Thread: Split from Palin for VP: Creationism in schools

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Is it your opinion or is it a fact?

opinion. imho=In My Humble Opinion.

it's my opinion that how we came to be has little bearing on our lives. that's a personal belief.

the fact that truth can never be fully proven, scientifically, one way or another... that is fact. the very definition of scientific proof eliminates that possibility.

Originally Posted by jockeys

the fact that truth can never be fully proven, scientifically, one way or another... that is fact

So, if a fact is true, and truth can't be fully proven, what good is a fact... And if a fact is not true, then what good is a fact... logic has abandoned me

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

We know that Evolution works because it can be observed in progress, from start to finish, on bacteria and plants in laboratory settings.

I know this is skipping back a few pages, but like many of us, I work, and am a little behind on the thread. Your premise makes the assumption I said evolution does not occur which is something I did not say. What it does not explain, as per my previous post, is whether this is by design or not, and also the origin of life itself.
So far there has not been a laboratory experiment in which an organism, even a single cell-has randomly been generated through happenstance, came to life, and then adapted/evolved/adjusted whatever. There have been attempts to create life, using pieces of single cell organisms, altering them genetically, all sorts of things I presume...but not so far anything by random.
Creationism in its purest sense does not seek to say whether living things adapt to their environment, only that they were created in the first place. Which, to be honest, has not been disproved at all. I think one can believe in creation and evolution at the same time, as they are not exclusive of each other. However the atheistic viewpoint on how life began as opposed to the theistic (any God(s) depending on one's religion) asks one to make just as many leaps of faith and is just as much a question of religion as someone standing on a soap box outside the school thumping his bible.

Hope this clarifies the misunderstanding a bit?

John P.

Originally Posted by JMS

I guess my last question would be:

Just because you believe that something happened in a certain way does your belief make it so?

I guess all I am trying to say is that things are what they are no matter what we believe, no matter what science says, and no matter what religion says!

That may be correct, but you will still fail the test in school if you do not give the answers that they say are true.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

So, if a fact is true, and truth can't be fully proven, what good is a fact... And if a fact is not true, then what good is a fact... logic has abandoned me

ok, i was unclear, my bad.

this particular truth, that is, how life began, is a "truth" that can't ever be completely proven. the only factual part is that you can't prove this particular truth.

sort of socratic, really. all i know is that i don't know the answer to this particular question, but i know that with complete certainty

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

Religion comes about by the invoking of an intelligent being who has provided the universe for us.

Russel,
that definition of "religion" is just as broad as my own of "evolution" apparently, and is wrong.
Religion is simply a belief system in which a deity, object, or even another person is worshiped, praised, or invoked in order to gain favor with said deity or avoid harsh treatment by the same (generally speaking). The world and history are full of religions who worshiped deities who they did not necessarily think created the universe.
Secondly, your analysis

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

To say that science claims that we came from "nothing" is a strawman at best. Science explains how the natural world interracts, dynamically. It doesn't just say "poof, here's the world" without proof and underlying naturalistic principles.

Also does not answer any question, as of course science seeks to explain how the natural world interracts, dynamically. Even scientists in the employ of churches do this, believe it or not. True science is not "OK, let's bar this idea because it requires the belief in a higher intelligence than our own, now let's see how much support we can give this other idea which has infinitesimal odds against it...because that has to be it". Such is not true science but dogma, and allows for the personal religious beliefs (regardless of whether the scientist personally believes in a higher Power or not.) Explaining the mechanisms of how things interact does not in turn explain how they got there in the first place, (perhaps the realm of study for the physicists you mention) nor indeed the origins of life. Essentially what we are doing here, is I am arguing that the truck in front of my house was made by intelligent design, (in my case I believe it was made by people at Ford) and you are telling me science says it operates on gasoline. We aren't exactly disagreeing, so much as I don't believe you are arguing against the points I actually am trying to make.
If that makes any sense...? Science has plenty of evidence, which basically demonstrates interactions of different things, but does not explain necessarily how those things came about, and beyond a doubt how the processes were set in motion. I can put gas in my truck, but it won't start on its own, even though all the materials, battery, etc. is present. I believe it is just as feasible that someone turned the key, as saying all the materials that compose my truck happened into place (remoooooootely possible) and through some law of physics which we believe is just there it starts on its own.

Yes I know, an oversimplification, but it throws enough doubt into the atheistic viewpoint so as to render neither the be-all/end-all explanation. Therefore, IMHO neither should be taught as "the" explanation for the origins of life, at the exclusion of the other. If it were touched on at all, I feel it should be "here is one widely accepted belief (with a short explanation) and here is the other (also with a short explanation)" after all enforcing one or the other as the ONLY explanation would be tantamount to religion in schools. Even the "protein soup and lightning" explanation.

O/T looks like I picked a great time to invite my Dad out here, he and my step-mom are driving out tonight...and we have Hannah sitting off the coast, and Ike on the way up.....Sorry Dad.

Anyway thoughts?

John P.

Originally Posted by jockeys

this particular truth, that is, how life began, is a "truth" that can't ever be completely proven. the only factual part is that you can't prove this particular truth.

sort of socratic, really. all i know is that i don't know the answer to this particular question, but i know that with complete certainty

Thanks for saying what I took 2 pages to say....
I simply believe if neither can be proven as the "correct" answer, neither should be excluded. Children grow into adults eventually, do we wish to prepare them to make their own decisions, or to indoctrinate them, and hamstring any possibility for them of considering alternatives to that taught to them in oh, 5th grade.


John P.

Originally Posted by JohnP

Russel,
that definition of "religion" is just as broad as my own of "evolution" apparently, and is wrong.
Religion is simply a belief system in which a deity, object, or even another person is worshiped, praised, or invoked in order to gain favor with said deity or avoid harsh treatment by the same (generally speaking). The world and history are full of religions who worshiped deities who they did not necessarily think created the universe.
Secondly, your analysis
Also does not answer any question, as of course science seeks to explain how the natural world interracts, dynamically. Even scientists in the employ of churches do this, believe it or not. True science is not "OK, let's bar this idea because it requires the belief in a higher intelligence than our own, now let's see how much support we can give this other idea which has infinitesimal odds against it...because that has to be it". Such is not true science but dogma, and allows for the personal religious beliefs (regardless of whether the scientist personally believes in a higher Power or not.) Explaining the mechanisms of how things interact does not in turn explain how they got there in the first place, (perhaps the realm of study for the physicists you mention) nor indeed the origins of life. Essentially what we are doing here, is I am arguing that the truck in front of my house was made by intelligent design, (in my case I believe it was made by people at Ford) and you are telling me science says it operates on gasoline. We aren't exactly disagreeing, so much as I don't believe you are arguing against the points I actually am trying to make.
If that makes any sense...? Science has plenty of evidence, which basically demonstrates interactions of different things, but does not explain necessarily how those things came about, and beyond a doubt how the processes were set in motion. I can put gas in my truck, but it won't start on its own, even though all the materials, battery, etc. is present. I believe it is just as feasible that someone turned the key, as saying all the materials that compose my truck happened into place (remoooooootely possible) and through some law of physics which we believe is just there it starts on its own.

Yes I know, an oversimplification, but it throws enough doubt into the atheistic viewpoint so as to render neither the be-all/end-all explanation. Therefore, IMHO neither should be taught as "the" explanation for the origins of life, at the exclusion of the other. If it were touched on at all, I feel it should be "here is one widely accepted belief (with a short explanation) and here is the other (also with a short explanation)" after all enforcing one or the other as the ONLY explanation would be tantamount to religion in schools. Even the "protein soup and lightning" explanation.

O/T looks like I picked a great time to invite my Dad out here, he and my step-mom are driving out tonight...and we have Hannah sitting off the coast, and Ike on the way up.....Sorry Dad.

Anyway thoughts?

John P.

Actually it might be oversimplistic but very appropriate as to start the vehicle does not actually require "someone" to turn a key, it simple requires an electric pulse which is exactly what most who believe in evolution began the creation of life.


What is this "atheistic viewpoint" you talk about? Evolution? If so it's not an atheistic viewpoint but a scientific viewpoint.

Good luck with Hanna my mom and sister are in Myrtle Beach waiting for it to roll ashore too.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

That may be correct, but you will still fail the test in school if you do not give the answers that they say are true.

That's an interesting - is that bad school, or a straw man?

Originally Posted by Hutch

Actually it might be oversimplistic but very appropriate as to start the vehicle does not actually require "someone" to turn a key, it simple requires and electric pulse which is exactly what most who believe in evolution began the creation of life.


What is this "atheistic viewpoint" you talk about? Evolution? If so it's not an atheistic viewpoint but a scientific viewpoint.

Good luck with Hanna my mom and sister are in Myrtle Beach waiting for it to roll ashore too.

First of all, thanks.
Secondly, the wrong sequence of electronic pulses will not start the truck, nor are they generally considered possible at random. Sure, lightning could strike the computer in the right way (which just happened to be aligned in all the right manners to be a computer) to start the truck, but if the thing is running, typically it is because someone initiated those same electronic impulses by turning a key...
Even if we find out how life came about (Oh look a this, RIVETS!) it would not prove it wasn't created that way. Someone possibly *installed* those rivets.
So far electrical pulses have also not created life in the laboratory even when intentionally trying to do so. So it remains just as unproven as other explanations. Saying something "could" have happened one way does not prove it did, after all.
Evolution is a theory that living creatures either through natural selection or adaptation end up adapted to their environments. It does not in its purest sense explain the origins of life itself. A much greater leap of faith has to be taken for that. Therefore calling evolution as "the" explanation for the origins of life the "scientific" explanation is just as specious as claiming creationism is not. IF we can believe in quantum physics, and experimentation bears this out, it isn't too far of a stretch to believe in a higher intelligence than our own, as well. After all, quantum physics demands belief in what is seemingly impossible-yet it is applied. IT also, however, is just a theory-unprovable, but it works for practical purposes. It, like evolution, seeks to explain, and is a workable explanation-but is not the only possible explanation.

Good luck to your Mom and Sis.
Myrtle Beach is a nice place, except when this stuff happens...


John P.