Most Texas profs support no limits on evolution teaching-

Houston Chronicle ^ | 11.17.08 | GARY SCHARRER

[weegee]

The crux of creationism is a belief that a creator established the world around us, rather than a series of random events.

No matter the religion. No matter the timeline.

And that is an acceptance or denial of a higher power.

Belief in a higher power does not prohibit a belief in evolution as a mechanism of change. But disbelief in creationism of any sort is a disbelief in God. Unless god(s) evolved or sprung forth from the Big Bang too.

[weegee]

If there were no limits on the teaching of evolution, then it would permit the teaching of the weaknesses (pros and cons of the theory and historical examples where the theory was changed and where hoaxes were factored into it).

There are limits. Thought crime.

Question authority. Except when they have a union I guess.

[allmendream]

Creationism, as it pertains to a movement, is a belief that the account in Genesis is literally true. This is not a scientifically supportable view and has no place in science class.

Of course belief in a higher power doesn't prohibit belief in evolution as a mechanism of biological change. This is the view of myself, and both of the last two Popes. There is no conflict between faith and science.

[allmendream]

Next they will want science teachers to expound upon the “weaknesses” of Astronomy. It shows a universe that is far too old.

Then the “weaknesses” of Geology. It shows an earth that is far too old.

Then the “weaknesses” of Paleontology. It shows that over the vast age of the earth numerous species arose and went extinct and they did not all live contemporaneously.

Amazingly all the same people see the same “weaknesses” in these scientific theories; namely that they do not comport well with their religious beliefs.

[DrewsDad]

according to the survey conducted for the Texas Freedom Network Education Fund, an organization that works on issues involving religious freedom, civil liberties and public education.

Isn't this the ultra-leftist atheistic organization started by Cecile "Daughter of Ann" Richards? Can you trust any survey from them? What were the exact questions? How did they "select" their participants?

[Mojave]

Next they will want science teachers to expound upon the “weaknesses” of Global Warming.

[trumandogz]

My guess is that if you survey scientists that the vast majority of them will believe in science rather than Biblical Teachings.

As for me, I am Catholic and when I went to Catholic school, the Brother who taught Biology told us that Creationism was B.S.

Even the Pope recognizes Evolution to be true.

[Coyoteman]

Amazingly all the same people see the same “weaknesses” in these scientific theories; namely that they do not comport well with their religious beliefs.

Perhaps we should advocate teaching the "weaknesses" in the claims of various religions, just to be fair.

[Non-Sequitur]

But then who needs evidence when you have dogma?

And how would the creationist's arguements differ? What evidence would they have, or need, other than the Bible?

[Mojave]

Perhaps we should advocate teaching the "weaknesses" in the claims of various religions, just to be fair.

You mean like Comparative Religion courses?

[microgood]

Amazingly all the same people see the same “weaknesses” in these scientific theories; namely that they do not comport well with their religious beliefs.

Not necessarily. My beliefs about the weaknesses of the historical sciences is not based on my religious beliefs at all.

Unlike gravity, which we can test any time we want, it is a little harder to "test" whether a whale evolved from a land animal. What happens in the case of the whale is that first we determine that there was one original mammal (a huge assumption which we can never know to be true or not) and that they first appeared on land (which we will also never know) and that therefore the whale must have been a land mammal (which is needed if you believe the first two huge assumptions).

Since either of those assumptions can never be verified as true or false, anything derived from them is suspect. Paleontology is basically human pattern matching, and its fruit is a filing cabinet for fossils. What constitutes the difference between a mammal and reptile are arbitrarily determined characteristics which may or may not constitute some order of precedence.

Of all parts of the evolution and paleontological endeavors, gathering the evidence is the most important thing. But the conclusions they come to based on such scanty historical evidence is belligerent and arrogant, and unworthy of true scientific endeavors.

Will we ever know what made the dinosaurs extinct? No, not unless there is a God which tells us. or if someone invents a time machine.

[DrewsDad]

Evolution in the sense that there is variation within a species is true. Life from non-life and molecules to man evolution is just a theory that I don't see being supported by facts.

The issue here is not about teaching Biblical Creationism in the science classroom and if you read the article, you would know that. Teach the theories, but also teach the limits of what is truly known and what is theory.

[Dutchboy88]

Not so. The “science” you refer to has a small proviso they wish to attach to evolution and that is common descent. Full orbed evolution (as they wish to teach it) will state unequivocally that all life descended from one beginning entity (check it out at Talk.Orgins) and that the random expression of natural selection ALONE accounts for all that you see on earth. They will claim that evolutionists do not address abiogenesis (the origin of this super-first-life-entity), but unrestrained evolutionists will imply that the last step is just another “little” leap.

This has moved from changes within species to a new form of “creationism” whose priesthood will be the PhD. and the lab (absent any proof), his temple. He will worship an unthinking, random, meaningless universe now governed by his mind and the children are to follow suit (especially the admiration of him).

Creationists. on the other hand, don’t all hold that Genesis implies 24 hour days, but definitely hold that the patterns, principles, and observable mechanisms need a thinking Being behind them. And they are clear that the Being is not them.

There is an enormous gulf between these two.

[microgood]

And how would the creationist's arguements differ? What evidence would they have, or need, other than the Bible?

I am not defending creationists. I am just stating there are many obvious weaknesses in evolutionary theory that should be pointed out. What is suspicious is that while Big Bang theorists are not reluctant to point out the weak areas of the theory, evolutionists are not even allow to question any portion of that theory. The are both historical sciences and therefore suffer from the fact that most of the evidence is long gone.

When a jet crashes, we can barely determine the cause even with flight recorders on board, but these guys claim they can trace all life forms back to their origin 3 billion years ago?

One of the things people need to understand about theories is that they can change on a dime. Einstein proved that. So today's scientific reality can be the laughing stock of the next generation of scientists. Contingent truth is different than what a non-scientist thinks of truth. When a scientist says the big bang is true, he knows the whole theory may be gone in 20 years. But a regular student does not look at truth that way, they have a more universal belief about truth, and maybe that is what needs to be taught about science in general.

[allmendream]

Yes, but all the evidence also points to the simple fact that dinosaurs and modern mammalian species were in no way contemporaneous.

Also evolution is not entirely a historic science. Fossils are historic, and the pattern of common ancestry can be discerned by homology and divergence of DNA; but most scientific studies of evolution are in the lab.

Like this experiment where over twelve years of evolution, a strain of e.coli developed the ability to digest citrate.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

[allmendream]

Do you think God has no control over “random” processes?

That God’s power somehow stops at the casino door?

Randomness is only part of the puzzle, and randomness is a common feature here in God’s creation. This in no way implies (to me at least) that God is not in control of these “random” processes.

[rustbucket]

How did they "select" their participants?

From their report on their findings [Link]:

With the help of TFNEF staff and graduate students acting as interns, we collectively compiled contact information for all faculty members who teach either biology or biological anthropology at 50 Texas institutions of higher learning. (Biological anthropologists specialize in the study of the evolution of ancient hominids and often teach courses that include human evolution.) The final list included 1,019 individual faculty members from all 35 public universities and the 15 largest private institutions in the state.

[allmendream]

Most scientists in the USA are people of faith. “Belief” in science (I would say ‘confidence in the scientific method and its findings’) is not analogous to faith/belief in God, and certainly not mutually exclusive from it.

[Dutchboy88]

By definition, a thinking Being creating a process of any sort is not “random”. The word means haphazard, accidental, chance, arbitrary. The “randomness” you propose is really a very difficult-to-detect pattern of deliberate actions, even if that meant a one-time event.

Evolutionists will not grant you that any of these events need directing, formulating, creating or setting in motion. They wish to insure that any personality is removed until it is utterly unthinking, undirected, indiscriminate occurrence without meaning or significance. That is unbridled evolution. And it is in serious conflict with faith.

[allmendream]

Say what? Many games are designed around random processes, such as the roll of the dice in Backgammon. This game was created by a thinking being and it, like evolution, contains a random component.

Do dice need directing for them to carry out God’s will?

No scientific discussion of probabilities can exclude or include the idea that “it is all going according to God’s plan”.