We're giving the government a reason to regulate homeschooling

That's the million-dollar question!

The field of science that tries to address this is called abiogenesis. They try very hard to create life in the lab, but they've not succeeded. Even if they did, they forget that they are creating just the right conditions to do so.

 

So if intelligent scientists can't create 'life' in the lab, why do they think some random accidental collision of 'stuff' created complex humans? Last I knew humans could ration, plan and design. Particles of matter or whatever, can't.
Who or what created 'just the right conditions' millions of years ago?
sounds like malarkey if you ask me. Doesn't even make sense. Takes a lot of faith to believe evolution.

 

Ken Ham has a great book. The Answers Book. Explains what Creationists really believe and why. It also uses quotes from current scientists on both sides of the issue.

 

Herein lies a problem. The media, in the main, has created an "us vs. them" mentality, and we've fallen for it.

Scientists cannot assume supernatural influence. Scientists must work in the domain of the natural. This is a given. So what do we, as inquisitive creatures, do? We try hard to understand how things work. We look for evidence, we conduct experiments, and so on. This doesn't mean that all scientists are atheists; it just means we're inquisitive and want to learn from what our five senses tell us. There are very many Christians who are scientists. Many of the world's top scientists are Christians - although the media, in particular, sometimes makes them feel out of the mainstream.

On the other 'side', Christians are not all literalists when it comes to Genesis 1 and 2. There are many fine evangelical Christians who accept the science of evolution, just as I do. We see the evidence, and it's compelling. We note predictions of the theory and see how these predictions are proved correct. We shudder when we hear people say there's no evidence, because it's blatantly untrue. We too are sometimes made to feel out of the mainstream. (It took Francis Collins three years to find a bible-believing church at which he felt accepted, which is a crying shame.)

As for "random", our world is indeed the result of probability. At its most fundamental, it's how our world is. That doesn't mean there's no creator, but it does reveal how the creator interacts with our world. The problem is that popular writers use terms such as "random" in an obviously derogatory way, which doesn't help. Sometimes reality is counter-intuitive, so we can't draw conclusions based on what "seems" right or wrong. It needs careful study and an open mind.

 

Both concepts, creationism and evolution and all variations in between work because of circular reasoning. The atheist would say Christians believe in God because the Bible is the evidence that tells us there is a God. The same people might be fine with evolution is proving itself practically the same way, though.

I could do some name dropping of several atheists who became Christians because they felt science lacked answers. There are defectors on both sides, which does not prove anything either way and does little to impress a disbeliever.

 

You mean we weren't planted here by aliens?

 

There are plenty of people who believe just that! So who created the aliens? My vote is for Gene Roddenberry.

 

Ken Ham is excellent, my dh and the kids went to the Creation Museum in KY last November. We purchased videos as well.

Yes, I think I am leaning more toward aliens, too, especially the way humans have been acting the past few years...

 

I took anthropology classes in college. I got A's, I enjoyed the classes. Thought about being an anthropologist but I don't like the heat so much. I liked the social aspects much more than the stones and bones.
But Steve. I am not as convinced as you. There are huge holes. Eyes for one thing. and evolutionists using stupid words like "the birds decided the longer beaks were of benifit" and the fact FACT that mutation ALWAYS involves the loss of genetic information. I get the going down part...I do not get the going up part.

That there were apes that may have been much more simmilar to humans than there are now doesn't seem unlikely to me.

On the other hand...even though almost every culture has giants...and they are in the bible, there has been no archeologic findings supporting that.
I do not consider the bible to be a scientific book. Not everything that can be known is in the book. But it is Gods word and is true. I will let God explain it to me later. The devil knows scripture...he argues it well and with a certain amount of (imagined) authority. He knows scripture well enough to influence the belief about what is true...there is a war on.
I will not teach my child what I believe to be against the word of God...not even (or maybe especially) to quell my fear of government reprisals. I WILL teach my child about science and I HAVE taught my children that knowing the correct answer for a test is not the same thing as believing it yourself, or professing a belief in it yourself. You are being tested on the content of the class...that is all you are answering for. Children who struggle with biology or any of the hard sciences, who have not searched for thier own answers apart from whatever twattle they are being taught by whomever is doing the teaching are not ment to be scientists.

 

This is the argument put forward by Michael Behe. One of the foundational tenets of "intelligent design" is that there are items in nature that are irreducibly complex. The latest research shows this is just not true. Indeed, for some of Behe's examples, we can now see how the steps took place. Plus, many of those holes have been filled quite dramatically in just the last decade. The analysis of genetic codes has revolutionized the field.

But herein lies the rub: Why did these genetic mutations take place in the order they did? I would argue that God interacts with our world through probability, because that's how he built this world. He guided each step. We'll never be able to prove it, though, because of another fundamental principle: independent observers "have eyes but cannot see, have ears but cannot hear". Faith gives us the necessary eyes to see and ears to hear. We can eliminate some theories (such as the science of intelligent design, which has been completed disproved), but we can never 'prove' God's activity.

 

Evolution should be taught properly and accurately. Children deserve the best information available in they are to progress in education.

 

Accuracy is teaching MY children that evolution is a THEORY and cannot be fully proven by science. I have the right to teach my kids that the Creation account in Genesis is true. That is called freedom of religion. I suppose other religions have other accounts of how the earth came to be, and they have the right to teach that to their kids. I will teach evolution to my kids. But it will be taught in a way that disproves it through SCIENCE, reasonable thinking and the Bible. To me it a myth, just as much as the Greek and Roman Gods and mythology that we will also cover as being not true. IMO people WANT evolution to be true so they will have a reason to dismiss God, and live in any way they choose, because they do not want to feel accountable or convicted for their actions. They will then have no one to answer to but Big Brother. Or so they think.

 

That it is eagerly eliminated by those requiring proof, I have no doubt, but that does not mean ID has been disproved.

It is probably the "we" that gets me. I don't have a problem with your personal beliefs, just your assumptions that all Christians should believe as you do and to make your case you have used fear of our own government trying to regulate homeschooling solely because some do not teach evolution as anything but a fact.

 

When I first heard about 'Intelligent Design', I was led to believe it is a valid and alternative scientific theory. It's based on some fundamental points: Let's take one of them - irreducible complexity. The scientific theory of Intelligent Design claims that certain items in creation - the flagellum and the human eye, for example - are irreducibly complex. In other words, if such a complex item consists of 52 parts, there is no way that item would function with 51 parts. More than that, each of those 52 parts serve no purpose of their own and have meaning only in the context of the whole.

This is a fundamental tenet of the theory. If this tenet is proved wrong, the whole theory comes crashing down. Well, it turns out that, because of modern-day genetics, it has been proved wrong. Items that Michael Behe, for example, claimed are irreducibly complex are found not to be so. For example, parts of the flagellum have been found in other places. In some cases, it's now possible to reconstruct the entire process of how the parts came together (there are scientific papers that have done just this). In other words, these items are not irreducibly complex. The theory has been proved to be wrong. This is true of its other fundamental starting points as well. Indeed, a court case went into this in very great detail, and ID proponents had no answer. Their case was totally demolished by clear facts.

As I said before, when I first heard about ID, I wanted it to be true. That created a bias in me, which is not good in the field of science. When the theory broke down and was found to be just plain wrong, I had to deal with that. What's the point pretending it's right when it so obviously is not? I'm not talking about the philosophical aspects here, just the science.

This has happened to other theories too. Fred Hoyle, a famous atheist from the past, could not stomach the idea that there was an absolute beginning to our universe because it implies a creator. He let his bias lead him astray and he came up with the Steady State theory of the universe. I was taught this, along with other theories, in my university physics courses. His theory, though, makes predictions, and the data was found to contradict these predictions. Over time, every one could see that the theory was wrong and must be discarded. You rarely hear of it today.

From the perspective of 'freedom of religion', I agree that we must have the freedom to teach without hindrance. When it comes to good science, though, I find it difficult to justify teaching a theory that has been proved to be outright wrong. ID is just as flawed as the Steady State theory. Both were invented to give credence to a philosophy, which is back to front. Science is a wild adventure, and we go looking for facts. We should have no preconceived ideas, and we should build models and hypotheses and theories based on the evidence. That's the scientific method, and it's served us well for centuries now.

Can you see the dilemma? If we were talking about two different sets of ideas and neither could be proved right or wrong (almost like politics), we should have the freedom to choose. When we're talking about a theory that largely fits the facts versus one that's been proved to be wrong, should we have that same freedom? Isn't it like teaching an alternative to calculus that produces the wrong results? I understand this is a very difficult issue, and I've wrestled with it for years too, but the world is built the way it is - whether I like that or not. If it contradicts a bible passage in some way, I'm forced to admit that I misinterpreted that passage. I can't just wish away clear and awkward evidence.

The only alternative is to say that God created it one way but ensured that every piece of evidence around us points to a completely different way. Why? God would never deceive us.

 

Someone else made the point very eloquently: We're making a very big deal out of something that doesn't warrant a big deal. This is tantamount to taunting the authorities when, scientifically, we don't have a leg to stand on. It's prompting a backlash that will hurt us in many ways. Why do that? I have no fear of government, but I do worry that we are doing things that will come back to bite us in the rear. This government in particular would be glad of an excuse to regulate homeschooling, so let's not give them a reason.

 

Another great book for parents and children to read is called It Counldn't Just Happen by Lawrence O. Richards. It talks about the Theory of Evolution.

Like most kids, I was taught evolution in school. That theory just never made sense. It was so illogical. I never could put into words why it was illogical till I read It Couldn't Just Happen. That book really cemented my belief in that God created all and evolution was not part of that plan.

 

I agree it couldn't happen if there was no guiding hand. The issue is how that hand created - and the evidence is there to answer that question. We now know something about how he did it, and it's an incredibly beautiful approach from an incredibly creative being.

 

If there is a God and I believe that to be true, and science cannot prove there is, then science itself is not the end all to be all and it is flawed. If there is no God, then science is absolute, complete, and our only source of truth. Why would God deceive us is not the question. God does not deceive. Yet, people are deceived, and not by Him. He has also blinded people, because of their choices.

 

Let's get specific regarding this issue of deception.

We're invited to consider the world of nature because it reveals the majesty of God. This is what science does, and we're blessed to live in an era like no other. Unlike previous generations, we get to see obscure creatures in obscure places. We get to see their DNA, their genetic makeup, and the 'markers' in those genes that reveal how one creature evolved from another.

For example, we now know the genetic code of the chimpanzee and other great apes. When we compare that code to our own, they are remarkably similar - except for one obvious difference: They have 24 pairs of chromosomes whereas we have only 23 pairs. How could this happen? If evolution is true, there is only one way: One pair of chromosomes must have fused together.

Now, the Lord ensured that chromosomes contain specific markers called centromeres and telomeres: Centromeres appear in the middle of a chromosome and telomeres are situated at each end. What would happen if two chromosomes fused together? We'd see an odd chromosome with two centromeres (one probably inactive) and a telomere in the middle where it doesn't belong.

When we look at the human genome, this is exactly what we see! Not only that, the fused chromosomes correspond precisely with two of the chimp's chromosomes. This is staggeringly convincing proof that humans share a common ancestry with chimpanzees. If this evidence was used in court (as we offer DNA evidence today), any jury would convict. There's just no other explanation - except one: God created our chromosomes very carefully so they look like we share a common ancestor. In fact, he must have created many thousands of items of genetic material across a wide range of species, again with the sole object of fooling us. Why would God do this? God does not deceive.

This is why this topic causes such a ruckus in the scientific community: We're rejecting a theory that is proven beyond reasonable doubt - not on its scientific merits but because we don't like the implications. That's not a good reason. We must face those implications head on. If it means we've misinterpreted a bible passage, so be it. If it means that, physically, we're very similar to the great apes, so be it. There was a time when church leaders went crazy because scientists dared to suggest that the earth isn't at the center of the universe. Guess what? We're not at the center. Physically, we are just an animal. Yet, spiritually, God chose to make us in his image. How wonderful is that!

"What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?"

 

Has anyone read a Case for Creation? It is by Lee Strobel?
I would love to get that book, I read Case for Faith and it was a really great book, and helped me alot. It really got into the question of why God allows suffering. That has always been a problem for me. Especially so I guess because of my son.

I also read a book by Eareckson 'When God Weeps'. That was also a big help.
She is a quadriplegic.

Ok that was off topic a little

We bought a video last fall called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"
It has a lot of food for thought.

Ken Ham has a magazine I think quarterly? called 'Answers'
excellent material.