Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Key points of Evolution
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 164 of 356 (465551)
05-08-2008 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Wumpini
05-07-2008 9:23 PM


Re: Observations and Conclusions
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.
. . .
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.
So what makes you think that scientists had written that textbook? Textbooks are published by textbook publishers. Who employ professional textbook writers to write those books. Not scientists, but rather non-scientist writers. Now, college and university science textbooks are written by scientists or at least PhD's in that field, but elementary and secondary level science textbooks are rarely written by scientists. And the poor quality of these textbooks with respect to the accuracy of the science being presented is a long-standing problem.
One case in point was California's purchase of new high school biology textbooks in the mid-1980's. William J. Bennetta, later of the Textbook League (Text Book League -- contains reviews of many textbooks; Glencoe textbooks seem to fare especially poorly), reported on the proceedings in the NCSE's Creation/Evolution Newsletter. Bennetta succeeded in getting scientists involved in reviewing the textbooks. Absolutely none of the textbooks were found to be acceptable. Even the best of the textbooks being considered had a long list of corrections that needed to be made before it could be seriously considered. The publisher made some of the corrections, but nowhere near enough, and then the State Board of Education approved the "corrected" textbooks in a closed session behind the scientists' backs. The result was business as usual: our children were being taught with substandard textbooks filled with wrong information.
Please do not confuse what such textbooks say with what scientists say.
PS
Seriously, who are the authors of that book? And Google'ing about, what are their scientific credentials?
Edited by dwise1, : PS

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Wumpini, posted 05-07-2008 9:23 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Wumpini, posted 05-08-2008 3:09 AM dwise1 has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 223 of 356 (466030)
05-12-2008 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Wumpini
05-12-2008 4:50 AM


My point was that these scientists, just as you have, looked at the evidence for evolution, and it did not eliminate their belief in God. They concluded that God exists, not as a result of the overwhelming evidence, but in spite of the overwhelming evidence for evolution.
But why would you believe that the overwhelming evidence for evolution should eliminate their belief in God? That's the part that doesn't make any sense. What do you base that assumption on?
As someone already pointed out to you using gravity as an example, consider recasting your statement thus:
quote:
My point was that these {engineers}, just as you have, looked at the evidence for {hole theory in solid-state electronics}, and it did not eliminate their belief in God.
Why should solid-state electronics eliminate belief in God? Or gravity? Or evolution? What is your reasoning there?
An article posted long ago on our church's bulletin board described how most people's ideas about God are childish, mostly because they had formed those ideas as children and had never gone back to them as adults in order to re-examine them and replace them with a more mature understanding. When we try to get someone to question his beliefs, we are not trying to destroy his faith in God, but rather are trying to help him to see where he had gotten something wrong, something that he needs to correct. Too many believers wrongly believe that to question what they believe would be to question God, when in reality what they would be questioning would be their own misunderstanding of what they think they had been taught.
One of those childish beliefs about God is also one that is routinely shown in science class to be wrong. One of the earliest uses of gods and spirits was to attempt to explain how nature worked. The gods operated the weather. The gods made the sun move through the day sky and the stars and planets through the night sky. Even in the Judeo-Christian tradition, God was assigned the every-day operation of nature and it was indeed part of Christian belief that angels physicially moved the planets through the sky and, upon the discovery of gunpowder, that each bullet was moved through the air by a demon. So when science shows us that nature runs on its own through physical processes and the planets use gravity, not angels, and bullets move by ballistics, not demons, then believers think that science is attacking God. That by removing that most ancient use of and need for the gods, science is attacking the very existence of God. No, science is only showing that gods are not needed to explain how the physical universe works, that the ancient idea that gods are needed to explain physical phenomena is incorrect.
But instead of correcting their childish beliefs with a more mature understanding of God, many believers turn to "The God of the Gaps", a false theology in which God is used to explain everything within the gaps of human knowledge. The problem is that the reason for placing God in those gaps is because they believe that the naturalistic explanations of science disprove God, so as our knowledge grows and those gaps shrink, so does their narrow idea of God. God-of-the-Gaps is the theology of ID and is also widely used by "creation science". It misleads both their followers and non-believing outsiders that science is the enemy of religion and that science and natural explanations disprove God. And young-earth creationists especially teach that if evolution is true, then God does not exist. Even ID founder Phillip Johnson stated in an essay that evolution "doesn't leave God with anything to do" and that he opposes evolution for that reason.
That may be true of their puny and impotent God-of-the-Gaps, but how could it be true of God, Sovereign over Nature? A God Who had created nature to operate through natural processes. A God Who cannot be disproven by any scientific discovery, only by faulty theologies.
So why would you think that the evidence for evolution or for any other part of science should eliminate belief in God?
Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.
Edited by dwise1, : a second typo

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)
It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.
Robert Colbert on NPR

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Wumpini, posted 05-12-2008 4:50 AM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Wumpini, posted 05-12-2008 5:38 PM dwise1 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024