroom. Well, I hate to tell you but God is in the people's homes, and in the people's hearts (and a lot of scientists' hearts too), so He comes into the classroom with them. Maybe you could tell the people that the theory does not include God, but they can put Him in whereever they want. I don't know. I don't know the answer. What shall we do?There must be a way to help those who are being alienated to understand that they cannot ignore the shadows in the cave, and at the same time help those who are trapped in the cave to realize that there is a lot more to reality than mere shadows. Don't scientists calculate probabilities of events such as abiogensis, or other unlikely events?

---

"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 really believe that science is too limited to give me the answers that I seek. Science is not able to find the truth. It is only able to make conclusions based upon evidence. The evidence may or may not be leading you to the right conclusion. It may be that our definition of evidence is not even the same. Here is a definition that I found on the internet:

quote:

---

Evidence - A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.

---

Are you saying that nothing has ever been proposed (evidence) that would be helpful in anyone forming a conclusion that there was a deity? I think what you are saying is that nothing has ever been proposed that you would say is good enough evidence for you to believe in a diety.However there is evidence that people use to help them make the judgment that God exists. I would be happy to start a thread to discuss that evidence. I will be traveling the next few days, but when I return I will try to remember to do that. Do you really believe that almost half of scientists, and most Americans would believe in God if there was no evidence whatsoever? Well the truth is that I am looking at the evidence. As I said, I am not even sure that when we use the word evidence that we are talking about the same thing. I am not even sure we are talking about the same theories. I lump them all together in my head, but I know you have different theories for all the different aspects of creation. If you noticed in my definition above, it says that scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis. It seems that you are saying that it is impossible for there to be evidence that contradicts your theories. That does not seem to be a very scientific attitude. Actually, this is what I said.

quote:

---

I am sure that there are many scientists who believe there is contrary evidence. At least the 5% who believe in creation in the last 10,000 years must base that belief on something. I have only began to study some of this evidence, but we don't need to act like it does not exist. The only thing we can question is whether the evidence is strong enough to sway either one of us to believe in something different then we already believe.
  —Wumpini

---

If scientists have formed a judgment or a conclusion that is contrary to yours, then it seems that they would only do this if there was evidence. Give me some time to look at the stuff. Why would I throw something out like moondust, when I don't even believe it is a good argument. However, to some it is evidence, because it has been used to form a conclusion. It may be poor evidence in your opinion (and mine also) but it is still evidence. When I look at Gentry's halos, I think the arguments get stronger. But, I need time to objectively evaluate the theories myself before you tell me they have been previously refuted a thousand times. If the earth has been here billions of years, as you suggest, then a few weeks is not going to make that much difference. I would hope that the objective of school is a lot more than filling their little heads with a bunch of facts. Is the objective to teach the children in such a way that in a few generations we will have an atheistic society? Should children feel that they have some purpose in life? Should children have hope? Does science want to attempt to deny the existence of anything beyond the physical realm? Why is it so important that you convert all of the people to this way of thinking? It seems like a religion that wants to deny the existence of anything beyond the empirical senses.I think the objective of school should be to help young people to become well rounded, productive members of society. Its purpose should not be to see how many facts that we can stick into their little heads.

---

"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

Would you say then that the entire argument rests upon the "age of the earth?" So, it seems you are saying that creationists need to abandon the Genesis creation account and the flood.Does that mean that science does not have a problem with the other miracles in the Bible as long as they do not contradict the evidence that you see in nature? I did not know that. I have seen probabilities before but I did not know where they came from.A little tidbit about where I live in Africa. A person can graduate from High School here, and have no idea that there is a scientific theory called the Theory of Evolution or the Big Bang Theory. I know this because of my own little survey. You choose your direction in High School, and if it is not science then you are not taught these things. However, everyone is taught about creation in Religous and Moral Education Class. It seems as though we are doing exactly the opposite in our American schools.

---

"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 want to clarify this statement. My feeling would be the same if we were structuring our education in such a way to create a society of Muslims, or Catholics, or Buddhists, or Methodists, or Atheists. When a child completes their education they should be open to new ideas and willing to learn. They should be able to accept or reject the possibility of a spiritual realm on their own. They should understand that everything is not as black and white as the physical exists, and the spiritual does not exist.It seems that if we create a population that has no understanding of how to go beyond the physical realm then the most important questions in life will go unanswered for them. Education needs to be structured in a way that opens doors, not closes them. Children need to have their horizons broadened, not narrowed. Science admits that their is a possibility of the existence of a realm that does not follow the laws of nature. Children need to be able to search out that realm. Maybe that instruction does not belong in the science classroom but it belongs somewhere in the education of a child. If we want the American people to have the ability to search out the truth, then we must not close this door either intentionally or inadvertently.

---

"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 obvious from reading through your post that you have a significant dislike for those of us who believe in God. You call spiritual people stupid, and you use Jesus name in vain in reference to our president.If I understand your recommendation, it is that we teach our children in school to be skeptical about the existence of God. I looked up skeptical and it means "to doubt." So it appears that you want to use our public school system to teach people with faith that they are stupid, and they need to doubt anything that science cannot prove to exist which includes God.You argue that since scam artists are taking advantage of people who believe in God, then we need to teach our children to doubt the existence of God.If you look at your solution then you can see that it would not be valid in any other situation so why would it be valid in this situation._____________________________________________________________________You argue:>> Scam artists are conning people out of millions of dollars.>> They prey upon those who believe in God.>> People who doubt the existence of God will not be conned.>>>> Therefore, teach people to doubt the existence of God.____________________________________________________________________Let us try this with an example of internet scam artists:>> Scam artists are conning people out of millions of dollars.>> They prey upon those who use the internet.>> People who do not use the internet will not be conned.>>>> Teach people not to use the internet.____________________________________________________________________Or try this example with auto mechanic scam artists:>> Scam artists are conning people out of millions of dollars.>> They prey upon those who have automobiles.>> People who do not have automobiles cannot be conned.>>>> Teach people not to own automobiles.____________________________________________________________________If you look at this closely, you will see the problem with your argument. All three of these arguments have elements in common. Those are the existence of a con artist, the existence of money, and an environment where the con artists operates. You assume by eliminating the environment, the religious world, you eliminate the problem. That is not true. The con artist is the problem, and he will only find another environment. You can see that the environment can be easily changed.The problem is not God, or the internet, or the automobiles, or any other environment. The problem is the con artist wants money, and he can operate in any environment. There are three options that would solve the problem in all situations. First, you could eliminate all the con artists. It is not going to happen. The internet, carnivals, investment world, religious world, etc. are full of them. Second, you could eliminate the money. Why not make it illegal for all people who believe in God, use the internet, or own automobiles to possess money. That would only solve the problem if you took all the money away from everyone including the con artists. Not a very good solution. Or, third you could teach people (including our children) to be skeptical of anyone who is asking for money in any environment.The problem is the scam artists preying upon people. Therefore, if you want to protect our children from scam artists then you need to teach them how to spot the con artists, not to be skeptical of those environments where con artists operate. I am sure that all of you know not to send money to someone who sends you an email from Nigeria. Scam artists operate everywhere and anywhere where they can take advantage of anyone for any reason. Religon is only one of the many places that they operate. Let's teach our children that there are some bad people out in the world. I had to do a lot of searching before I found your point. I am glad I came across your second post before I gave up. I agree that we need to equip our children to live full and productive lives in whatever environment they choose. We need to help them to understand that there is a significant lack of morality in the world today, and that our children need to be careful because predators exist everywhere who would like to take advantage of them. Yes, teach them to be skeptical of what they see and hear in the physical world. However, God is not going to scam anyone out of their money. There is no reason to teach children to be skeptical of God. I thank God that 45% of scientists (who I hope are science teachers) would never think of doing what you propose. This statement I do not doubt.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

I apologize if I misunderstood your point. You yourself said you did not make your point clear. Obviously, it was not clear to me. The apparent prejudice and bias in your posts towards those that believe in God may have given me the indication that your solution to the problem of religious scams was promoting skeptism towards God rather than the scams of scam artists.You call those who are taken advantage of by these scam artists spiritual sheep and lambs. You give the indication that parents raise their children in such a way to be taken advantage of by these people. You indicate that an individual lacked the basic skeptical attitude to deal with reality. Expressions such as these gave me the impression that you were referring to the basic belief system of the individual as the problem. This belief system would be in the supernatural or the existence of God.Therefore, I made the conclusion that your solution is to use our public school system to teach children to be skeptical about (doubt) the existence of the supernatural or God. If this is the case then my previous argument is not a strawman.The admin in post 211 indicates that this discussion about spiritual scam artists may be off topic for this thread. I tend to agree.If you would like to continue this discussion with me then please start a new topic as suggested by the admin and clearly state your point, then I will attempt to respond.

---

"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