The Whys of Evolution

I agree with taking the philosophy courses but I don't agree with eliminating one of the possible conclusions before you even start. I believe that if you really think about it, the fuel source for hate is not religion but differences in people. The differences might be based on nationality, skin colour, politics, sexual orientation, religion, gender, or a myriad of other things. People do seem to like to be part of an identifiable group that sees others as outsiders. We have this desperate need to belong.I contend that in the case of religion, and certainly the Christian religion, hatred for any reason is an anathema to the faith. I agree that reading the Bible all day isn't worth anything if you don't put it into practice. As a Theist I believe that our sense of morality and ethics comes from God, and that it is something that is given to all of us. Whether we respond to that inspiration or not is another matter. (We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.) It does seem to me that if someone is thinking for themselves in making life decisions they wouldn't eliminate without study one of the possibilities. I was reading this morning in the Cosmology section of this forum how some renowned scientists reject the Big Bang based on the fact that it might have theological implications. Why?My beliefs are based on the fact that I was searching for truth. My beliefs have evolved, (there's that word again ) over the years as I gained new information. Others would look at the same information that I had and come to different conclusions, but it does not mean that the decisions were made blindly. Let's just say we disagree. There are always those with any belief that suggest we should ignore the evidence of life that is around them. You yourself have suggested that people should study philosophy without considering religion.

I don't disagree, but the discussion was about evaluating the truth of the faith, (in this case the Christian faith) and not about judging those who claim to be adherents.

I see what you mean and instead of theory I should probably use the term "supposition". However, maybe one of the those suppositions will some day become theory, and maybe some day they will be accepted as scientific truth. I don't think it will happen in my life time but who knows.

But how does anybody - especially an outsider - evaluate the truth of the faith?Suppose somebody lurks at EvC knowing nothing about the Christian faith. They see somebody saying, "I'm a Christian and the Bible says the world was created in six days and you're a !@#$% if you don't believe it and blah blah blah blah...."That is how that person will percieve the Christian faith. How we see faiths other than our own is very much based on empirical evidence and not on what we hear in philosophy classes.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

I'd just like to post a question to the creationists out there...
as a former believer in christianity I am forced to ask: Why as adults do you still maintain a logical belief in the bible or any one particular religion? For me, it all ended as I started to explore other religions and finally delve into science. I personally am not attached to any one scientific theory, and I accept that science is a process whereby we strive to explain the natural world through observation and logical deduction. In that way, I accept evolution as a resonable theory supported by many facts. Creationism, however, doesn't have much in the way of fact behind it, and considering how many religions conflict with each other, I was forced to admit to myself that I had no good reason to choose one over another.
I also understand that faith is sometimes beyond fact simply by definition, but how does one accept such a thing? "I believe this so I don't need facts!!"?? It's just too hard to live with that. Science makes no such claims... there should be evidence for a claim, and if there isn't enough , that topic is still open to debate and modification. I hope someone can enlighten me with some interesting debate...

First off this goes right back to the point that we started with which is religious education in school. If this education was provided, then when someone says that the world is 6000 years old and the Earth was created in 6 days he'd be in a position to say how nice for you, but I know that not to be the case. Hopefully he would realize that there are those that take this position but that they are a minority of Christians.I think that we would agree that someone is not likely to make a decison about what they believe based solely on a philosophy class, but hopefully they will at least be able to recognize the most blatant counterfeits. In addition as with all education it just might cause people to research other sources so that in the end they can make an informed decision.

This question goes back to the WHY in evolutionary theory. This sounds a little bit like the discussion with Ringo316. If by creationism you mean creation in 6 days 6000 years ago I would agree with you.If however your concept of creationism can encompass an Intelligent Designer who had a hand in either initiating, or, in iniating and periodically adjusting the evolutionary process, (choices 2 & 3 in the initial post), then we are having a very different discussion.Science functions in the physical realm. Religion is metaphysical, so in my humble opinion, we shouldn't confuse the two. For myself, I don't see any conflict between science and religion. Some scientists are Atheists, some are Deists, some are Christian, some are Jewish etc. Knowledge or lack of knowledge of the physical doesn't seem to make a significant impact on what one believes about the metaphysical.

Technically, all Christians are apes......but not all apes are Christians.

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

I agree that in many ways science and religion do not conflict, especially if you forget about the literal bible creationism.
Also, I don't necessarily refute the idea of an all powerful designer. It's something that can't be disproven. But, in my view, there's no reason to seriously consider it as a theory when it's utterly untestable. We can at least hypothesize about the effects of evolution, compare DNA across genomes, and make useful and testable predictions (that have led to many tangible results, e.g., comparison of multi-species DNA sequence to reveal functional elements like gene start sites).
I know some people then refer to string theory as untestable, but in some way it presents a coherent mathematical framework from which we can make predictions, for instance, the presence of the Higgs Boson. Some of these larger scale things can be tested to see if the results conflict with what string theory predicts. And of course, as science advances, more and more becomes testable; so, it's clearly worth pursuing. Intelligent design just seems to be a dead end... of course I can keep an "open mind" that other theories could be valid, but without a framework from which future experiments can be designed, how is it useful in the classroom?

Yes. For the most part, I think we would. The main problem I have with religious studies in schools is the inherent unfairness. It is not possible, in the time available, to give all religions "equal time", nor is it possible to have teachers who are equally well-versed in all religions. Under those conditions, religious studies become indoctrination, not education.Another problem, which GAW-Snow has touched on, is the danger of that indoctrination being intentionally slanted by teachers.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

There are lots of things in life that can't be proven one way or the other by testing it in a lab.Why do we differentiate between right and wrong. An atheist might say something like it is a learned behaviour that has gradually evolved over the ages, without any influence from beyond the physical. As a Theist I believe that we came to that knowledge with the aid an external influence.We can't both be right, and we can run all the tests we want but we can't prove either case.As I have said before science is about the physical world. I would suggest that science is following the footprints of the Intelligent Designer to find the HOWs of creation, whereas Religion and Philosophy study that which is outside the physical to try and ascertain the WHYs.As I see it, you are mixing apples and oranges.

That will happen regardless of whether there is religious instruction or not. As a matter of fact I would contend that religious instruction would be necessary to balance the slant that students are always going to get from their teachers.

What slant would that be?Would it be something like this?We have all this evidence that evolution occurred: here it is.We have no evidence as to why it occurred, and we also have very scanty evidence about how life originated in the first place.As regards God, we don't know one way or the other.Is that the "slant"?I call it telling the truth.

I have no problem with that at all. I just maintain that over the period of a year a teacher's beliefs, NO MATTER WHAT THEY ARE, will be transmitted to the pupil whether it is done directly, by inference or subliminaly.

Well, I'm a teacher and I am very careful NOT to tell the students my fundamental beliefs, or even hint at them. In my opinion, that is improper.