Updated 12:19 pm.EST, Mon November 23, 2009

Education|Fri, Jan. 23 2009 03:45 PM EST

Texas Board Amends Standards on Science, Evolution

By Audrey Barrick|Christian Post Reporter

The State Board of Education voted Thursday to drop a 20-year-old Texas requirement that science teachers address both "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories, including evolution.

  • Texas Board of Education
    (Photo: AP Images / Harry Cabluck)
    Board member Barbara Cargill, from The Woodlands, Texas, questions a witness during a hearing by the Texas Board of Education Wednesday, Jan. 21, 2009, in Austin, Texas. The board heard proponents and opponents of a proposal to change the school science standards to strengthen the teaching of evolution.

While refusing to reinstate the language, however, the Board has passed amendments that would require students to "analyze and evaluate" all the major parts of evolutionary theory, including common descent, natural selection, and mutation using empirical evidence.

Media reports have named scientists the winner in this week's vote to remove the "strengths and weaknesses" phrase, but the Discovery Institute – an intelligent design think tank – pointed out that only half the story was reported.

And the other half proved to be a plus for those who supported the current science curriculum standards.

"The Texas Board of Education took one step back and two steps forward today," commented Dr. John West of the Discovery Institute. "While we wish they would have retained the strengths and weaknesses language in the overall standards, they did something truly remarkable today. They voted to require students to analyze and evaluate some of the most important and controversial aspects of modern evolutionary theory such as the fossil record, universal common descent and even natural selection."

The Board approved a series of amendments, including one that requires high school students to "analyze and evaluate the sufficiency or insufficiency of common ancestry to explain the sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record."

Revisions will not be finalized until the Board's March meeting.

Debate over the "strengths and weaknesses" requirement broke out in Texas last year as the Board of Education was scheduled to update state science standards.

New science curriculum standards are to take effect in the 2010-2011 school year and be in place for the next decade. They will also dictate how publishers handle the topic in textbooks.

Critics of the mandate argued before the board this week that the word "weaknesses" has been used to attack evolution and promote creationism.

Supporters of the current science standards, meanwhile, made a case for free speech.

"This is a battle of academic freedom," said Ken Mercer, R-San Antonio, who voted to keep "strengths and weaknesses," according to San Antonio Express-News. "This is a battle over freedom of speech. It's an issue of freedom of religion."

The Discovery Institute has rejected allegations that the current language is being used as a strategy to push intelligent design in schools. The think tank has said that they are not looking to add alternate theories to science textbooks. They simply want there to be genuine critical inquiry in science and for evolutionary theory to be fully and completely presented, both the strengths and weaknesses.

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
  • Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    steveh20

    Steve, i am referring to the state of affairs which america is in now politically and economically. but what condition america is in now depends on your point of view. Have the americans being IDers or evolutionists affected or contributed to the political and economic status of america now?

  • Mon Feb 02, 2009 1:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "http://www.yourfriendnetwork.com/Fellowship_of_Humanity_v._County_of_Alameda "

    More bunk junk. HAWK, a DOT GOV SITE please (.Gov), that is where it would be clarified.

  • Mon Feb 02, 2009 1:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    DP,

    "I remember one program on the pyramids where they talked about how the pyramid builders "just disappeared". They had no explaination. Perhaps they were all killed by a flood!"

    Disapeared? Uh, no. They're apparently didn't as other egyptian dynasties followed the 5th & 6th for many centuries afterward.

    "depending on the compactions of the pyramid block would depend on how a water flow would affect it."

    Oh please, cut the endless rationalization. The same flood creationists clamor over as carving through nearly a dozen sedimentary layers in many places a mile deep would have eroded a little group of pyramids.

    "we have this wonderful soil substitute here in SC called clay.... I have to be careful how I till my garden or rainfall will create miniature versions of the Grand Canyon."

    Clay is't the same as many layers of solidified sedimentary layers, not even close. Clay is malabe, sedimenray not so much.

  • Mon Feb 02, 2009 1:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    HAWK49,

    "http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/21soc04.htm"

    Um, no, not legit. 'pathforlights', paaalease. Find something from a .Gov site as requested.


    "Humanism built on science...hardly. Scientism is the foundation for the religion of humanism based on the philosophy of naturalism;"

    And science & its methodology IS based on a naturalistic philosophy. Get used to it.

    "This limited view of science is built on belief of this untestable philosophy."

    Sorry, but it's been tested endlessly, & for all it shows no supernatural exists or is needed in explaining reality in terms of itself. Besides, to suggest it's never been tested & used such techology as you're using right now (Internet, PC, Etc.) demonstrates it as tested.

    "The naturalism embraced by most evolutionists is strictly an anti-supernatural belief system,"

    As is the naturalism embraced by ALL other modes of science. Again I ask, show me a SINGLE time in history in which the supernatural was used in science to explain anything & provided empircal evidence for it. Go find an article on supernaturalism involved with electromagnitism or he strong & weak nuclear forces. Good luck.

    A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:

    "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.[Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature (vol. 401. September 30, 1999), p. 423.]"

    Yes, exactly. ID & the supernatural aren't naturalistic in their cause & effect explantions so they're utterly worthless to obtaining knowledge on such processes behind matter. Well done.

    "http://www.icr.org/index.phpmodule=articles&action=view&ID=455"

    Oh boy, ICR, I do pitty you.

  • Mon Feb 02, 2009 1:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    song2vs4,.

    "Stephen J. Gould, perhaps the most famous paleontologist of the 20th century, wrote:

    The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches"

    Ah yes, when all else fails, prop up quote mines. Song, I've read your rhetoric many times, & it's about on this level for content so I am not all that suprised. Gould was reffering to the transitionals between immediatly related species, as in species to species evolution, not the more larger changes from one Family to another.

  • Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ao
    one of the court cases I listed with the Supremes definition of secular humanism being a religion was:

    Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda was a 1957 California Courts of Appeal case in which an organization of humanists sought a tax exemption on the ground that they used their property "solely and exclusively for religious worship." Despite the group's non-theistic beliefs, the court determined that the activities of the Fellowship of Humanity, which included weekly Sunday meetings, were analogous to the activities of theistic churches and thus entitled to an exemption.

    Rationale for the decision included the following. First, the court argued that the state is not allowed to focus on the content of belief, but only on its function:
    It is perfectly obvious that any type of statutory exemption that discriminates between types of religious belief-that discriminates... on the basis of the content of such belief-would offend both the federal and state constitutional provisions... Under the constitutional provision the state has no power to decide the validity of the beliefs held by the group involved... Thus the only inquiry in such a case is the objective one of whether or not the belief occupies the same place in the lives of its holders that the orthodox beliefs occupy in the lives of believing majorities, and whether a given group that claims the exemption conducts itself the way groups conceded to be religious conduct themselves. The content of the belief, under such test, is not a matter of governmental concern... Under this test the belief or nonbelief in a Supreme Being is a false factor... "religion" fills a void that exists in the lives of most men. Regardless of why a particular belief suffices, as long as it serves this purpose, it must be accorded the same status of an orthodox religious belief.
    http://www.yourfriendnetwork.com/Fellowship_of_Humanity_v._County_of_Alameda

  • Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ao;
    Never saw this site; http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/21soc04.htm
    but it does appear very legit, thanks for the link.

    Humanism built on science...hardly. Scientism is the foundation for the religion of humanism based on the philosophy of naturalism; the belief that the natural world, as explained by scientific laws, is all that exists and that there is no supernatural or spiritual creation, control, or significance. This limited view of science is built on belief of this untestable philosophy.

    "The naturalism embraced by most evolutionists is strictly an anti-supernatural belief system, a form of practical atheism. It is not, by definition, any more or less "scientific" than any other belief system, including one that allows for a Creator-God." - Timothy Wallace

    Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:
    Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. [a belief system; not a proven or provable concept]

    A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:
    Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.[Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature (vol. 401. September 30, 1999), p. 423.]

    ..Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "religion without revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:
    Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.

    Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern."
    http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=455

  • Fri Jan 30, 2009 7:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Also, I'm one of those people who watch discovery and the history channel. I remember one program on the pyramids where they talked about how the pyramid builders "just disappeared". They had no explaination. Perhaps they were all killed by a flood!

    Also, depending on the compactions of the pyramid block would depend on how a water flow would affect it. In the case of the Grand Canyon...we have this wonderful soil substitute here in SC called clay.... I have to be careful how I till my garden or rainfall will create miniature versions of the Grand Canyon. So, the same water event could create the Grand Canyon and not affect the pyramids.

  • Fri Jan 30, 2009 6:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    The Biblical data places the Flood at 2304 BC +/- 11 years.

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

    Stephen J. Gould, perhaps the most famous paleontologist of the 20th century, wrote:

    The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed.

  • Fri Jan 30, 2009 3:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    IVV, but I've got to be honest I enjoy a good fight every now and then as long as we all agree to fight fair!:)

  • Fri Jan 30, 2009 3:31 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    That's what it was meant to be and that's all I'm asking.

    In essential things unity, in non-essential things liberty, in all things Charity.

  • Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    IVV, thanks for the clarification and what I'll call a concerned rebuke and challenge.

  • Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "You must be using something other than the Biblical time line."

    Not at all DP, according to Creationist lore, 'the Flood' occurred some 4000 years ago, which would put it right smack dab in the middle of the 5th & 6th Egyptian Dynasties, which also oddly enough was approximately the same time the great pyramids were being built.

    The odd thing is, if the flood wiped out all but 8 people, then they wouldn't have enough people to help build it for a long time.

    Additionally, if the jews helped to build it prior to the flood, somehow this world wide flood didn't wipe out any of them. I know some contend the flood was regional/local & not global, so this is only with regards to those who take it as a global event.

    "what makes you think the pyramids would not have survived a flood even if they were made before the flood?"

    I am not sure, the same folk tell us the Grand Canyon was formed from the deluge, & in comparison to that they should've been obliterated, or at the very least severally eroded.

  • Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "It is a belief system with an overarching set of doctrine held to with ardor and faith."

    Faith, what faith? It's a science, not quite the same thing.

    "Fits the dictionary definition for religion."

    Except for all those supernatural claims all other religions involve, right? Or unless you're going to tell me such miracles & supernatural acts are entirely arbitrary too? That would make your own religion even more funny.

    "The two court cases: they were both referenced in the Supremes defining humanism a religion."

    Riiiight, that's why you still haven't listed them, right? Ok, 'said passing' & 'obitor aditcum' write it down & look it up, they're not legally backed.

    It would be like some anonymous person in court after hearing the non guilty verdict for a criminal & then yelling out that they're 'guilty!'. As such, it's said in passing, & isn't legally binding. Get it?

  • Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Humanism is the belief that man shapes his own destiny. It is a constructive philosophy, a nontheistic religion, a way of life."

    Sorry, I couldn't find this quote in any Humanist organization site, I did find it here though:

    http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/21soc04.htm

    Yeah, legit. Not. The same place which equates evolution as a religion also, hilarious. I guess gravity is another religion too? Behold, I am a Gravitationalist!

    Provide a link to back your claim it's from an actual humanist organization or again ya got nothing, & you know it. It shouldn't be that hard to do if it's their motto & all.

  • Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    HAWK49

    "I just don't buy your argument."

    That's good b/c I am not selling it, it is what it is.

    "It's an arbitrary demarcation that fits your purpose."

    Well there's the catch, I am not the one demarcating it, the courts did, take it up with them. I'll agree it's a 'world view', but it's not religious as is doesn't involve so many of the normal superstitious things involved in religion like the supernatural, sacred holly texts, life after death, belief in a disembodied soul, spirits, supposed fulfilled prophecies. etc. etc.

  • Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:15 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    "pyramids right in between when the noacian flood was supposedly occurring."

    You must be using something other than the Biblical time line. Why do you think the Jews were making bricks for the Egyptians? Also, what makes you think the pyramids would not have survived a flood even if they were made before the flood?

  • Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:06 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    Believer,

    My observations are based on months of reading the comments on CP. I submit that THIS site is one such place I have witnessed this sort of rudeness from Christians! I have witnessed Christians calling Christians un-Biblical and heretical. Ive witnessed Christians calling unbelievers all sorts of things. Is this the famous Christian love of neighbor? Uh, no.

    I do not equate intensity of debate with rudeness, however, it is difficult to judge inflection via a message board. With that in mind, we should all use prudence and prayer before posting a response. I learned a rule very early in my career. Do NOT send an email when you are angry, upset or impassioned because it always comes back to bite you. The same holds true here.

    Do I mean that we should not defend the Gospel when called upon to do so? By no means! Disagreement is healthy and defending the Gospel is necessary for societys survival! However, both can be done in a civil manner. Each and every person, Christian or not, is made in the image and likeness of God and, as such, deserves respect. Discussion can be done without disparaging their faith or lack thereof. If you want to witness to them, meet them where they are in life and not where you want them to be. If they dont accept the Bible as authoritative, does it do you any good to quote Scripture to them? There are other ways to get them to understand your POV without the harsh tone.

    If you choose to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, that is fine. Just dont expect every Christian to see things the way that you do. Many do not hold to a literal reading of Creation, but still accept the Bible as authoritative in matters of Faith (not science). Like me. I see creationism and scientific theory as complimentary. If you look at some scientific accounts of earth, it follows much the same pattern as Genesis. Earth, water, land, plants, fish, animals, man. Interesting, no? True, I do not believe that God used 6 days of 24 hours each, yet I accept the Bible as inerrent in matters of Faith (not science). But does that make me a lesser Christian for it?

    No. What science Ive studied or read has informed my faith and I am much better for it. I see the intricacy with which God knit together our world, our eco-systems, our bodies. I see some of the patterns in Nature which shows me He is in control. Ive watched the sunset over the ocean and thought about how the moon makes the tides. Ive been present at everyone of my childrens births and have studied (and witnessed) the miralce of life and how it happens. These things make me stand in awe of His creation.

    Granted, there are many scientific findings I take with a grain of salt because they are over my head. But I at least think about them and the ones with which I do not agree to see how or if I can reconcile them with my Faith. If not, it is no big deal because they do not shake my faith and isnt that what ultimately matters?

  • Fri Jan 30, 2009 9:36 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    IVV, I agree with your concern but not with your observation. Yes, there are some sites when things get pretty heated and people on both sides of the issue do talk out of turn, but I would encourage you to not confuse intensity with rudeness, although there is a fine line between the two. I'm not sure how often you post on CP but if you should read a post of mine that you think is rude please feel free to call me on it. And at the same time I would also say that to disagree and take an unpopular stance on an issue should not be perceived as un-Christian, I'm not sure that's what your saying but just in case, I don't think there is anything wrong with Christians defending views that they see as soundly biblical and valid such as creationism.

  • Fri Jan 30, 2009 8:36 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    By no means do I think ancient man was ignorant. There are many marvels they perfected that we dont understand. Last night, my kids and I watched a show on how the Incans created impressive stonework using just stoneage tools. However, these same ancients didnt know many things we do today (physics, biology, etc). But it doesnt matter. For the ancient Israelites, God provided the Genesis account which is something they could understand, showed His sovereignty, and stressed the importance of the Sabbath. These were the bedrocks (and still are) of the Jewish (and later Christian) faith and are tennants that are still important today.

    You see, Faith and Reason are not at odds. The Bible is not a scientific textbook. It is a THEOLOGICAL one. Remember the acronymn B.I.B.L.E: Basic Instruction Before Leaving Earth. It is to help us know, love and serve God in this life so we can be happy with him in the next. It has nothing to do with science. Science helps us observe His creation so we can understand it.

    My MAIN point (which seems seems to have been missed) is that this threads conversation is filled with un-Christian like behavior. This should make us all (myself included) think about how we interact with those who dont believe as we do. How can we help those who dont know Christ if they see us as angry, bitter, and judgemental people? There are ways to witness without thumping our Bible.

    Ive been a lurker on these board for quite awhile. Some of the reactions of Christians to non-believers shock me. Remember, love is patient and KIND. Love forgives all injuries, etc. How can we be the light of Christ to others if we allow ourselves to get this type of behavior? As soon as you go on the offensive, the other goes on the defensive and the walls go up. Not the best soil for planting the seed of the Gospel now is it?

    The only people Our Lord got angry with were the religious leaders of his time (money changers aside) because they should have known better! Now contrast this fact with those who were not the leaders, like the Samartin woman. First He tested her faith, then He instructed her. Many other times throughout the NT it was the same. He tested them to see where they were spiritually and then instructed them. He taught them where they were in their understanding and not where He wanted them to be.

    I think it is great you are on fire for God, but that fire needs tempering with charity lest it destroy your work. Pray about what I say here. Search your hearts and be honest. Are you helping build the Body of Christ with your comments to people in this forum? Dont get me wrong, I know I have the same problems some times in other forums. Ive noticed the beam in my eye, so I would like to help you remove the splinter from yours.

  • Thu Jan 29, 2009 11:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ao,
    I just don't buy your argument. It's an arbitrary demarcation that fits your purpose. Philosophers and theologians are the better authorities to define religion, and Secular Humanism falls into that category. The creators of this new religion knew what they were doing by calling it a religion.

    "Humanism is the belief that man shapes his own destiny. It is a constructive philosophy, a nontheistic religion, a way of life." American Humanist Association, promotional brochure. Some humanists, however, have done a lot of back pedaling the past few decades after forming their new religion. Guess the establishment ruling by the Supremes motivated the back pedaling, do you think? Paul Kurtz is surely motivated.

    Even evolutionists call the foundation of humanism a religion
    [Evolution]"...a full-fledged alternative to Christianity...Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." Michael Ruse. Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians.

    It is a belief system with an overarching set of doctrine held to with ardor and faith. Fits the dictionary definition for religion.


    The two court cases: they were both referenced in the Supremes defining humanism a religion.

  • Thu Jan 29, 2009 11:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "are we talking about the same ancient men who built the pyramids?"

    Yeah, those Egyptians who built the pyramids right in between when the noacian flood was supposedly occurring.

    "Why do people make the assumption ancient men could not have understood scientific ideas"

    The question isn't that they couldn't understand or comprehend such science today, some perhaps could, but overwhelming most of the population wasn't literate, let alone scientifically understanding. The capacity to understand isn't the issue, it's having the methodology, & processes to understand cause & effect in nature which is what they lacked.

    Showing a TV or the Internet to any person from the stone or bronze age would leave them confounded, they wouldn't have any idea how a satalite TV operated without understanding the technology behind it.

    "we must also remember that prior to the sin of Adam and Eve mankind was perfect in every way to include there ability to understand,"

    Sure, sure, sure. This is why no such technological things even exist to back up such a claim, right? This is empty rhetoric which can't be backed by any evidence, especially archeological of such a place or a 'knowledge tree'. It's in the bible & no where else.

  • Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    IVV, are we talking about the same ancient men who built the pyramids? Why do people make the assumption ancient men could not have understood scientific ideas and we must also remember that prior to the sin of Adam and Eve mankind was perfect in every way to include there ability to understand, they were not the ignorant people that many assume them to be.

  • Thu Jan 29, 2009 7:22 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "but the literary device employed in teaching TRUTH is an allegory."

    Why? I accept the fact that:

    Isa 55:8 For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD.


    Isa 55:9 For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

    I accept the fact that I am not as smart as God. I accept the fact that He could spell out exactly how he created the world in 6 days but I don't know that He could "dumb it down" enough for me to grasp.

  • Thu Jan 29, 2009 6:42 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    I submit to one and all that it is possible to believe BOTH the Word of God AND scientific evidence.

    The Bible says that God did such and such on each day, but how long is a day to God? I think it's clear that God works outside of time, space and the laws of nature.

    Secondly, I have to agree that Genesis IS the Word of God, but the literary device employed in teaching TRUTH is an allegory. The Bible is to teach TRUTH. The fact that it does contain historically verified FACTS is completely different. FACT can be verified by evidence. Truth simply is. The TRUTH of the Genesis account of Creation was to show that God created heaven, earth and all things in them. It sets the stage for His PRIMACY in everything. What would ancient man understand about millions of years or quantum physics? The information had to be put in a form they could understand which in no way detracts from its truthfullness.

    Third, I'm very surprised at the amount of vitriol coming from some of my fellow Christians. Language and how it is used conveys more than you can possibly know. Does getting into fights on this forum actually accomplish anything? I know I'll probably get angry responses to this post, but I don't care. Our corporate witness to those who don't know Christ should be much, MUCH more charitable.

    Someone on another posting said something to the effect, "why should I believe the Bible?" and yet you don't give them a reason for your hope without crushing them with Bible quotes???? Baby steps. Start with who God is and give a rational basis for why you believe that.

    But for goodness sake, stop the uncharitable comments. A little civility never hurt anyone and may make them wonder why you're different.

  • Thu Jan 29, 2009 12:18 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    "Which is simply to say that science is nothing more than an elaborate Satanic deception if it doesn't support the literal "Six-Day Creation." "

    Anything that says God lied is a deception from Satan. This even includes some "Christian" theology. This is why God gave His word as the standard. We may not understand it.

    For example:
    God never said the Earth was flat. Men did.
    God never said science was wrong. Men did.
    God never said how He created the Earth. Men did.
    God never said science was bad. Men did.
    God never said science was always right. Men did.

    However, God did liken mankind to sheep which (if reports are true) are the least intelligent animal on the planet. We jump to conclusions based on what little we know to make ourselves feel better about what we believe (a thing both evolutionists and creationists have in common).

    One thing I know for sure is nobody has all the sciencific data required to prove either side of the arguement. Although both claim to...they do not. You either believe what a scientist(s) say or you believe what God says. Please note I didn't say science because there is conflicting data...all of which is science.

    When science "says" about religion it becomes a religion. It is some scientists that use science as religion. They worship the created rather than the creator.

    There is a lack of humility in both science and religion which is where the battle is. Objective science (either the natural or the study of Jesus) would be better off if we all recognized how little we actually know in the grand scheme of things.

  • Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:42 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "In fact, the issue of 6 days & 6000 years becomes utterly trivial with the deeper meaning of the forgiveness of sins via Jesus & his messages."

    Boy, that sounds a lot like the hemming and hawing over at Answers in Genesis, one of the "Young-Earth" creationist groups. They are well aware that virtually all of scientific evidence is against them, so Ken Hamm just shrugs his shoulders and says:

    I want to make it VERY clear that we don't want to be known primarily as 'young-Earth creationists.' AiG's main thrust is NOT 'young Earth' as such; our emphasis is on Biblical authority."

    Which is simply to say that science is nothing more than an elaborate Satanic deception if it doesn't support the literal "Six-Day Creation."

  • Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:39 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "In fact, the issue of 6 days & 6000 years becomes utterly trivial with the deeper meaning of the forgiveness of sins via Jesus & his messages."

    Boy, that sounds a lot like the hemming and hawing over at Answers in Genesis, one of the "Young-Earth" creationist groups. They are well aware that virtually all of scientific evidence is against them, so Ken Hamm just shrugs his shoulders and says:

    "I want to make it VERY clear that we don’t want to be known primarily as ‘young-Earth creationists.’ AiG’s main thrust is NOT ‘young Earth’ as such; our emphasis is on Biblical authority."

    In other words, science is nothing but an elaborate Satanic deception if it doesn't support the literal "Six-Day Creation."

  • Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:19 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    jk, I believe that both creationism and evolution are theories and that from a human perspective both have evidence that shows they are both legitimate theories but neither has enough evidence to totally discount the other. So it comes to the point where each person must choose which theory they believe more or simply choose not to choose. For me because of my view of not so much these theories, but because of my faith and trust in God and God's Word I choose to believe in the theory of creationism. And yes, I know there are true Christians who opt to believe in the theory of evolution and even though I disagree with their choice I respect their right to make that choice nor do I question their salvation. Now do I have the skills to scientifically defend my choice, no, but I can see there are others who believe as I do such as hawk and mathetes who can. So if you want to take this discussion to a deeper level I'm not the guy to talk to but there are others who can and will.

  • Thu Jan 29, 2009 12:41 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Given that even Behe accepts the common ancestry of Pan troglodytes and Homo sapiens, I'm not sure that believer would want to hitch his wagon to Behe's book, even discounting Behe's scientific errors.

  • Thu Jan 29, 2009 12:19 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    HAWK,

    I realize you're doubled over & gush for the idea of ID in general and Edge of Evolution in particular. But wouldn't it be fair to read the evolutionary critiques & reviews of his work?

    http://pandasthumb.org/archives/book-reviews/the-edge-of-evo/

    http://pandasthumb.org/archives/book_reviews/the_edge_of_evo/

    I have some design books myself. The Cell's Design, Intelligent Design 101, Design Revolution, What you need to know about Intelligent Design, etc., etc.

  • Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:48 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "you say metaphorical I say false,"

    We already spoke of the interpretation issue & how neither are intrinsically universally applicable throughout.

    "the bottom line is if creationism is not true then the Genesis account is not accurate."

    The creation account can be equally metaphorical, whilst still providing the needed *spiritual essence* that it evokes in the first place in a literalism position. With this, nothing is lost spiritually & it's still accurate in mans relation to god.

    "By sin I mean that which separates one from God and what led to Christ going to the Cross for so our sins could be forgiven"

    Well it seems the 6 day creation event need not be literal for a God to later incarnate himself (demigod) as Jesus & then profess to his followers that all of their foul ways will ultimately be covered for so long as they follow him. The two are not the same event.

    In fact, the issue of 6 days & 6000 years becomes utterly trivial with the deeper meaning of the forgiveness of sins via Jesus & his messages. So why it's the above & beyond THE issue is absurd.

    You make it THE issue b/c like I said, you seem utterly wedded to magic, superstitious & not the messages or spiritual meaning above all else.

  • Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    HAWK,

    "your confusing legally binding with the definition of religion."

    For it to be defined as a religion, first requires legally binding judgment in a court of law. Otherwise, it's empty rhetoric which isn't acknowledge by the US Govt. So until it's defined as such in court, it can't be defined as a religion.

    Maybe to you it is a religion, & maybe this helps you sleep at night, but the court of law says otherwise.

    "The Supremes did define secular humanism as a religion in this case."

    'SAID IN PASSING' in a court isn't legally binding. Get it? If you're personally in a court and make equal statements that it's a religion, yet the judge rules otherwise, it's still not a religion under law. Get it?


    "The authorities of humanism define humanism as a religion;"

    No, they want the same protections under the law which is afforded to those who have a belief. That was the ruling in those past court cases, it had to do w/ 'equal rights under the law' & not establishment of humanism as an official religion.

    "you missed the two court cases that did define humanism as a religion that is binding."

    Which are...

  • Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:22 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Let me put what I believe DP is saying in terms evolutionists "

    Believer is correct about my point.

  • Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    believer,
    Behe's recent book Edge of Evolution addresses some of the concerns mentioned here. Hope this helps, you're on the right track:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3DQAQDPU73HPH
    What do you believe Darwinian evolutionary processes can actually do?
    THE EDGE OF EVOLUTION asks the sober question, what is it reasonable to think Darwinian evolutionary processes can actually do? Unprecedented genetic data on humans and our microbial parasites (malaria, HIV, E. coli) now allow us to answer that question with some precision. The astonishing result is that, even under intense selective pressure, and given an astronomical number of opportunities, random mutation and natural selection yield only trivial, mostly degenerating changes. The bottom line: the major events that produced life on earth were not driven by random mutations...The recent genetic results are a stringent test. The results: 1) Darwinism's prediction is falsified; 2) Design's prediction is confirmed.

    As expected, Miller, Coyne, Dawkins, Ruse and Carroll made disengenuous attacks and you will find comments here using their attacks. The following site offers Behe's answers to their bluster.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/10/science_e_coli_and_the_edge_of.html

  • Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    believer: "God didn't design species to be able to jump from one specie to the other, what's missing is not the mechanism to keep it from happening but the mechanism to allow it to happen."

    But the mechanisms are known, and observed. You agree that they proceed to a certain point, but for some reason you refuse to accept the evidence that these mechanisms continue to act.

    But speciation is real: we have observed it in the lab (Lenski, 2008) and in the wild (Rabe and Haufler, 1992). Speciation events have been observed as early as 1905 (de Vries).

    OK, so you are not a science buff. Is it at least possible then that the thousands of scientists who are working in evolutionary biology, including many Christians, are honest and are reporting real scientific findings? After all, you say yourself that that you are not in the best position to evaluate scientific claims. Is that at least possible, that the scientists are not all lying?

  • Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ao,
    Sorry, your confusing legally binding with the definition of religion.
    The Supremes did define secular humanism as a religion in this case. The authorities of humanism define humanism as a religion; it really doesn't matter if you accept it or not. This is the issue. Humanism is a religious worldview. It fits the definition of religion. BTW; you missed the two court cases that did define humanism as a religion that is binding.

  • Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    jk, God didn't design species to be able to jump from one specie to the other, what's missing is not the mechanism to keep it from happening but the mechanism to allow it to happen. But as agent will attest to if you get much more technical in this discussion it becomes a very one-sided discussion since I don't pretend to be a science buff in any way.

  • Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:23 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    agent, you say metaphorical I say false, the bottom line is if creationism is not true then the Genesis account is not accurate. By sin I mean that which separates one from God and what led to Christ going to the Cross for so our sins could be forgiven.

  • Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    believer: "Let me put what I believe DP is saying in terms evolutionists don't care to hear, most creationists believe in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution. Change within a specie but not one major specie evolving into another major specie."

    Then what is the mechanism that, after evolution has proceeded to a certain point, consistently stops it, preventing these populations from evolving any further? What evidence do you have for this mechanism?

  • Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:39 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    "when does sin enter the world"

    If you mean by sin = death (or evil), well then maybe it's intrinsic to the nature of the universe. Death/harm/evil is a part of life. And iregardless, the notion of evil in the world is still one which theology still wrestles with regardless of some talking snake story.

    "when does God finally start telling the truth"

    I don't follow you. The genesis creation of humanity is about how man is being created in the image, as in spirit, as god is. I don't see why until our species reached a certain point in evolution was this spirit then realized.

    "I mean if the creation account is false"

    I never said it was false, rather, it's not literal, but instead metaphorical. There is a thing such as metaphorical truth.

  • Wed Jan 28, 2009 8:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    agent, it may not erode ones faith but it does leave some important questions unanswered such as, when does sin enter the world and when does God finally start telling the truth, I mean if the creation account is false then what other miraculous stories are false as well, such as manna from heaven, the parting of the Red Sea, Jonah in the belly of a fish and what about the miracles in the New Testament.

  • Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:05 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "in other words there is a high probability that God, if there is a God, was not intentionally involved getting life started"

    It all depends on the perspective, like I said. If premise 1) God exists, then premise 2) God creating natural laws which in turn create life, how is this at all demonstrating no God?

    As Ken Miller & other theologians have put it, as God, being the single stemming supernatural source for all that is the natural world, simply by showing how something occurred naturally doesn't therefore remove the possibility of the supernatural God. It just explains the natural process involved he created.

    My concern would be for people who use the gaps in knowledge as means to prop up their faith, & as a sole justification for belief as if it's something we'll never explain. By doing this they're unwittingly setting up a barrier that science can show how it's naturally explained & in doing it can shatter ones faith.

    Besides, if you have faith, no matter how confounding any possible evidence for any naturalistic explanation shouldn't erode your belief, as in the end they rest on faith, not evidence.

  • Wed Jan 28, 2009 6:56 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "Change within a specie but not one major specie evolving into another major specie."

    How much is major? I mean, if it were demonstrated that all modern elephants & horses descended from a group of more primitive forms which were neither like current horses or elephants, then it would be pretty obvious, wouldn't it?

    It would be no different than understanding how the small tectonic changes over time accumulate to vast mountainous ranges are formed.

    Getting back to the evidence thing, if 'christ's remains' would be the only thing for you to result in any doubt, why is something so trivial like evolution or origins of life even an issue?

  • Wed Jan 28, 2009 6:09 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Luckily, we don't have religious fanatics dressing up as educators where I live. No one except creationists are determined to discredit the most widely held scientific theory in the world today. It's laughable that education boards are even entertaining these crackpots, much less writing ignorance into law. It's a joke. Remind me to stay north of the Mason-Dixon where people know the difference between Faith and science.

  • Wed Jan 28, 2009 5:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    jk, in other words there is a high probability that God, if there is a God, was not intentionally involved getting life started.

  • Wed Jan 28, 2009 5:43 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Let me put what I believe DP is saying in terms evolutionists don't care to hear, most creationists believe in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution. Change within a specie but not one major specie evolving into another major specie.

  • Wed Jan 28, 2009 5:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ifeelfine, many Christians believe they have found the tomb of Christ, one theory says it was the present site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the other says it was located at Gordon's Garden Tomb. The only thing that would shake my faith, if not destroy it is if they found the remains of a person and could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt it was the remains of Jesus Christ, but the reality is that won't happens because God's Word declares that on the third day Jesus Christ rose from the grave and indeed the tomb was empty!

  • Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    believer: You don't listen at all . . . if they found the tomb of Christ, would that make you stop being a Christian? Would that weaken your faith?

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