Genesis is a story used to make a point. It is not all literal truth but symbolic. This is what I have been taught in over 10 years of christian education. To say that creationism is the end all be all is simply false and goes against most christian teaching, except hardcore protestants from the bible belt. I had a class about this last year and here are some links that help debunk this debate: 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2) Carter Slams Georgia Evolution Proposal (http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/01/30/georgia.evolution/index.html) (I took this class on evolution at a Jesuit university, if anyone should be biased towards creationism it is them)
So that's why the words "Take my funk to P-Funk, I want to get funked UP" keep running through my head.
Look, nowhere did I say that I believe that creationsim should be taught in school. I am not sure if it should, and frankly I don't really care. Thanks for the personal insults though, once again proving to me that liberals really are not serious about having an intelligent conversation as much as they are imposing their views on others. For those of you who honestly and fairly critiqued my post, thank you. I think you all are on to something, and maybe a new way of teaching these issues. But I really don’t think that some of the more vitriolic people on this post would even want religion to be taught in school, even if it was done in an objective and historical matter. What I am arguing is that there be a fair and honest discussion of the issues. And also that people realize that the foundations of science are somewhat in question. And yes that this is a philosophical issue. That was my point. That science is wrapped up in philosophy and worldview. Science is open to interpretation. And simply throwing out the idea that it must be testable does not a science make. Alot of science today is neither testable nor proveable. Evolution is not testable at least from the standpoint of the starting point of life, unless you think Frankentstein was a documentary. You can try to test it, but it has not happened. Hobbit people and possible missing links are open to anthropological interpretations as well. For those of you who responded with unusual anger towards conservative Christians, I am not surprised. I realize and agree that many people in the name of God have done some terrible things and said some even worse things. But there are 80 million evangelicals in America, most of them believe in some form of creationism, and all these people are Osamas? All Muslims are Osamas because they believe in God and a strict moral code? Even I know that all secularists and atheists or liberals don’t reflect the unusual anger found on these boards. Many of them are open to civil discussion. I think John Kerry was an honorable and sincere man, who would have listened to the conservative in this country, even though he would have disagreed with them. He just did not convince the social conservatives that he was going to take them seriously. This is a real fear in middle America, that our values and ideas are not really being listened to by the liberals on the coasts. We have been called Osamas and terrorists more than once. Which is odd. Because as an evangelical Christian I believe that the main tenets of my faith are love and compassion. I don’t even believe that I should use violence in self defense. Every summer I travel to Ethiopia to care for and comfort those dying of AIDS. OK I believe that God created the world. Maybe that makes me an idiot, but because I believe that and because many people believe that, they and I in turn attempt to do good deeds in the world. Travel the world and you will find that many people (not all, there are some wonderful secularists out there also) on the front lines of dealing with the AIDS pandemic, ending child prostitution and human slavery, and ending poverty happen to be evangelicals. Look deeper than you pre-conceived notions, be willing to engage people where they are and you may find something new and interesting. Its always easier to just lambast the other and assume you know what makes them tick and motivates them. Lets have an open and honest discussion and not call each other names.
I'm amazed that people are willing to discuss this as though Creationism should even be mentioned in the same breath as science. The entire foundation of Creationism is based in religion, and therefore has no place in a scientific discussion. Now if someone wants to include Creationsm as part of a Philosophy course, that's fine.
Better yet, when they're entering their junior year, let's have 'em all compete in a wet t-shirt contest, and have judges compare the wetness of their bodies. The non-witches will accept the water, and have the wettest clothes. Nobody drowns, and the Girls Gone Wild people have a new line of videos to sell.
What exactly do you want to talk about? If you believe God created the world, great. Terrific. Just don't teach that to my kids. However, I can't have a serious discussion with you about this issue. I don't believe God created the world. Its possible, sure. But I don't think its true. Your entire reasoning is based on belief. I don't share your belief. Thus, there is no compromise. Until you show proof, what can we possibly discuss?
When you write "the world," do you mean the universe, or that His will separately created the planet Earth? Cuz many, many people who agree with the former would disagree with the latter. The former is a question of faith, the latter is a question of science.
here's my main beef with religion and science trying to mix. in science there is constant debate. Einstien didn't take to quantum physics when it first arrived on the scene (the famous "God doesn't play dice with the universe" quote). both sides of the issue at hand have at it. but with the bible, it's a different story. with science, debate is not only encouraged, but it is demanded. Religion, well, we've all seen how well fanatical people deal with deabte over the bible.
Open to interpretation? ALL science is 'open to interpretation'? WHAT science today is 'neither testable nor proveable'? And this has WHAT to do with John Kerry?
ahhhh, Mr. Scorpion I believe. Good points. I agree. However, there is a fundamental problem here, a catch-22 if you will. I don't believe in evolution, lots don't. You do. And many more beleive as you do. Which is fine. I believe that evolution should be taught in schools. If people teach creationism as a non-scientific option to evolution (which beleiving in some elements of evolution takes a bit of faith as well) is there really a problem. Here is the rub. You don't want your kid to be taught creationism. This is a valid concern. But then is it not also a valid concern for a creationist to not what his kid to be taught evolution? Isn't something then being forced upon that family? Cannot the school teach evolution (remeber I believe it should) in science class. And then in social studies teach that some people actually don't beleive in evolution and believe in creation, whether they be Christian, Muslim, or the animist Pygmy people of central Congo. Cannot some Intelligetn Design theories and explanations be offered, to show that some very smart people actually do cast some doubt on traditional evolutionary theories? The problem is we have two groups of people, both saying that the other is imposing their views and beliefs on each other. How do we move forward in a pluralisitic and post-modern society? Have you ever seen a man say goodbye to his shoes?
there is a area of physics known as string theory. but to test it with todays technology you would need a particle accelrator the size of the universe (due to energy demands). it is a pretty well respected thoery, but right now it's only a theory.
Excellent post and to the point. Speaking of "origin" - If you beleive that creation theory has validity and should be taught (since, as pointed out above, we do not understand the "origin" part of this) - whose theory of creation should we teach ? Just because the majority of the country identifies itself as Christian, competing "theories of origin" like the Roman, Greek, American Indian etc have just as much validity. The other thing I can't seem to grasp about religion is how humans have jumped to the conclusion that just because something or someone started this "origin" thing, what makes us so sure this entity wants us to worship it ?
OK all of you science wise guys, how do you explain: 1 - Batboy http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/features/chamber/10594 2 - Alternate evolutionary hypothesis http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/features/science/61471 3 - This one http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/features/chamber/35659
what other non-scientific options are you willing to have in school??? just creationism??? where does it stop??
sorry I was not clear. Don't believe that inanimate matter just one day became living cells. Do beleive that speicies adapt and undergo biological change. Just posing questions that we might want to take a look at to figure out some of the problems of our society. Don't take it so seriously. Just realize that right now people can call alot of science into question. Its the nature of our time, and just yelling louder that "science is fact" does not win an argument.
you are completely misunderstanding me never said that creationism SHOULD be taught in school. Maybe, maybe not. I am willing to dialogue it out and see where we come out at. I think alot of people are, but when you just get yelled and are not given a fair shake it is hard to listen to others viewpoints. Plus, what else are you going to do this morning? Work?
yes, but that is a rather nuanced understanding, as simplified above evolution should be taught in school, never said it should noy
What is shocking to me is that even though the Vatican supports evolution there are still closed minded cristians who believe in creationism