God does not want us to have all the answers. If he did, we would already know. I say, look at both sides, decide which one you think is right, and go with it. No one really knows what's right. You can try and prove your point until you're blue in the face. The bottom line is....We are not meant to know. If we did, what would be the point? If you knew all the answers, what would there be to search for, to live for? God is much smarter than people give him credit for!
You've outlined some of my concerns. I see a lot of creation science that really doesn't seem to be science or at least, modern science. Even from that first step that assumes a supernatural creator. Science can only deal with the natural world and nothing beyond so from that first step of claiming a creator, there's an undermining of basic science. And for me, it just gets more questionable. Not that I haven't believed and might not still believe there's a creator...Just that science will never address that. Natural Philosophy though, the predecessor of science, I can see creationism fitting into that sphere.
Exactly! It could fit in as natural philosophy, but since most of us are preparing kids for college and want a background in modern science, it is good to understand the difference. The few creationist materials I looked at were very disturbing in their misrepresentation of the scientific evidence supporting evolutionary theory. The few quotes they used from peer-reviewed research were often altered or taken completely out of context. I would suggest anyone using such material to take the time to look up the original references for themselves. You have to question why they have to use deception to prove their points. As to mistakes in science textbooks from publishers the schools use, I will agree with you there. The mistakes in many areas of science are egregious and wide spread. That says more about the textbook adoption process than the underlying science though. I know plenty of scientists who are horrified by middle school science books in particular!
No, I did not miss this site and would not recomend it. Lets start by defining science. It is based on 3 things. Basically, if something is Observable, Testable and Repeatable it is considered science. If it is not, it is considered a Theory. And a theory is based on blind faith. Evolution is not fact and it is not science it is a Theory (belief). Creationism is also considered a Theory (belief). Some theories are more valid than others. And that is what I want to look at. Which theory makes more sense? Obviously, to me creationism makes much more sense. How the earth is made cannot be observed, we were not there. The history of the earth, universe, etc. can not be Tested, Repeated or Observed, therefore it is not science. Evolution is not science. Science gives us many things. Medicine, hot air balloons, electricity, the space shuttle, junk food and more. They are based on experiments, that are based on experiments, that are based on experiments to test the ideas. The above things can be tested, repeated and observed, therefore they are science.
So it is easier to believe that we came from a glob of goop? Cause that is what evolution basically says.
That is a pretty big statement. Nope, I am talking about the deliberate lies left in the textbooks, not mistakes. Like the so called Lucy which was proven to be a hoax, can still be found in some textbooks.
Did we really come from a glob of goo? Was it an explosion? Random chance? Survival of the fittest? I don't think so. True evolution leads us to believe that we have no purpose and no God to answer to. I believe that God created us for a purpose to know and enjoy him. We have never seen or observed order come from disorder. To say that there was this big explosion is saying that order came from disorder. That is blind faith. How could and explosion happen and than all of a sudden everything was put in its perfect place in the universe? From nothing, nada, zilch and than boom. Well if there was nothing, nada and zilch than how could it happen in the first place? Design Constitutes a Designer. Go outside and look at your house. Did you know that a lumber yard exploded millions of years ago and that is how your house became? That is nonsense. Complete nonsense. The design of that house constitutes a designer. Here look at this. It will make more sense than I do. http://kids4truth.com/watchmaker/watch.html
You may be thinking of Piltdown man which was a hoax. The veracity of the Lucy find has never been doubted and certainly never proven to be a deliberate hoax.
Can you tell me what source gave you that as the definition of a scientific theory? It's radically different from what the scientific community would recognize and even Answers in Genesis takes issue with that kind of dismissal of the term "evolution" Near the bottom of the link page). In fact, here's what AIG says: I'll agree with you on the matter that it's not classified as fact. It's a very reasonable explanation that best fits the evidence we have accumulated but it's not fact or truth. Creationism is more hypothesis. It often doesn't seek to explain the evidence but rather build alternate an alternate hypothesis or dismiss the evidence evolution points to. But by your reasoning it isn't science anyway I guess. What makes more sense to a specific person isn't what makes science. It's what makes opinion. A correction. Evolution is observed all the time. On a small scale we observe it in petri dishes and with fruit flies. It's simply, "changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next," (source) Regardless, you've dismissed inference. Apply your reasoning to the history of Atomic Theory and the faults become clear. The experiment that showed us atoms are real wasn't any direct observation of them - it was pollen sprinkled on water by Einstein that proved they were there (a lecture here which might be of interest!). Observation doesn't always means seeing something directly. In terms of the of the universe we have effects like cosmic microwave background radiation (if you're interested find a better link. The story of the discovery is actually sort of funny as the guys involved spent a lot of time scrubbing dirt and bird poo off their dish trying to get rid of the "background noise") which fit with predictions made by the Big Bang theory (incidently, the man behind the Big Bang theory was accused of creationism by a rival because the theory indicates a starting point where a creator could be invoked as an explanation). Theory is what makes evidence useful. It's what ties data together so that we can apply it. Like Germ Theory and Cell Theory in medicine. The Theory of Convection in hot air ballooons. Like Electricity Theory in well...Electricity. Like the Theory of Flight when we design a space shuttle. We use Number theory in every math lesson we teach. Atomic Theory when we build a power plant... Theory is what makes the evidence we gather through observation and repeatable experiments useful. What lets us apply our findings and make predictions. Without theory the observation that cells evolve from one generation to the next wouldn't lead us to the understanding that women can inherit "breast cancer" genes from their mothers that we can screen for.
It is important to understand that just because you don't comprehend something it doesn't mean it is untrue. I think few of us have a really good grasp on the theory of relativity either, but it does explain circumstances where the law of gravitation failed to hold up. As for the old watchmaker comparison, that could well be your belief, but it can't be a scientific theory. It is not predictive and it does not have falsity. In general design implies simplicity - ie the watchworks do not contain extraneous parts or unnecessary machinations, life does not resemble design in that regard. We and other creatures are full of not perfectly fitting parts, wide variation within species, fun little vestigial parts, and a propensity to break down that would shame any self-respecting watch maker. The theory of evolution describes the phenomenon of how life developed. How life originated is not a part of the theory. So arguments as to how life began in order to discredit the theory of evolution are not truly relevant.
Theory of Gravity I think you mean. The law of gravity holds up well, you drop an apple, it falls towards the earth. Newton's theory as to why that happened didn't hold up so well though. I don't even think we've got a good theory of gravity today? A couple of not bad ones but nothing really satisfactory.
I should have caught that! I have to say though, it's funny because those moments when I really truly feel there's a God and like I have proof in my head (as opposed to my heart) is when I sort of run the Big Bang backwards. When I think about that singularity and then try to think about the moment before...There's God. If there's hope for me in being a believer again I suspect it in cosmology and quantum theory!:lol:
Well Newton's law of gravity doesn't hold up well at near light speed or in extremely strong gravitational fields (black holes), where the theory of relativity does explain the falling apple as well as what is going on in those special cases. But yeah, in our daily life Newton's law of gravity is one we can all live with. LOL Discussions of Einstein's field equations start me getting a little loopy, so I better leave it here! Of course the theory of relativity also bites the dust on a quantum level - then you have to go thinking about things like string theory or 'M' theory.
lol Dawn! Science converting! :lol: My ideas are that I don't know what happened. Short and simple. I believe that it is completely possible that God created evolution and set things in motion. How he did that is up in the air because we don't really know. We have theories based on evidence and the Bible as a guideline. There was a scientist that I recently discovered from the 17th century. This was around the time of the enlightenment when science was at odds with religion (because the Church failed to acknowledge Galileo's discoveries about the universe and called him a heretic). The scientist is Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) and here are a few of his quotes that I really love: "If we submit everything to reason, there will be no mystery and no supernatural element in our religion." "The heart feels God, not the reason. This is what constitutes faith: God experienced by the heart, not by the reason." "If we violate the principles of reason, our religion will be absurd, and it will be laughed at." (this is in direct relation to the Church condemning the scientists of the time as heretics for proposing new beliefs.
You know....I have to commend you ladies! We are having a very similar discussion on my college discussion board. We just reached the point in the 19th century where Darwin's theories were released so there was a similar evolution discussion sparked on there. I have to say that you all are so intelligent and back up your ideas with resources and it is just a pleasure to read all of your respectful and intellectual comments! Homeschool Mommies v/s college students.... HS mommies for the win!
my proof something i always think about when someone is trying to explain to me how we come from evolution is human life and the complicated process of how we come to be born. you know, the egg has to be released at just the perfect time, then one sperm has to travel all that way and make inside withing 24-48 hours, after that the fertilized egg has to find its way to that perfect spot in the uterus that it can implant. then if all goes well and the implantation is attached correctly all the millions of thing that have to work, perfect amts of lots of hormones, cell divisions, all the tiny things that happen to make a baby, and all the things that can go wrong, to end a pregnancy unexpectedly, and yet look at how many healthy pregnancies exist and thrive! its too amazing for me to even comprehend that anything but a creator could have made us. we are so complex, and i just think WOW when i imagine how much of a miracle a perfect baby is. so much that could have gone wrong, but didnt! only my God could do that, and he started with dust! simply amazing! Heather:love:
If anyone is interested, here's a link on Lucy: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=2825 And another: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/lucy.asp
