The Religion of Science (Evolution as Faith!)

CHJ ^ | Jan 14, 2006 | Nathan Tabor

[WatchYourself]

How can someone observe, study or experiment on evolution? Evolution is the process of something moving from one stage of development to another. What do we really have to scientifically prove evolution?

A scientist might have a fossil, but we can only speculate as to the age and appearance of the animal creating that fossil. No one has ever witnessed evolution of life, no one here now was there to observe, study and experiment. Like it or not, we can only form theories and beliefs about what might have been. As sound as these theories might be, they are and will always be theories. Evolution is simply a system of belief based on what we think might have happened. Those who believe in evolution have faith in the scientist’s abilities to speculate and imagine what might have been. This is not science. This is faith.

It is time we removed the phony and inaccurate label of ‘science’ from evolution and see it for what it really is - a religion, based on faith and a system of belief. If public schools are not allowed to teach religion, then the theories of evolution have no place in a public school classroom. If they are allowed to teach theories based on faith, like evolution, then creationism should be taught also.

[wintertime]

"If public schools are not allowed to teach religion, then the theories of evolution have no place in a public school classroom. If they are allowed to teach theories based on faith, like evolution, then creationism should be taught also." ( From the Article)

To WatchYourSelf,

The education of the young can never be neutral ( politically, culturally, or religiously) in content or in consequences.

You suggested that "neither or both" be taught. Let's examine the political, cultural, and religious consequences of those two options.

Nerte taught:

Those children who are not religious, or who are religious but support evolution will be denied instruction in a concept that is held to be valid by most in the scientific community.

Those children who are religious will be denied instruction in their religious belief about the origin of human life. This has religious consequences.

All children, both religious and non-religious, will be denied the First Amendment right to freely speak about, and publish their worldview. The government school WILL deny them the right to freely assemble with those who share their belief. This will have religious consequences and likely cultural and political consequences as well.

Both taught:

1) The non-religious child will be indoctrinated by the government in subject that WILL have religious consequences.

2) The religious child WILL be indoctrinated against his will in a subject that WILL have religious consequences.

So.....

Why is government threatening parents with armed police action if they do not cooperate with a government school system that can NEVER be religiously neutral in content or consequences?

Why is government permitted to threaten citizens with the sheriff's auction of their homes and business to FORCE them to pay for an government school agenda that WILL establish and uphold the religious worldview of some citizens and trash those of others? ( real bullets in those guns on the hip)

Huh?

Sorry,,,,,but there is no way that I can reconcile FORCED government schooling with the First Amendment or the 13th Amendment of our federal Constitution, or with our state constitutions, either.

[wintertime]

Nerte taught:

Sorry.,,..That should read: Neither taught.

[wintertime]

"Let's teach kids what we've observed, nothing more... including no mention of a creator. That's reading something into the data." ( Starve the Beast)

To Starve the Beast,

Do you have enough confidence in your anointed educational philosophy that you would threaten parents with armed police or take their kids and put them in foster care?

Are you willing to use the threat of armed sheriff auction of homes and businesses to fund, by force, your educational philosophy?

That is what government schools are. That IS the power that they have over parents and citizens.

Please remember that for many parents placing the discussion of the origins of life in a vacuum devoid of any mention of God is highly religiously offensive! It WILL have religious consequences for their children. That is why the debate rages over ID and evolution and hundreds of other school policy and curriculum issues.

And,,,,before you write me off as a Neanderthal, please note that I am a supporter of the theory of evolution.,,,,,however,,,,,I would NEVER threaten another parent with police or court action or suggest that their children be placed in foster care if they did not cooperate with me. I would NEVER suggest that police ( with real gun on the hips) threaten a citizen's home or business so that I could FORCE my will on others.

[Virginia-American]

[the claim that the genome does not contain enough information to make a person]

. It has everything to do with the theory of evolution. The TOE says all the design data is stored physically inside each organism and is passed on down through each generation physically in genetic material

And I repeat: this is embryology, not evolution. If Biblical/Koranic creation were true, you'd still have the same genomes with the same info content. I don't see how evo. enters the picture at all.

When you get in a debate with me, you'd better know what you're talking about.

I do.

[Dimensio]

Those children who are religious will be denied instruction in their religious belief about the origin of human life. This has religious consequences.

Those children who are religious will be denied instruction in their religious belief about the nature of falling objects. This has religious consequences.

So why, oh why are there no complaints about teaching non-religious explanations behind gravity in public schools?

[Dimensio]

So at 1 kb per brain cell you would need 15,000 gigabytes of data just to store all the connections between brain cells.

You're assuming that the "connections" between braincells are predefined. They're not.

[spunkets]

"But here's the next question: how is this information encoded in DNA and how does the tree use the DNA information to grow using this fractal design?"

Branching(budding) and growth is generally regulated by exposure to sunlight and nutrient production. The tree has an inherent growth capacity and total nutrient requirement for it's size. The tree can sense which direction to grow by the amount of nutrients produced in a certain branch. If the cambium is exposed to sunlight budding happens and a branch forms. All branching is effected by mechanical forces and the branch grows to reduce stress. The same goes for the roots, but there the drive is for water uptake.

The tree fractal pattern is just the simplest and most efficient way to accomplish the above farmer's version of tree growth. The tree starts with the first 2 branches from the 2 halves of the seed. The fractal image of the tree looks similar from the time it's small to when it's at full growth. The DNA doesn't contain instructions like the computer program that says grow branch one, then branch after those branches grow a fraction of branch one's length, then branch again after a fraction of that length... It contains the bluprint for the hormones, like auxin) and other growth regulators that allow increased growth in the areas where sunlight is available. It contains info for the regulator that determines total budding.

Here'a the fractal link.

There's some animations there that show the tree at various levels of branching. Real trees effectively, don't go beyond the first few levels of branching. In real trees, branches that don't produce are shut off and die. From what I've seen of real trees, including pines, most branching arises out of annual buds. Otherwise it's to reach out and grab sunlight, because of competition with other trees, or trimming(nutrient driven).

[Starve The Beast]

If I read your reply correctly, you make two points. First, that the public school system forces tax money from citizens in order to educate kids. Second, that it's offensive to some parents if the origins of life are taught without mentioning their particular religion.

Please notice that both of your points back up my argument. If taxes are to be forced from me to pay for education then schools shouldn't mix observed facts with anyone's belief system. And just as some people are offended if you don't bring the Judeo-Christian God into any discussion of life on Earth, many others are equally offended if you do. And they pay taxes too.

The right way to teach evolution is as a strictly empirical science. Just tell the kids what we have observed, and leave it to the parents in the home to fill them in on which religion is responsible.

[wintertime]

Those children who are religious will be denied instruction in their religious belief about the nature of falling objects. This has religious consequences. ( Dimensio)

To Dimensio.

Yes, the discussion of gravity DOES have religious consequences. There are parents who DO believe and want taught to their children that all things ( including) gravity were created by God. Discussing gravity devoid of the context of God is highly religiously offensive to them and undermines the religious principles being taught in the home.

I know that parents like this exist because I attended Catholic parochial school in the 1950s and this is indeed what we were taught by the nuns.

While today, I am no longer Catholic, and believe that gravity and all the principles of physics are eternal, I would NEVER use the threat of armed police to force it on other people's children. I would NOT threaten parents with foster care of their children if they did not subject their children to my anointed educational philosophy. I would NEVER send armed sheriffs to auction off the home or business of a neighbor who refused to fund my agenda.

However.....defenders of government schools do not share my scruples.

[spunkets]

BTW, the fractal patterns of such organs as the kidney, lung circulatory system, brain all arise out of the same consideration. It is the configuraiton which maximizes the efficiency of the organ, for the function it provides. In the case of the circulatory system, it's the minimum configuration. In these cases the branching level is large.

[Oztrich Boy]

The simple explanation is that the Bible testifies inconsistantly.

[shuckmaster]

unless Gen 1 and Gen 2 are different stories of creation.

Imagine that!

[loboinok]

wyattearp,

"Genesis 1:20 - And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."

Two different groups. sealife and anything associated, is everything in the ocean and sea. The fowl that fly above are Pelicans, Puffins, Gulls, Herons, etc.


"Genesis 2:19 - And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air..."

Landbased birds, Eagles, Owls, Finches, etc.

[Dimensio]

Discussing gravity devoid of the context of God is highly religiously offensive to them and undermines the religious principles being taught in the home.

It's one thing to be upset about being taught specifically that "God" did not create any and/or all things (including Gravity) but I think that someone who gets upset that a school simply not mentioning the word "God", which still would not contradict a parent telling their child that this God did create all things (including gravity) is suffering from severe mental instability.

[Virginia-American]

Discussing gravity devoid of the context of God is highly religiously offensive to them and undermines the religious principles being taught in the home.

The kids still have to know about 32 ft / sec /sec, F=ma, etc.

As I said on another thread, I really don't care how offended they claim to be.

Christian Science kids need to learn the germ theory of disease, and why everyone else accepts it. Horrors! they could be *forced* to look through a microscope. And they need to understand why food handlers, nurses, et al have to wash hands frequently.

Similarly, Jehovah's Witnesses kids need to learn about blood types. Socialist kids need to learn about free-market economics.

Ditto with evolution. The students need to understand what the ToE says and learn why all biologists accept it. (If there were any biologists who don't the ID/CR-istrs would let us know.)

Even if they don't like it or believe it.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

You obviously chose to ignore the rest of the chapter where Darwin said the fossil record was not a problem. Typical.

[qam1]

Genesis 2:19 - And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air..."

After looking at it word for word and using your head, putting it in the proper context,

What part of every don't you understand, I think it's you who isn't reading it word for word. If more creatures are created then it can't be "every" so it's a flat out contradiction from Gen I

[wintertime]

The right way to teach evolution is as a strictly empirical science. Just tell the kids what we have observed, and leave it to the parents in the home to fill them in on which religion is responsible. ( Starve the Beast)

To Starve the Beast.

Wrong!

Why? Because their are religious CONSEQUENCES for teaching about the origin of life devoid of the context of God.

You would be using tax money to establish and uphold the worldview of some ( origin of life devoid of God) and using the force of government ( police, threats of foster care, sheriff's sale of homes and business) to trash and undermine the religious teachings of others.

Using government power to FORCE children into an environment that is hostile to their religious traditions is hardly religiously neutral.

You say, " and leave it to the parents in the home to fill them in on which religion is responsible."

Let's look a typical child's school life:

The child dresses and eats, and then there is the rush to find and organize any last minute augments and stuff. The child then waits for the bus, and rides the bus. Of course, he is FORCED to associate with children who very well may undermine his religious teachings. ( hm,,,,isn't there a First Amendment that mentions freedom of assembly?)

He sits in school until 3 p.m. and is FORCED to listen to an agenda that is hostile to his religious belief. Authoritative figures present a world that is devoid of God, yet his parents attempt to teach him that God is the ordinate of all. The child is punished by the government if he attempts to explain this religious belief publicly in the class and is forbidden to publish his beliefs as well.

After the school bus ride, he arrives home at 4p.m. He gets some much needed physical exercise outside for an hour and half or so, and then has dinner with his family. Then there is homework that is again devoid of any mention of God. The child may get an hour of video or TV time and then it's bed.

So....how much time does this child have for the parents to "fill them in"? He may have even less time for parental influence if both his parents work, or if he has and after school activity.

Geeze! Great parental input there! yeah right!

Sorry, Starve The Beast, but you are just as much and educational bully as the ID people. Push, push, push, shove, shove, shove your anointed educational philosophy down other people's children.

Although I support the theory of evolution, I have more scruple's than to lobby for government guns to force my educational worldview on other people's children.

[wintertime]

The right way to teach evolution is as a strictly empirical science. Just tell the kids what we have observed, and leave it to the parents in the home to fill them in on which religion is responsible. ( Starve the Beast)

To Starve the Beast.

Wrong!

Why? Because their are religious CONSEQUENCES for teaching about the origin of life devoid of the context of God.

You would be using tax money to establish and uphold the worldview of some ( origin of life devoid of God) and using the force of government ( police, threats of foster care, sheriff's sale of homes and business) to trash and undermine the religious teachings of others.

Using government power to FORCE children into an environment that is hostile to their religious traditions is hardly religiously neutral.

You say, " and leave it to the parents in the home to fill them in on which religion is responsible."

Let's look a typical child's school life:

The child dresses and eats, and then there is the rush to find and organize any last minute augments and stuff. The child then waits for the bus, and rides the bus. Of course, he is FORCED to associate with children who very well may undermine his religious teachings. ( hm,,,,isn't there a First Amendment that mentions freedom of assembly?)

He sits in school until 3 p.m. and is FORCED to listen to an agenda that is hostile to his religious belief. Authoritative figures present a world that is devoid of God, yet his parents attempt to teach him that God is the ordinate of all. The child is punished by the government if he attempts to explain this religious belief publicly in the class and is forbidden to publish his beliefs as well.

After the school bus ride, he arrives home at 4p.m. He gets some much needed physical exercise outside for an hour and half or so, and then has dinner with his family. Then there is homework that is again devoid of any mention of God. The child may get an hour of video or TV time and then it's bed.

So....how much time does this child have for the parents to "fill them in"? He may have even less time for parental influence if both his parents work, or if he has and after school activity.

Geeze! Great parental input there! yeah right!

Sorry, Starve The Beast, but you are just as much and educational bully as the ID people. Push, push, push, shove, shove, shove your anointed educational philosophy down other people's children.

Although I support the theory of evolution, I have more scruple's than to lobby for government guns to force my educational worldview on other people's children.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Known? More like some scientists have speculated."

More like you have willfully ignored objective evidence, because the truth conflicts with your fantasy. I notice you have NOTHING to rebut my post. Typical.