We're giving the government a reason to regulate homeschooling

I did. He answered you. At least twice.
So, I am directly asking you, with all graciousness and humility,
Please, why continue to question the purpose if you have asked and been answered?
Marty

 

I do have a habit of launching into a topic with the assumption that I'm not upsetting anyone by doing so. For sure, I don't mean to cause discord but instead to encourage discussion. Ignoring difficult issues is often more counter-productive in the long term. Sorry if raising this topic has upset anyone.

Yes, I can word things sometimes in less than tactful ways, and I apologize for that too. As others have mentioned, it's not easy to convey emotion or intent at an online forum like this. For sure, I've been guilty at this and other forums of taking things the wrong way and misunderstanding an author's words.

Yes, I do have strong opinions on some subjects, especially on topics that have affected my life. Trained as a scientist, of course issues related to science cross my mind all the time. Others have strong opinions too, and I welcome them. In fact, I want to learn from them. Sorry if my sometimes "bull in a china shop" wording causes frustration. It is not intentional.

The issue at hand is science, not faith. As Ava Rose rightly pointed out, ID often becomes a discussion of faith and belief, not science. I've tried very hard to stay focused on the science here, not matters of faith - except to make the point that our views on the science in no way imply anything about our faith.

Facts are facts. We can't hide from them. Well, I suppose we can, but they will keep coming back to bite us. Maybe I've put some of these points a little too bluntly, which is probably a reflection on my personality. While I won't deny the truth or ever be intellectually dishonest, I could be more tactful in the way I word things. Sorry for my often "black and white" way of putting things.

I did feel a little disappointed when I saw some of my points recast and misconstrued - but so would anyone. I'm sure, though, that this was unintentional misquoting, as often happens on forums.

Yes, the primary purpose of this thread was to encourage us to stay focused on doing what is important without deliberately antagonizing the authorities. All it takes is one controversial topic unwisely publicized, especially when a big majority believes we're wrong, to cause a political and intrusive response. When public figures who support our views go further and become downright belligerent, the stronger that public reaction will be - and the more sweeping would be the scope of government intervention.

So, I'm sorry to anyone who took offense at any of the words I've posted here. I would hope that, moving forward, it won't prevent dialog on other controversial matters. One of the principal values of a forum like this is to hear and understand opposing viewpoints, so we can all grow together. Personally, I have no issue with strongly made and well put arguments and opinions. Indeed, I can learn a lot from them. Having said that, I shall try to be a little more considerate in how I go about things.

 

Steve, I think you are fine. You have the right to say what you want. Just because someone disagrees..that is no need for any apologies or edits. We cannot help if someone is offended simply by a differing of opinion.

Sadly, ID will never be considered science in the mainstream. If that's the way it is, that's what we deal with. I don't see a reason to antagonize the authorities based on this disagreement. It's a fight that will never be won, so there is no point in letting this be the hill we die on. Instead, we can say "sure I'll teach evolution..but I'll do so from my point of view." If you teach creationism in your homeschool, you are indirectly teaching that evolution is not true or has no merit...whether that be for some or all of the theory. So, in a sense we all touch on the subject. So, in a sense we all teach it anyway. lol. I'd rather be clever than risk govt. agents going over my curriculum. Is that weak? Maybe to some. Yet, we send missionaries to China and Syria under the guise of "teaching the english language" and we consider that brave. lol.

No, Steve, I am NEVER for bowing down to the government. However, I am not in a position to walk the sleeping giant either...so I choose to play it clever if need be.

I do not think the government should tell me what to teach and all that either...everyone here knows I am for a mini-government. The government was not set up to run our lives. Sadly, many Americans give over power to the government daily.

 

Facts are facts. We can't hide from them. Well, I suppose we can, but they will keep coming back to bite us. Maybe I've put some of these points a little too bluntly, which is probably a reflection on my personality. While I won't deny the truth or ever be intellectually dishonest, I could be more tactful in the way I word things. Sorry for my often "black and white" way of putting things[/I

Steve,
But, how do we know that the facts are fully explained the way that you and others think they are. Look at the post I made about one person having two DNA's. I am sure at one time it was considered impossible, but then someone else discovered another explanation.

 

Good point, Cabs. I never believe "facts"...seems the facts are always changing. I should say I never have 100% faith in facts...but I do in Christ. Now, that was not me plugging away again at my faith. I was making a serious point. I go with what I have 100% faith in first and then the rest all gets funneled through that lens. I know not everyone agrees and some have a different lens. Yet, one freedom I'd like to retain is the right to have my own lens.

 

You're right that we should be very careful when interpreting data. The scientific method encourages peer review. I can tell you from first-hand experience that some scientists take great delight in pulling apart the work of others, so not much gets through unchallenged. Plus, new data must be measured carefully in light of existing data and not taken out of context. Theories are not affirmed by majority opinion; they are affirmed (and sometimes contradicted) by hard data.

Yes, new information may undermine existing theory; it has happened thousands of times. I'm quite open to that. On the other hand, individuals of all persuasions do sometimes pounce on new data to prove their point, more interested in winning the argument than in serving the cause of science. Perhaps the key is to strive to be objective and teachable, despite the fact that, deep down, we all have our biases.

 

Marty, you are absolutely right! I sincerely thank you for calling me on this. I admit readily that I am a hypocrite, so I will put it out on the table for Steve to answer directly.

Steve, let's boil it down to the straightforward facts:

• Young Earth creationism has been disproved by evolution, therefore young earth creationists believe an absolute lie.
• Creationists could bring the government down on homeschooling because they reject the evolution as being the absolute truth and instead believe a absolute lie.

Are both these statements true in your opinion?

 

Sorry for the delay in responding. It's been a busy day.

Not the most objective way of asking questions , but let me restate the context and then answer them both.

1) Science is neutral. It seeks to explain the natural world. It does not seek to, indeed by definition cannot, understand supernatural things. It's a response to the bible's invitation to "understand the world around us." Science is not an atheist conspiracy; indeed, Christians have always been at the forefront of science. It's a wild adventure. Ideally, we approach it with no preconceptions and no bias. We're like the adventurers of old, setting sail without knowing what we'll find.

The scientific method is ruthless. If someone proposes an idea based on ideology, no matter which ideology, it can be torn apart. Witness the demise of the 'steady state' theory proposed by the atheist Fred Hoyle. Witness the demise of 'cold fusion' which scientists could not replicate. Peer review challenges papers before they are published. When something new is discovered, others seek to replicate the find and to learn more. Nothing is hidden. Theories stand only when they cannot be torn down.

2) I've tried so hard to separate the science of Intelligent Design from the faith and worldview behind it. Strictly, from a scientific perspective, the theory of ID rests on two fundamental assumptions: (i) There is no evolution between species and hence we will never find fossils of intermediate species; (ii) Some objects in creation are irreducibly complex and we'll never find their individual elements elsewhere in creation. These assumptions are testable.

As with all theories and ideas, scientists go out and try to tear it down. In the first case, the fossils of thousands of intermediate species have been found, and DNA markers show how one species started out as another. Indeed, at some conferences, intense arguments break out among scientists as to whether to classify a new find is a reptilian mammal or a mammalian reptile. In the second case, examples of irreducible complexity have been reduced. This is true of the eye, the flagellum, and other items: Scientists can reconstruct in detail how each piece fell into place.

As science, therefore, the theory of ID is not supported by the evidence. We can choose to ignore the evidence or reinterpret the evidence or look for alternative evidence. At present, however, the evidence contradicts the theory's assumptions - which is why a different theory is taught as mainstream and ID is not.

Does this imply there is no creator? No. Does this mean that our universe was not designed? No. Does this imply that God did not create life? No. Does this imply that we are not made in God's image? No. Does this imply we are no more than animals? No. Does this imply that morality is relative? No. It means that the theory proposed by Michael Behe and others does not hold water, that's all. They came up with a scientific theory consistent with their interpretation of the bible, and they happened to get it wrong, that's all. The science of ID is not Scripture; it's a very specific theory proposed by a handful of scientists - fallible human beings like the rest of us.

3) It is wise to teach our children with a degree of objectivity, to encourage them to see both sides of every argument, no matter which side we agree with personally. They will encounter different ideas in higher education, so shouldn't they be ready for this? If we shield them from other ideas, we could be setting them up for trouble. How will they react when they are taught something different, when they are told these other ideas are "right" and what they were taught previously is "wrong"? Much rather that we address these issues with them in a sensitive home environment than that they face them in a potentially hostile university environment (although many schools are sensitive, not hostile).

4) If we make a big deal of ID when, from the perspective of our faith, it is a minor point, we could be inviting trouble. When parents of other children must go to court to stop the scientific theory of ID being taught in PS, they get upset. When political activists make this and other things an issue, cloaking them in the name of the Christian faith, it causes a backlash against our faith that doesn't need to happen. If, instead, we go about the process of education with a certain humility and objectivity and purpose, then we avoid that political backlash. This is not living in fear of the government; it's using discretion. Indeed, it's following biblical principle.

5) So, in this context and in light of other points I've tried to make, let me answer your first question. As parents, we can choose to teach young earth creationism despite the preponderance of evidence against it. Maybe our faith and interpretation of the bible is incompatible with any other approach. That's OK as long as we understand that (i) the evidence is against it; (ii) a big majority, including many Christians, believe differently; (iii) we're doing so for reasons of faith and not science; (iv) we don't try to force it upon everyone else - whether other Christians, school districts, or the world in general. Evolution does not disprove young earth creationism. From the perspective of science, they are two competing theories, and the preponderance of evidence supports one and not the other. Young earth creationists are not believing "a lie", as you put it. They are choosing one scientific theory over another.

6) And now to the second point. If we make a "big fat hairy deal" out of this, we're inviting trouble. If we virulently refuse to teach our children mainstream science and proclaim that from the rooftops, we're inviting trouble. If we file lawsuits to bring ID into the PS system and enforce conformity on other Christians (and refuse to let anyone attend a homeschool expo without signing a piece of paper in support of ID - my pet peeve!), we're drawing unnecessary attention to the issue and inviting a reaction. Over time, more and more of the population will view this as religious extremism, little different from what happens in madrassa schools, and the electorate or the government or both will call for action. They might impose a required curriculum on homechoolers, require a teaching certificate to homeschool, require homeschooled students to pass exams in certain subjects, or even ban homeschooling altogether. In other words, the reaction will be much wider in scope than the perceived "problem."

This is not fear of government. This is tactfulness, discretion, and focus. It's recognizing that we'll never win some fights in the public domain, so why start them? Why antagonize? Why come across as belligerent? Does it help or serve the purpose of Christ? I suggest that it does not. Instead, it invites politicians to do something that would be increasingly popular among the electorate: "curb the extremists." Why risk that?

Your statement was that "Creationists could bring the government down on homeschooling because they reject evolution as being the absolute truth and instead believe an absolute lie." I wouldn't put it like this at all. Just don't make a big issue of it, be open-minded by teaching both theories, and prove the value of homeschooling by producing well-rounded, thoughtful, and successful students.

 

Would you say that one of the main purposes of an experiment is to confirm or negate a theory?

 

Oh dear, we seem to be talking in circles! *actually laughing here* Steve, you used two fairly straight-forward, (if not objective?), true/false questions as an opportunity to reiterate and elaborate upon your philosophy of science. Again. I guess you didn't need to actually answer the questions "true" or "false." You just rephrased them. 'Said you wouldn't put it like that. But that's OK. Your answer seems obvious anyway.

Again, that's OK. It has to be, because I hold the contrary view, and I want that to be OK, too. I have seen enough evidence to bring me to believe pretty much the opposite of the first question, though I wouldn't phrase it like that. And about the second, well... even without debates between objective science, which considers evidence for a young earth as well as an old, versus the religion of rigid evolutionism, *smiling* governments will "come down" on homeschoolers just for being homeschoolers. And upon Christians just for being Christians. And upon any non-conformists just for being non-conformists. You won't change that by squelching rigorous discussion among us nor from discouraging us from participating in the public debate. In fact, I thought that was part of the scientific process!

 

'Sorry again for interupting you, Seeking! I must have been typing while you were posting!

 

I don't think that in our 'human-ness' we are able to be neutral in our approach to anything, especially science.


You are saying that science cannot define something that is supernatural?

IF that is so, then how does one explain the supernatural? Does science conclude then that the supernatural does not exist?

IF something IS of the supernatural, science has already "disproved it", based on false conclusions.

Therefore, Jesus Christ's resurrection after death, and his ascension, not to mention the virgin birth, is false, according to science.

As Christians we know otherwise. So therefore isn't it possible that science may come to the wrong conclusions regarding evolution? After all, 'we' cannot allow science to point in the direction of ID because it is a supernatural conclusion that God even exists. His existence cannot be proven by "science" that has a starting point at 'neutral', stating there is no supernatural God. That is not neutral, that is starting with the theory already in mind that God couldn't have been a part of our existence. Biased from the beginning. And vice versa?

 

In general, you can't prove a theory, so it's generally easier to try to break it. On the other hand, a good theory makes predictions, and you can conduct experiments that confirm or contradict these predictions. The rationale behind experiments are manifold: just to see what happens (which are the most fun), to try to replicate what others have reported, to determine whether or not an assumption made by others is justified, to go beyond the results reported by others, and more.

Perhaps the master of experiment was Michael Faraday (a very sincere Christian man). He performed experiments for all these reasons. He also conducted some famous experiments simply to educate the public. He was meticulous about detail, and he alone noticed the galvanometer needle flicker when a magnetic field was turned on and turned off - leading to Faraday's law of induction. Others had performed the same experiment but had missed this crucial observation. Based on existing theory, Faraday and others had a hunch that a magnetic field could produce a current in a conductor, so they devised experiments to show this. But they were wrong: It's a changing magnetic field that induces a current, and so existing theory was proved wrong and had to adapt.

This is how theories come and go. They provide an overall framework in which to explain experimental results. Over time, some of the details are found to be wrong, so they change. They make predictions that prove to be correct, and they gain credibility. Once in a lifetime, someone will discover something revolutionary that shocks the establishment, and a major theory must change. Most often, the theory is abstracted to another level rather than discarded. For example, Newtonian physics is valid under most normal conditions, but it's wrong when approaching the speed of light. It had to be abstracted to accommodate the ideas of Einstein and results that proved his ideas to be correct.

I'm not sure what you were getting at, so I'm not sure whether I answered your question as you intended.

 

That's correct. Science is limited to the natural world, what we can uncover with our five senses. The best explanation probably comes from Blaise Pascal, another Christian man and famous scientist from the past. In his opinion, there are three separate domains of our existence. I forget the details now, but the natural world uncovered by our five senses is one of them, and the spiritual world is another one. We cannot use tools in one domain to prove details in another domain. Putting this bluntly, we cannot use the tools of science to prove or disprove God.

One of the most important and overlooked principles in the bible is that "they have eyes but cannot see, ears but cannot hear, etc.". In other words, someone else might look at a plant and see its flower and smell its fragrance and feel the texture of its leaves and taste its fruit and hear the bee as its circles it (our five senses). You and I might look at the plant and marvel at the beauty of its design and realize the loving care of the creator. Others have eyes but can't see what we can see. Our five senses and the tools of science cannot "see" what we can "see" either. It takes "tools" in the spiritual domain to experience a God who is Spirit.

 

That is so well put. Thanks for laying it out that way.

Of course, this is also the reason ID is not considered a science.

 

I guess my point is, how can you prove or disprove science one way or another without factoring in the supernatural? What if the two do go hand in hand, and science is trying to prove things with only 'half' of it's evidence? You would then come to false conclusions.

I think that verse is talking exactly about this. Some people have eyes and ears to PHYSICALLY see and hear. In other words the physical world that science 'proves'. But those same people can be spiritually dead. In other words even though they appear to have 'it all' by world or science standards, they do not understand or experience anything supernatural or of God. These are the ones who refuse to acknowledge God because they can't prove him with their 5 senses. God is saying, yes they can see and hear, but really they have not seen or heard what is of infinite importance, me.

 

No. This is not the case. Science cannot disprove God any more than science can prove God. It observes the world around us and tries to bring order to it. It is totally neutral about the existence of God. If this were not the case, the very many Christians working in the field of science would not do so.

It's just that science is constrained by the limits of our five senses. It's not acceptable for a scientist to explain something unknown by stating that we suspend all known laws and theories and simply conclude that "God did it." Instead, we push on and learn more information. Slowly but surely, the gaps are filled. For the Christian, we conclude that now we understand more about how God did it.

So, just to reiterate: Science does not start with the premise that God does not exist. If anything, many of the world's greatest scientists in history chose this field because they believed the world is full of order because God exists. Why are experiments repeatable? Why do remarkably simple laws hold so true if there is no intelligence behind them? For sure, many do not hold this opinion, but plenty do.

 

Actually, I think they do go hand in hand. Take, for example, the Anthropic Principle. This principle states that the universal constants (the speed of light, the gravitational constant, Planck's constant, and so on) are set at very precise values. If any one of them was set even slightly differently, the universe as we know it would not exist, and life as we know it could not exist. For the Christian, the answer is obvious: the creator established laws and constants such that they would produce our world the way it is.

Science, by definition, cannot accept a supernatural explanation, but no experiment is possible to understand the settings of these constants. It means that, basically, anyone who is uncomfortable with the Anthropic Principle must explain it away. The current trend is to postulate a multiverse. In other words, we are just one universe of trillions. Each have different settings for the universal constants, and we happen to live in the one in which they are set correctly. Ideas of this type make it to the scientific press, but it is pure speculation - and everyone knows it.

The point is, no one can prove or disprove this point. No experiment can confirm or contradict the assumption. In this specific case, science can have no answer. It's different when it comes to evolution and ID because there are plenty of experiments we can perform.

 

But the gaps are being filled with things that contradict the Bible, and that means that the science is coming to false conclusions according to Christians.

That is the very reason Christians do not teach evolution as fact. And their religious convictions prevent them from doing so. To teach evolution as fact to my children would be to blatantly disregard biblical truths and that is nothing I would never do, whether government demanded it or not.

I have that right. The Constitution states that I have the right to EXERCISE my religious beliefs, not just think them. That includes passing that religion on to my children. I guess that is taking into account that one still believes in the power of the Constitution. Really, it is being etched away into a worthless drivel of ink, interpreted to mean whatever is convenient for the government at the moment. Well, we better not get into that, it makes me furious :evil: Point being, I have an obligation as a Christian to teach my children Biblical truths, regardless of whether the gov approves.

This issue has nothing to do with curriculum persay. Curriculum may teach evolution as science, but my faith teaches God as supernatual, and that includes ID.
It is about my faith. I have faith that God did create the world in 6 24 hr days, and rested on the 7th. The Bible says he created a man in his own image, not something that evolved into a man thousands or millions of years later. I believe that on faith, even if science says otherwise. Nothing will change that.

If science started at a neutral point and concluded that a man dead for 3 days cannot come back to life, would you believe it?

At what point does science 'disprove' the Bible, and if one part of the Bible is not true, then who is to say any of it is, or what portions? Just the parts that are convenient to us? Just the parts we can prove? Well, if we can't even prove God with science, I guess it is false from Genesis 1:1...

 

You did not interrupt. This is a forum. In fact, I appreciated that your post very much. You pointed out the obvious so that I did not have to do so.