Evolution vs. Intelligent Design :: RunningForums.com

TOsteve wrote:

AlaninTX wrote:

The private Christian church school I attended offered a geology class. So, on the first day of school I go to this geology class, and the professor informs us that "The earth is 6 billion years old, and humans evolved from single cell microscopic organisims. Anyone who tells you anything different is lying to you."

To me the comment made by your teacher shows not only a lack of sensitivity for the beliefs of others but also a bit of ignorance about the nature of scientific theory. Thoughts about the age of the earth and the origins of human life are based strictly on scientific theory (much of which is highly speculative) and far from scientific law, let alone fact. How any educator could suggest that the only possible motivation was deceit if somebody presented ideas that contradict a theory is beyond me. Sounds like your teacher had other goals in mind besides just presenting his class with a theory about the origins of the earth.

AlaninTX wrote:

This, of course, precluded a lecture on how carbon dating works, and how to read the geologic record.

This statement confuses me, I can only guess you meant to use a word other than preclude? Did you actually look at scientific evidence that support evolution or did your teacher think his opening statement to the class precluded the need for scientific explanations? If that's what you're saying how can you argue that he's even teaching you science.

AlaninTX wrote:

He left any explanations as to why we exist to religion department and the department of philosophy.

I disagree with the concept that science is science and should be kept separate from philosophy or spirituality. I believe that in many cases the "why" is intricately wrapped up in the "how". I know not everybody will agree with this but it don't believe you can argue that its an unreasonable idea. To me, the origins of life reflect this cross-over of aspects of thought more than just about any other topic.

Why do some people seem afraid of presenting scientific research that opposes some of the foundations of the theory of evolution? The truth about most of our understanding about the origin of life is that what we do know barely scratches the surface of explaining how we got here. But instead of being taught this way, you're told "you're being lied to if you don't believe it". There are many unclear concepts in all areas of science - is light a particle or a wave, are there mathematical contradictions within Einstein's special relativity, why are instances of cancer increasing globally... Why do some people seem so hesitant to put the origins of life in this category?

Yep, you are right. Why I typed "preclude" will be one of the mysteries of life Wink

I meant to write "preceded." My point was, he was/is a very highly regarded professor of geology and he clearly felt the freedom to teach what he believed as truth as a christian college. Yes, we studied the science of carbon dating and the geological record in lecture and in lab. Can we not discuss my grade Embarassed

As for the rest, we just disagree.

camelia bedelia wrote:

Kids should learn about all aspects of scientific theory, whether it be about gravity or molecular biology or evolution or whatever. I don’t have a problem, and in fact would expect them to, learn about contradictory research and things that aren’t yet fully understood. That’s all part of learning science. I just don’t want those holes in the theory to be used as “proof” of anything. I’m not going to freak out if ID is discussed in my kids’ classroom, as in; the question is raised in class of who caused all this to happen, but I don’t want faith based beliefs taught to them as fact.

I just don’t understand why some people seem to think a belief in science, more specifically a belief in science that looks at the origins of the universe, excludes a belief that God created the world. I don’t get that.

I agree with pretty much everything you said here CB. Your post helped me realize that all I'm trying to say is that evolution should not be taught to children as fact either. I (and it seems like Allan has as well) have experienced teachers who present it in that light.

To try to answer your question, I think a lot of people of faith have come across others who try to use evolution as a platform to disprove the existence of God. I guess that as a result some start to feel like that's the motivation every time the subject is mentioned. I agree that the two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

Oh, and thanks for clearing up the vocab confusion Allan. Cool

TOsteve wrote:

Your post helped me realize that all I'm trying to say is that evolution should not be taught to children as fact either.

It should be presented as as theory, which it is, but in the same way gravity is a theory, both of which have lots and lots and lots of evidence to back them up.

Pug wrote:

Diva, because I am nuts I believe that Evolution is God's Intelligent Design and see nothing that forces the two to be mutually exclusive. In fact, the only way this Macro Evolution where species evolves into species makes sense is with God's hand.

With that said, I don't want Intelligent Design taught in public schools. It is up to you as a parent, and your church, to teach your children about God and how you believe He works.

A science classroom is for exactly that: science. If God or Intelligent Design is not something that can be scientifically discussed or proven or have a good reason to believe scientifically, it shouldn't have a place in that classroom. Perhaps there should be another class called Religion and Science where discussion can be had about how Religion and Science interact, how they don't work together and how they can.

But belief in Intelligent Design is based more on Faith than on Science. The classroom isn't the place for it.

The Miller Experiment is a failed attempt at proving Darwinism so how is that scientific?

TOsteve wrote:

...all I'm trying to say is that evolution should not be taught to children as fact either.

I think a lot of people of faith have come across others who try to use evolution as a platform to disprove the existence of God. I guess that as a result some start to feel like that's the motivation every time the subject is mentioned. I agree that the two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

camelia bedelia wrote:

It should be presented as as theory, which it is, but in the same way gravity is a theory, both of which have lots and lots and lots of evidence to back them up.

Origin of life theory is not nearly as concrete (or simple to explain for that matter) as gravity. Its more akin to something like astro physics or molecular biology. Much more on the fringe of our ability to truly understand.

There has always been a lot of disagreement within the field as to exactly how things happened. Actually, the concepts seemed to change almost every year when I was in University.

TOsteve wrote:

camelia bedelia wrote:

It should be presented as as theory, which it is, but in the same way gravity is a theory, both of which have lots and lots and lots of evidence to back them up.

There is a lot of disagreement as to the origins of the Earth; not so much scientifically about evolution. I see them as separate issues.