Using Religion to Suppress Debate on Evolution

The Washington Post ^ | March 27, 2009 | John G. West

[GodGunsGuts]

Using Religion to Suppress Debate on Evolution

By John G. West Senior Fellow, Discovery Institute

Evolution was back in the headlines this week as the Texas State Board of Education voted 13-2 to require students to "analyze and evaluate" major evolutionary concepts such as common ancestry, natural selection, and mutations, as well as adopting a critical thinking standard calling on students to "critique" and examine "all sides of scientific evidence."

The vote was a loss for defenders of evolution who had pushed the Board to strip the "analyze and evaluate" language from the evolution standards and gut the overall critical thinking standard.

Evolutionists typically cast themselves as the champions of secular reason against superstition, but in Texas they tried to inject religion into the debate at every turn.

Indeed, this past week it seemed that they couldn't stop talking about religion. They boasted about their credentials as Sunday School teachers and church elders. They quoted the Bible and appealed to theology...

[Diamond]

For some reason, it does stop some people from understanding that small changes, generation after generation, become large changes.

Small changes, generation after generation, become large changes, except when they don't.

Cordially,

[Phileleutherus Franciscus]

All that evos would do would reclassify that rabbit as a living fossil and announce to the world that mammal evolution has been pushed back several million years because now there's evidence that it happened earlier than we thought. Such amazing certitude, on such a wide variety of topics. Truly amazing. Tell me, has it ever happened? Do you know of anything remotely similar to a rabbit in the Cambrian? Perhaps a bird in the Devonian, or even a fossil elephant among the similarly sized fauna of the Jurassic?

[valkyry1]

Only science should and will continue to be taught in science class

Good then lets get the religion/s of darwinsm, evolutionism, et al out of the science class room

[Buck W.]

Evolution is science. It is falsifiable. Can you say the same about creationism?

[valkyry1]

Evolution is fantasy, its evidences are conjectural, inferred, assumptions on top of assumptions, and thus are ephemeral.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Evolution was the basic philosophical cornerstone of communism, naziism, the various eugenics programs, the out of control arms races which led to WW-I and WW-II, and all of the grief of the last 150 years.

More baloney. Communism comes from the Bible Communists of the 18th and 19th centuries. They simply followed Saint Thomas More's blueprint in Utopia.

Also evolution is a philosophy only to creationists. To people who actually studied it, it's simply the best description of what's lying around on the planet.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

You could start with one American example.

[Buck W.]

I see. And creationism is not?

[Gordon Greene]

First, I want to thank you for one of the first well thought out, intelligent, reasoned, non-confrontational answers I have received from an evolutionist on one of these threads.

Secondly, if we have those “few” examples of carbon dating gone wrong, how can the rest stand up to science? Are most of them not too old to have any verification of their age? What standard could scientists possibly use to prove the other “thousands of millions” are correct.

And last, “Uranium goes through a process that takes billions of years on it’s way to becoming lead.”

So now are we saying the earth is billions of years old? That’s the first I heard of that.

[Gordon Greene]

I believe when I confront them they get the mistaken impression I am offended, angry or somehow wounded... I have too much of a life for any of those emotions based on their opinions. I am just amazed at their arrogance and relentless attacks on Christianity.

I ran into a guy just like these folks the other day. I went to have a piece of glass cut and the owner was so vocal about politics I couldn’t keep my opinion to myself. He was red-faced and all but screaming at me because I disagreed with him. His sweet little wife just sat and listened. I did feel sorry for her. I finally had to tell the guy, “Look... I just came in here to buy a piece of glass from you not to be yelled at. I’m the customer here.”

His virulent anger made me wonder if it’s not something in the genes of a liberal atheist. It appeared he couldn’t help himself. But I believe we have the ability to control ourselves with God’s help.

About the dork comment... strangely enough I had to laugh a bit when I typed that. I said it very light-heartedly because that’s what he sounded like calling GGG and I soulmates. Like finding folks you agree with is a bad thing.

Isn’t that what FR is about?

[Gordon Greene]

“You’re not claiming that those despots were driven to genocide because they believed in evoloution are you?

Are you?

You might equally reasonably conclude that they did so because they were male, or had dark hair.”

I don’t believe all evolutionists are destined to be dictators but when you discount God from your life it lends itself to wanting to be your own ruler or “god”. You can read the superior, arrogant tone of most evolution posters on this site to get some idea of how that kind of thinking would lead to elitist ideals and a superiority complex.

On the point of the conclusion being male or having dark hair is the same thing... I don’t buy that argument any more than I buy the argument some are born gay... serial killers... addicted to alcohol or any other such nonsense. To believe or not believe is a choice, not a birth trait.

[tacticalogic]

Secondly, if we have those “few” examples of carbon dating gone wrong, how can the rest stand up to science? Are most of them not too old to have any verification of their age? What standard could scientists possibly use to prove the other “thousands of millions” are correct.

If you will not accept anything except perfect results, that is your perogative. Are you willing to apply that same standard equally outside of the context of the current questions? Will you refuse to take any drug prescribed by you doctor that has any potential unwanted side effects, or refuse to accept that we can safely store long half-life nuclear waste until doing it has actually been demonstrated (that will take several thousand years)?. If NASA screwed up and blew up a rocket, does that mean we can never trust them to launch another one?

You can do that if you want, but is that honestly a practical constraint to put on science, and can we realistically hold them to that standard?

So now are we saying the earth is billions of years old? That’s the first I heard of that.

4.5 Billion years has been the accepted estimate for quite some time.

pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

[Gordon Greene]

“Only science should and will continue to be taught in science class.”

Good job discounting the intentions of the founders of our country.

Now...

Evolution and Christianity are prefectly compatible.
Evolution and Christianity are prefectly compatible.
Evolution and Christianity are prefectly compatible.
Evolution and Christianity are prefectly compatible.

...nope... I said it a whole bunch of times and it still doesn’t make sense.

I do agree with you about faith and science... faith by definition cannot be proven with science. However, the truth of the Word and the principles laid down there should be taught in every school. Of course you have to give the disclaimer that the Ten Commandments were simply meant as allegory and you are therefore not bound to honor your father and mother, you can have other Gods before Him, you can murder, you can lie, you can... well all of it is allegory so ignore what you like.

[Gordon Greene]

First, allow me to apologize for the length of the post which follows. I took the time to read and re-read your original answer so that I could understand it. If you feel your eyes glazing over at some point here... please read again so you fully understand what I’m attempting to explain here. Thank you.

“If you will not accept anything except perfect results, that is your perogative.”

The problem I have when I discuss this topic with evolutionists is that they consistently answer only a portion of any question I ask. I’ll be glad respond to your statements but I’d like you to provide me the courtesy of answering me in context. I have re-posted my original statement. The single statement you attempted to answer was not meant to be read alone or I would have stopped there... Please answer it entirely.

Please note that your examples do not apply to my questions as in your first example there is measurable, documented scientific evidence of the potential occurence of unwanted side effects. This is not the case in Carbon dating or any other dating method that is used to measure things that old as we have no valid point of reference. It is also a bad example for the reason that the percentage of possibility of side effects in most medications is in the single digits. I’m sure you didn’t mean to place your proposed dating methods into that category. With the same percentages applied you would be arguing my case for me. As for the other example, are we then to take the dating methods as scientific fact for the explicit reason that it is too hard and would take too much time to prove their valid use? (This question is not rhetorical)

My original statement: “Secondly, if we have those “few” examples of carbon dating gone wrong, how can the rest stand up to science? Are most of them not too old to have any verification of their age? What standard could scientists possibly use to prove the other “thousands of millions” are correct.”

And of course, I remember discussing this subject with you before... I’m not sure I really expect you to answer me clearly. Please prove me wrong.

[Buck W.]

“I don’t believe all evolutionists are destined to be dictators but when you discount God from your life it lends itself to wanting to be your own ruler or “god”.”

I agree with the first half. However, regarding the second point, are there not numerous examples of religiously-engrossed despots, from Egyptian pharaohs through the inquisitors, Jim Jones, and David Koresh?

[Buck W.]

““Only science should and will continue to be taught in science class.”

Good job discounting the intentions of the founders of our country.”

The founders never said anything about the science syllabus.

” However, the truth of the Word and the principles laid down there should be taught in every school. “

Where have I said that religion shouldn’t be taught in school?

[Gordon Greene]

Oops... I forgot to answer your question about the age of the earth.
No, I didn’t know that. I lost count after “Millions of years”.

I was in school a long time ago. Back then they were satisfied with a few million years. I don’t trust government sites to give me facts anyway. I have yet to see what Obama meant by a tax break for 95% of Americans. I must be missing something in my calculations (and in my wallet!)

[Gordon Greene]

“Where have I said that religion shouldn’t be taught in school?”

You have my humblest apologies. You are correct... I did misread your original post. You just said it shouldn’t be taught in the science class. I absolutely should have read closer before posting that reply.

While I do agree with that, I believe that theory is perfectly acceptable in science class. There are two prevailing theories (with several lesser schools of thought) pertaining to the origin of the universe, those being Creation and Evolution. I have never said Evolution should not be taught as theory only that Creation is every bit as plausible in the scientific realm as a theory. There is hard perfect evidence for neither. Although there is what can be construed as physical evidence for Evolution making it acceptable for science instruction, there is logical evidence based on what we know of matter and physics and the process of design for the Creation theory to be acceptable as well, therefore it should be taught.

On another matter, I believe we have agreed on posts in the past pertaining to conservatism and I would like to set the record straight. My intention here is not to take someone to task who is partaking in serious debate. I enjoy debate and may get carried away at times, as you are also guilty of. If discussion is not passionate it is not interesting.

Let’s keep the lines of dialogue open.

I have no plan to back off of those who attack and accuse and insist on forcing their elitism into the conversation. I am no better than you as you and your ideas are not superior to mine.

Gentlemen’s agreement?

[Gordon Greene]

“are there not numerous examples of religiously-engrossed despots, from Egyptian pharaohs through the inquisitors, Jim Jones, and David Koresh?”

You are absolutely correct. I would not make the assertion that is not the case.

In all the cases you noted there were people who believed they were in some way gods or the hand of God. Man does not have the ability to handle unbridled power with no moral compass and in the case of the contemporary examples noted, Jim Jones and David Koresh, both were also morally bankrupt partaking in deeds that directly contradicted the Word of God.

The fact that this is true does not in any way discount the truth of the second half of my statement. Human nature is to defy God. Any way you go about it the end is still despotism.

[tacticalogic]

What it ultimately comes down to is whether scientists should assume that what have been observed to be physical constants, like the half lives of radio isotopes, were constant before they were first observed and measured.

Those constants do not exist in a vacuum, they are a necessary consequence of the properties of the matter and forces they study and if they changed then everything they affected or interacted with had to change too.

I will give you a practical example. If they cannot assume that the decay rate of uranium is constant, then they cannot reasonable estimate the safety of a nuclear reactor containment vessel, or say with any certainty that any of our nuclear warheads would be any more effective than dropping a comparable load of bricks from high altitude.

You submit that your questions have a broader context than I address. I will try to do better if you will try to understand that for them to make the assumptions you want them to make, or disallow the ones you don't want them making has cosequences beyond your immediate objections to those assumptions.