I asked my anthropology teacher one time, “If Evolution is a theory, which cannot be proven and Creation, in the same regards, is a theory as well, why do most schools and colleges teach Evolution?” His answer was, “Good question, but that is what is in the book and that is what I teach.” In another class I asked my biology teacher, “Where did Evolution come from or how did it start?” And she said, “Well, it was a series of chemical reactions and matter.” Then I replied, “Well, where did the chemical reactions and matter come from.” She replied, “I don’t know, but maybe a physics professor can answer that.”
What was wrong and the same about both of these situations? What was wrong was that in both situations I received no clear cut answer; moreover, what was the same is that these professors were teaching something as fact when they did not clearly know or understand, themselves. Webster’s dictionary definition of theory is: speculation; proposed explanation. So, why does our society rely, pick and teach a theory, which apparently shows us how we all got here, but can never really explain absolute origin without going into another theory. Yes, you can say the same thing about Creationism, but isn’t it easier to think that GOD created the heavens and the earth than to think that NOTHING created the heavens and the earth? In my thinking, God seems the more rational answer.
Posts
10 comments:
yea why is that, what we are thought in school about and we cant even get a straitup answer. the fact is that God did creat the havens and the earth. but man in this world just doesnt want to belive that there is someone more powerfull than he is. so he creats someting that cant be backed up.
I think people just have to believe in something. They don't like to believe in God, so why not think that the earth was JUST created. It just happen, right? I really like your take on this.
A lot of the problem with the debate about evolution is the language that people use to discuss it. Stephen Jay Gould addressed this (about the use of the word "theory") in an essay from over 25 years ago: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
As an English teacher, I am bothered when people intentionally obfuscate with language. Thus, when others pick up the cause, they are led to believe they are arguing something that they are not. Words like "fact" and "create" are thrown around without the proper thought to support them, which is at the very least a path to naiveté and at the most a dangerous precedent.
For my part, I certainly hope that one thing I can impress upon my students in a class where reason and contemplation are key is that we shouldn't be willing to stop asking questions simply because it makes our lives easier. To borrow the notion from Anthony, that way of thinking has indeed been practiced--and exploited by those who look to take advantage of others--since man has practiced rational thought. I believe that truly reading and responding to texts (of all sorts) is hard and disruptive and sticky and challenging and uncomfortable and exhausting. It's also the most important thing we can do for ourselves.
It should be said that not everyone sees believing in a higher power and accepting in the theory of evolution (which, I believe, does not promote the idea that we came from nothing) as exclusive entities. My sister teaches science to seventh graders, can give a solid explanation of and for the theory of evolution, yet still attends Catholic mass. She sees a distinction between her religious beliefs and scientific principles. An explanation of that argument can be found for those looking to get sticky and exhausted at http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/sep/01/schools.research
A strong topic, AM, one that certainly caused me to respond in volume. :)
Thanks for the info on the web site's, I will definantly check them out. I agree, wording is every thing, but if you have to word something so specific to explain an idea or theory to make it sound valide then any smart person can make anything sound like a valide thought: it is all about wording-correct. I used to be a thiestic-evolution thinker, God created it and evolution was the process He used. Now, I think that using evoution as God's means to create the earth and mankind, strips down the very belief and thinking I have of God's power and that no one can "measure the depths of His understanding." He created everyting, science included, by His own perfect understanding--man has just given misleading names and processes to derail that very thought that--He-God, when it all boils down, you see him, anything else is just another thought. This world is to complex for any man to completely understand. But to God, it is perfect sense.
Theories are not considered “fact” by any legitimate scientists. Science thrives on constant reexamination, so to call the theory of evolution a “fact,” in the minds of most scientists, would be a step in the wrong direction. You see science is interested in learning about the observable universe, so scientists are always willing to take another look at a theory in order to better evaluate its accuracy. “Laws,” such as the law of gravity, are the closest thing science has to making concrete assertions about broad aspects of the universe (such as the law of gravity). But, if a hypothesis (an educated guess) makes it far enough, gains enough scientific credibility over time, it is often called a theory; you see a theory meets some important criteria –the most important being falsification. Falsification, the ability to be falsified, is exactly what it sounds like. Science only cares about theories if they can think of a way to disprove them. If an idea can’t be falsified, then it essentially can’t be tested. Considering that science only cares about things it can observe/measure, then a theory that couldn’t be tested wouldn’t be of much use. Thus, the theory of evolution is simply an idea about observations made by scientists concerning the natural world. The idea (or hypothesis) that animals, plats, etc. evolved over time was formed based on a great deal of observations of populations of different life forms. The idea has survived (and been established as a firm theory) because scientists have done many, many tests attempting to disprove (falsify) the idea with experiments involving everything from carbon dating and examination of the fossil record, to experiments involving glacial deposits, and the chemical reactions created when electricity (simulating lightning) is applied to the “primordial soup.” All such tests have failed to falsify the theory. In fact, the observations made by scientists have continually supported this theory. Observations of this nature help solidify the theory. You see I don’t think science is attempting to harm religion. The problem is a lot of ideas involving religion can’t be falsified, can’t be tested; so, such ideas really can’t find a place in science classes. They simply don’t meet the requirements to be considered science. Perhaps such ideas could find the right home in a theology, or a comparative religion class? The theory of evolution and creationism really can’t be compared because they come from two very different branches of thought.
Here are some good links; but, of course, the links do different things.
A basic video overview of the journey from an empty earth to us:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo7KJupd6Mg
Ok, now here is some more detailed evidence for the hypothesis presented in that video:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution
Now, both of these links provide very, very basic info; but, trust me, if you are interested, you can find out about what science thinks, and why science thinks it, on any given question you might have. If you need help doing this, please just ask. I love biology, and I’m happy to help you find any answer you want.
If you want info on the creation of the universe in order to answer your question concerning the origin of science’s “primordial soup,” I can help with that too; but, I will say that science has observed that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so the real answer is that nothing has been created, it’s all just in flux (very fascinating stuff).
And lastly, if we teach creationism in science classes we are teaching an idea presented in the bible, correct? That creates a problem in terms of both science and precedent. For example, in Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, etc. (1:1-2:3). We know this to be false. In fact, the bible states that plants were created before there was sunlight (1:14-19). Genesis also suggests that the moon creates light (1:16); do you believe that to be true? Of course, I have yet to mention the impossibility of a six day creation. I don’t mean to be disrespectful, and I’m sure you realize that I could continue this list. However, how can you argue anything from the bible should be relevant in a science class? Are you arguing that some of the bible is scientifically relevant, and some of it isn’t? Where does it end? Do you realize how often science has had to contradict religion in order to advance? Would you have me believe that the earth is the center of the solar system/universe? You see, science is a very separate entity from religion, from faith. Indeed, faith is the antithesis of science. Yet, I do believe they can coexist; we simply must acknowledge that the bible is allegorical in nature, not a catalog of factual information. Religion is good. Science is good. Science brings us hospitals, medicine, machinery, etc. It enriches our lives. It helps us understand our world and be happier in it. Please don’t try to do away with it. Learn about science. Science has no agenda accept the advancement of knowledge and the empowerment and enlightenment of the human race.
I am not closing out science altogether. I understand and believe that science helps to explain what most of us cannot explain. I understand that because of science great things like hospitals and medicine derived, but what I am saying is science cannot explain everything, so why do we just stop at the point where as you stated that science is something that cannot be completely unfalsified because eventually you have to get to there with science, but by then the meaning of science would no longer exist. So what then, what is there to accept?--Theories that have no scientific relevance? I believe we were created to be intelligent beings. So, what ever spectrum you come from, creation or evolution, it is hard for me to accept that as intelligent creatures we must accept everything up to the point of nothing or “in flux,” as you stated; which are all theories with no scientific relevance. I guess then the Creation theory is one of those “lack of science” theories as well, but it is the one I choose to believe in.
The Concise Bible Commentary by Don Fleming is a great book that splices historical accounts with Biblical accounts book by book in The Bible. In the first chapter, Genesis, the author writes:
"Science may investigate the physical world and suggest how something happened, but it cannot say who made it happen. Believers may therefore hesitate to dismiss a scientific theory simply by saying “God did it”, because the theory may have been the way God has done it. When scientist tell us how rain falls or how the grass grows, we do not contradict him by saying, “God makes the rain and the grass grow.” We accept both."
It is interesting as you stated The Bible should not be considered a factual based book to teach science and should only be considered a book of allegorical value, I agree, but not completely. Though The Bible does not explain in detail everything about accepted scientific principles--that was not God‘s intention for The Bible; though, it does explain some accepted scientific principles used today.
For example, in Isaiah 40:22 (written 2800 years ago) it says, “It is He that sits upon the circle of the earth.” During the time that the book of Isaiah was written, the accepted philosophy was that the world was flat. It was not until Christopher Columbus (2300 years later), whose voyage was inspired by this verse, set out to falsify the “world is flat” theory, sounds like a scientific experiment to me and guess what, it was falsified. If you want to see more examples, got to
Genesis is an account of how God made the formless to the formed, and with His almighty power made everything out of nothing, not in flux, not by chemicals reaction--NOTHING and as a believer I can easily believe that, “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God‘s command, that what we see did not come from anything that can be seen.” Hebrews 11:3
I am curious on your opinion about the actual six days of creation and reasons why you do not think it is possible. There are even some believers, I used to be one, that have a hard time with the actual six days, and throw it out as “not literal days, the writer was explaining in easy to understand words.” My question to the believer who has doubt is, “When did you start doubting the awesome power of our God, if He wants to create the world in six days he can? I know it is hard, humanly thinking, to conceive that the world and everything in and around it, only took six days to create, but we are not talking about any ordinary person or thing--”…no one can measure the depths of his understanding.” (Isaiah 40:28).
"All scripture is inspired by God" II Timothy 3:16, that even includes Genesis
jarod, sorry the link is inplainsite.org
Hi Forward Thought,
I think the main point I disagree with is your assertion that “science cannot explain everything.” I believe that, in time, science can and will explain all of the mysteries that fascinate mankind. Why shouldn’t we believe that? Science has consistently discovered things and done things that, only a short time in the past, people never would have believed was possible. Take the Human Genome project; science is on the verge of literally being able to engineer a human being. Such technology could have the potential to, among other things, cure genetically transmitted diseases. If, decades ago when we mankind first stood on the moon, people had said “Well, science can go no further. Let’s turn to faith,” then we never would have created these new technologies. You see where I’m going with this? Simply choosing to believe something, for any reason, without actually working (through science) at true understanding is, in my opinion, a mistake –a mistake that costs humanity dearly; just think of the lives that could have been saved, or improved, if science had been embraced sooner. Think of the cures, the technologies we might have. One more example: You asked why I believe the earth was not created in six days. Well, to understand my thinking you need to understand two important concepts: the fossil record and carbon dating. Simply put, we have discovered fossils of plants and animals that were around millions of years before humans. We have identified rocks that are billions of years old. The earth, including the plants and animals we see today, took billions of years to form.
But, just as you said “I am not closing out science altogether,” I am not dismissing religion/faith altogether. At one point in your response, you explored the meaning of the events in earth’s history; why did these things happen? Why are we here? What is the meaning of existence? For these questions, turn to God. Science deals with facts and observations, not meaning. Science can tell you how you were born, not why you were born. This, I think, is the importance of religion. Religion isn’t meant to tell us how the universe works, but what it all means. Perhaps that’s the way science and religion can be combined –two very important functions.
Thanks for writing back. I really enjoy having these types of discussions and I think you are a very intelligent and thoughtful individual.
Post a Comment