Sunday, November 08, 2009 Last Update:11:25 am ET

Education|Fri, Jun. 06 2008 10:07 AM EDT

Battle Over Teaching 'Weaknesses' of Evolution Moves to Texas

By Lawrence Jones|Christian Post Reporter

Darwinists in Texas are seeking to remove a science standard that requires schools to teach both the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution.

Under current standards for the state's science curriculum, students are expected to "analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information."

But when the Texas Board of Education look to update state science standards this summer, some committee members will ask the board to remove the "strengths and weaknesses" phrase, according to The New York Times.

Among those requesting the board to drop the phrase is Kevin Fisher, a committee member who told the NY Times that questions left unanswered by evolution shouldn't be regarded as its weaknesses.

Other critics include Texas Freedom Network, a group that has opposed state proposals for Bible classes and Bible textbooks in the past.

Several board members appear to favor the current standard, saying it maintains a balanced debate on evolution.

"Evolution is not fact. Evolution is a theory and, as such, cannot be proven," Board Vice Chairman David Bradley told The Houston Chronicle. "Students need to be able to jump to their own conclusions."

Bradley also dismissed concerns by critics over the board's intention to sneak religion into the classroom.

"The only thing that this board is going to do is ask for accuracy."

Barbara Cargill, the vice chair of the board's Committee on Instruction, said giving students the freedom to discuss both sides of evolution will ensure them a "well-rounded education."

"It prompts them to be critical thinkers, and it also helps them to respect the opinions of other students even if they disagree," she told The Houston Chronicle.

Meanwhile, Discovery Institute, an intelligent design think tank, has rejected allegations that the group is using the "strength and weaknesses" rhetoric as a new strategy in pushing intelligent design in schools following the 2005 Dover case – when intelligent design was barred from being taught in Pennsylvania's Middle District public school science classrooms.

On the organization's blog site, staff member Robert Crowther points out that the "strengths and weaknesses" language was adopted by the Texas Board of Education over a decade ago, long before the Dover case, and that debate over it has been going on across the nation since then. In 2003, the Texas Board of Education was asked to enforce its previously adopted "strengths and weaknesses" language in biology textbooks but has yet to fully comply, according to Crowther.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3
  • Sun Jun 22, 2008 8:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ... . . . ... I've got 6 kids....

    This seems to be an echo of the La. Senate Approves Bill...page. :-) John Marcus Doe--ibid my posts there.

    "At least now I have the modern miracle of AIR CONDITIONING! The man who come up with that just didn't get enough credit." Just FYI, it was someone in the printing industry who needed to fix the humidity in the room because the paper was turning into a ruffles potato chip want-a-be. The cooling effect was just a by-product of the effect. How do I know this? I spend quite a few years in the printing industry (my first work computer was a Mac IIsi with 8megs of ram and an 80mg HD...we were HOT to TROT...).

    I was a single parent for about 5 years with the first 4 (I got custody of them for some very good reasons). I experienced some quite remarkable things during that time which even the die hard non-Christians had to admit must have been 'my God watching out for me'. I don't understand all the science, math or logic in this world (after all, the only people who think they do are nuts) but I do understand God loves His children and takes care of them. It is something I cannot rationally turn my back on simply because there is no other explaination.

  • Sat Jun 21, 2008 1:53 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    "Evolution is not fact. Evolution is a theory and, as such, cannot be proven," That is the worst BS I have ever heard. In science, and not in day to day language, a theory is a hypothesis that has wide range of acceptance as a result of the breadth of evidence and prroof. For example, The Electromagnetic throry and Maxell's Equation... However immense the evidence for a hypothesis might be, science forbids it from being a dogma, and thus it will still be considered a theory. So advice to the Vice-Chairman, careful on the word choice.

  • Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:35 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Hi runningdoc
    While Newton and others believed in a creator does not mean they believed in what is today called ID. I believe they would have rejected this particular expression of a belief in a creator as not supported by the evidence and contrary to rationality. Believing in a creator is not the same thing as accepting pseudo science as valid.

  • Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:33 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    runningdoc,
    I believe your post Fri Jun 13, 2008 7:49 am gets to the heart of this matter. It demonstrates that your belief in a designer is a matter of faith and your view of the designs perfection is a matter of your personal opinion. This must be accepted in the way it is stated since you claim it only for yourself. By your own analogy of Tolkien (when he was refuting some literary critics of how far off base they were on his writings) shows that submission of such belief to objective or scientific analysis is fruitless.
    What this shows is that while I have no basis for opposing your belief in these things as matters of faith (in fact I do not) the I.D. and creationist people have no buisness and no right to ask that faith based beliefs be accepted as science (which they do).
    I in fact do happen to believe in a designer of the universe and all of its natural workings, processes and dynamics, including gravity and evolution. I simply see no conflict between science and that belief. I personally do not believe that every organism is perfect if the standard is that it does its function perfectly and has every possible design advantage to the environment and its function. However I see this issue of perfection or complexity (which the ID people make much of) as being irrelevant. I believe as C.S. Lewis described in his writings that the miracle of rationality and God reaching into his creation through us everyday is a far greater miracle than any legendary stopping of the sun in the sky, or world wide flood, etc.

  • Fri Jun 13, 2008 5:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Sorry that should be "their" not "there"..

  • Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:33 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Runningdoc (checking I got that bit right!!)

    I think his belief in a creator (which was most likely of the deistic sort) and his understanding of gravity (and of which on some points he was wrong but thats quite understandable) are totally seperate, it would be quite possible for Newton to be a agnostic/atheist/ druid etc... and stilI come to the same conclusions.

    I'm certain that some intelligent people believe in intelligent design but all that tells me is that some intelligent people believe in intelligent design, it tells me nothing about the correctness of there conclusions, I might as well state (though I would not as I see how weak an arguament it is) that evolution must be correct because some intellignt people believe in it.

    Stay cool

    Steve

  • Fri Jun 13, 2008 8:52 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    SteveH2O
    The point about gravity and Newton was not about his orthodoxy or his lack thereof. I think he also like alchemy. The point was that he believed in a creator and understood gravity and described it without the aid of computers and lots of other toys.
    Some very intelligent people have and do believe in intelligent design. That is the point.
    Grace and Peace, runningdoC

  • Fri Jun 13, 2008 8:49 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Agent, IT huh that is interesting.
    One last comment on interpretation. From JRR Tolkein, Interpretation of allegory belongs to the author. What a person meant by what they said or did belongs to them not to us. Unless you are clairvoyant, you cannot decide why I answer posts. I could just be a plant with CP trying to run up their hit numbers for ads. You wont know unless I tell you.
    You can only speculate on what God's motive, kindness, goodness are unless you ask HIm and He tells you. You cannot deny the existence of a designer by criticising the design based on your interpretation of His motive.
    I think everything about the human body is an elegant design. No one on this planet could have done better.
    Grace and Peace, runningdoC

  • Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    The software our company uses just went from a unix based platform to .NET framework. It's funny you should ask about open source,as I am downloading the latest Fedora distro as we speak. I do not work with it on my job, but I do enjoy dabbling with it on the side. Thankfully, our authority only covers the northeast corner of the state at this time. I am also having to learn how to do web development. We just got our website online last week. It's pretty basic, but it's a start. So I'm pretty much like a swiss army knife to my job, I have to know some of everything. I'm not complaining though, prior to this I was building steam turbines at power plants.At least now I have the modern miracle of AIR CONDITIONING! The man who come up with that just didn't get enough credit.Yeah, the kids can be tough, but they're worth it at the end of the day.I have enjoyed our conversation tonight,but I think my bed is calling my name,it's been a long day. Take care, and maybe I'll catch you on here this weekend. Until then I'll be keeping you in my prayers(that's just what I do)and will hopefully catch you back on here later this weekend. Good night my friend.

  • Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    " 5 kids, so it's a miracle I have any remaining sanity. "

    No kidding man, no kidding. you know what day it is better yet what month? =)

    In your work, do you deal with open source, like unix or linix variants, or is it a strictly windows operation? the envioronement I work in is massive too, it's global really, office locations all over. But the systems I cover are only windows based, I dable in some Linux like Ubuntu or Red Hat, but generally the support for apps on their OS isn't what production integrity generally calls for. Don't get me wrong, I do study some in IT, but where I am at, I work with many of the latest tools, so for the most part I just review emerging technolgies instead of an educational overall like taking classes.

    The IT market is still pretty good despite a slumping economy, I think I recall reading as many IT jobs are available now as during the height of the Dot.com era. Generally this part of the the workforce is cut as businesses look to reduce costs, but the demand is still high. You of all people should know how lacking the USA is in terms of training adequeate and enough people for our types of jobs, this is why HB-1 visas continually come up before congress as companies simply can't find enough people here. If we want to keep the good jobs here in the USA for us, our kids and generations to come it's important to back measures that ensure we are practicing the latest trends in science. And, equally as important, that our populace become more and more technologically and scientifically literate. It's either become literate in these new forms of knowledge or forsake a better quality of life and let other countries take your dominance in such areas. If you want a decent biology book, which is mindfull of christian theology, I would recomend Ken MIller's 'Finding Darwin's God'. It's not overly technical, but enough. His new book 'Only a Theory' just came out too, I'll have to see how good this one is.

  • Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agentorangex,
    Didn't mean to get your handle wrong below.

  • Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    regioagentorangex,
    Wow, I had you figured for a biology professor at some major university. Amazing what we can learn about each other if we just take the time. I to grew up being fascinated with science. I was always more into astronomy than anything else. Many nights were spent gazing through my telescope into the heavens. I will never forget the thrill of seeing the rings of Saturn with my own eyes. I miss those days, and I think I may buy another telescope and start stargazing again.
    Many years later, I started playing with computers as a hobby. It just progressed from there,I guess. Turns out I was a natural with them. Today, I am the IT manager for a state agency in South Carolina. We have a WAN that spreads over 4 counties, and I am the only IT person in our region.
    I became a Christian 2 years ago, and I pray one day that I will be called into the ministry.I will not preach at you because you get plenty of that here already,lol. I spend most of my time studying the Bible and end times prophecy.(very interesting) My wife and I have 5 kids, so it's a miracle I have any remaining sanity. Top it all off, I'm a full time college student as well. So, do you see why I don't engage in prolonged arguments?I just don't have the energy. I do enjoy our conversations very much though.

  • Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:29 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    kboswell,

    Fair enough., no grudge. I work in IT as well (about 10 years), so I am not a biologist and wouldn't want to lead you on as if I was. No person is really any 'one thing', so even if I were a biologist, it wouldn't be the only domain in which I had something to add. I do however study and read the science journals from many fields in science as its what I enjoy: biology, paleontology, cosmology, astronomy and Science in general is my passion. I don't work in the field of biology or paleontology, but I have some friends who do, some I met through the MN University which I graduated from and others from science fairs and such. On any note, I agree with you, the acceptance of science and god shouldn't be and aren't IMO mutually exclusive domains. I accept evolution as the best theory at present time (it could be partially wrong like Newton’s view of gravity), generally I follow biologists like Ken Miller or Kevin Padian as they are two of the most well respected members in molecular biology and paleontology. Dawkins, PZ Myers and other famed 'godless scientists' have their moments, but at times it's hard to get reasonable people to read or listen to them as sometimes their impression of them and their lacking faith erodes any chance of compression.

    I grew up studying dinosaurs/paleontology, but after finding how the jobs sector wasn't very, shall we say, financially lucrative, I opted for other work I was also interested in - computers. I grew up the Silicon Valley, till only some years ago, so being involved with computers and technology was fate I suppose. I work with a very large private corporation based in MN but they are global as are the operations we support, and earlier I worked with IBM doing very much the same thing. What about you?
    (flagged self)

  • Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agentorangex,
    I'm not buying that book, I just wanted your opinion. I am a computer geek (network administrator) Don't have time to rack my brain on evolution. As far as the platypus, I was only commenting on how awkward it is, not trying to use it to argue any point. To me, it seems to be a cross between a duck and a beaver. These guys have you on the defensive. I don't have an alterior motive, just some conversation? I know what you believe, and I know what I believe. Does that mean we have to be at each others throat? I would hope not, as I respect your wisdom in the scientific field,and enjoy reading many of your posts.

  • Thu Jun 12, 2008 7:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    “http://www.humandevolution.com/”

    Lacking any details on what exactly ‘de-evolution’ entails, and how its backed up. I think just on face value and the lacking science publications this guys looking to make a buck, but go for it have at it and read it, I'll see if I can find a copy on the Internet. Sure the platypus is weird, so what? I mean, take a look at any of the earlier animals that lived and are no longer around. The mammal like reptiles and reptile like mammals were weird as were early tetrapods like Tiktaalik or some weird dino/birds like Arhceopteryx, microraptor and others. As are the marine reptiles and flying reptiles, weird! Many very interesting species and types of life have come and gone on this planet, what are getting at? That evolutionary can’t account for a species like the Platypus? A recent genetic analysis on the platypus demonstrated their closest living ancestors and genetically how old they are, you can find it in the archive articles at pandasthumb.org and I’ll let you do the rest for yourself, I don’t want to spoil the excitement. Here's a hint though, they aren't marsupials and aren't placental mammals and lay leathery eggs (as opposed to hard shelled reptialn/bird eggs) and lack lactating nipples and instead lactate from modified pours and glands which are roudimentary nipples.

  • Thu Jun 12, 2008 6:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agentorangex,
    Here is a link to a book about it. I see where it is a challenge to Darwinism. Anyways, have a peek if you like.
    http://www.humandevolution.com/
    My personal feeling is science and God should have no problem coexisting in peoples mind. Just because we figure out how something works, we still didn't invent it,or put it into play, that was done long ago. Just my 2 cents worth, and I was serious about the duck billed platypus last night.

  • Thu Jun 12, 2008 5:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    “What is the theory of devolution?”

    Doesn’t exist, it’s not even a scientific hypothesis, it’s not even a supported or tested idea. I don’t know where you got it from, but I am interested in reviewing it, but I am not too surprised to here it’s from an ID source. Perhaps they are just playing on word semantics. Organisms don’t de-evolve, they just simply evolve, or biologically change. To suggest they de-evolve would suggest they are, by evolution are degrading or disintegrating.

    Evolution, as it pertains to biology generally means biological progression/advancement, and so to be devolving would be the inverse I suppose. Something like how the earlier primitive birds all had teeth, but now none do. The relic genes for teeth in birds however can be activated, so they are still hidden in their genomes. I guess another would be how all early primitive birds had wings and could fly, where now large groups of ‘thunder bids’ have lost, or evolved away the wings in which they have shrunk from atrophy.

  • Thu Jun 12, 2008 5:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Doc,

    “There has to be a designer, if the design is done poorly’

    No, not necessarily, after all most theists don’t invoke the proof positive existence of god by examples of poor or shoddy design. No, the always point and marvel at thing like human eye. For if poor design were enough to convince one of a god/designer than we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Think of what you’re saying here and how horridly unscientific and non logical it is. ‘If X exemplifies good design, than a designer made it’ and ‘ If X exemplifies POOR design, than again (somehow?) this shows a designer made it!’ Now, this could be said of such things made by men, as we are continually working and improving things. But how could this argument apply to a god which supposedly poofs things into instantly being? No, it makes no sense at all. You can’t on one hand marvel at the eye and trumpet ‘look god’ and then when something horridly designed is pointed out again trumpet ‘look god again!’. This is called having your cake and eating it too, you’re not basing a logical argument, you’re just saying any and all things, good or poor in their design are somehow evidence of a omnipotent (and all those other personal descriptions) type of god.

    “you cannot decide whether a design is good or not unless you know the motive and goal of the designer.”

    Sure we can. Ford made at the time auto’s, but in light of such obvious safety measures, his and other earlier proto autos were death machines. His motive was to make a profit and safety as in most things is only an after thought, until that is enough people become maimed and die as a result of unsafe products. One could argue such a shoddy design is proof no god made model T’s and other such death traps like the Ford Gremlin and it’s exploding gas tanks. No, from a god we would/should expect such omnipotent wisdom to avoid such obvious design flaws like lacking brakes or seat belts. And yet this are similar design flaws we find in all things. A god’s motive then? Negligence? Laziness?

    So what is the ‘motive’ of the designer in the entire human reproductive process? What, he likes waste for kicks? And the Pandas Thumbs? Was he again just having some kicks on this particular mammal then? Oh, I know, you’ll tell me ‘panda’s thumbs were perfect before the fall’ or some rhetoric, but really is that your only rationalization? ‘man’s fault’, o well, sorry ol panda’s, suck it up!

  • Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Dear Runningdoc

    First of all please accept my apolgies for the mistake concerning your name and any confusion the occured, one should always look before submiting....

    The other three fundamental forces are, the strong, weak, and electromagnetism, together with gravity at very high temperatures/ energy levels, they unite to become one force (this is superunification). Electromagnetism and the weak force have already been unified in the electroweak theory for which Steve Weingberg won the nobel prize. The next step is the Grand Unified Theory which add the strong force to them.

    They are still talking about gravitons as the boson for that force.

    Newton certainly help us to understand gravity much better than it had been before, though like all men on any subject (including me!!) he was wrong about some things concerning it. I don't think though that he being a Christian has any relevance to his discoveries though as he could just have well been a muslim and come to the same conclusions. Its quite interesting to note that Newton was a denier of the Trinity, it would be fair to say he was by orthodox Christian beliefs a heretic. Food for thought?

    Regards

    Steve

  • Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agentorangex,
    What is the theory of devolution? (or de-evolution)I have seen it mentioned in several ID studies I have read. I will not even try to claim that I understand it, but how does it fit in with evolution theory? If you have the time, could you tell me in simple terms what devolution is based on and how this and evolution theory are compatable or incompatable? Thanks.

  • Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:58 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    So Agent, Then this means you have conceded the possiblity that a designer exists? There has to be a designer, if the design is done poorly. I am glad to know that you agree that a designer could exist at least long enough to criticize His design.
    Again, you cannot decide whether a design is good or not unless you know the motive and goal of the designer.
    Henry Ford designed cars. The model T was not a bad design unless you chose to drive it drunk or off a cliff. Part of your complaints about the design are bound up in the way we use the end product.
    If you want to know more about the motive and end goal of the designer, read the Gospel of John. It is short, 21 chapters I think. It is mostly stories about the Son of God and very God Himself Jesus the Christ. If you are really intent on knowing his motives and goals, pray and ask Him to open your heart before you read it.
    Grace and Peace, runningdoC

  • Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:36 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    “when we started, we were not talking about omnibenevolance. We were talking about design.”

    This is true, however part of identifying the design, is as you put it, know how well it servers its purpose and what the pros and cons of its design are and so they in the abstract define smart of stupid design. Earlier you referenced the bible to explain away why the birth process is painful and deadly. But this was only a small part of my entire question. I wasn’t solely discussing the birthing process but rather the entire reproduction process as a whole and how utterly poor designed it is.

    “whether the designer is being benevolent or malevolent becomes a matter of theology and must be examined in the Bible’

    I disagree, we don’t only have to turn to the bible to understand what a given design of a system is and if it appears malevolent or not, or optimally designed or not. We can objectively compare the system (X) and relate it to others similar and depending upon this we can formulate its ‘malevolent rating’ or how overall poor the design is. We could also review its design and based on simple adjustments we could also come to find that a particular system isn’t really greatly designed at all, it’s decent, but not optimal.

    The first cars lacked seatbelts, brakes and airbags and other safety measures, so in the view we can easily say the early makers of autos were malevolent, if not at the very least negligent. The remediation and improvement process we humans use (R&D) is not supposedly like that of an omnipotent god though. A god would have, supposedly, made system X nearly optimally designed from the get go, as if he hasn’t why call him god in the first place right? At least, this is the perception of ‘instant and perfect creation’ we are told as per the Abrahamic religions. Now the question becomes, does god use a natural refinement process for his own creation, so that things can dynamically adapt and become improved over their predecessors? The answer seems like yes as one reviews how the universe has unfurled itself and how the biological process of evolution continually pushes species to refine themselves. This refinement however never achieves anything of optimal status; such refinements are always just ‘good enough’ to suffice for reproduction.

  • Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:57 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Agent, when we started, we were not talking about omnibenevolance. We were talking about design. Again, whether the designer is being benevolent or malevolent becomes a matter of theology and must be examined in the Bible. How you or I feel about the perfection of the design for reproduction does not decide God's motives, abilities, kindness or goodness.
    In order to arrive at those ideas, one must examine God as He has chosen to reveal himself to us. You can look at creation and get a general sense of it. Or you can look at His word, the Bible and get a specific sense of it.
    The most profoundly simple expression of it is in John 3:16. God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
    There are very specific explanations that we can find in scripture that explain why we struggle with physical problems that center around the fall of man. See Genesis 3 and Romans 5:12.
    Again, you cannot make this kind of judgment based solely on the design. You must know motive, and the long term goal of the designer.
    Neither of these things must be known to believe that there was a desiginer for our universe.
    runningdoC

  • Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:40 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Steveh20, Runningdog? Must have been a Freudian slip I suppose.:-) LOL, I didnt notice that until this morning. I read your comments on gravity but I did not see how I could respond to them. I think I said something about the fact that no one knows exactly what gravity is or exactly how it works. I think I also said that it could be studied by either those who held to a design/creation viewpoint or an evolutionary one and that either one could describe it as well. I think I also noted that Newton is understood to have been a Christian and still understood gravity better than anyone of his time and most in ours.
    I just went back and read your post and noticed that you addressed it to RD, I did not catch that RD was me. a little slow I suppose.
    So, In that first trillionth, I assume you are talking about a big bang for the beginning of the universe, and from that comes 4 forces, gravity being one. What are other three, it has been 35 years since I took physics and I suspect I missed somethings starting with string theory whatever that is. What also is superunification? I am interested in this.
    Are they still talking about gravitons?

    Grace and Peace, runningdoC.

  • Wed Jun 11, 2008 7:00 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    hello Runnningdog

    You where very happy to make comments about gravity earlier, I replied, writing about the present thoughts concerning this most interesting of subjects. You have bene very quite since think then concrning this matter, I wondered what your thoughts might be on this subject?

    I think it is important that all sides are debated so that studenst can come to a conclusion!!

    Kind regards

    Steve

  • Wed Jun 11, 2008 6:52 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    “The question does not include the designers motive, ability, goals, perfection, or kindness”

    Respectfully, I must disagree. You see, we are told the very personal nature of the Abrahamic god (loving, compassionate, all that jazz) and the nature of other gods for that matter. We are told they are omnipotent for instance and that they are benevolent, which in turn makes them omnibenevolent. So in this sense the expectation should be, under the presumption that he’s out and about designing things, that all ‘designed things’ should therefore exemplify such a trait as being omnibenevolent. They shouldn’t have the hallmarks of porous design, but this is what we can find, like the Pandas Thumb. What, does god have something against Pandas too then, is that what you're going to say? Where for instance is the omnibenevolence in something like a Black Hole?

    “With regard to childbirth, go read the first three chapters of Genesis.”

    You’re missing my point all together. On one hand you’re saying ‘the human reproductive process is quite swell!’ and then after all the flaws are laid bare, you retort with a ‘well, god made it that way, b/c we disobeyed him’. (Again reverting back to the old archaic ‘god made it that way’ argument). Well, which is it? Do you give it credit as being express design and noble, or don’t you? You can’t have your cake and eat it too, either it is or it isn’t.

    “You see nothing in it about God I suppose, I see another part of His creation.”

    Fine, where’s the omnibenevolence in black holes then? Sure they are complex, but the work of omnibenevolence ?

  • Wed Jun 11, 2008 5:25 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

    Hello Agent,
    "So you have to ask yourself, why would the designer go to such lengths to create such a hostile process? This is of course under the assumption that this process/X is derived from express design to begin with."
    I think we have turned a corner here. The original question is just whether or not reproduction or the eye were designed. The question does not include the designers motive, ability, goals, perfection, or kindness.
    You will have to move to theology to get at those questions. I would submit to you that the only place you can find those answers on motive, ability, goals, perfection and kindness will be in the Bible. Yes, I believe that it is inspired (a subject also not connected to design), inerrant and authoritative in all matters of faith and practice.
    Created things including humans are a form of general revelation. God speaks to us through creation in a general sense.
    If you want specific answers then it requires "special revelation"(this is a commonly used theological term not a late night religious tv joke) which is what the Bible is.
    God answers those questions about motive, goals, ability, perfection kindness that you raise about design in the Bible.
    With regard to childbirth, go read the first three chapters of Genesis. It wont take more than 15 minutes.

    Examining black holes and understanding them does not require a religious test. You can be a worshipful atheist or a devoted Christian and still do the math. The disagreements begin when one decides to take a position on God and then apply it to the black hole. You see nothing in it about God I suppose, I see another part of His creation. That does not change the function of the black hole or the liklihood that either of us will understand and explain it.
    runningdoc

  • Wed Jun 11, 2008 5:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    ”Isnt the problem more that you do not want there to be a designer, therefore you interpret design from that critical viewpoint?”

    As I stated before, I have no personal or theological problems with finding that an alien or supernatural agent designed X system, the issue for me comes down again to qualifying it and trying to ensure statements are coherent and in the end produce actual verifiable knowledge which we can then use for our own survival.

    By coherent, I mean one is assuming they are designed already and the next thing to determine is ‘does system X embody the work of a supposed omnibenevolent designer’, that is among many of the personal descriptions of the Abrahamic god. We are told it is many things, so when one views system X, one shouldn’t only look at it for how it its complexity = design, but also how its process or nature fits the qualities of said god who would be getting the credit in the end. These quantitative measurements are how we also know and understand a god and his works. So now, when we look at X, lets ask ourselves how well it embodies the personal traits we denote to particular gods and go from there.

    A person can look at X (rainbows for instances) at then, do to ones own lacking understanding on what causes X to easily surmise’ god(s) done it’ or ‘leprechauns cause it’, it’s the oldest trick in the book. This declaration though answers very little, it doesn’t explain any details or processes involved, which is what we should also be concerned with.

  • Wed Jun 11, 2008 5:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    The Biblical account of the pain of childbith is explained in Genesis. One question I've always had though, where did the duck-billed platypus come from and better yet...why? This is a truly odd/unique creature, would you agree?

  • Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    “Why does a design have to meet your definition of perfection in order for it to have been designed? Isnt the clay in the hands of the potter? “

    It doesn’t, my own subjective opinion on what is and isn’t ‘poor design’, isn’t what matters as much as say an collective and objective opinions/views based on facts. If you for instance find wise, omibenevolence in things such as Black Holes, then by all means rationalize it. It doesn’t matter if in my subjective opinion in how the order of how wisdom teeth come in is ‘good design’, in the end the facts of how such a process works determines what is and what isn’t deemed good or poor design. In the end, the theists are the ones setting the argument say X = design from god, so we need to better understand what such designs embody to understand the nature of the designer, should one exist.

    “The design of the human reproductory system does many things very well including repopulating the planet inspite of disease, war, and abortion. “

    Indeed it does, however that’s not the argument. The argument is that ‘X system’ is expressed evidence of god/designer by virtue of how ‘perfectly’ some subjectively find X to be, namely ‘the eye’. However, when we look at the eye, we find it to be far from perfect and still yet we find it to be quite extraordinary. Well, to be sure our reproduction system works well enough, but the entire process, designed or not is grossly wasteful and not an overly safe venture for mother or child. So you have to ask yourself, why would the designer go to such lengths to create such a hostile process? This is of course under the assumption that this process/X is derived from express design to begin with. Does the dangers of such a process, that otherwise aren’t so in other animals reproduction embody noble, wise design? No, not really. Virtually all animals don’t have such a painful and hostile reproduction process, so whence is the ‘great design’ in such a relative comparison in abstract?

    ’It seems like you go just as quickly to criticize the design as you claim that Christians resort to "god did it."

    No, I look at it from a ‘why would a supposed omnibenevolent’ designer create such hostile X systems before giving credit where credit is due?’ No offence, but theists Many systems when viewed in the manner don’t appear to be the work of such a designer, and it forces one to consider how the nature of god could be described as omnibenevolent to begin with.

  • Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:14 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    Hello Agent, Why does a design have to meet your definition of perfection in order for it to have been designed? Isnt the clay in the hands of the potter?
    The design of the human reproductory system does many things very well including repopulating the planet inspite of disease, war, and abortion.
    Isnt the problem more that you do not want there to be a designer, therefore you interpret design from that critical viewpoint?
    It seems like you go just as quickly to criticize the design as you claim that Christians resort to "god did it."

  • Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ifeelfine72

    No, I did not flag myself. CP has restored my comments.

  • Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    Another such case of not really great overall design is how painful and life threatening the normal process of childbirth is. In the non industrialized world where such procedures are unknown, child birth kills, sometimes just the mother, other times both. Why would a designer make such a welcoming processes so utterly hostile? And lets not forget how in the abstract how utterly wasteful the entire process of reproduction actually is. A full 1/3 of all fertilizations don’t become zygotes, either from chromosome abnormalities, or from how the zygote doesn’t have the cervix lining around to feed it. Most animals, particularly mammals demonstrate signs of fertility as they go into heat and this way the males can easily identify when to reproduce. With the human reproductive system, on the outside appearance wise, it’s not so easy to know the ideal time. I am not saying that all things considered it’s the worst of all possible designs for reproduction, but in the abstract one can’t ignore all the flaws and only marvel at its good points and then surmise ‘ aha designer did it’. If this designer really did do ‘X’, then why is X not so optimally designed? Why doesn’t X exemplify the common perception of god being an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being? These are the hard theological questions that must be at least considered if not reconciled before surmising some omnibenevolent is the personified agent responsible for their existence.

    Take black holes for instance. Their purpose? To utterly destroy and consume matter, essentially utterly hostile to anything especially life. So, what is the grand omnibenevolent design in having such things around if we are to assume some designer built them? On the other hand if we look at them via science we see them as a matter of consequence of what happens when matter is super concentrated and nothing more.

  • Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Doc,

    “Agent, do you think that the appendix is just such a useless organ?”

    No, it’s not absolutely useless, it plays a lesser if not nominal role in digestion, apparently its response to certain types of bacteria aid in such digestion, however without it, the human body can live perfectly fine. In fact, some people have to have them removed from appendicitis.

    I would say a more useless, or design flawed system or one, which lacks genuine foresight and make it hard to argue such a design exhibits actual ‘purpose’ befitting the host and its survival or to ensure its least amount of pain and suffering in mind. Or more aptly ‘poor design’ would be something like how our jaws are rarely ever large enough to adequately house the wisdom teeth. Most types this insufficient space (poor design) results in the wisdom teeth intruding in on or erupting too close to other teeth, consequently crowding them out. To be sure the human teeth do not need to be perfectly aligned for its host to make use of the teeth, however this poor design results in generally poor alignment which results in more teeth which are harder to keep clean and as a result more cavities (ouch more pain!) then would really ideally be needed for the survival of the host.

  • Wed Jun 11, 2008 8:55 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    star - are you flagging yourself? If you're not, whoever is flagging star, please stop.

  • Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:56 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Hello rd

    Having just got up it appears everybody had been very busy overnight.

    Gravity is very very intersting it would be fair to say that of the four forces that "run" the universe it is maybe the least understood, in fact for superunification to occur we will have to come up with a theory of quantum gravity and we are a loooooooooong way from that I would guess.

    Current thinking on gravity is that it was the first force first to break off from the unified forces(in what is known as a phase transition) in the very first trillionths (and I may have made that figure far to large)of a second of the existenece of the universe, this was due to the universe expanding and cooling albeit it was still very very tiny, less than the size of an atom. A good way to think of this is to picture what happens to water if it is supercooled below zero and then being disturbed suddenly freezes, with "cracks" seperating parts of the frozen water, these cracks are the diffrent phase transitions as the four forces seperate,coming into existence as the universe cools and expands.

    Given the chance to live long enough and see man land on Mars or superunification worked out (and I don't think I will ever see both in my life time and I'm not sure about my kids either) I will galdly take the second.

    Kind regards

    Steve

  • Tue Jun 10, 2008 10:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Agent, do you think that the appendix is just such a useless organ? runningdoc.

  • Tue Jun 10, 2008 10:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "It seems like you are attempting to connect believing in God with all things ignorant."

    No, just those who only and so swiftly appeal to the supernatural to explain complex things. For some, if X is complex they attempt to really understand what causes X, others don't opt for such a difficult path and instead usurp it with (no offence) 'god did it'. such a supernatural explanation doesn't really reveal instrinsically valuable knowledge, so it's basically self defeating as it creates a false intellectual dead end. Look, I couldn't really care less if god ism in the abstract, the creator of all things, the notion doesn't personally bother me a bit. What I am concerned with is what actually is and what is verifiable and how science can show what is with respect to how, should god exist, he/she/it made or indirectly caused the universe. I don't want empty rhetoric like 'he spoke'. Such a quip lacks any geniune details on the actual details of it that it makes one second guess its veracity, but that is another matter.

    '"One human organ that is poorly designed and without purpose?"

    Dude, I gave you a Wiki page with dozens, and a vid wth dozens, pick one from and come back. Note, I didn't say 'only the human body' I said all things, as in in the abstract, as after all that is what he being credited for right? It's not logical to simply only look a humans and nothing else. Pick the Panda's Thumbs for all I care, there is non optimal design for ya. So rationalize it for us.

    'does it make gravity work any differently, than if it was designed by a randomly directed bang? "

    Nope not really, if its the same end result, than same is same. Again, I want details, substance, not rhetori of 'thou spoke'. thou spoke leaves a little too much to the imagination as far as details are concerned.

  • Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    star2, they don't have a fixed login like here, so you can dynamically change at will, though this is, for ovbious reasons self defeating. I use either just 'chad' or another, but not agentorange. you know my writing style Star, you'll probably be able to pick it out.

  • Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Agent, It seems like you are attempting to connect believing in God with all things ignorant. Just because one believes in God does not mean you wouldnt study physics and engineering and build aircraft engines. My Christian friends and sonin law at Rolls Royce build them everyday.
    Again, I really just one example from you. One human organ that is poorly designed and without purpose?
    By the way, how do you know that God didnt create gravity? And if HE did (I do think He did), does it make gravity work any differently, than if it was designed by a randomly directed bang? So a person who believes in God could study and describe gravity and arrive at very profound observations? I think that was Newton. He did pretty well for the times.
    runningdoc

  • Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I am too lazy to go listing things, but here are some. Some were mentioned from that earlier youtube vid, but if you lack the bandwidth then I understand. And this is for the most part only the human body, it doesn't cover other species, or cosmology or other such non optimal designs.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design

    I blog on a site 'Panda's Thumb' all the time which is related to evolutionary biology and the Panda's Thumbs are such an example of less than ideal design. you can go there and find past archived articles, not just for sub optimel designed organs.

  • Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    “we still do not know what gravity is or why it works the way it does”

    We don’t know everything (yet) about Gravity, but that’s not to say what we actually do know can’t be used for the betterment of humanity. See the difference there? B/c we understand gravity ‘enough’ we can create 21st centuary planes for transporting goods and people across long distances which otherwise would take much longer. This allows us to transport food to otherwise malnourished nations. Imagine trying to help those after a major Hurricane like the one in Myanmar without the aid of planes? Forget it.

    B/c of our ‘just enough’ understanding of gravity we were able to land men on the Moon and within some decades it will be Mars and hopefully we will be also colonizing Mars. Why else are we here but to learn about our Universe and understand it to our fullest potential to our own benefit? What does decrying by fiat 'god made gravity' actually acomplish for us? It explains nothing, no details on how, why, or what processes he used to create it. So what is the instrinsic value in such a premise? might as well say 'fairies are responsble for gravity and 'lepreachaun are responsible for rainbows'.

  • Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hey agent, Which organ is lamely designed in our human bodies? I dont need a you tube tutorial here, I just want to know which one of our organs you are convinced could have been designed better and why? runningdoc

  • Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Agent, the only problem with your non-lame answer on gravity is that even after all the human brillaince of Einstein, we still do not know what gravity is or why it works the way it does.
    It really is a lot to say when you describe creation as a lame "god did it answer." The most profound words ever spoken and written are in Genesis 1:1. In the beginning, God created.....
    That gives us a platform to look at the universe and understand the optic chiasm and steropsis.
    runningdoc

  • Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    “It really doesnt answer the questionfor you to simply say that anyone who sees God creating does so becaues they are ignorant. It”

    No, I am saying those who so swiftly opt for the super natural explanation (god did it!) to anything we don’t yet fully understand are playing the old ‘god of gaps’ argument. ‘ I don’t know X and nor will anyone in the future, thus god did it’. That is the essential premise of god of the gaps, it assumes no one will ever find a natural explanation, and the past has shown time and time again when people, even the most noble of scientists, have so easily opted for the supernatural explanation, have in the end been shown to be wrong time and time again. When will we use a humanity finally get over our obsession with trying to fill X with a supernatural instead of actually trying to figure X out with a natural explanation? -

    http://research.amnh.org/~tyson/PerimeterOfIgnorance.php

    The argument for the eye for you is that it is an object of perfect design personified by a personal loving creator, god. Well, fine, however the eye or many organs for that matter are hardly optimally designed. Good design? Sure. Absolutely perfect though, the express design of only a creator? Put it all into perspective here, something’s we do find exhibit genuine good design, even seemingly benevolent design, but in the abstract it doesn’t quite seem so.

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_nqySMvkcw

    “How do you know that there is no God?”

    Easy, I don’t.

    “How do you KNOW there is no God who created the water molecule and the light that passes through it?”

    Well it seems through our understanding using science that indeed that no supernatural agents are actively controlling rainbows, water drops or light directly. Injecting the supernatural into the scientific method automatically negates the point of even testing as one could never be quite sure the results were legit.

  • Tue Jun 10, 2008 8:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    " your mind is too limited to understand how God made anything."

    Riiight star, all the while all I ever hear from you is spouting of verses over and over, as if they actually contained details on the how such things work. So Star, you said God created Gravity, well done nice decry by fiat, so, how did he do it? What are the underlying details on how he/she/it accomplished it? You said ‘he spoke’, but spoke what exactly, and how did this result in gravity at all?

    What is the INTRINCIS VALUE to humanities knowledge on such a premise? How does usurping 'god did it' help humanity to understand the mechanics of gravity exactly? See the problem there star? Now consider how Newton, Einstein and others didn't so quickly appeal to the lame answer of 'god did it' and actually wanted to understand the mechanics behind it and how this knowledge and its fruit have been used for humanity in past 100 years or so.

  • Tue Jun 10, 2008 8:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Agent, two problems with your answer
    You can see god whereever you want, if you're generally ignorant on how such things work naturally.
    First, I am not ignorant of how the optic chiasm works or the elegant design that gives us stereopsis.
    It really doesnt answer the questionfor you to simply say that anyone who sees God creating does so becaues they are ignorant. It becomes your obligation to say how you know the optic chiasm was not designed.
    KNOW is the operative word. You used it too.
    How do you know that there is no God? Excuse me, I know you said There is no God pulling the strings. How do you KNOW there is no God who created the water molecule and the light that passes through it? AFter all, Those are famous words in Genesis, LET THER BE LIGHT.

    I say what I know about life because God has revealed HImself to man in the Bible.
    You mind remind of the poem Ronald Reagan used to quote about those who slipped the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God.
    Somehow, I think you must be straining at the bonds of life to touch the face of Darwin.
    If I choose to believe that God created and see that creation in the Circle of Willis, or the human eye, or heart, it does not mean that I am ignorant and that you are a genius because you want to see Darwin.
    The question is who will you believe. Who will you worship, the creature or the creator?
    runningdoc

  • Tue Jun 10, 2008 8:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agentorange, your mind is too limited to understand how God made anything. At best, all you can hope to understand is how the laws of nature work and even that is limited.

  • Tue Jun 10, 2008 8:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "God created them buddy"

    Sorry for you, but that explanation isn't a scientific one as its not falsifiable. Try again. Saying 'god made it that way' or 'made created it as so' explains nothing, it explains none of the details o n HOW such a process works and what are the mechanisms which control it. This is why 'god made it that way' is a totally intellectual dead end as it produces no knew variable knowledge which we as humanity can then use.

    Star, even if the premise 'god created them' (indirectly or not) is absolutely 100% true in the abstract, it still produces zero new knowledge which we as humanity can then use for our own good. You wouldn't honestly think a god would give you a brain only to not use it in this manner and yet you soldier on for such non answers like 'god made it that way'?

  • Tue Jun 10, 2008 8:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Here we go again.....
    Sure, science can tell us what makes a rainbow and how. All the while, it is unable to tell us how the earth,moon,sun,stars, and so on came into existance in the first place for there to be a rainbow for science to explain.No matter how well we understand how nature works and why, it still had to get here somehow. There was a beginning that science can not explain
    And by the way, how are you doing this evening aox? missed ya last week.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links