Updated 11:59 pm.EST, Fri November 20, 2009

Education|Tue, Jan. 20 2009 05:43 PM EST

Evolution Disclaimer Proposed for Miss. Textbooks

By Katherine T. Phan|Christian Post Reporter

A Mississippi lawmaker has introduced a bill that would require textbooks to include a disclaimer describing evolution as a "controversial theory" and advising students to keep an "open mind" to other explanations for the origin of life.

Rep. Gary Chism introduced the legislation, House Bill 25, earlier this month. The bill has been referred to two committees, Education and Judiciary A.

The proposal, if enacted, would require the State Board of Education to include the 200-word disclaimer on the inside front cover of textbooks that include evolution topics.

"The word 'theory' has many meanings, including: systematically organized knowledge; abstract reasoning; a speculative idea or plan; or a systematic statement of principles," the opening paragraph of the bill states. "Scientific theories are based on both observations of the natural world and assumptions about the natural world. They are always subject to change in view of new and confirmed observations."

"This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory," the proposal continues.

"Evolution refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced living things. There are many topics with unanswered questions about the origin of life which are not mentioned in your textbook, including: the sudden appearance of the major groups of animals in the fossil record (known as the Cambrian Explosion); the lack of new major groups of other living things appearing in the fossil record; the lack of transitional forms of major groups of plants and animals in the fossil record; and the complete and complex set of instructions for building a living body possessed by all living things."

The textbook disclaimer would end with the following advice: "Study hard and keep an open mind."

Other states have proposed similar disclaimers.

Alabama is currently the only state that requires a disclaimer on evolution be included in science textbooks discussing the topic. The most recent version of the text was adopted by the Alabama State Board of Education in 2005.

Much of the language of the Mississippi proposal has been adopted from the 1995 and 2001 versions of the Alabama disclaimer, according to the National Center for Science Education, an organization which advocates the teaching of evolution in public schools.

In March 2002, the Cobb County School District in Georgia approved a short disclaimer on evolution for the inside front cover of biology and other science textbooks.

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered," the label stated.

The issue went to court after four parents filed suit against the district. A federal district court judged ruled that the disclaimers were unconstitutional. The district appealed the decision. The case was referred by an appeals court to a district court for clarification but the district later agreed in a settlement not to make any disclaimers about evolution.

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 | 4
  • Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "No. Spinoza charged that God was self created, but again, that's contradictory. We say that God is 'uncaused', which is not the same."

    Honestly now, they're about the same thing. You say tomato, I say tomato. To infer something to exist as 'uncaused' is to basically imply its self created, as there is no real other way of defining it's nature of existence but to infer either of those two definitions. Uncaused is fine by me.

    "matter before mind or mind before matter."

    As far as we know the mind cannot exist outside of matter, even neuroscience shows the strong links between particular parts of the material brain & resulting spikes in neurons for given emotions or lack there of. As an example, people with damage to the hipocampus always suffer from short term memory loss.

    "For you, it sounds like matter and energy are it, but don't you think that they need to be unified somehow?"

    I guess, unified by mathematical constructs.

    "Hawking say that any reasonable model of the universe had to start with a singularity?"

    The singularity refers to the matter/energy before it began to expand & create space/time. I am not sure what you're implying by this.

    "my apologies on not seeing your point above."

    It's all good.

  • Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    schumacr,

    "we don't say that God is constantly sticking his finger into things to cause life today."

    I know, rather you guys contend he/she/it caused life itself to begin in the first place, that is what we're talking about. The origins, not the existing replicating life.

    Besides, inferring god to create life is becoming less & less needed, but enjoy the gap while it lasts. Personally, I don't see why it would be any bit theologically of consequence if one held the view God ordained/created/devised (what have you) the laws for which control nature, & thereby let the creation build itself. But I don't think this notion works for most Christians, as they're wedded to the supernatural miracle side.

    I only referred to god continually putting his fingers into the mix as this would be consistent with the notion of a miracle, which is pretty much universal to theists. This 'origins of life' is often viewed as a miracle.

    "It does what it does because it was designed to do `it'."

    Well maybe, but this too extends to beyond, to the external, which Hume pointed out was basically superfluous as useless & equally uncertain & should be avoided for it can't by good reason be retraced.

    Saying it's designed to do it, doesn't explain how via what processes & mechanisms it was designed, so 'god did it' utterly fails as a means to verify empirically anything. Nevermind it being unfalsifiable.

    But saying the laws are designed to allow for naturally occurring molecules to polymerize & replicate endlessly is a tad different than saying god performed some magic trick to spawn life. Most Christians would prefer the later, & I think you know why.

  • Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:40 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    agentorangex:

    Ah, the little text editor on this site got me on the post below... Crossing fingers on this try...

    << I was only attempting to show that life doesn't require a supernatural magical explanation >>

    OK, my apologies on the confusion. FWIW, we don't say that God is constantly sticking his finger into things to cause life today. As an example, the traducian (meaning from a branch') model of human creation says that God has granted us the ability to create new beings without His divine intervention. on. But we do believe you can trace such programming, mechanics, and such - whether it's us or your RNA example - back to an intelligence that has a mind. It does what it does because it was designed to do `it'.

    <<Question, don't theists contend God is 'self created', so as to overcome this 'causation issue' pickle? No?>>

    No. Spinoza charged that God was self created, but again, that's contradictory. We say that God is 'uncaused', which is not the same. Self-existence (aseity) is different than self-creation. Non-Christians sometimes laugh at this, but again, you have to go back to an eternal `something' - matter before mind or mind before matter. For you, it sounds like matter and energy are it, but don't you think that they need to be unified somehow? Didn't Hawking say that any reasonable model of the universe had to start with a singularity?

    Again, my apologies on not seeing your point above.

  • Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:29 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    Agentorangex:

    << I was only attempting to show that life doesn't require a supernatural magical explanation >>

    OK, my apologies on the confusion. FWIW, we don’t say that God is constantly sticking his finger into things to cause life today. As an example, the traducian (meaning ‘from a branch’) model of human creation says that God has granted us the ability to create new beings without His divine intervention. But we do believe you can trace such programming, mechanics, and such – whether it’s us or your RNA example - back to an intelligence that has a mind. It does what it does because it was designed to do ‘it’.

    << Question, don't theists contend God is 'self created', so as to overcome this 'causation issue' pickle? No?>>

    No. Spinoza charged that God was self created, but again, that’s contradictory. We say that God is ‘uncaused’, which is not the same. Self-existence (aseity) is different than self-creation. Non-Christians sometimes laugh at this, but again, you have to go back to an eternal ‘something’ – matter before mind or mind before matter. For you, it sounds like matter and energy are it, but don’t you think that they need to be unified somehow? Didn’t Hawking say that any reasonable model of the universe had to start with a singularity?

    Again, my apologies on not seeing your point above.

  • Wed Jan 28, 2009 8:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    shumacr,

    "When I say 'self-creation', I mean a being creating itself. I doubt this is what you're trying to demonstrate with your little RNA thing."

    Question, don't theists contend God is 'self created', so as to overcome this 'causation issue' pickle? No?

    Moving on...

    No doubt Schumacr, this wasn't what I was attempting to imply, this is why I think we weren't mutually seeing eye to eye on it. I was only attempting to show that life doesn't require a supernatural magical explanation, as the very early steps are demonstrable already naturally.

    The issue is, IF natural processes can result in catalyzing molecules (polymerization) without an external or outside (supernatural) force, albeit even intelligence involved. And they do. They form quite spontaneously.

    The 2nd step was, now can this polymerized string then naturally endlessly replicate without intelligence. Again they do. Both of these support the notion that 'life' however one defines it, (you still haven't BTW) seems not to be limited materially or require an external or supernatural for their reasoning on origins.

    Rather, it might be part of how the universe works according to all the various laws, some contingency, chance & necessity that 'life' would arise eventually, especially when given the scales of magnitude of time & space of the universe.

    "Is your RNA an effect? Was it caused? "

    Of course it is, albeit a natural cause & effect though.

    "If yes, then it isn't self-creation in the way I'm stating it. "

    I know, this is why I said I think you're conflating it a bit. I know where you're coming from, but I wasn't attempting to imply the material existence was 'self caused'.

    "Further, wind me back to your uncaused cause."

    Energy/matter, just like the 1st law of thermodynamics implies.

  • Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    agentorangex:

    <<Schumacr & I discussed it below, he didn't like the results.>>

    Perhaps sitting on a tarmac today waiting for hours to have my plane de-iced cleared my head about this, but perhaps we are talking about two different things. When I say 'self-creation', I mean a being creating itself. I doubt this is what you're trying to demonstrate with your little RNA thing.

    Let me ask this a different way. Is your RNA an effect? Was it caused? If yes, then it isn't self-creation in the way I'm stating it. Further, wind me back to your uncaused cause.

  • Wed Jan 28, 2009 6:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Good grief! Another southern state standing up for idiocy. Keep the faith, but keep it out of my science class.

    And, please! There's no controversy about the theory of evolution except the one engendered by these retrograde buffoons who don't have the mental prowess to see that evolution and faith are not at odds here.

    I pity the students who are taught that reality isn't really reality, but the genesis myth is.

  • Tue Jan 27, 2009 11:37 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    P.s Ditch the Discovery channel, take a subscription to New Scientist or Scientific America.

  • Tue Jan 27, 2009 11:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I would agree with you dp that it is wrong when the scientific method is used as a proof against God as it neither proves or disproves their existence. The same goes for when religion tries to use God as an explantion for aspects of the world we do not understand at this or any point.

  • Tue Jan 27, 2009 6:36 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

    Hi guys. My point is simple. Science is more of a journey than it is an answer. We discover truths. We don't make them. To me, truth is an absolute. It is not subject to increased understanding. It is the end of the journey.

    Too often people put as much faith in science as I do in Jesus. Yet, somehow they don't recognize it as faith in what is not yet proven. Again, we believe we are so knowledgeable when in fact we are really not that much smarter than we were 200 years ago if you compare it to...say, the Egyptian empire.

    When science is promoted to a position to "explain away religion" it enters the area of religion and becomes one itself. Science, itself, is not to "explain away" anything but rather is a vehicle to better understand what we do not.

    I don't doubt Einstein or Newton. Still, as I understand it, E=MC2 appears to have a flaw (or so I heard on the discovery channel). Does this make Einstein less brilliant? Absolutely not. He had an understanding far ahead of his time. Yet, should we be around in 2000 more years, scientists will look back and his concepts may be as flawed as "the Earth is flat".

    We don't know what we will understand in 2000 years. This is why I don't put my "faith" in science.

  • Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:06 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 1

    "A Mississippi state representative wants disclaimers put in all Mississippi public school textbooks that teach evolutionary theory."

    I want disclaimers in textbooks that teach atomic theory. And I want disclaimers in textbooks that teach general relativity and quantum mechanics, since both theories contradict each other. Why don't Republicans listen to me when I make these demands?!

    "Republican Representative Gary Chism...."

    Why is it almost always the Republicans who are evil? Attacking science is counter-survival of the United States: it causes great injury to the country.

    "'So this is just a way of letting [those] kids who take these subjects know that there may be another explanation of how we all got here.'"

    How very odd that Creationists have never been able to offer any details on what their "other explanations" are. *NEVER!* They could not do it in Dover, PA; they could not do it in San Juan Capistrano, CA; they could not do it in Arkansas.

    "The bill is currently in committee, but Chism says it has been met with a lot of opposition."

    For the same reason that "disclaimers" in math books would also be opposed. Telling students that there are "other alternatives" to 7 being the sum of 3+4 is just as asinine as saying there are "other alternatives" to evolutionary theory explaining evolution.

    "'I am confident that this bill is...dead on arrival,' he lamented. '...I don't think the [committee] chairman will even take the bill up.'"

    Translation: "I proposed the Bill because I know my uneducated and ignorant constituents (i.e., the majority) will vote for me when I attack science education."

  • Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:15 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    forsaltnlight,

    Your earlier rhetoric for what science is and how it operates is what my question was. According to you, so long as science doesn't conflict with the bible (and likely a literalistic interpretation) then it's okay science, otherwise it's rejected. That's not how science works honey. This is why I asked for YOUR definition of science & your reasoning on it, still waiting.

  • Tue Jan 27, 2009 1:56 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    No, not seen that, but I'll pop over and have a look..

    Thanks

    Steve

  • Tue Jan 27, 2009 1:53 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    steveh20,

    Not sure if you read up on it, but did you happen to read about the endlessly replicating RNA from sciencedaily.com?

    Schumacr & I discussed it below, he didn't like the results.

  • Tue Jan 27, 2009 1:23 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    DP

    "Gravity works yet we don't have a specific device for measuring it."

    Gravity is well measured across the Earth by satellites or actually at the surface, it's one of the ways in what we can tell is happening at constructive and destructive plate boundaries(apart from using seismic waves) by studying the "free-gravity" and "Bouger gravity" anomalies.

    "Take Einstiens theory that the sun actually bends space and the Earth rides the wave. Try proving that one!"

    Again no problem, Eddington proved Albert by measuring how displaced stars where during an eclipse revealing that the Sun really does warp space, which is why the earth orbits the Sun (it also explained the problem with Mercury's orbit), mass warps space, space then directs mass how to move.

  • Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:39 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    DP,

    "Several hundred years ago cause and effect was not the basis of science. It was trial and error!"

    DP, I have no clue what you're implying, science was & is still a process of trial & error (endless hypothesis's to explain 1 thing) in it's naturalistic approach to determining cause & effect relationships in reality.

    Do you doubt Newton used a prism to observe the cause & effect material relationship? Or how about Copernicus's use of tools & maths to build a heliocentric model? Galileo and telescopes? Where are the scientists who've been successful using supernatural explanations? You wont find any, as its counter productive to the methodology.

  • Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    When it comes to the English language (or Greek, or Hebrew) I tend to be a purist. I look to the dictionary and let the accepted definitions speak for themselves. The only way lingual communication works is to have a standard for reference.

    "only allowing natural cause & effect explanations can be used in science, it then becomes obvious why the supernatural cannot be used in explaining natural phenomena."

    Several hundred years ago cause and effect was not the basis of science. It was trial and error! Still, as one who believes in God and creation then it is cause and effect. It's just not on a level which I can understand the innerworkings.

    I do not understand the innerworkings of our local nuclear power plant yet that doesn't keep it from existing or working. Gravity works yet we don't have a specific device for measuring it. We measure it's effects on things. The problem comes in when one rules out what one cannot prove or disprove. This is not science.

    Take Einstiens theory that the sun actually bends space and the Earth rides the wave. Try proving that one! I rule out nothing that is not an absolute. That...is science.

  • Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    DP,

    "you didn't see this coming?"

    This is a fine definition, quite well for what 'science' is. Close attention needs to be observed on those points listed, particularly #2, #3, #4, #5 & why they're important.

    My question was a kind of 2 part question though, as it asked not just for the definition of science, but for also the reasoning on why only 'natural explanations' are used, useful, & required per how the process of science operates. I tried to emphasize this with Schumacr in the RNA polymerization.

    "6. a particular branch of knowledge."

    This is true, though, science is more than simply a branch or body of knowledge, but more importantly a way of learning/thinking & obtaining knowledge about the world/reality. It functions under a premise of material cause & effect which concludes that we can, in time, discern.

    Once one comes to understanding the very good reasons for why only allowing natural cause & effect explanations can be used in science, it then becomes obvious why the supernatural cannot be used in explaining natural phenomena.

    It partially has to do with how science requires objectively, & therefore requires the testability of a natural occurrence by outsiders. Another part deals with falsification, & how the supernatural can't directly be falsified (shown wrong).

  • Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "explain to me what YOU define as science"

    science:
    1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
    2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
    3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
    4. systematized knowledge in general.
    5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
    6. a particular branch of knowledge.
    7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.


    What...you didn't see this coming?

  • Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "You might want to learn how to interpret English before you move on too deep in science. "

    That's rich coming from you who don't understand what 'science' is in princple. Please, don't patronize me, explain to me what YOU define as science and equally important WHY & how it's objective.

    Simply putting on 'biblical glasses' and reviewing the evidence is simply begging the question.

  • Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "hearing God's Word + believing God's Word = faith in God and the Holy Spirit."

    Yup it's faith, but that doesn't make it science. If one puts on the 'biblical glasses' and plays 20 assumptions of course all the evidence will then be viewed in such a way, but this isn't how science works. First, scientists aren't allowed to use or infer the supernatural to explain natural phenomena as it's unfalsifiable. This is why science can't involve a 'and then a miracle happens' type of explanation. Look it up in the scientific method.

    "Scientifical theories minus God's Word to a Christian sounds something like this:
    efkoewofnOWEFNWenfqd xa dqwdhfewud mdqwdwdswqwd?
    and means the same to God too."

    You haven't a clue what you're talking about. Science works by observing natural phenomena & explaining the cause & effect of matter & energy, you can still have faith your Creator is still behind it all, but it makes it rather superfluous.

  • Mon Jan 26, 2009 4:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    schumacr,

    "Self-replicate and self-create are two different things entirely. Again, you can't be prior to yourself."

    Ugh. More semantecs & conflation? Seriously, come now. You obviously never read the article, it described only one of the parts (replication), while in other previous studies demonstrate the polemirzation (forming under natural laws). The part of the molecules self forming under natural processes (polemerizaation) & self replicating are 2 different things.

    It had to first polemerize under natural laws first, THEN it ended up replicating on its own without any supernatural intervention, it's all chemistry in action, not magic.

    One part involves setting up the condiions for the RNA to polemeryze on its own under natural bonding proceses.
    All they did was allow for the chemical reactions based natural attractions form under polemertuzation.

    Natural processes have filled another gap of, get over it, get used to it.

  • Mon Jan 26, 2009 4:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    shoemaker,

    "I'm also sorry you don't have the right view of God. He loves you no matter how much hate you direct toward Him or us who represent Him."

    Oh please, how can one hate something they doubt to exist in the first place? Do others illocially acusing you of 'hating santa clause' for doubting his existence? No, of course not.

  • Mon Jan 26, 2009 4:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    schumacr,

    "you really haven't undone the statements I made where science falls short in terms of being the end all and be all."

    I never stated it to be the end all be all, this is more conflation on your part & w/ semanctes & setting up of strawmen of what defines 'life' you attempt to cling on w/ your finger nails. I merely stated that it as a tool is quite adequte at explaining the natural world in terms of iself & need not venture out to the external supernatural realm for which we can't find any certainty or usefullness over a naturalistic explnation as, as Hume explained, it can't return back to natural explanations based on just reasoning.

    Falls short? Did it fall short in explaining how RNA can under natural forces self catlyze (polemerize) & also ends up self replicating endlessly? No, it again demonstrated that an outside supernatural explantion is not only not required but another variable for which it also much be explained in itself.

    "your comments about history and the reliance on testimony"

    More conflation. Testimony is subjective, empirical evidence isn't, therein is the distiction for which science uses one overwhelmingly.

  • Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:24 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    schumacr: You're setting up a strawman - scientists don't make such claims. You're making those claims to knock them down - classic strawman.

  • Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:29 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    agentorangex -

    I know you're teeming with exuberance and eagerness to prove my up is down and my black is white, but no matter how much text you pump into this, you really haven't undone the statements I made where science falls short in terms of being the end all and be all. In fact, your comments about history and the reliance on testimony actually props up the Christian reliance on the historicity of the Scriptures. Your science falls short, plain and simple. And guess what? It's OK to admit that...

    I'm also sorry you don't have the right view of God. He loves you no matter how much hate you direct toward Him or us who represent Him.

    <<In the end I see you've not objected to the RNA self replication study or its clear implications regarding the origins of life. I will take this as an acknowledgement that another gap is filled.>>

    Not at all. Self-replicate and self-create are two different things entirely. Again, you can't be prior to yourself.

    Anyway, I'm off the west coast for a business trip and won't be able to check on the latest round of misinterpretations and angry comments you pen. Funny...the only areas I find more animosity being directed at Christians are in the areas of abortion and pro-gay theology.

    Enjoy your week.

  • Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:30 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    It was probably mentioned in earlier posts that have disapeared but did anyone notice that the lawmaker has a complete misunderstanding of what the theory of evolution is confusing it with abiogenesis. If they are going to try to legislate around this they should at least first check out the most basic facts about what they are legislating on.

  • Sat Jan 24, 2009 5:31 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    schumar,

    "when you make a statement such as "all objective truth comes from science", that itself cannot be scientifically tested as it's a philosophical claim."

    I never made such a claim of "all objective truth comes from science", please don't put words in my mouth. My position is that it, as a method, is very adequate in explaining reality in terms of itself without appealing to the external for which is useless as we can't reasonably return from it, nor is it, in itself by any means certain. It makes the supernatural, as I mentioned, become superferlous & exsiting only as an ad hoc way of explaining reality which forever can change as reality is explained via science all the while retreating from previous gaps.

    "Sounds like reproduce to me, not self-create."

    What caused the RNA to self polymerize? Yes, naturally occurring chemical bonding, it's chemistry, not magic. Just like magnetics opperate based on such bonding & chemistry & not magic.

    I explained how they form a bilayer naturally, all by themselves, all the scientists did is add the chemistry & they catalyze on their own. Then they self replicated endlessly later.

    "Self creation is an analytically false assertion."

    More semantecs & conflation, just so you can ignore the materialistc science & infer magic supernaturalism. I wouldn't say 'self creation', as self creation is backwards.

    It's more apt to say it's the by product of chemistry in action, that is, the naturally occurring chemistry on earth didn't nessitate, but helped to result in the molecules required to polemirize naturally & replicate endlessly.

  • Sat Jan 24, 2009 5:17 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    schumar,

    "when you make a statement such as "all objective truth comes from science", that itself cannot be scientifically tested as it's a philosophical claim."

    I never made such a claim of "all objective truth comes from science", please don't put words in my mouth. My position is that it, as a method, is very adequate in explaining reality in terms of itself without appealing to the external for which is useless as we can't reasonably return from it, nor is it, in itself by any means certain. It makes the supernatural, as I mentioned, become superferlous & exsiting only as an ad hoc way of explaining reality which forever can change as reality is explained via science all the while retreating from previous gaps.

    "Sounds like reproduce to me, not self-create. Self creation is an analytically false assertion. If the nature of being and non-being has taught us anything it's that something cannot be ontologically prior to itself. "

  • Sat Jan 24, 2009 5:11 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    "It can't prove metaphysical truths such as there are other minds than my own."

    I think neuroscience & brain scans can show, beyond any reasonable doubt, a direct link between ones thinking/mind & the material brain.

    "can't referee matters of ethics;"

    I think here you have a quasi valid point, with science it's easier to explain what is as opposed to what aught, at least universally. At the least it can explain the past w/ reference to our current status to know how we aught to act to inflict the least of moral cosequences though. One example is w/ regards to global climate changes & the consequences of it.

    "can't help judge in matters of aesthetics and beauty."

    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, it's subjective but still there is a 'normal distrubution' for tastes. Some prefer classical arts for others abstracts, but we overall as a species have an affinity for abstract art & this is explainable via science.

    "can't prove matters of history such as Booth shot Lincoln."

    Again, 'proof' isn't applicable here, stop conflating. We have tons of evidence linking Booth as the murderer. Tons of witnesses, secondary evidence of plans by his friends in their writings to countries in Europe, the gun & ammo involved. It's like a forensic case of collective evidence which points to a single criminal above all others.

    Ad theology answers such a question better? How would theology proceed in such a dileema, ask God?

    In the end I see you've not objected to the RNA self replication study or its clear implications regarding the origins of life. I will take this as an acknowledgement that another gap is filled.

  • Sat Jan 24, 2009 4:52 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    schumacr,

    "It can't prove logic and math because it presupposes them."

    Since when did science get into the business of 'proofing' models? Total strawmen. Science models are never 'proofed'. Science works in theorectical abstacts which consistently explain large volumes of indipendent data.

    Logic & maths exist outside of science itself, it doesn't have to prove or support the notion that '2+2 = 4' as it's mutually agreeble by any objective observation & logically epistimological truth. & it doesn't get much more 'proofed' then that.

    To do science rquires logic, but not the inverse. We don't need science as a method to form logical or mathimaical & philosopical musings about nature, the Greeks demonstrated this for 100's of years.

    & theology answers this more in detail how?

  • Sat Jan 24, 2009 4:39 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Schumacr,

    "What I'm saying is it has its limitations;"

    Of course it does, I was merely stating is has many answers & explains many things in reality that earlier cultures filled generally with superstition, spirits, the supernatural. Ignorance does that. It seemed more logical a tthe time to invoke demons & bad spirits to explain away plauges & diseases, but we know better now.

    To suggest that science has nothing to say about reality, while using its fruits is awefully hypocritical.

    "I won't worship it."

    Another red hering. Come now, who worships science? Have you ever heard of people praying in homage to it or sacrificing animals for its cause?

  • Sat Jan 24, 2009 4:30 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Shumacr,

    "That's the fear we Christians have of God; not that a hammer will fall on us when we err."

    Riiiight, that's why Christians (& other religions) 'ask for salvation' & 'forgiveness of sins' via prayers, & prayers for others as they fear the suppposed consequenes of 'eternity' in hell, as you so elequentlt put it.

    "The Bible says that the kindness of God leads us to repentance, not the brutality of God - you couldn't be more mistaken on that front."

    Don't bother talking about kindess when the bible is chalked full of endless episodes of God daming people, & groups left & right whilst also aserting an eternal torture that awaits them if they doubt said existence.
    The fear mongering message is quite clear, to think rationally, or even to engage in the slightest doubt = hell.

  • Sat Jan 24, 2009 4:23 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Shumacr,

    "And in terms of fear, do I fear God? Yep."

    Indeed. Fear clouds the mind, cripples the ability to think logically & reasonable.

    "my wife has made me a great dinner and we enjoy it together. "Did you like it?", she asks. "Yes, it was awesome!", I say. "Oh good, I was *afraid* you wouldn't like it"

    No offense, this is a horrid analogy, you're entirely misusing the word of afraid & confalting it to equate to fear in which their is immediate harm looming, as if her response would at all consequentialy initiate a conflict or putting her life in danger. Semantecs again.

    I doubt in your realationship w/ your wife (unless you beat your wife, & she suffers from 'battered wife syndrom') that she has any reason to say otherwise. Afterall, if you beat her all the time & dominanted her, she'd say & do just about anything you told her to do, & mostly out of fear of getting beat again.

    I doubt your also building up imaginative stories of boiling her in a lake of fire for all time? She's not engaging with a 'do or die' clause for you reponse, the proposed consequences involved aren't even remotely alike.

  • Sat Jan 24, 2009 4:12 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Shumacr,

    "And if wrong beliefs can result in unwanted consequences in this life, why think it's any different in the next? "

    Here's the difference between using that logic for beliefs in the here & now & some unproven supernatual after life. There isn't very good evidence for it to begin with for the supernatural in the first place, while in the here & now the consequences are readily obvious, testable, & demonstratable. Recall what Hume said earlier, we can't return, as it's useless & uncertain.

    "just a reminder of this fact; it's how God wired things. You have the freedom to embrace or ignore what you will. But you can't alter reality and truth - it'll get you ever time. "

    I would retort with the veyr same thing said earlier. What if I said that if you don't go out side tonight, & howl at the moon, that some monster will come & rip your skin off and boil you in acid?

    Doesn't work on ya does it? You thought logically & reasoned based on evidence that there is no sensble justifaction to even bother with the notion as it lacks evidence. And you know why The whole idea is ludicrus & rests entirely not in evidence, but on fear mongering alone.

    Sorry, still didn't work, I am a little more immuned to fear mongering rhetoric. Just a about as you or any average adult would be with regards to fear mongering about some other boogy man for which their is lacking evidence.

  • Sat Jan 24, 2009 4:04 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    shumacr,

    "Not at all."

    Oh please, spare us, it's blatantly obviouos that any time an ongoing dialog in which neither logic or reason or working one side immediately trots out fear mongering in sake of acknowleding they have less than reasonable evidence for this proposition. The Iraq invasion was built on such falsehoods, fear mongering, bluster & hand waving. You're attempting the same here, all flash & dash & no substance built on reason.

    "there are consequences for acting on false ideas."

    Wel of course there are, but that in itself no more demonstrates a truism of any said god existence, let alone the supernatural. If one finds it logical that self sacrifice & flying planes into buildings is entirely logical since they're told from birht their are 72 virgins waiting for them, well, it kinda should be expected to some degree.

  • Sat Jan 24, 2009 3:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    agentorangex:

    <<Come now, look at all the fruits of science, it's undeniable>>

    Agreed 100%. Science helped save my wife from breast cancer; she's over a 5 year survivor and is still here to bless me and our children. Science also couldn't save my first wife who died young from thyroid cancer after only a couple decades of life. What I'm saying is it has its limitations; I won't worship it. And in response, here are the areas I know that operational science (i.e. test tubes, microscopes, etc.) fails besides theology:

    It can't prove logic and math because it presupposes them.

    It can't prove metaphysical truths such as there are other minds than my own.

    It can't referee matters of ethics; you can't use science to prove a truth such as the Nazis were evil.

    It can't help judge in matters of aesthetics and beauty.

    It can't prove matters of history such as Booth shot Lincoln.

    Finally, when you make a statement such as "all objective truth comes from science", that itself cannot be scientifically tested as it's a philosophical claim.

    <<Did you catch that part where they 'self polymerize', that would be the 'self create' part.>>

    Sounds like reproduce to me, not self-create. Self creation is an analytically false assertion. If the nature of being and non-being has taught us anything it's that something cannot be ontologically prior to itself.

  • Sat Jan 24, 2009 3:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    <<Of course, when all else fails & you don't have logic, reason or evidence on your side, pull out the fear mongering boogy man>>

    <<TORTURE THREAT>>

    Not at all. Here's where I agree with atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins and I believe you do as well: there are consequences for acting on false ideas. Ideas and beliefs have 'legs' as one commentator said. And if wrong beliefs can result in unwanted consequences in this life, why think it's any different in the next? No threat at all - just a reminder of this fact; it's how God wired things. You have the freedom to embrace or ignore what you will. But you can't alter reality and truth - it'll get you ever time.

    It's normal to see folks react so sharply at the slightest hint of Hell. The first doctrine to be denied was judgment (Gen 3).

    And in terms of fear, do I fear God? Yep. But not the way you think. Imagine: my wife has made me a great dinner and we enjoy it together. "Did you like it?", she asks. "Yes, it was awesome!", I say. "Oh good, I was *afraid* you wouldn't like it", she responds. Now was she afraid because I'd harm her if dinner wasn't good? Hardly. It's because she loves me and wants to please me, as I do her.

    That's the fear we Christians have of God; not that a hammer will fall on us when we err. We've long since passed out from that realm as Christ took it for us. The Bible says that the kindness of God leads us to repentance, not the brutality of God - you couldn't be more mistaken on that front.

  • Sat Jan 24, 2009 11:19 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "so he threatens torture."

    Interesting position since no Christian is in a postition to tourture you for eternity. When I'm in heaven I doubt I'll give you a second thought if you're not there. This is why we tell you what the Bible says. It also says not to stand between a fool and their folly. If you don't want to believe in anything outside the Humanist Manifesto's that's your choice and even God won't take that choice away from you!

    Still, just the pleasure and privilege of serving my fellow man on behalf of Jesus during this life is worth it even if this is all there is. The joy of seeing parents able to help their children because of time I've spent helping them or seeing a family see the love of Jesus in action in other ways like helping them pay a bill is priceless.

    Life's to short to be selfish. Christianity has taught me how to "love your neighbor as yourself". This lesson alone is worth whatever sacrifice Christ expects.

  • adit »
    Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:15 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    Christians are afraid to educate themselves because they think knowledge is a sin. They believe anyone who understands modern biology will go to hell, so they play it safe and try to be as ignorant as they possibly can.

    It's impossible to reason with people like that for the same reason it's impossible to reason with Muslim terrorists. The only solution is to kill the terrorists, and point and laugh at the cowardly creationists.

  • adit »
    Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:11 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    "Remember - eternity is an awfully long time to be wrong."

    TORTURE THREAT. The creationist has no evidence for his childish belief in magic, so he threatens torture. Typical Christian.

  • Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:27 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    shumacr,

    "By hammering science's square peg into the obvious round holes"

    Come now, look at all the fruits of science, it's undeniable that it's onto something. You have to be delusional to think it's not at all capable or explaining reality in terms of itself.

    "eternity is an awfully long time to be wrong."

    Of course, when all else fails & you don't have logic, reason or evidence on your side, pull out the fear mongering boogy man & hope that the opposition gives into irrational emotional based judgment. Sorry, but only a fool so readily abandons logic and reason in place of fear.

    What if I told you, that right now, if you don't go outside and howl at the moon a nasty monster in the night is going to rip your face off. Sounds pretty irrational, illogical and absurd, right? That's what you're doing, & for obvious reasons it no more works on you than what you tried.

    "Enjoy your weekend.'

    You too, cheers.

  • Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:21 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    schumacr,

    "Wishful thinking? Wishing you won't stand before God one day is pretty wishful thinking in my mind."

    Now you're back to asserting you know god exists, not that you believe, but that you know. Moreover that you know X punishments & rewards await, but you don't philosophically know anymore than I or Viking, so cut it out.

    No, I mean wishful thinking in the notion of 'this isn't all there is' & that there is 'life beyond death', or that superstious people have practices which are irrational but they believe them none the less b/c it makes them feel good & it's comforting to think (not know) that *something* is out there looking out for them no matter how tuff times might be.

    Put yourself in prehistoric mans shoes for a minute, consider their lacking knowledge & how utterly chaotic everything must have seemed in their view,(storms, lighting, all that jazz) & you can see why it's apparent so many cultures were superstitious to the nature of reality & readily inserted the supernatural to explain them away.

    What you say, no rain? Our crops will fail, quick start rain dancing and animal sacrifices. Next, imagine your in silent communication with this spirit & speak to it so it brings the rains.

    It's a psychological coping mechanism, built out of ignorance of nature, so as to avoid having to feel the ice cold splash of how nature does work & that they're not controlled by some benevolent being, but rather operate by independent variables.

  • Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    schumacr,

    "I'm asking how something with 'Non-A' properties can cause an 'A' property to appear."

    I see, for this you're asking for examples of lower orders of complexity to achieve higher orders of complexity. I listed some of those below. Yep, science got that covered, I mentioned earlier the intrinsic nature of QM, how chaos meets order, and how principles like contingency, necessity, & chance get us to reality of where a self aware being is possible given the circumstance.

    I am not sure your point here, as it doesn't make us any more special that apes, dolphins, and others which are 'self aware' and rational.

    "Hume, there's a major distinction in saying we don't know the cause and there isn't a cause."

    Hume showed that we can't empirically know the cause by inferring externally (god). If we can't know by this method, it makes little sense/reason to obsess over it & follow it down such a path. Hence useless & uncertain.

    "principle of uniformity"

    I don't know, from what we know it wasn't very uniform in the early universe, it was a chaotic mess. Unless a chaotic mess is uniform for that time, I don't know how else it would be rationalized.

    At the macro it's uniform, but doesn't appear so at the quantum level. Given the expanse of the universe it doesn't look pretty either, various models express death of the universe by multiple scenarios (crunch, rip, freeze). Some designer.

    Can't uniformity be an intrinsic property of a self existing universe, at least in certain time frames of it?

    "I thought we were the more evolved species?"

    In certain respects I think so, but other species are equally more evolved for other needs of their niche. Dolphins would say the same in how they can swim, so it depends, from a certain point of view.

  • Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "I'm trying to get you to see that operational science has its limits"

    You're trying to impose a lower standard for 'proof', b/c you know to do otherwise doesn't help your position. Only by lowering the bar does it remotely appear sensible for what you propose.

    "other methods of investigation need to take over when it fails."

    Yeah, like what, creationism? Age old philosophy? Science, it works, get used to it.

    "things science can't prove or account for (want a list?)"

    Well, this is entirely a red herring, still this far in you've not defined what would constitute 'life' for you. I would imagine since you're in the business of plugging god into endless gaps so you can pretend you have purpose that you'd have heavy list, so sure spoil us. I'd be careful though, I might spoil some of your fun by mentioning naturalistic explanations.

    "I'm afraid you can't dismiss the Creator with your scientism."

    I never said I was dismissing it, I was merely pointing out *another* gap for which it's not needed to explain the world had been filled. It's become superfluous in that regard as its continually in retreat.

    "And to say the legal method isn't philosophically sound is just incorrect."

    Oh it's fairly sound for it's purpose, but you'll it doesn't achieve certainty, nor truth, it's jurors weighing evidence & how well or poorly the lawyers perform. This is after all why wrong people are convicted or vice versa (OJ)Plenty of missteps can occur.

    It's not as sound as mathematical proofs, which is what I was referring to.

  • Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    schumacr,

    "If you're referencing the 1st law of thermo, it's a philosophical assertion and not provable - you know that too. It neither proves nor disproves a Creator."

    Yup, I agree, it's hard to disprove the supernatural after all, since you can change it in a whim especially. But what it does show that it makes it (god) a non needed or superfluous external explanation in the first place, which was what Hume meant. If we don't need to refer to an external explanation (which is what it shows) as we have a perfectly decent natural one which is testable in the here and now and it's self explained in it's own terms, 'god' becomes utterly meaningless explanation. It would require it's own explanation of how it accomplished such things much less how we could test them, which we can't. It's fluff and another gap comes to a close.

    "So it's a machine designed to do its thing."

    No, it's not. It's just chemical bonding, just like magnets. 'self polymerization'. It's matter acting on matter, no miracles, no intervention, it's all naturally explained via natural causation.

    "why do you not see the intelligence designed into what it does?"

    I don't think it requires an external intelligence to explain it, you're begging the question that it does. It's matter acting on matter, complex crystals form naturally, hurricanes form naturally, rainbows form naturally, there isn't intelligence there either. There are tons of complex interactions which occur which don't require active or previous intelligence involved.

    We observe erosion and that does not require any intelligence behind it. Its just water and gravity. Oxidation and that does not require any intelligence behind it, just iron and oxygen. The polymerization of chemicals, all by themselves, all through the well understood process of chemistry. That kind of refutes that no more complex structures can arise from less complex ones without intelligence.

    The crystallization of water into snow flakes to a structure with ornate patterns more complex than a simple droplet of water. Again, no intelligence behind it. The replication of DNA and its subsequent alteration, and that does not require any "intelligence"- an euphemism for deity - just biochemistry.

    The alteration of DNA cousin RNA in a lab, to produce more complex and fitter chains of RNA and that did not require any intelligence behind it.

    Organisms becoming more complex, with changes in its phenotype, through these mutations.

  • Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Self-replicating and self-creation are two hugely different things. How does something come from nothing?"

    I'm sorry, but I explained how RNA self polymerizes NATURALLY, by chemical forces bonding, just like magnets, I'll repeat.

    Viruses aren't alive, yet they're subject to evolution, same as us. The primal organism is even simpler than a virus; it's just a fatty acid bilayer surrounding a glob of randomly polymerized RNA. Fatty acid bilayers are VERY demonstrable (Oil won't mix with water for this reason,) and RNA SELF POLYMERIZATION has likewise been DEMONSTRATED. If you mean the first cell, that came LONG after abiogenesis happened.

    Did you catch that part where they 'self polymerize', that would be the 'self create' part.

    The article, remember? Did you read it? The part about NO proteins being involved & it replicating? Take a small RNA strand for example. It's a polymer. A string of units that come together by chemical kinetics and thermodynamics. It's the inherrant properties of the molecules, largely based on electron density. It takes no intelligence for them to form. Given the right environment they'll form by themselves, like magnets being drawn together.

    If in this you're referring to non life becoming alive, (which isn't nothing after all since there are already matter, energy, molecules, organics presently available) you'll first have to address what YOU will accept as 'life'. If self forming and self replication will suffice, then it's a yes.

    Until you define what you consider as 'alive' and why, you can endlessly move the goal posts so as to appear infallible.

  • Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    schumacr,

    "You keep starting with something that's already there, whether it's molecules or not."

    Jeeeez, pathetic. Now you're moving the goal posts. Yeah, as opposed to what? Matter exists & we're attempting to simulate early life, not the origins of matter/energy itself, there is a difference.

    This is rubbish, makes no sense at all, it's like you're asking us to not only re-create life which you still haven't defined for your liking, but also re-create the universe, matter/energy as well. Totally fallacious, I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about the origins of life which is partially related to evolution.

  • Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    shoemaker,

    "No you haven't and I suspect you know it."

    No, it depends entirely on how one defines 'life', if you mean simply endless self replication, then yeah, we got it covered like it showed. Are you even going to comment on what you define as 'life' or are you above that? Come now, in order to be objective so we can mutually agree you need to define what you expect as 'life' in this context, and why. So far you've done neither, so explain please.

  • Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "<<the cat likely is thinking 'what is that crazy guy doing?'>>

    But I thought we were the more evolved species?"


    Well our sense of humour is at least(though maybe not everybodies).

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
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
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