Teaching the Truth in Schools

Yes: theory, fact; yes: but not true. And its being taught as the truth without necessarily using the term (truth).

If by "the fact of evolution is true" you mean that sociologiical (and other like) forces have established the belief in peoples' minds to the point that such affected people actually accept evolution as the accurate assessment of WHAT IS, then I would agree.

As for something being categorized as theory and fact and existing only in peoples' minds, I'm sure you can think of examples of this from your own knowledge of history, right(?): erroneous ideas that became established beliefs (theory/fact), but that were later found to be erroneous (existing only in peoples' minds from the earlier time). That was all I meant.I don't think that mutations are very good vehicles to look to in order to explain the development of life. Is the net result of mutations, improvement and expansion of genetic possibilities?

MrHambre,

MrHambre,I don't know about that. I mean, I don't get a sense from any of the evolutionism material I've ever been exposed to that supernatural explanations are left open as possibilities. Of course, in forums like this, I can understand why folks would admit a place for it. (As indicated, if it was automatically discounted at the onset, I suppose any honest person would have to admit a rational flaw.) If the writing style that is used in textbooks, the rhetoric that is used in nats-ic TV documentaries, etc., actually displayed the spirit of what you say in the midst of your first paragraph of Reality on Trial, I'd have no problem, and I dare-say that a lot of other people would be satisfied also.You indicated that science leaves the possibility of the supernatural open. Is it worse to assume that supernatural forces exist and are responsible for the existence of the physical world, or to assume that they do not exist? I think science occupies a channel that runs through the midst of these two assumptions, and that it should be taught as such so that students walk away from science classes understanding this. Both beliefs use the physics of the universe as the means to formulate ideas that relate to origins (or whatever). Since science occupies a nuetral position amid these ideas, peoples' perceptions about what science is are misguided to the degree that they think science belongs more to one side than the other. Both sides can make the assumption that the others' fundamental assumption(s) are without justification. So my point now isn't so much that science needs to assume the presence of supernatural forces, but that it's equally true that science shouldn't do the opposite--as it does in textbooks, for example.

I have composed a response to your reply. My response is saved on a disk, and I tried to paste it to this forum reply window, but my Edit/paste window goes into the dormant mode when my evc forum window is up--how can I get around my trouble? Please, anyone really, assist with some instructions. Thank you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin
In response to this:
I don't know about that. I mean, I don't get a sense from any of the evolutionism material I've ever been exposed to that supernatural explanations are left open as possibilities. How about a supernatural aspect of a creation that has nothing to do with the myth of evolution? Evolution is not science. It is a philosophy, a hypothesis about the universe. Just like the philosophical aspects of creationism. Naturalist and creationist scientists agree on vast amounts of things. At least roughly speaking, those agreed upon things are scientific (as opposed to, or in comparison to, the unprovable philosophical beliefs that undergird creationism and evolutionism).

Sidelined,
Thanks for your latter response. Here goes: Yes, as you suspected, I am refering to the one God (or, to be quite specific, the God of the Bible). I believe that the supernatural is a reality that co-exists with the natural world, but that cannot be directly perceived by natural beings (unless the natural beings are empowered for a time in order to perceive such things, as the Bible teaches). I believe that the Biblical God is supernatural because all things depend on him, he transcends the natural--he created nature and, of course, its laws that scientists study. I suppose I assign a level of certainty to this at least as high as the level of certainty that died-in-the-wool nats assign by faith to their belief that nothing caused everything. Why (you asked) do I believe the Bible? Well, for the same reason that x-athiests, x-nats, etc. (who considered the product of the Bible, honestly, sincerely) have believed. It's not because I was raised that way. I'm aware of the rationalizations that people use to discount apologetical research, but, at the end of the day, I find that Biblical faith wins out by a long shot over all other options that are out there. While I'm not "searching" (because once one finds THE answer there's no need), I do gladly continue to learn. When pressed, nats too have an opportunity to be honest about their own supernatural beliefs: I don't claim that I have a crowd pleasing answer to that--any more than nats have such for their unprovable philosophical assumptions that are inherent to their faith. My point is that textbooks and other media should be based on science, and not upon one particular philosophical creed (such as evolutionism or creationism). Of course an all powerful God can do inexplicable things. He transcends even the laws of nature he created. One of the differences between you and I is that I believe in a power that is capable of getting the job done. C'mon, God is all powerful. If he has the ability to create the universe and such, don't you think he could interact with it according to the physics that relate to it? God's omnipotence questioned because it's in direct conflict with something? That seems like the amazing thing to me. There's plenty of non-science things that are a part of the belief in evolutionism also, so one could continue the above jibe in keeping with the various scientific challenges to those things ("but 'that' is only science afterall"). Evolutionism is an undergirding philosophy that colors the affected peoples' thinking. Creation scientists and Evolution scientists agree on vast amounts of things. These things, at least generally speaking, are science. Those groups part company on the unprovable things that tie into the philosophy that governs each group's belief.
I'm talking about such things or processes that nats-ic scientists believe in that they can't see or experiment on in the direct sense. Why do they believe in such processes? Because the postulation of such processes provide what they call the best theoretical explanation for large bodies of data, as you alluded to. But in my view, the naturalist dilemma exists in the fact that nats are unable or unwilling to distinguish between unseen processes that can be uncontroversially extrapolated from empirical realities, and unseen processes that are inherently metaphysical in nature.The large body of "evidence" that is intended to bolster the idea of evolutionism is itself largely theoretical. The provable stuff is just as consistent with creationism. Again, we disagree about the stuff that isn't actually proven. Also, evolutionism has become a social phenomenon, a vortex of sorts whose power can be resisted only by those who care to make distinctions between science and philosophy (or mythology, modern or otherwise). Is this what you intended on asking, or did you mean for me to show something that demonstrates actual creation taking place? Since both beliefs, as they relate to this particular issue, are unable to produce either actual thing happening, I'd just be satisfied if the textbooks taught the sort of perspective I'm suggesting so that instead of students being brainwashed into the nats mindset, they'd understand the issue more objectively. If I understand you correctly, the issue has to do with both the way life was created to interact in order to accommodate the whole operation of life on the planet, as well as "to do with" the fall of man, which brought about a negative effect on both the world and mankind. Interesting. My first conjecture (admittedly so) is that there's more to these fish than meets the eye. (Oh, sorry.) But blind fish don't do anything for evolution either. To me, blindness suggests a degeneration, a losing of ground, not an improvement. As a creationist, I don't see a problem with this. Not taken as such. And I agree that science is its own best critic--that's why creationist and evolutionist scientists compare their philosophies and too the science that each tries to appeal to in order to advance their beliefs. I also read the excerpt and enjoyed it--it should be read and applied by both creationists and evolutionists.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So my point now isn't so much that science needs to assume the presence of supernatural forces, but that it's equally true that science shouldn't do the opposite--as it does in textbooks, for example.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If the textbooks didn't depend upon the validity of a metaphysical philosophy that is unprovable, I'd be more inclined to see your point. Exactly my point. See again my latter reply immediately above.------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
King of the Nats
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gracious. I do believe I've been at least a bit misunderstood (or perhaps just misrepresented). If it wouldn't be too much trouble (but, of course, not if it would be impossible), please paste some things I've written that substantiate your claim that I think that everything I believe is supported by evidence. On the contrary, I have acknowledged repeatedly the metaphysical and philosophical aspects of my model of beliefs that are unprovable as well as those of the nats. Oh, and in response to your title ("King of the Nats"), by "nats" I mean "naturalistically assumptive, temporally speaking" (not just "naturalists" or whatever). This leads to my next point. Contrary to your diatribe, I don't expect anyone on this site to forget anything. Go ahead and keep your beliefs. Just please perceive their strengths and weaknesses accurately. Be willing to admit the limitations of the provability of your beliefs also. What would be refreshing to me is if a nats-ician--just one for right now would suffice--could acknowledge that some fundamental requirements, some foundational beliefs, of evolution at large (including cosmic evolution and beyond), is unprovable, untestable, etc., and could accurately be described as a mere hypothesis that evolutionary scientists try to confirm with data that is (admittedly) more than hypothetical (but that doesn't actually prove macroevolution). That would be a good start. But I'm leary of a "science" that proceeds headlong into "investigations" where only a particular outcome could be accepted, or that train students at least indirectly to favor one metephysical conclusion over another; now I'm not complaining necessarily about the idea of using evolutionism in the academic setting because the existing power structure has identified it as the best metaphysical philosophy to date that supposedly correllates all of the data of the observable universe--my complaint is that instead of it being identified for what it is (assumptive evolutionary philosophy), it is taught as fact. I know that the philosophy appeals to absolute facts in order to support the idea, but contrary to the Asimovian flavor of instruction that runs through textbooks, macroevolution is not as factual as the belief that the Earth orbits the Sun. I do give you credit for those things. But I do also think that you are brainwashed to some extent. The manner in which evolutionism is presented in educational settings has a lot to do--mega-obviously--with the degree of certainty people walk away with about the notion. Many people are as sure about "the fact" of macroevolutionary philosophy as they are about 1 + 1 = 2, and perhaps you're one of them . . . but it's nowhere near that cut and dried. Multitudes of high school graduates are like that, pitifully so. Yes we do. As I've indicated elsewhere, the philosophical mode through which scientists operate does not prevent an accumulation of "results." One can be in error with regard to underpinning philosophy that provides a conceptual foundation, and still harvest a lot of usable data that can be proven, thus moving science forward in many ways. Again, that is why evolutionary and creationistic scientists agree on so much stuff, although parting company on philosophical levels. I just say be honest and don't try to make naturalistic philosophy synonymous with science in the schools. We also know that belief in metaphysical naturalistic philosophy is an individual position, but that it has never aided science (although if people get busy with whatever undergirding philosophy, as I have indicated, there will be a growth of provable and beneficial knowledge accumulated). My point right now is not that supernaturalism has produced leaps in scientific understanding (although something does come to mind that I'll mention in a bit). The "results," the amount of scientific understanding that has been generated by those who are basically accepting of the assumption of evolutionism (i.e., well-meaning products of our educational settings), is a result of the great numbers of people who are establishing and developing knowledge, and not due to the idea that evolutionism is actually true. People can learn factual things as they work, even though the general philosophy they ascribe to is far less than true. And, of course, even in science, people can emphasize things that tend to support a favored philosophy, and de-emphasize, or totally ignore, things that undermine such a philosophy.The issue might be, think of all of the advances that could've been made over histoy if we were to seriously consider Biblical supernaturalism as a possibility, instead of wasting all of that time with naturalism in a rather blind walk through the centuries that was subconsciously trying to catch up to what was there all the time--this following information provides a microcosm of sorts to demonstrate that possibility. I've read some information about anachronously advanced scientific knowledge in the Bible that I thought was interesting and that might be relevant to our discussion. For example, certain procedures are mentined in the old testament that have medical implications. Exodus 15:26 says, "If you diligently heed the voice of the Lord your God and do what is right in His sight, give ear to His commandments and keep all His statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you which I have brought on the Egyptians . . ." Grant Jeffrey, in The Signature of God, wrote about how the Jews had lived as slaves among the pagan Egyptians, and had learned the traditional folk medicine and remedies of them. Jeffrey spoke of his examination of the medical remedies of these pagan cultures of the Middle East and their appalling ignorance of even the most rudimentary medical knowledge as we know it today. But the laws of Moses contained laws and sanitation procedures that, if followed, would eliminate the diseases that afflicted the Egyptians of that day . . . a disproportionate amount of the medicines described in documents from ancient Egypt included dung from either humans or animals . . . Due to the total lack of knowledge of germs and infection, almost any serious illness or injury treated by the medical system of pagan Egypt would result in tradgedy. Now, get this, the Bible records that Moses was adopted by and grew up as the son of "Pharaoh's daughter." Moses would have had access to the knowledge of the royal and priestly colleges of Egypt . . . the book of Acts (7:22) tells us: "And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians." There are no references to the disgusting and dangerous ancient Egyptian medical practices in the five books of Moses. Any intelligent reader, writes Jeffrey, must ask this question: Where did Moses obtain his incredibly advanced medical knowledge? (which will be shared in just a bit) This advanced and accurate knowledge reveals a profound understanding of germs, infectious transmission routes, human sanitation needs, and many other medical advances unknown outside the Bible during the last thirty-five centuries. Moses abandoned the medical ignorance of the Egyptians when he left the palace in Egypt and spent the next eighty years of his life in the wilderness . . . Jeffrey writes that medical science did not know of the existence of germs and their methods of transmission of infection until the end of the last century. Doctors until this century believed that the presence and transmission of disease were entirely haphazard and governed by simple chanc or bad luck. Those who were sick with deadly diseases were cared for in the home without any awareness of the contagious transmission of disease from one sick individual to others around them. People had no idea that invisible and deadly microscopic germs could exist on eating and cooking utensils . . . The children of Israel were no doubt saved from countless invisible germs and diseases by following these religious laws and prohibitions given by their God through the prophet Moses, for example, "This is the law when a man dies in a tent: All who come into the tent and all who are in the tent shall be unclean seven days; and every open vessel, which has no cover fastened on it, is unclean. Whoever in the open field touches one who is slain by a sword or who has died, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days. And for an unclean person they shall take some of the ashes of the heifer burnt for pruification from sin, and running water shall be put on them in a vessel" (Numbers 19:14-17, NKJ). Also, until this century, Jeffrey continues, most doctors who did choose to wash their hands did so in a bowl of water, which obviously would allow germs to remain on their hands.There's actually quite a bit of stuff like this available. Yes, I can read your response even now as I'm typing this. (You're unmoved by this kind of stuff because . . .)------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: King of the Nats
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Question: Is Grant Jeffrey's claim that there are records of the ancient Egyptian era that give indication, for example, that dung was a part of the Egyptian medical practice, false? If so, please provide the data if possible. If he's wrong, he's wrong. Also, I'm not denying that the Egyptians had some advanced medical abilities in some areas--did they use dung in their medical practices? If not, I'll accept correction. I think the point is that the ritual observance has, incorporated within it, guidance that has medical implications that were superior to the medical knowledge of that day. If following the ritual actually protected the people in the medical sense, because its a ritual, shouldn't diminish the point. I have read Leviticus many times. Interpretation isn't really the issue here. If the ritual's instructions contained anachronistic medical principles that protected people, then I think its very significant. No?

As I indicated, I have read Leviticus entirely multiple times--no less than eight times. The "taboos or superstitions" have to do with ancient (old covenant) Jewish religious law; obviously, one who rejects the story of the Bible, would categorize them as such. But aren't you going to respond to the question I posed? Is Jeffrey's claim that there are records of the ancient Egyptian era that give indication, for example, that dung was a part of the Egyptian medical practice, correct?
If it was, that does give us some idea of how inferior their medical beliefs and practices were (even though they had much better medical practices in some other areas). You also discounted or ignored my points about, despite the fact that there were "cleanliness rituals," the mere fact that they were rituals shouldn't automatically discount the net effect of practicing them, and then reaping their medical benefits. If these practices would keep people healthier than those who practiced inferior medical or cleanliness beliefs, it is still significant even if some today refuse to acknowledge it.

I do have my response ready on disk. I thought I sent a message to you indicating that I'm not up to snuff on how to get what I have on disk into my evc forum reply window for you. If you provided the information to me, but I missed it, tell me where it is and I'll get with it. I have some messages on my email list that I haven't been able to get to yet, but I'll check'm out.

Martin J. Koszegi writes:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it worse to assume that supernatural forces exist and are responsible for the existence of the physical world, or to assume that they do not exist?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If everything came into existence on its own and somehow developed into the universal
product that is before us, then the biggest beef I have with nats (i.e., that if existence is beholden to a Creator, their definition of science would never be able to
recognize evidence of his work) is irrelevance personified. But you see, I think that science is a channel that runs through the midst of the two assumptions (that yecs and nats hold, for example). Fine, let science ignore such action as special creation . . . that is, let science ignore it to the degree that it ignores the philosophy of the nats, which is, by the way, riddled with unprovable assumptions. Naturalism is no more synonymous with science than creationism.Creationists study things that happen all on their own. If things are studied from a creationist perspective, it doesn’t mean that planets and such will whirl out of their orbits in a train rhythm to the Somba or something. From the creationist perspective, God made physical matter to operate according to the laws that science studies. Predictable. Provable. Etc. Just like how naturalists study. But neither the creationist’s or the naturalist’s underpinning assumptions are science. Each group looks at what is, although with these different unscientific assumptions about ultimate origins. That’s part of the reason why naturalistic and creationistic astrophysicists, for example, agree about the nuclear processes that occur in the unseen and untestable center of the Sun (and about a vast amount of other things as well).I divide knowledge into three basic categories. First, empirical science is composed of knowledge that is always uncontroversially verifiable. Secondly, extrapolative rationale extends exclusively from empirical science to make logical inferences about phenomena’s that cannot be observed directly. Extrapolative rationale is legitimate to the degree that it extends from empirical (uncontroversially verified) science data considered independently from assumptive claimsthe third categorywhich offers supernaturalist or metaphysical philosophy in an attempt to harmonize empirical science and extrapolative rationale details with the favored supernaturalist or metaphysical philosophy. An example of such an assumptive claim is The mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution.Definitions of science that favor one such supernaturalist (creationism) or metaphysical philosophy (naturalism) over another represents an irrational bias. If I’m reading you correctly, you’re suggesting that even if God exists (just as you exist), He didn’t have anything to do with the universe coming into existence (just as you have nothing to do with what I have for breakfast). Physical matter, the laws of nature, etc., all came into being due to time and chance alone, and God, if He exists, was pretty much taken by surprise when it all happened (that is, if he had the wherewithal to notice our existence at all). Anyway, to answer your latter question, God sustains all things, but he made dependable, predictable laws of nature that allows us to study how He made things to be. The fact that He’s free to step in on occasion and interrupt those laws (to do a miracle, such as make a shadow caused by the sun to go in an unnatural direction for a time), doesn’t throw science into an exercise of capriciousness. It’s an exception.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both beliefs use the physics of the universe as the means to formulate ideas that relate to origins (or whatever).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Translation: you don't agree with me (i.e., you have been influenced to think in a way that favors the philosophy of naturalism--you might not venture out of that box much). Please verify the following, thus alienating the following from the realm of mere belief (or faith): quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both sides can make the assumption that the others' fundamental assumption(s) are without justification.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree totally. Science doesn't "say" (imply, or support the seeming absolutes) that I listed above that belong to the metaphysical creed of naturalists who excommunicate those heretics from their abbeys who don't fit into their box.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So my point now isn't so much that science needs to assume the presence of supernatural forces, but that it's equally true that science shouldn't do the opposite--as it does in textbooks, for example.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I borrowed two high school Biology texts in response to this challenge. I think we both realize that there are ways to accomplish the essence of your latter quotations in textbooks other than stating the belief so directly. (I'm wondering if you would concede that.) Both of the texts were published by Prentice Hall, the first one I cite, in '91, and the second one in '98. Men named Miller and Levine are credited with being the primary writers for each. I wasn't surprised by what I found in the texts because I'm familiar with this sort of thing that has been going on in the classrooms in the name of science (of all things). Here's the first one: Note that there are only hypothesis for how this occured. But that it did occur is no mere hypothesis. Indeed, it "must somehow" have happened (or else some fundamental assumptions that us nats have about the meaning of science would be wrong, and that is unthinkable).Here's the other one that I came across, but that isn't quite so blatantly honest and direct--i.e., not so entertaining, but sad--about what nats think (perhaps because of the need to tighten up their story these days, to not admit again the infinite understatement that there's a "step in our story" that "is the most difficult to understand completely"): Yes, sort of like the absolutely pure science that requires physical matter to have created itself from nothing in a primordial explosion.------------------ OK, I'll bite. What does --RTFM stand for? I really hope, though, that you aren't going to get blasphemous.

The "results," the amount of scientific understanding that has been generated by those who are basically accepting of the assumption of evolutionism (i.e., well-meaning products of our educational settings), is a result of the great numbers of people who are establishing and developing knowledge, and not due to the idea that evolutionism is actually true. People can learn factual things as they work, even though the general philosophy they ascribe to is far less than true. And, of course, even in science, people can emphasize things that tend to support a favored philosophy, and de-emphasize, or totally ignore, things that undermine such a philosophy. At the onset, I'd like to say that I'll respond to your latter post to me with two replies: one, now, with regard to the aspects of your message that I feel confident about answering off the top of my head, and the second--in response to your challenge--later, after I seek out knowledge from some others I have in mind. Okee-dokee? As I continually indicate, one can have an undergirding philosophy that is incorrect, and yet develop a knowledge base composed of some valid information that becomes a resource tool for problem solving in the real world. Consider, in this vein, the oil beneath the earth that is sought for; oil-drillers "A" believe the Earth is flat, oil-drillers "B" believe the Earth is spherical--that's not to say that oil drillers "A" will be unable to develop an ability to access the oil if they put their minds to it.For the sake of my point here, just suppose (hypothetically) that the natsian perspective is fundamentally erroneous (and that a Creator actually did create this universe); don't tell me that the people who work in the natsian circles could not solve some real world problems that are science-based. If you insist that the answer to some problems that have been solved by the nats could only be solved because of their favored perspective, and if you insist that other scientists who study nature, who believe God created the universe to operate according to the same laws of science that nats believe in (except for any "law" that would rule out consideration of God's possible existence), I'd be interested in knowing how nature manifests distinctions that would exclude only creation scientists. This leads to my other point that you seem to think that scientists who study the same natural world (and its laws) that nats study, but whose undergirding philosophy is yec-ish, that their efforts can't actually lead to practical application knowledge, but to only ideas about "the Bible, God, or any miracle." That sort of thinking about creationists is incorrect. Evo biologists are not ignorant, period; but I would say that many of them lack that aspect of knowledge that would enable them to admit the presumptive and philosophical roots of their belief system. What's "(tm)"? (And, like I said, I’ll get back with you about the three puzzles.) Pardon? Did you think that I regarded this scripture as a panacea for all problems? We disagree to some degree about that first sentence. I’ll get back with you.------------------ Then you’re willing to admit this.