Well, since I brought it up…
On Evolution and such. Mr. funk made a response that I felt was worthy enough to be responded to, then I realized that such a response isn’t easiliy seen. So, here it is. And of course, I expect lively debate and discourse…
p.s - I have a natural selection category that I’m saving to use on rants concerning people whom I feel are lucky to live among us. Think Darwin awards. Technically, ID does not fall within this definition…
“Mr. funk hasn’t responded yet, so I will fill in on my feelings on such things:
Evolution looks backwards at our origins and the multitudes of life that have come before. It can be used to look at what indeed may come, but is not very good at it and leaves much to be desired.
Religion looks forwards into our being. It should be used for what may come, and to foster ideas of betterment. It should not be used to look backwards, as it is not very good at it and leaves much to be desired.
Where one draws the lines between past, present, and future, as well as the interactions between the tenses, lies confined in the boundaries of faith and hope.”
Take that, 2000 years of bickering!
October 25th, 2005 at 7:08 pm
Wow, I am still waiting to see Zamoose step to the plate on this one. I am sure you guys have battled this out before. As for Funk, well he comes from a strong southern Christian family so this could go on for a while. As for me and being an engineer, I am entertained by the thought of evolution but continuously go back and try to find a religious answer to the theories. Dinosaurs=> 6 days of creation…..sure it makes sense. My dad, I think, ran the same gauntlet as he was very informed on the history of the bible and how it interlinked with scientific history.
October 25th, 2005 at 9:54 pm
I think you would be surprised to learn that zam and I can let sleeping dogs lie. It’s not like I was the most liberal of the group, nor was zam the most conservative (Shocker!). Together, we united the clans…and won our freedom…
As to your comment, I personally am of the opinion that it should be the other way around. If religion is to be considered a metaphysical study, and science/engineering a purely physical study, then one should turn to physical world in search of the other. That is to say, I am of the persuasion that you come to much greater understanding about life by study of the suroundings, not through contemplation. So I say contemplate first, then look.
Now, we must agree that there are some things we can never truly know (that is, to have undiable, verifiable proof), and that is where the study ends and the contemplation begins anew. Whether religious teachings ACTUALLY happened are not relevant to one personal leanings. As long as said person truly believes in something, anything, that is good enough for me.
That is what I think it means to be touched by his noodly appendage…
October 25th, 2005 at 10:21 pm
Unfortunately I do not know enough about ID to be able to weigh in on it as a theory. The scientific community doesn’t seem to really care for it, but they are sometimes fuddyduddies about new ideas. Of course I really don’t know much about biology of evolution, either. My last biology class was nearly 10 years ago when I was a freshman in high school.
I’ve gotta agree with Will that any science teacher worth their salt should emphasize the meaning of “theory” (not necessarily stating “theory of” before “evolution” every time). Unfortunately my experience taught me that most science education through about the 8th grade is not taught by those worth their salt.
All this, to me, underscores the need for proper and rigorous science education for students. I feel we are moving in the wrong direction on this front, in part due to evangelicals who fear competing ideas.
October 26th, 2005 at 9:23 pm
First off, let’s lay out the grounds from whence my views spring.
I sincerely and utterly believe in an Intelligent Designer, and not just any Designer, but the one that goes by “God” in most circles - “Jehova”/”Yahweh”/”El Shaddai” in the Old Testament, simply “God” or “LORD” in most modern Bibles. Not Allah, not El, not Marduk, not Buddha, not bleedin’ Rael on a rocket-powered pogo stick.
I’m also not a Deist - I hold no truck with the “Divine Watchmaker” school of thought. God didn’t just set up the universe, give it a set of physical laws and then sit back and watch the results - He’s still very much active and present.
That being said, I think you’re incorrectly attributing views to both sides - sinister motives on the part of ID’ers and benign ones on the part of evolutionary proponents.
ID centers around an idea of “irreducable complexity”: the notion that there are certain components of biological systems - in particular, but not exclusively the human system - that simply cannot be accounted for by evolutionary processes. Evolutionary theory lacks the ability to explain both macroscopic changes (full species-to-species changes)and non-favorable development of complex systems (the evolution of the eye, for instance) from an inert “soup”. There is no fossil record to support macroevolution, particularly of the human kind.
Critics of ID get all huffy at the notion that ID’ers want God taught in Science Class. I’ll admit that it’s a dodge for ID’ers to claim that they’re merely pointing to the fact that some designing force other than chance was at work in creating life but not “God” as that force. I think proponents of evolution are equally guilty of trying to preach the exact opposite in Science Class and appeals to Scientific Methods and the Sciency Aspects Of Our Theories are equally obnoxious dodges. Evolution, as taught in the vast majority of science classrooms, is not simply a “theory”, it’s a founding tenet of Postmodern Secular Humanism. “Evolution” is a religious statement, especially in the way it is most often taught, as it explicitly denies the possibility of a divine Creator. It’s used as an intellectual stick to knock those silly Xtian Fundy Snake Handlers about the metaphorical head and children are taught that it is, for all intents and purposes, Objective Truth, it’s just that we don’t quite have the proof to back it up quite yet. But wait! Gallileo didn’t have proof enough for those Catlickers, and see how right he was? See? Modern day Christians who believe that evolution is a Man-centerd bunch of hokum are just backwards-thinking Pharisees unable to see the Truth due to severe cases of rectal-cranial impaction.
I think that ID’ers are actually playing a rather clever game: “We’ll see your rank [ir]religious indoctrination couched as ‘fact’ and raise you our own competing ideology.” If one set of beliefs that require a leap of faith to believe can be taught as fact, why not another competing set of beliefs?
Science class should stick to explaining the generational differences in fruit flies and leave the proselytizing out of the classroom entirely. If good little Atheists want to teach their kiddies about the Big Great Nothing that gave birth to their drooling primate forebears, so be it, but leave that crap out of the schools.
Savvy?
October 27th, 2005 at 9:41 am
Ok from my mother who has a BS in biology and is one of the strongest Christians I know, it must be possible for both to live in harmony. That’s enough for me.
October 27th, 2005 at 12:27 pm
Hmmm…Need time to digest that one…
Speaking of time…How are ya’ll doing sleep-wise?
October 27th, 2005 at 12:46 pm
Well, I think Doug basically explained my point to a tee. However, I’ll put into stupid person, (layman’s) terms.
When you take the ‘theory’ out of Evolution, you’re preaching an atheist religion.
I think it is quite sinister to do so in middle school when a person is undergoing drastic physical and mental development that certainly leaves him/her more impressionable.
Perhaps that’s why radical groups target 12 year olds with girl bands like “Prussian Blue.”
Or why my Church pushed my confirmation at the same age.
October 28th, 2005 at 10:10 am
An interesting take on ID from the BrothersJudd (http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/2005/10/strange_bedfell.html)
On what might happen if ID is wedged in as scientific theory: “Good point. I mean, what if the Darwinists ever come up with proof that speciation actually happened?”
October 28th, 2005 at 12:17 pm
Here is where I get stuck: How is “God did it”, no matter how you say it, and answer on a test in a SCIENCE class? If we are talking run of the mill, these are the things you will need to know to succeed in the study of science/engineering in the future, that answer is completely and wholely hollow. It’s a cop-out on the same level of-say the following:
Wife: “Hubby, why are there so many dishes in the sink?”
Hubby: “Well, because they are dirty”
Wife: “What is stopping you from cleaning them?”
Hubby: “God told me not to”
Show me a wife that will take that answer WITHOUT HESITATION. The hubby didn’t do it because he wanted to do something else. It just wasn’t on his list.
Likewise, there are people out there who will not pay attention to anyting other then what is on their list of things to deal with and accept. They either lack the time/patience to fully devote to understanding, or simply choose not to because they do not like what they may find out. Investigation can lead to some disturbing findings, no matter the subject being studied. In that same vein, a population of people will not accept the possibility that evolution is real. Inestead of engaging to close the gaps in our understanding of the mechanisms at play, they choose to bring out the God gun to blast open those holes in hopes to destroying the understanding. But the God gun is being treated as a tool - we are told we CAN NOT understand how it works, just that it does, and what it does is blow apart evolution.
How does this motivate 12 year-olds to create anything, if they are being told “God did it.”
Finally, being that we are talking about Public education (I fully support private schools teaching whatever the subject matter they so desire), I can not accept any non-quantifiable explanations of the things as we find them. “God did it” is not a valid defense in our legal system in anyway, so how can we make it valid in the educational system?
Now give me a sec to run behind this lead shield…
October 31st, 2005 at 10:33 am
Handel’s Messiah.
October 31st, 2005 at 12:11 pm
…Is an incredible work and when it was first heard, the King of whatever-state-it-was stood up immediatley because he was so moved…which is why it is customary to do so to this day…It is also quite exhausting to play (and/or sing) the whole movement…
October 31st, 2005 at 12:32 pm
BZZZZZT. Incorrect.
King George II of England leapt to his feet at the first hearing of the “Hallelujah Chorus”. Historians disagree as to the exact cause, but there is significant speculation that KGII was either 1) bored/stiff by the length of Handle’s piece and simply wanted to stand or 2) had actually fallen asleep and was startled out of his slumber by the Chorus. Most discount the notion that he was moved by the piece.
/pedantry
October 31st, 2005 at 4:40 pm
FINE. I submit to your clarification. I didn’t think it was an English Monarch, but I haven’t delved that deeply into it in a while…