The Whys of Evolution

Perhaps, I stand corrected. Apologies go out. I think you saved the thread, GDR.

Please don't think that I am criticizing you or any other teachers.Sudents pick things up in the classroom and outside of it. It might be something as simple as an organization that you belong to outside of school.Also I don't see this as a major reason at all for religious instruction in school. I just brought it up in response to one line in a particular post.

I don't belong to any organizations.I don't believe in "organizations."I stress to my students honesty, integrity, and logic. I'm not saying I do this successfully, but that is my ideal.

Well, perhaps it is apples and oranges. And I would never scoff at anyone who believes in an intelligent designer at the root of all creation. But in that view, why do you suppose there is so much conflict between ID and evolution. The natural fabric of the universe could have been designed just so perfectly to allow life to arise as it did, bringing all the mechanisms to bear that allow for natural selection and evolution to arise. My problem with the current debates in society is not about how people feel about religion, because it's not clear to me if we will ever understand the true nature of space,time,infinity,and creation... but it troubles me that in some places people will do whatever they can to discredit evolutionary theory when 1.It is sound, logical, and most scientists would consider it factual, and 2. I don't feel it conflicts with the idea of a creator as long as you accept the fact that he did not act as architect of each animal, plant, and insect, but rather architect of space,time,matter,etc.. which is truely what everything boils down to anyway.

Hi BostonDI agree. I don't believe that there is a contradiction between evolution and ID. If you go back to the original post in this thread it is a discussion of WHY evolution occurred as it has, not IF.

You need to talk to a forum member here name Chris. He would disagree with you on this matter.

I've only run into a few teachers that would fit your description. Actually, my experience was nearly 180 ^o from what you describe. Even today, many years after the fact, I still wonder exactly what two of the most influential Masters I studied under really believed. Their main goal was to challenge whatever you believed, to force you to examine, refine, temper and test what YOU believed rather than accept what they believed.Woe be unto any student who simply adopted what was percieved as the Master's belief.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Although it's been a long, long time, I don't recall ever knowing what a teacher's personal beliefs were.I knew the religious affiliation of two of my teachers only because I had accidentally met them while visiting their respective churches. One taught ancient history without ever mentioning the Bible. The other taught science without ever mentioning Creation or ID. I'm sure none of their other students even knew they were church-goers.

---

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

I wish I'd never brought this up. It was only by accident. Honest!! I didn't mean it and I yield. As I said, I was in school when the earth was still flat and the comment I made was based on perception and not on any actual knowledge.

When I teach evolution, I do so without religious underpinnings. The only way to protect the religious beliefs of individuals in the public school is to ONLY teach what we know about the subject. If a student begins to questions his/her religious views, then that is a discussion for the student, the student's family and their church/whatever. Evolution does not say "god(s) doesn't/don't exist". It follows good science that only relies on natural phenomena and natural laws. Only by staying objective does science provide us with the truth of this world.Your three "possibilities" of why omit other belief systems that do not believe in one intelligent designer or non-atheists who believe in other creation scenarios. The only way to be certain of not infringing on anyone's beliefs is to stick to the naturalistic science at hand.

Perfect. OK I get your point. If in the last 2 option it was changed to Intelligent Designer or Intelligent Designers that would cover part of it, but can you give me an example of what you mean by other creation scenarios.To go back to the beginning, I agree that it is important to teach HOW we evolved in a science class as you are apparently doing. I still maintain that the WHY is just as important except that it isn't science. I believe that it should be taught as philosophy or religion in a way that has alrady been discussed. One way a particularly favour is to bring in people representing various points of view to have a round table discussion.

I agree that the "why" should be left to other classes such as philosophy and comparative religion. The only problem is that the importance of these classes is low on the priority list of public educators. One problem is what we call the "glut of electives" in high school when there are so many electives to choose from that hardly any of them get filled up and have to be dropped anyway. Also, different pathways (which are all the rage now) pick the electives you take for you. With the way high school is structured, more electives is not always an option.Other examples besides pantheism--I think one would be Wicca. The student I had last year whose parents were wiccans said that their creation story just involved the Earth and nature appearing of its own will. No creator, just the creation for itself. I don't think that he would fit into one of the three categories of "why?" What do you think?

The topic was the WHYs of evolution. The wiccan view of creation, as you describe it, is not consistent with evolution. My understanding of pantheism is that it is fairly vague on these issues but if it fit the evolutionary mold it would probably be #3 or possibly #2.I see your point about how it would fit into the school program. It would depend on what priority was put on it. Adherents of theistic faiths would think it is the important subject, while others wouldn't think it important at all. One possibility would be debates representing different points of view being presented for the students. They'd probably be hugely popular. I hope other teachers maintain the objectivity that you do.

The Wiccan ideas on creation could fit evolution after initial creation. Evolution starts with what is there not exactly how everything originated. So, the initial why's of evolution could be considered a moot point since evolution does not deal with an initial creation event. What the why's would deal with would most likely be, in my mind, the purpose of evolution. Since evolution through natural selection and other naturalistic processes is not purposeful in a teleological sense, then why are we discussing why's after all. This 'debate' would involve, as you have said before, a philosophical issue.After thinking about it, I don't see why evolution would need a why! Does the cell theory need a why? Does gravity need a why? Special relativity? General relativity? As "thinking man", most people need a why for almost everything. Just because our intelligence is a result of naturalistic processes doesn't mean that those processes have to have a reason to operate.Thank you for thinking so positively about my objectivity. I don't know how objective I am, but I will keep my opinions away from my students. Thanks

The WHY's that we are talking about in evolution are the same WHY's as for everything else. Actually it might be called the big WHY. WHY anything?The big WHY is mankind's biggest quest. We are always searching for the reason why we exist at all. An Atheist would say that we are only here by some cosmic accident whereas a Theist would contend that there is some larger plan and that we should do our best to sort out what that plan is.Most of the people on this forum seem to think its pretty important regardless of the camp they come from, if the amount of time that they are willing to take to make their point is any indication.