Teaching About Evolution.

As I reflected on my previous post about great scientific minds and belief in Intelligent Design, I realized that it lucked facts and references so to speak ( something I personally always look in posts, publications, etc.), but since it dealt with my personal experiences and referred to private conversations, general statement on what was my experience was all I could offer…

As I thought on that though, I felt that it would be a disservice not to bring into this discussion a comparison to my personal experience, however documented with facts, references and figures. I usually would not have a chance to write much, and probably would not visit back to this thread for at least a few days if not more ( life with the babe and travelling), but here are some pretty neat facts, that I felt would be interesting to share, on great minds and Intelligent Design. ( Forgive me for typos, if there will be any)

[b]Isaac Newton [/b] (1642-1727), who discovered the law of gravity, formulated the three laws of motion, developed calculus, constructed the first reflecting telescope, and whom many consider the greatest scientist who ever lived, wrote an estimated 1,400,000 words on religion--more than on physics or astronomy. He wrote papers refuting atheism and defending the Bible; he believed in the Flood, a literal six-day creation, and the Ussher chronology (which dated Earth as a few thousand years old). Here are a few quotes from him:

I[i][b] have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily.

All my discoveries have been made in answer to prayer.

We account the Scriptures of God to be the most sublime philosophy. I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever.[/b][/i]

How about [b]astronomer Johannes Kepler [/b] (1571-1630)? Reasoning that the universe must be orderly if designed by God, he discovered the laws of planetary motion and conclusively demonstrated that the sun is the solar system's center. He explained that he was merely "thinking God's thoughts after Him" and said:

[b][i]I had the intention of becoming a theologian … but now I see how God is, by my endeavors, also glorified in astronomy, for "the heavens declare the glory of God."[/i][/b]	

And:

[b][i]Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God.[/i][/b]

What of [b]Robert Boyle [/b] (1627-1691), regarded as the father of modern chemistry, and whose name is wedded to the fundamental law of gas pressures? He determined that gases consist of particles, made early discoveries concerning vacuums, and even invented the first match.
Boyle also read the Bible daily, was governor of a missionary organization, wrote The Christian Virtuoso to show that studying nature is a religious duty, and in his will established the "Boyle lectures" for the proving of Christianity.

Then there was [b]Francis Bacon[/b] (1561-1626), credited with developing the scientific method. He said:

[b][i]There are two books laid before us to study, to prevent our falling into error; first, the volume of the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then, the volume of the Creatures, which express His power.[/i][/b]	

         [b]Carolus Linnaeus [/b] (1707-1778), who laid the foundations of modern taxonomy, still known as the Linnaean system. He too was a believer. Isaac Asimov acknowledged that "[b][i]Linnaeus himself fought the whole idea of evolution stubbornly[/i][/b]." The Dictionary of Scientific Biography says of him:

[b][i]His view of nature was deeply religious; central to all his work was God's omnipotence…. "I saw," he wrote in the later editions of Systema natura, "the infinite, all-knowing and all-powerful God…. I followed his footsteps over nature's fields and saw everywhere an eternal wisdom and power, an inscrutable perfection."[/i][/b]

Astronomer Sir William Herschel (1738-1822) discovered Uranus and built the greatest reflecting telescopes of his day. He said: "The undevout astronomer must be mad."

His son, John Frederick Herschel, who discovered more than 500 stars and nebulae, declared:

[b][i]All human discoveries seem to be made only for the purpose of confirming more and more strongly the truths that come from on high and are contained in the sacred writings."[/i][/b]

[b]John Flamsteed [/b] (1646-1719), who made the first great map of the stars, was founder of the famous Greenwich Observatory, first Astronomer Royal of England--and a clergyman.

Besides being a great statesman, [b]Benjamin Franklin[/b] (1706-1790) invented the lightning rod, rocking chair, Franklin stove, and bifocal glasses. He organized the first U.S. postal service and first fire department. Some count Franklin as an unbeliever, but although he poked fun at dour ministers and entertained some doubts about the divinity of Christ, his belief in God was uncompromising. He stated:

[b][i]Here is my creed. I believe in one god, the Creator of the universe. That He governs it by His providence. That He ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to Him is in doing good to His other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this.[/i][/b]	

He declared before the Constitutional Convention:

[b][i]I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?…
I therefore beg leave to move--that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business….[/i][/b]

Some evolutionists like to call creationists "flat earthers." This is ironic since [b]Christopher Columbus[/b], famed for showing the world round, wrote:

[b][i]I prayed to the most merciful Lord about my heart's great desire, and He gave me the spirit and the intelligence for the task: seafaring, astronomy, geometry, arithmetic, skill in drafting spherical maps and placing correctly the cities, rivers, mountains and ports. I also studied cosmology, history, chronology, and philosophy.
It was the Lord who put into my mind (I could feel His hand upon me) the fact that it would be possible to sail from here to the Indies. All who heard of my project rejected it with laughter, ridiculing me. There is no question that the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit, because he comforted me with rays of marvelous illumination from the Holy Scriptures….[/i][/b]

Shall we add to the list of believers [b][i]Cotton Mather[/i][/b] (1663-1728), the clergyman/Harvard president who introduced a smallpox inoculation; [b]Jean Deluc[/b] (1727-1817), the Swiss naturalist who coined the word "geology"; or [b]James Parkinson [/b] (1755-1824), the first physician to recognize the dangers of a perforated appendix, and to describe the disease named for him? We could also mention [b]John Dalton[/b] (1766-1844), who revolutionized chemistry by developing the atomic theory; [b]Benjamin Barton[/b] (1766-1815), who wrote the first U.S. textbook on botany; and chemist-physiologist [b]William Prout [/b] (1785-1850), who was the first to identify basic foodstuffs as fats, proteins and carbohydrates. And does the famous painting The Last Supper not convey the faith of [b]Leonardo da Vinci[/b] (1452-1519), considered by many the father of modern science?

I hear some saying, "OK, OK, maybe a few of those old dudes had some smarts, but they were only religious because that was the prevailing view in their day. They lived before Darwin. If they had read The Origin of Species, they would have seen things totally different."

But hold on.[b][i][i][u] Most scientists in Darwin's time weren't thrilled with his theory either. Contrary to the popular impression, it was scientists, not theologians, who primarily opposed evolution in the nineteenth century[/u][/i][/i][/b]. 

The Catholic church, still smarting from its wrongful condemnation of Galileo, wanted no risk of another embarrassment. Although the church maintained an index of forbidden books, The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man were never placed on it. When Darwin died, the Anglican church even insisted he be given a hero’s funeral and state burial at Westminster Abbey.

On the other hand, [b]717 scientists, including 86 members of the Royal Society [/b] (Britain's most prestigious scientific organization), signed a manifesto entitled [b][i]"The Declaration of the Students of the Natural and Physical Sciences."[/i][/b] Issued in London in 1864, it affirmed their confidence in the Bible's scientific integrity.

Of course there were several scientists whom evolution failed to convince. There were many others whose faith it could not shake. 

Louis Pasteur (1822-95) probably saved more lives than any other scientist. He established the germ theory of disease and the process of sterilization; he isolated pathogens and developed vaccines to combat them–including rabies, diphtheria and anthrax. He also introduced milk pasteurization, which is named for him.
Pasteur was also a humble Christian. He did not patent his discoveries, but gave them to society freely. Though tragedy marked his life–three of his children died young–faith sustained him. “Science,” he said, "brings man nearer to God." And he observed, “The more I study nature,” the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator." In a series of experiments, Pasteur disproved the false notion, then pushed by evolutionists, that bacteria “spontaneously generate.”

[b]Lord Kelvin[/b] (1824-1907) was, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundation of modern physics." He established a scale of absolute temperatures, with degrees "kelvin" named for him; supervised laying of the first Atlantic cable, for which he was knighted; held 21 honorary doctorates, published more than 600 scientific papers, and patented 70 inventions.
As Chairman of England's Christian Evidence Society, Lord Kelvin said:

[i][b]I have long felt that there was a general impression in the non-scientific world that the scientific world believes Science has discovered ways of explaining all the facts of nature without adopting any definite belief in a Creator. I have never doubted that that impression was utterly groundless[/b][/i]. [Lord Kelvin, address of 23 May 1889, quoted in Stephen Abbott Northrop, A Cloud of Witnesses (c. 1899; reprint, San Antonio: Mantle Ministries, 1988), 460.]

Kevin opposed Darwinism and published a paper refuting uniformitarian geology. He said: "[b][i]Over-whelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us … the atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words. [/i] [/b] And:

[b][i]Mathematics and dynamics fail us when we contemplate the earth, fitted for life but lifeless, and try to imagine the commencement of life upon it. This certainly did not take place by any action of chemistry, or electricity, or crystalline grouping of molecules under the influence of force, or by any possible kind of fortuitous concourse of atoms. We must pause, face to face with the mystery and miracle of creation of living creatures. [/i] [/b] [Mathematical and Physical Papers, Lord Kelvin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911), quoted in Thomas G. Barnes, "Physics: A Challenge to 'Geologic Time,'" Impact 16 (July 1974): 1-2.]

[b]Joseph Lister[/b] (1827-1912) saved countless lives by developing antiseptic surgery through the use of disinfectants. ("Listerine" is named after him.) He invented dissolving stitches and the wiring of broken bones. He was knighted, made president of the Royal Society and president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science.
Lister was the son of devout Quakers, and would declare "I[i][b] have no hesitation in saying that in my opinion there is no antagonism between the Religion of Jesus Christ and any fact scientifically established."[/b][/i]	

      [b]   Samuel F.B. Morse [/b] (1791-1872) invented the tele¬graph and Morse Code, built the first camera in America, and founded the National Academy of Design.
A dedicated Christian, Morse established one of America's first Sunday schools and supported missionaries. He said:


The only gleam of hope, and I cannot underrate it, is from confidence in God. When I look upward it calms my apprehensions for the future, and I seem to hear a voice saying, “If I clothe the lilies of the field, shall I not also clothe you?” Here is my strong confidence, and I will wait patiently for the direction of Providence.
[Northrop, 327.]

The first message he sent by telegraph was: "What hath God wrought."

Through experiments, [b]James Joule[/b] (1818-1889) proved the law of energy conservation, and determined the mathematic relationship between an electric current's energy and the heat it gives off. The joule, a unit of energy measurement, is named for him. He said: "[i][b]It is evident that an acquaintance with natural laws means no less tthan an acquaintance with the mind of God therein expressed[/b][/i]."

Though born a slave, [b]George Washington Carver[/b] (1864-1943) became one of the world's greatest agricultural scientists. Working at the Tuskegee Institute, an Alabama school for Afro-Americans, he developed over 300 products from the peanut and 118 from the sweet potato. He showed both black and white farmers how to better utilize land, and revitalized the South's economy. He did much to improve race relations, and was also an accomplished artist.
Like Pasteur, Carver patented none of his discoveries, but gave them away. He turned down an offer from Thomas Edison to leave Tuskegee and work at 60 times his pay. In 1940 he donated his life savings to the Institute. A devout Christian, Carver taught his students from the Bible, in a class that met on Sundays from 1907 until his death. He said:

[b][i]The secret of my success? It is simple. It is found in the Bible, "In all thy ways acknowledge Him and He shall direct thy paths." [/i] [/b] [William J. Federer, America's God and Country: Encyclopedia of Quotations (Coppell, Tex.: Fame Publishing, 1994), 98]

So to figure out that science harmonizes with the Bible, you don't have to be a rocket scientist--but you might ask one. [b]Wernher von Braun[/b] (1912-1977) was director of NASA's flight center; he oversaw the team of scientists that sent the first American into space, and masterminded the moon landing.
An active Christian, von Braun prayed for the safety of those on the manned missions he planned. He observed: "[b][i]There are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of man or the system of the human eye?" He would not have agreed with the whip hand given evolution in today's classrooms: "To be forced to believe only one conclusion--that everything in the universe happened by chance--would violate the very objectivity of science itself."[/i][/b]

Physicist [b]David Brewster[/b] (1781-1868) began the science of optical mineralogy, invented the kaleido-scope, and was founder and president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. He said: [b][i]"Knowledge, indeed, is at once the handmaid and the companion of true religion. They mutually adorn and support each other[/i][/b]." On his tombstone was written: "The Lord is my Light."

Shall we add [b]Joseph Henry[/b] (1797-1878), who invented the electromagnetic motor and galvanometer, was first secretary and director of the Smithsonian Institution, [b]president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science-[/b]-and always prayed for divine guidance during any experiment? Or Nobel Prize winner [b]Lord Rayleigh [/b] (1842-1919), co-discoverer of argon, helium, and the other "noble" gases, who wrote: "[b][i]The works of the Lord are great, sought out of all them that have pleasure therein." [/i] [/b] Nobel Prize-winning physicist [b]Robert A. Millikan [/b] (1868-1953), though critical of fundamentalism, said he would still choose it over atheism: "[b][i]The God of science is the Spirit of rational order, and of orderly development. Atheism as I understand it is the denial of the existence of this spirit. Nothing could be more antagonistic to the whole spirit of science."[/i][/b] 

These are just a sampling of a few great minds, and it illustrates the point that I was trying to make earlier but through their own words and actions…

Sorry, if it was a long :slight_smile: , !

Hope it helps…

Hi Skylark,

Thank you for your interesting comments. K :slight_smile:

Children need to be encouraged to think for themselves-my initial post was about encouraging children to examine assumptions and to avoid the mental hammerlock that lack of self-confidence and over-reliance on authoritarian opinion can have. I think that we should encourage children to trust themselves and to value open-mindedness, objectivity and intellectual honesty.

The validity of evolution rests on what the evidence says, not on what people say. There is overwhelming evidence in support of evolution and no valid arguments against it.
Many of the scientists in your list lived before the theory of evolution was published. Virtually all relevant scientists today accept the theory of evolution because of the supporting evidence.

Chris.

P.S. What did you think of the Critical Analysis of Kent Hovind’s “Age of the Earth “?

I studied Biological Science at University, and also became a Christian at Uni. Over the years I have noticed that as a Christian I was not allowed to question and just had to accept things with blind faith. It made it difficult studying, for instance, 3rd Year paleontology and zoogeography which are very “earth is millions of years old” focused, with many proofs (or “proofs”…it is all just subjecture and opinion…no-one was actually there when the earth was evolving or created).
I have to say the 2 beliefs were at loggerheads and it was very confusing. But I am not one to blindly believe things, especially if the evidence leans the other direction. Which has put me at loggerheads with many Christians, especially my husband, who could not stand my questioning and open mind. (We are divorced now, and I shall be using that to my advantage…as I no longer have to obey him, I am able to teach my kids to be questioning and to look at all sides of an argument.)
I think that fence-sitting is a good position, as ardently supporting one position makes one likely to only read and believe that which supports that position.
I recommend people read the book “Telling lies for God” by Ian Plimer. I think he’s a very honest person, and I believe what his book says is true. In it he shows up lies that the creationist group Creation Science Foundation, also known as Answers in Genesis, tell in order to try to prove their beliefs. It’s for sale on Amazon. He is correct in that many scientists with that organisation arent what True scholars would consider experts in their fields, and their papers would not be taken seriously by universities or their peers. I have their literature, I have read their articles, I have their videos, and will let my kids use their teachings, but will have them read opposing viewpoints. Let them all read what they disagree with about the opposing side…

http://www.amazon.com/Telling-Lies-God-Reason-Creationism/dp/009182852X

I find this a very interesting discussion. I have been a Christian since childhood and yet have obviously come across many versions of the evolution theory and of course we were also taught Darwinism at school and even the big bang theory. Do I believe in creationsim? Yes. Do I believe in evolution - yes. And I do not believe that one contradicts the other either. I have even spent time trying to see how if I accepted the big bang theory could I do so and still believe in creationism - ie could God have created a big bang on one of the days of creation? I haven’t got very far with this, but at the same time does it even matter? As long as I am asking the questions. I still believe in God and that the Bible is true but I am not sure that the world was created in 7 24h days. Does that change my relationship with God? No. Does it even really matter in the great scheme of things whether I believe in evolution of not? Probably not.

What will I teach my daughter? I’ll teach her what I believe and teach her how to think for herself and then present facts and opinions as facts and opinions and let her question all she wants to.

It has been argued that elementary maths has proven that evolution is impossible and I agree that if Darwinism were really a theory of random chance, it couldn’t work. This argument is flawed because Darwinism is not a theory of random chance. Natural selection starts with random mutation, but natural selection itself is the very antithesis of a chance process.
Beneficial chance mutations are non-randomly recorded in the DNA of the species. The amount of luck required in each generation is believable and the accumulated luck over many generations results in the apparent improbability of the end product.

Just wondering what the Moslem and Jewish and any other religion view is on evolution and creation?

The only thing that gets me is how do we teach good moral values, and who determines them? where is the textbook, the guidebook, the standard on what is good behaviour? I read a quote today that said… science flies people to the moon. Religion flies people into buildings. which got me thinking on the brainwashing thing. So many people have done so many bad things for their religions. The more brainwashed people are the more likely they are to do bad things it seems.

The most important scientific explanations are called “theories.” In ordinary speech, “theory” is often used to mean “guess” or “hunch,” whereas in scientific terminology, a theory is a set of universal statements that explain some aspect of the natural world. Theories are powerful tools. Scientists seek to develop theories that

* are firmly grounded in and based upon evidence;
* are logically consistent with other well-established principles;
* explain more than rival theories; and
* have the potential to lead to new knowledge.

The body of scientific knowledge changes as new observations and discoveries are made. Theories and other explanations change. New theories emerge, and other theories are modified or discarded. Throughout this process, theories are formulated and tested on the basis of evidence, internal consistency, and their explanatory power.
Evolution as a Unifying Concept

Evolution in the broadest sense can be defined as the idea that the universe has a history: that change through time has taken place. If we look today at the galaxies, stars, the planet Earth, and the life on planet Earth, we see that things today are different from what they were in the past: galaxies, stars, planets, and life forms have evolved. Biological evolution refers to the scientific theory that living things share ancestors from which they have diverged; it is called “descent with modification.” There is abundant and consistent evidence from astronomy, physics, biochemistry, geochronology, geology, biology, anthropology, and other sciences that evolution has taken place.

As such, evolution is a unifying concept for science. The National Science Education Standards recognizes that conceptual schemes such as evolution “unify science disciplines and provide students with powerful ideas to help them understand the natural world” (p. 104) and recommends evolution as one such scheme. In addition, Benchmarks for Science Literacy from AAAS’s Project 2061, as well as other national calls for science reform, all name evolution as a unifying concept because of its importance across the disciplines of science. Scientific disciplines with a historical component, such as astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology, cannot be taught with integrity if evolution is not emphasized.

There is no longer a debate among scientists about whether evolution has taken place. There is considerable debate about how evolution has taken place: What are the processes and mechanisms producing change, and what has happened specifically during the history of the universe? Scientists often disagree about their explanations. In any science, disagreements are subject to rules of evaluation. Scientific conclusions are tested by experiment and observation, and evolution, as with any aspect of theoretical science, is continually open to and subject to experimental and observational testing.

The importance of evolution is summarized as follows in the National Academy of Sciences publication Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science: “Few other ideas in science have had such a far-reaching impact on our thinking about ourselves and how we relate to the world” (p. 21).
Creationism and Other Non-Scientific Views

The National Science Education Standards note that, ” [e]xplanations of how the natural world changes based on myths, personal beliefs, religious values, mystical inspiration, superstition, or authority may be personally useful and socially relevant, but they are not scientific” (p. 201). Because science limits itself to natural explanations and not religious or ultimate ones, science teachers should neither advocate any religious interpretation of nature nor assert that religious interpretations of nature are not possible.

The word “creationism” has many meanings. In its broadest meaning, creationism is the idea that the universe is the consequence of something transcendent. Thus to Christians, Jews, and Muslims, God created; to the Navajo, the Hero Twins created; for Hindu Shaivites, the universe comes to exist as Shiva dances. In a narrower sense, “creationism” has come to mean “special creation” : the doctrine that the universe and all that is in it was created by God in essentially its present form, at one time. The most common variety of special creationism asserts that

* the Earth is very young;
* life was created by God;
* life appeared suddenly;
* kinds of organisms have not changed since the creation; and
* different life forms were designed to function in particular settings.

This version of special creation is derived from a literal interpretation of Biblical Genesis. It is a specific, sectarian religious belief that is not held by all religious people. Many Christians and Jews believe that God created through the process of evolution. Pope John Paul II, for example, issued a statement in 1996 that reiterated the Catholic position that God created and affirmed that the evidence for evolution from many scientific fields is very strong.

“Creation science” is a religious effort to support special creationism through methods of science. Teachers are often pressured to include it or other related nonscientific views such as “abrupt appearance theory,” “initial complexity theory,” “arguments against evolution,” or “intelligent design theory” when they teach evolution. Scientific creationist claims have been discredited by the available scientific evidence. They have no empirical power to explain the natural world and its diverse phenomena. Instead, creationists seek out supposed anomalies among many existing theories and accepted facts. Furthermore, “creation science” claims do not lead to new discoveries of scientific knowledge.
Legal Issues

Several judicial decisions have ruled on issues associated with the teaching of evolution and the imposition of mandates that “creation science” be taught when evolution is taught. The First Amendment of the Constitution requires that public institutions such as schools be religiously neutral; because “creation science” asserts a specific, sectarian religious view, it cannot be advocated in the public schools.

When Arkansas passed a law requiring “equal time” for “creation science” and evolution, the law was challenged in Federal District Court. Opponents of the bill included the religious leaders of the United Methodist, Episcopalian, Roman Catholic, African Methodist Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Southern Baptist churches, along with several educational organizations. After a full trial, the judge ruled that “creation science” did not qualify as a scientific theory (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255 [ED Ark. 1982]).

Louisiana’s equal time law was challenged in court, and eventually reached the Supreme Court. In Edwards v. Aguillard [482 U.S. 578 (1987)], the court determined that “creation science” was inherently a religious idea and to mandate or advocate it in the public schools would be unconstitutional. Other court decisions have upheld the right of a district to require that a teacher teach evolution and not teach “creation science” (Webster v. New Lennox School District #122, 917 F.2d 1003 [7th Cir. 1990]; Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, 37 F.3d 517 [9th Cir. 1994]).

Some legislators and policy makers continue attempts to distort the teaching of evolution through mandates that would require teachers to teach evolution as “only a theory” or that require a textbook or lesson on evolution to be preceded by a disclaimer. Regardless of the legal status of these mandates, they are bad educational policy. Such policies have the effect of intimidating teachers, which may result in the de-emphasis or omission of evolution. As a consequence, the public will only be further confused about the nature of scientific theories. Furthermore, if students learn less about evolution, science literacy itself will suffer.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

If you are interested in being fair to the debate, I suggest you read this article. It has moved most scientist toward believing evolution is pretty much an indisputable fact and not theory.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124235632936122739.html

The reason it is not a fact is because all the details of how it happen are not known and probably will not be known for some time. I hope you realize the fact that earth is not the center of the universe is still considered a theory and we know how much of a fact that is.

I was brought up in Communist China and was taught the theory of ‘evolution’ since school and never doubted about that until just a few years ago. I read the Bible as a folklore when I was very young and thought it was just a collection of fairytales.

But at the age of 24 I heard about the creator for the first time. I got to know that there was a loving and almight God and he created the whole universe including men and I accepted this. My life was completely changed since then. I enjoy my daily life with God and I cannot deny His existence since He is so real to me!

Bible did not say God created the heavens and the earth in 6*24hours. The English word of ‘day’ was translated from hebrew word Yom. Yom can mean a 24-hour solar day but it can also mean a long period of time. Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrew definitions list definitions referring to long periods of time such as “year,” “lifetime,” and “time, period (general).”

I believe God himself is also a genius scientist - he has performed so many scientific wonders.

I look forward to Mandy’s bits!

love xx

There will be no sequels to The Golden Compass because of Catholic pressure
http://theframeproblem.wordpress.com/2007/12/28/the-golden-compass-as-an-atheist-indoctrination-tool-the-hypocrisy-oh-the-hypocrisy/

Religious belief is psychologically very comforting and has a strong emotional impact. A large part of the appeal of religion comes from the fear of death and nothing beyond and it also provides a sense of identity. A religious person will frequently take pride in irrational circular thinking and will consider it to be evidence of how good a believer they are. Presenting hard evidence that contradicts a fundamental belief is unlikely to change minds because to do so would be a crisis of identity.

It is difficult to argue effectively against good evidence and the most common strategy is to avoid the discussion entirely- which is probably why there has been limited response to this topic.

Aristotle’s Ethics, the lists of virtues from various religions, etc. There are many good books about ethics, theoretical and applied. If you actually compare lists of virtues from all different traditions you’ll see remarkable overlap.

I’m agnostic myself (some people would describe my belief system as atheistic), but I see a rising and very annoying intolerance on the part of anti-religious people, in the wake of non-philosopher, non-religious scholar scientists like Richard Dawkins. Many actual philosophers who study philosophy of religion, unlike Dawkins, believe it is possible to be an intellectually honest and reasonably open-minded Christian. I believe that myself, although I am not a Christian.

Of course, too many religious people use intimidation and indoctrination to propagate their belief system. But that is true of all ideologies–including, I should say, the scientific-materialistic one, which I happen to share.

On religious issues, I think the whole world needs to unclench a little.

“I was glad to hear a point of view from someone from a different country with a different background that was not brainwashed a Christian. Your epiphany seemed to happen in the reverse to mine. I was brainwashed a Christian then taught evolution and it changed my whole view on Christianity.”

Dont have much time to respond, but this is a good point, Pat, you put it better then I ever could, :biggrin: I never experienced christianity the way it is applied in US ( I grew up in the family of scientists and gov officials in non-western country, where I also came to become a Christian), and when I had my first experience with meeting “Christians” from abroad and then in US, my first though was “wow, no wonder people turn to hating christianity”, the closest handle I can put on it is “churchianity”, ha! And in my opinion it has nothing to do with sincere Christianity, after all Jesus hated that as well.

I was brought up as a scientist, doctor, and I am sincere believer, but I would never limit myself by the do’s and don’ts, just because some church says that. I have personal relationship with God, and that is just between me and Him. I do not mind exposing my children to any kind of experience or information in my discretion for their age :slight_smile: , just because some religious denomination tells me it is good or bad. After all if children are brough in an environment with knowledge and experiences available to them, along with good research and encouraging them to make their choices and decisions, they will learn to grow emotionally, spiritually and intellectually, forming their decisions and beliefs, rather then carbon copying them. When their decisions, viewpoints and believes are formed, rather then just imposed with no process of forming ones. Then they are able to be objective, tolerant, persuadive, self-confident individuals with desire for learning and discovering more. If their viewpoints and beliefs are simply “imposed” ( and those can be any beliefs!), then they can not be securely standing up for them, they do not know why they believe or do not believe certain way, they are not able to be selfconfident, tolerant and they are not taught to be open for more knowledge and learning…

Just my personal opinion. Hope it was clear, as English is not my first language :biggrin:

getting brave and jumping in here…I want to comment specifically on the above post’s last sentence in regards to education.

I don’t know how people expect students to study history without studying religion. It’s a HUGE part of history. You would have to majorly water down history books (more like flat-out lie) if you take religion out. This has already happened and it’s just crazy. One of the biggest parts of studying history is understanding WHY people made the decisions they made. It’s stepping into their shoes and analyzing their thought process. How can students possibly have an intelligent conversation about history with having a thorough understanding of religion???

I just read on someone’s blog that their daughter’s history book said that the Pilgrims were giving thanks to the Indians on Thanksgiving!!! WOW!!! Talk about lying to control the minds of our children. Sounds pretty opposite from some of the above posts… (For anyone who has views about America’s goverment similar to the above post - I recommend getting an accurate history book about how America was started and also learning what was intended by the statement “separation of church and state” back in 1802. Contrary to what’s taught today - it was meant to keep the state out of the church’s business, not to keep the church out of the state’s business.)

Is anyone else concerned about the accuracy of our school’s history books??!

I don’t believe in God as is usually espoused in various organised religions which, obviously, I don’t believe in either (organised religion, that is). And I’m not going to teach my child creationism at any point, which I believe is complete fantasy. She’ll no doubt get it from school and her peers, so she’ll be introduced to creationism that way.

I’ll teach her evolution and other scientifically supported theories which can be tested. If she chooses to believe in creationism at any piont I really won’t mind. But it won’t come from me. And I was brought up though Christian schooling right up until the end of high school and I made a choice not to believe, so I don’t think that’s really important. What I’d like my daughter to be is a critical thinker, and if I can help her to get there, I’ll feel I’ve done something right as a parent.

Getting back to the education of kids–has anybody actually posted presentations here about either evolution (and paleontology, say, with names and pictures of Lucy, Neanderthal, Homo Erectus, etc.) or the Genesis story? I would like to use both.

I would like that also but I don’t think it exist. Nice of you to volunteer. Just kidding.

For those who are interested, here’s 100 Renowned Academics Speaking about God.

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s47ArcQL-XQ&feature=youtu.be

Speakers in order of appearance:

  1. Lawrence Krauss, World-Renowned Physicist
  2. Robert Coleman Richardson, Nobel Laureate in Physics
  3. Richard Feynman, World-Renowned Physicist, Nobel Laureate in Physics
  4. Simon Blackburn, Cambridge Professor of Philosophy
  5. Colin Blakemore, World-Renowned Oxford Professor of Neuroscience
  6. Steven Pinker, World-Renowned Harvard Professor of Psychology
  7. Alan Guth, World-Renowned MIT Professor of Physics
  8. Noam Chomsky, World-Renowned MIT Professor of Linguistics
  9. Nicolaas Bloembergen, Nobel Laureate in Physics
  10. Peter Atkins, World-Renowned Oxford Professor of Chemistry
  11. Oliver Sacks, World-Renowned Neurologist, Columbia University
  12. Lord Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal
  13. Sir John Gurdon, Pioneering Developmental Biologist, Cambridge
  14. Sir Bertrand Russell, World-Renowned Philosopher, Nobel Laureate
  15. Stephen Hawking, World-Renowned Cambridge Theoretical Physicist
  16. Riccardo Giacconi, Nobel Laureate in Physics
  17. Ned Block, NYU Professor of Philosophy
  18. Gerard 't Hooft, Nobel Laureate in Physics
  19. Marcus du Sautoy, Oxford Professor of Mathematics
  20. James Watson, Co-discoverer of DNA, Nobel Laureate
  21. Colin McGinn, Professor of Philosophy, Miami University
  22. Sir Patrick Bateson, Cambridge Professor of Ethology
  23. Sir David Attenborough, World-Renowned Broadcaster and Naturalist
  24. Martinus Veltman, Nobel Laureate in Physics
  25. Pascal Boyer, Professor of Anthropology
  26. Partha Dasgupta, Cambridge Professor of Economics
  27. AC Grayling, Birkbeck Professor of Philosophy
  28. Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in Physics
  29. John Searle, Berkeley Professor of Philosophy
  30. Brian Cox, Particle Physicist (Large Hadron Collider, CERN)
  31. Herbert Kroemer, Nobel Laureate in Physics
  32. Rebecca Goldstein, Professor of Philosophy
  33. Michael Tooley, Professor of Philosophy, Colorado
  34. Sir Harold Kroto, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
  35. Leonard Susskind, Stanford Professor of Theoretical Physics
  36. Quentin Skinner, Professor of History (Cambridge)
  37. Theodor W. Hänsch, Nobel Laureate in Physics
  38. Mark Balaguer, CSU Professor of Philosophy
  39. Richard Ernst, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
  40. Alan Macfarlane, Cambridge Professor of Anthropology
  41. Professor Neil deGrasse Tyson, Princeton Research Scientist
  42. Douglas Osheroff, Nobel Laureate in Physics
  43. Hubert Dreyfus, Berkeley Professor of Philosophy
  44. Lord Colin Renfrew, World-Renowned Archaeologist, Cambridge
  45. Carl Sagan, World-Renowned Astronomer
  46. Peter Singer, World-Renowned Bioethicist, Princeton
  47. Rudolph Marcus, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
  48. Robert Foley, Cambridge Professor of Human Evolution
  49. Daniel Dennett, Tufts Professor of Philosophy
  50. Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in Physics

Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Gt4WSK_NlQ&feature=youtu.be

Speakers in order of appearance:

  1. Frank Wilczek, Nobel Laureate in Physics, MIT
  2. VS Ramachandran, World-Renowned Neuroscientist, UC San Diego
  3. Bruce C. Murray, Caltech Professor Emeritus of Planetary Science
  4. Sir Raymond Firth, World-Renowned Anthropologist, LSE
  5. Alva Noë, Berkeley Professor of Philosophy
  6. Alan Dundes, World Expert in Folklore, Berkeley
  7. Massimo Pigliucci, Professor of Philosophy, CUNY
  8. Bede Rundle, Oxford Professor of Philosophy
  9. Sir Richard Friend, Cambridge Professor of Physics
  10. George Lakoff, Berkeley Professor of Linguistics
  11. Sir John Sulston, Nobel Laureate in Physiology/Medicine
  12. Shelley Kagan, Yale Professor of Philosophy
  13. Roy J. Glauber, Nobel Laureate in Physics
  14. Lewis Wolpert, Emeritus Professor of Biology, UCL
  15. Mahzarin Banaji, Harvard Professor of Social Ethics
  16. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Professor of Practical Ethics, Duke University
  17. Richard Dawkins, Oxford Evolutionary Biologist
  18. Bruce Hood, Professor of Experimental Psychology, Bristol
  19. Marvin Minsky, Artificial Intelligence Research Pioneer, MIT
  20. Herman Philipse, Professor of Philosophy, Utrecht University
  21. Michio Kaku, CUNY Professor of Theoretical Physics
  22. Dame Caroline Humphrey, Cambridge Professor of Anthropology
  23. Max Tegmark, World-Renowned Cosmologist, MIT
  24. David Parkin, Oxford Professor of Anthropology
  25. Robert Price, Professor of Theology and Biblical Criticism
  26. Jonathan Haidt, Professor of Psychology, Virginia
  27. Max Perutz, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
  28. Rodolfo Llinas, Professor of Neuroscience, New York
  29. Dan McKenzie, World-Renowned Geophysicist, Cambridge
  30. Patricia Churchland, Professor of Philosophy, UC San Diego
  31. Sean Carroll, Caltech Theoretical Cosmologist
  32. Alexander Vilenkin, World-Renowned Theoretical Physicist
  33. PZ Myers, Professor of Biology, Minnesota
  34. Haroon Ahmed, Prominent Cambridge Scientist (Microelectronics)
  35. David Sloan Wilson, Professor of Biology and Anthropology, SUNY
  36. Bart Ehrman, Professor of Religious Studies, UNC
  37. Seth Lloyd, Pioneer of Quantum Computing, MIT
  38. Dan Brown, Fellow in Organic Chemistry, Cambridge
  39. Victor Stenger, Emeritus Professor of Physics and Astronomy, Hawaii
  40. Simon Schaffer, Cambridge Professor of the History of Science
  41. Saul Perlmutter World-Renowned Astrophysicist, Berkeley
  42. Lee Silver, Princeton Professor of Molecular Biology
  43. Barry Supple, Emeritus Professor of Economic History, Cambridge
  44. Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Professor of Law
  45. John Raymond Smythies, Professor Emeritus of Psychiatric Research
  46. Chris Hann, Max Planck Institute For Social Anthropology
  47. David Gross, Nobel Laureate in Physics
  48. Ronald de Sousa, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, Toronto
  49. Robert Hinde, Emeritus Professor of Zoology, Cambridge
  50. Carolyn Porco, NASA Planetary Scientist

Wow, this is an old thread! I enjoyed reading it. I am a Christian, so naturally I am teaching my children about creation.

Here’s some food for thought. Whether we speak of creationism or evolution, regardless of our beliefs, there is another debate among scientists, atheists and religious alike, and that is gradualism vs catastrophism. I am a catastrophist. I find the idea that the world has been here for millions of years not only contrary to my faith, but also to science.

So, I have some very different beliefs, but I wholeheartedly subscribe to the Electric Universe theory, which has many religious and atheistic scientists working together, doing real experiments, and I find their work to be fascinating. They teach catastrophism. Take what you want and leave the rest. Here are a few resources that may be of interest:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu_AL1qDOcU

http://www.youtube.com/user/ThunderboltsProject?feature=watch

Here is a Mormon’s take on EU. I’m a Mormon (LDS), my husband and I took his classes, and we found them to be very interesting and edifying, although we don’t agree with him 100%. EU is a recent study for us, but we believe it, and it has dramatically changed our approach to teaching our children science, particularly cosmology. I also add, and emphasize, that the following website does NOT represent mainstream LDS faith, no, not at all. But it also does not counter it, and for me personally, this discovery felt like the missing link between faith and science.

http://www.mormonprophecy.com/

Okay, now you all know how weird I really am. lol

Edited to fix youtube links.

Nah, we think you’re pretty wonderful. :happy: At least I do anyway. :biggrin: You clearly have this wholesome, peacefulness that radiates through a keyboard. I may not be LDS, but I can definitely appreciate the beautiful tapestry of diversity that makes up this board and the world as we know it. Thank you for contributing to that my LDS friend!