New science rule sparks the evolution debate anew

[Lightkeeper]

New science rule sparks the evolution debate anew
Susan Jacobson | Sentinel Staff Writer
November 16, 2007

Digg Del.icio.us Facebook Fark Google Newsvine Reddit Yahoo Print Single page view Reprints Post Comment Text size: The long-standing debate over teaching evolution in school came to Orlando on Thursday night, where about four dozen people assembled at Jones High School to give their views on proposed revisions to state science standards.

The change that's attracting the most attention would require students to learn about evolution as part of an effort to beef up Florida science standards and create a competitive workforce for the 21st century.

However, several of Thursday night's speakers said there's room in the classroom for "intelligent design" -- the idea that life is best explained as derived from an intelligent cause rather than "an undirected process such as natural selection."

The rest of the article is found here.

[metis]

I.d. is simply "creationism" in sheep's clothing and it is a religious concept devoid of the use of the scientific method, which is the technique used by scientist throughout the world.

So here we go again.

Shalom,
Vern

[evangelicalhumanist]

Originally Posted by metis

I.d. is simply "creationism" in sheep's clothing and it is a religious concept devoid of the use of the scientific method, which is the technique used by scientist throughout the world.

So here we go again.

Shalom,
Vern

The French have a better word than "again." "Encore" means "again," but it also means "still."

This argument will never end. It will never end because those who favour ID (or creationism) cannot bear the idea of evolution. Evolution is not just everything that happened up until now. Evolution continues into the future. That means that man, in his present state, may not be the end-point of their God's universe. "Made in the image of God," would take on an impossible meaning for the literalist if evolution were to be understood as the truth.

Sorry, but for the literalist, that is simply an unacceptable situation, and so they will never stop trying to force everyone into accepting that God created Adam as a fully-modern human, complete with an unnecessary navel.

[metis]

Originally Posted by evangelicalhumanist

Sorry, but for the literalist, that is simply an unacceptable situation, and so they will never stop trying to force everyone into accepting that God created Adam as a fully-modern human, complete with an unnecessary navel.

I agree with the majority of your post, but I want to qualify your sentence above.

One could be a fundamentalist, which is not exactly the same as a "literalist", and still believe in the basic process of evolution. When I have posted on this, I very often mention that orthodox Jews mostly see the creation accounts as allegory, and yet they tend to believe that all scripture is divinely inspired.

I also will mention the fact that most Christians today see Jesus' parables as being allegorical. This was a controversy in the early church, whereas some argued that Jesus' parables must have actually occurred since Jesus would not lie. However, the view that a parable need not be an actual event eventually won out, and most Christians today seemingly accept that approach.

Therefore, if a fundamentalist is willing to accept Jesus' parables as stories with morals being taught (what we call "myth" in anthropology), what's the problem with seeing the creation accounts as allegory? Within these accounts one can find many lessons that are being taught, which is quite similar to what we find with the parables.

Shalom,
Vern

[evangelicalhumanist]

Originally Posted by metis

I agree with the majority of your post, but I want to qualify your sentence above.

One could be a fundamentalist, which is not exactly the same as a "literalist", and still believe in the basic process of evolution. When I have posted on this, I very often mention that orthodox Jews mostly see the creation accounts as allegory, and yet they tend to believe that all scripture is divinely inspired.

I also will mention the fact that most Christians today see Jesus' parables as being allegorical. This was a controversy in the early church, whereas some argued that Jesus' parables must have actually occurred since Jesus would not lie. However, the view that a parable need not be an actual event eventually won out, and most Christians today seemingly accept that approach.

Therefore, if a fundamentalist is willing to accept Jesus' parables as stories with morals being taught (what we call "myth" in anthropology), what's the problem with seeing the creation accounts as allegory? Within these accounts one can find many lessons that are being taught, which is quite similar to what we find with the parables.

Shalom,
Vern

Ah, but Vern, I didn't say "fundamentalist" -- I said "literalist." A literalist, in the definition I'm using here, is someone who takes scripture as literal descriptions of actual events -- not allegorical at all.

I have no difficulty with scripture as allegory, because allegory is always open to interpretation, and that which is understood to be perfectly allegorical is more difficult to build orthodox dogma on.

Literal readings of scripture lend themselves beautifully to dogma leading to all sorts of ugliness.

Now, I will also agree with your comment that "most Christians" today see scripture as at least somewhat allegorical. But it is my reading that in the U.S. there are more than the usual percentage of literalists, and that's what drives the continual battle to get ID or some other form of creationism taught in schools. That's not a battle that's happening in any other nominally Christian nation in the world.

[metis]

Originally Posted by evangelicalhumanist

Ah, but Vern, I didn't say "fundamentalist" -- I said "literalist." A literalist, in the definition I'm using here, is someone who takes scripture as literal descriptions of actual events -- not allegorical at all.

I'm aware of that, and that's why I chose to use a different word. Not all fundamentalists are literalists as you state.

Now, I will also agree with your comment that "most Christians" today see scripture as at least somewhat allegorical. But it is my reading that in the U.S. there are more than the usual percentage of literalists, and that's what drives the continual battle to get ID or some other form of creationism taught in schools. That's not a battle that's happening in any other nominally Christian nation in the world.

Europeans generally laugh at us in this arena, and I can see why. It's a matter of taking what is a terrible way to translate scripture and then using that translation to negate what has been scientifically observed for almost a century now, namely that the basic concept of evolution is considered axiomatic within the scientific community. Who says the "dark ages" are over?

Shalom,
Vern

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by Lightkeeper

The rest of the article is found here.

Amazing! I remember reading once where the devil himself was seen turning green with envy as to the ingenious methods of self deception Man was able to develop.

Yet it seems that virtually from the beginning there have always been these remarkable people that have not been victimized by all this self deception and the relationships between the cosmoses that maintained existence were evident.

"I believe that one identical thought is to be found--expressed very precisely and with only slight differences of modality-- in. . .Pythagoras, Plato, and the Greek Stoics. . .in the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita; in the Chinese Taoist writings and. . .Buddhism. . .in the dogmas of the Christian faith and in the writings of the greatest Christian mystics. . .I believe that this thought is the truth, and that it today requires a modern and Western form of expression. That is to say, it should be expressed through the only approximately good thing we can call our own, namely science. This is all the less difficult because it is itself the origin of science."

Simone Weil....Simone Pétrement, Simone Weil: A Life, Random House, 1976, p. 488

What a profound elegant description of Intelligent design. Yet for a person to get to the meat of it they must dodge the bullets of literalists, secularists and perhaps some additional insulted groups ending in "ist."

Simone, when I read what the "experts" are trying to do to the kids now, my gratitude for those like you increases. At least you give the kids a chance to become more than just an automaton.

[aged hippy]

Originally Posted by evangelicalhumanist

Now, I will also agree with your comment that "most Christians" today see scripture as at least somewhat allegorical. But it is my reading that in the U.S. there are more than the usual percentage of literalists, and that's what drives the continual battle to get ID or some other form of creationism taught in schools. That's not a battle that's happening in any other nominally Christian nation in the world.

Originally Posted by metis

Europeans generally laugh at us in this arena, and I can see why. It's a matter of taking what is a terrible way to translate scripture and then using that translation to negate what has been scientifically observed for almost a century now, namely that the basic concept of evolution is considered axiomatic within the scientific community. Who says the "dark ages" are over?

More Americans believe in the existence of hell and the devil than Darwin’s theory of evolution, according to a nationwide poll.

Nearly two-thirds (62 per cent) of US residents polled said they believed in a literal hell and the devil, 60 per cent said they believed in the virgin birth.
advertisement

Only 42 per cent of those surveyed, however, said they believed in Darwin’s theory of evolution, or “natural selection”. The results reflect the deep divide in American society between those who believe in Darwin’s theory and those who favour creationism or intelligent design, the idea that life is too complex to have evolved by chance and must be the work of a divine being. Some 39 per cent of respondents said they believed in creationism.

While the scientific community dismisses the theory of intelligent design, proponents have fought for it to be taught alongside evolution in schools.

Broken down by religion, the survey found that only 16 per cent of born-again Christians (or evangelicals) compared to 43 per cent of Catholics and 30 per cent of Protestants believed in Darwin’s theory.

Meanwhile, 60 per cent of born-again Christians, but only 43 per cent of Catholics, believed in creationism.

Overall, the poll reflects the centrality of faith to American life, politics and culture, with 82 per cent saying they believed in God.

Three quarters agreed there is a heaven while 72 per cent believed Jesus is God or the Son of God and 79 per cent believed in miracles.

The question of faith is proving a key issue in campaigning for next year’s presidential election. For example, in a new advert, Mick Huckabee, the Republican presidential hopeful and Baptist minister, declares: “Faith doesn’t just influence me, it really defines me.”

The poll, by market researchers Harris, involved 2,455 US adults from across the country selected to reflect the national population in terms of age, sex, race, education and household income.

It also found that significant minorities of Americas believe in ghosts (41 per cent), UFOs (35 per cent), witches (31 per cent), astrology (29 per cent) and reincarnation (21 per cent).

Born-again Christians were more likely to believe in witches (37 per cent) while Catholics were found more likely to believe in astrology and re-incarnation
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...wdarwin101.xml

Peace, Love, & Light

[metis]

Ah, thanks for the link for those stats. I've seen this poll before but never copied it for future reference. The results of the survey really don't surprise me any-- unfortunately.

Shalom,
Vern