Updated 04:40 pm.EST, Sat November 21, 2009

Education|Sat, May. 02 2009 09:34 AM EDT

Study: High School Teachers Influence Students' Evolution, Creationist Views

By Lawrence Jones|Christian Post Reporter

What college students learned from their biology teachers in high school influences whether they accept evolution or creationist views, according to a recent study by professors at the University of Minnesota.

University students whose high school biology class covered creationism – in some cases alongside evolution – were more likely to accept creationist views upon entering college, the study found. Those whose high school biology teachers taught evolution but not creationism were more likely to accept evolution in college.

The study, "Rejecting Darwin: The Occurrence & Impact of Creationism in High School Biology Classrooms," is published in the May issue of BioScience, the journal of the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS).

Co-authors Randy Moore and Sehoya Cotner, professors at the University's College of Biological Science, surveyed 1,000 students enrolled in introductory biology classes at the University of Minnesota to examine whether biology majors were more likely than non-majors to encounter evolution and/or creationist views in their high school biology classes. They also wanted to find out how the inclusion of evolution and/or creationism in those classes affect students' views on the subject when they enter college.

Respondents were asked state their opinions on several statements dealing with evolution and creationism, including whether humans are the product of evolutionary processes that have occurred over millions of years and whether the theory of evolution cannot be correct since it disagrees with the Biblical account of creation. The statements were borrowed from an instrument called the "Measure of the Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution."

Results showed that regardless of their major, University students shared similar views on evolution and creationism.

Around two-thirds of respondents said high school biology class included evolution and not creationism while only 1 to 2 percent has classes that covered creationism and not evolution. About 6 to 13 percent said their teachers did not cover either evolution or creationism. But 29 percent of majors and 21 percent of non-majors said their high school biology class covered both evolution and creationism.

The study found that the material covered during the students' high school biology class affected their views on evolution and creationism.

For example, 72 to 78 percent of students exposed to evolution only agreed that it is scientifically valid while 57 to 59 percent of students who were exposed to creationism agreed that evolution can be validated.

"I've long known that many biology teachers teach creationism, but was surprised to learn they have such a strong impact," says Moore, professor of biology and lead author of the study.

For nearly 30 years, Moore has taught biology based on evolution as the subject's unifying theme. However, he strongly opposes the teaching of creationism in science classes, saying it goes against science and the law.

"It's unfortunate that so many teachers think their religious beliefs are science," says Moore. "Teachers who don't teach evolution deny students the understanding of one of the greatest principles in history."

Moore was a founding member of the Minnesota Citizens for Science Education, a grassroots organization that defends the teaching of evolution in local schools. Last Fall, he was named the winner of the National Association of Biology Teachers' 2008 Evolution Education Award, which was co-sponsored by AIBS.

Moore and Cotner, an associate professor of biology, have discussed their research on a radio talk show led by Minnesota Atheists.

According to a news release on the study, the authors are interested in working with high school biology teachers – and particularly with college students who plan to teach biology – to improve their understanding and teaching of evolution.

The study comes a month after the Texas Board of Education adopted new standards that require science teachers to encourage students to "critique" and examine "all sides" of scientific theories. The new science curriculum standards will take effect with the 2010-2011 school year.

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 | 5
  • Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:01 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hohnson said,

    "I think schools should also spend at least 6 to 8 weeks discussing the Loch Ness Monster, alien autopsies, and the tooth fairy. Once they blow those out of the water, which I know they won't be able to do because I believe in them and no amount of evidence could change that, then they should move on to an in depth study of vampires, the lost city of Atlantis, and the bogeyman."

    Great stuff (I like the Atlantis story myself), which I just realized you posted months ago.

    Glad I found it anyway. Now I can end this night with a smile.

    TGF

  • Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:36 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Gibbons Family: "For decades the freaks have convinced most people that it's uncool, unintelligent, and hateful to not listen to their world views and wild theories" What experience do you have evaluating wild theories? hide

  • Mon Aug 17, 2009 1:15 am Agree: 10   Disagree: 0

    Ever since the explosive rise in the number of people professing Christian beliefs, there has been a small number of others lurking and wishing there was something to disprove the existence of God. It's obvious why.

    No sooner had young Darwin stolen enough information to put together enough material for a book that was essentially anti-God, than the lurkers crawled out of their holes in record numbers as archaeologists, sweeping the world in search of anything that would support the material published under Darwin's name.
    There was never a report on the percentage of archaelogists who were scowering the globe who were atheists and devotees of Darwin.

    Of course, but coincidentally, no sooner had the field of archeology begun in haste, than suddenly the missing link between man and ape was found - the Piltdown Man. Atheists and Demons applauded around the world this great discovery.

    As a result of this definite proof, the theory of evolution was allowed into our public school system.

    Forty years later, scientists discovered the proof was a fraud and spent several years hiding this fact from the public while they created a united response, that basically said that although this one discovery turned out to be in error (actually a con), there was hundreds of other fossils that supported Darwin's theory.
    This is the nonsense they have stuck to ever since.

    Atheists, in one of their top tactics, gradually dropped using the world "theory", then later began mocking anyone who did use the word "theory" and used phrases that claimed that any intelligent person cannot deny that evolution is a proven fact.
    An excellent tactic in the 1970's and 1980's, when everyone was afraid of being labeled anything.

    Recently, a new generation of intelligent people have woken up to the many absurd claims of the Atheists, the Radical Feminist/Homosexual Alliance and their left-wing liberal followers. This has given older people, who were once afraid to speak up, the courage to recount all the nonsense propaganda they've heard and read since the 1960's.

    In the future, the people will look back at the people of the 20th century as the funniest bunch, who thought human beings came from monkeys, the universe was the size of a grapefruit that exploded, and murdered millions of humans after being told that unborn babies were only human tissue ...

    For decades the freaks have convinced most people that it's uncool, unintelligent, and hateful to not listen to their world views and wild theories.
    It's time the truly intelligent begin to speak up against these atheists - whose only mantra is "God is Dead - so I can do anything I want".

  • Fri May 22, 2009 7:00 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    LSP - your questions have been answered approximately a gazillion times by me and others, and you keep repeating them. You've already acknowledged that you don't understand the "scientific jargon", which means you're not in a position to evaluate the evidence for evolution, including descent from a common ancestor.

    You say you're interested in "the truth" but you've declared that your belief in an "intelligent designer" is fixed and unmovable. You persist in the cartoonishly silly demand that speciation occur in the time frame you require, and to a degree of visually obvious difference that tickles your fancy. Just because the reasoning and the evidence are both outside of your understanding, or your willingness to understand, doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with the science.

    Evolutionary biology only says that within the realm of what can be observed and measured directly, this is what we can understand of how things work. When I say that God is outside the realm of the natural sciences, that only means that God can't be studied, that there are no hypotheses about God that can be tested within the natural sciences. The natural sciences have nothing to say about whether God does or doesn't exist, how long his beard is, or whether he prefers to wear sandals or go barefoot.

    Science does not impinge at all on your beliefs about God and the supernatural. That's why it's called supernatural. I recommend that you keep God and the natural sciences separate -- I don't think that that's a combination that will do your religion any good.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 7:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Good evening gentlemen:

    - DanielPaul; very nicely put concerning 'horizontal' type biblical explanation 'species within species'= 'kind after its kind'. re: 'Gap Theory'. alright. i understand it really came about in 1800s as an attempt to harmonize 'new geological science' with an 'old earth' posit. but, there may be a misinterpretation re: Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 (thinking there's a gap or two distinct creations?). one chapter has a 'macro-creation' perspective & two chapter i think is 'micro-creation' perspective. both however report the same one time event.
    the 'young earth' prospect...not sure of, however i certainly am leaning in the direction of 'millions of years' being unsupported and false.

    For Steven20 - thanks for your response. much appreciated. the 'propel' is not orbit around sun but our very own rotation 24 hours. this is where (near molton rock) a layer of water (steam) may course to give opposite action (energy) to create 'magneticsm'...geez, i'm not sure where this is going...little sci-fy? oh well. food for thought. as far as caves...okay. limestone = calicification = ancient seabed. some caves (like in Kenntucky) have granite. what about the granite core then huge sedimentary strata in grand canyon?

    ifeelfine72 - howdy. i think the 'speciation' again is truly concerning adaptation / mututation. it just hasn't been proven 'new' species.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 4:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hello desl

    Whilst the others argue over their chosen topic lets see if we can make some headway with your query. I'll do a little cut and paste just to help with answering.

    "the core is molten rock/mineral."

    Partley. The inner core is solid due to pressure and temperature and is composed of an alloy of mainly iron and nickle with smaller amounts of some siderophile elements. The outer core which is of the same composition is due to temperature and pressure, liquid, it is here that the Earth's magnetic field is produced. We know this due to measurement of s and p waves produced in earthquakes, measurement of Earth's density, investigating chondritic meteorites.

    "Could there also be a 'layer' of water heated to steam which would help to propel planet?"

    I'm taking it by propel you mean orbit the Sun. The Earth's orbit is the result of the rotation of the disc and gas from which it accreated, the same can be said for its rotation.

    "where did all the water come from/go (ie. grand canyon) during the Deluge?"

    Thats for you to answer as I know of no such thing, well if there was one, it gave the UK a miss.

    Re the caves, yes fast flowing large amounts of water can erode rapidly as can very small amounts over a long time. Take a step back though, those caves are composed of limestone, what sort of enviroment causes such rock to form. It's quite eye opening. We have such caves in the UK which means that millions of years ago the climate was tropical when we where nearer the equator. Very nice.
    Steve

  • Fri May 08, 2009 3:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    ifeelfine72,

    You are avoiding my question: I would like to know how the circumstantial evidence proffered for macroevolution does not violate principles of logic and reasoning (see my prior post as to why I believe this alleged 'evidence' does contradict with reason and logic). Again, logic and reasoning apply to all disciplines, including science.

    Here's my responses to your responses to my response.

    "What did you expect? For the fruit fly to turn into a bumble bee? Speciation means that a new breeding population of fruit flies will emerge. If the new population cannot breed with the old population, you have a new species."

    Okay, so show me the new breeding population of fruit flies that have emerged as a result of the process of macroevolution, please. No inferences, I want proof of the process itself occurring.

    "You're trying to apply the very different standards of a court of law to science . . . there is so much evidence for evolution that no other verdict is even possible."

    Logic and reasoning apply to all disciplines. I argued in my prior post that the evidence proffered for macro-evolution is circular reasoning and also affirms the antecedent-both logical fallacies. Also, the only way that the 'evidence' proffered for macro-evolution would render a verdict in favor of macro-evolution is if one ignores all other perspectives and adheres only to a naturalistic world-view. I am interested in the truth, regardless of where it leads. That being said, without being weighted down by viewpoint bias, the evidence garnered in support for macroevolution can also be taken as evidence of common design, as the process of macroevolution itself has never been directly observed.

    "macro-evolution has been observed - again stop with this, its already been explained multiple times. It seems as though at this point the only thing you're doing is shouting."

    Right back at you. You have avoided answering my questions as to how the evidence for macro-evolution does not violate principles of logic and reasoning-first principles, which apply to all disciplines. I have explained why I think the evidence does violate logic and reasoning, you have yet to refute my claims. I am waiting. Please see my prior post and please be thorough.

    The process of macro-evolution has never been directly observed. All Darwinists have proffered in its support is alleged intermediaries (which could be simply separate species) evidence inferred from evidence from micro-evolution (circular reasoning), and DNA similarities (which could equally be taken as proof of common design.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 3:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    believer: That is the commonly held definition. I didn't create the definition, I'm just sharing it.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 3:46 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    hohnson, I'm not surprised that a person who believes in evolution would believe in those things as well!! :0)

  • Fri May 08, 2009 3:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    ifeelfine, I thought you said macro-evolution was a term only used by creationists for the most part, if that's the case then shouldn't they be the ones defining what they mean by it?

  • Fri May 08, 2009 3:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    believer: The commonly held definition of macro-evolution is speciation - which is roughly the inability to breed within a given population. If there are enough changes that the two creatures can no longer reproduce, then they are two different species.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 3:29 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

    "are you elluding to the 'gap theory' yet another 'debate' between us? "

    Absolutely not. The gap theory is a question of if 6 literal days of creation or if those days are a figure of speech. I hold to 6 literal days. We have a day being 1 revolution of our planet.

    There are many questions the Bible doesn't answer. There are questions I don't (didn't) answer that my children asked because they were not using the answers that I had given them! I want my children to have faith in me as their father that I am telling the truth. God, our Father, want's the same.

    With that in mind there are "gaps", if you will, concerning the details of creation. For example, the question I asked about how long Adam and Eve were in the garden before they sinned. Was it a year, a hundred years, a thousand years? The Bible says "In the beginning" and not "on the first day God created the heavens and the earth".

    Evolutionists hold to vertical evolution (between species) but the Bible never addresses horizontal evolution (within a species). It does say "after their own kind" (birds after birds, fish after fish, and so on). There is proof of horizontal evolution but not vertical.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 3:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    ifeelfine, so if a type of fly becomes a different type of fly and can't go back to being the former type of fly, you equate that with macro-evolution? Well many would only see that as micro-evolution because it is still classified as a fly. So once again we are working with the same set of facts, but simply a different interpretation of those facts. And that difference is based on the concept that you say tomato and I say tomato.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 3:07 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

    "would our courts work well if science dictated legal decisions?"

    Ummm...like our courts really work all that well now....

  • Fri May 08, 2009 2:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    logicshouldprevail - here are the responses:
    1. What did you expect? For the fruit fly to turn into a bumble bee? Speciation doesn't mean a fruit fly is going to turn into a cat. Speciation means that a new breeding population of fruit flies will emerge. If the new population cannot breed with the old population, you have a new species. Dogs? A Great Dane can breed with a German Shepard so its not a different species.
    2. You're trying to apply the very different standards of a court of law to science . . . would our courts work well if science dictated legal decisions? No. But if you like the analogy, there is so much evidence for evolution that no other verdict is even possible.
    3. See the answer to number 1.
    4. Completely false, macro-evolution has been observed - again stop with this, its already been explained multiple times. It seems as though at this point the only thing you're doing is shouting.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 1:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Here's the correct link to the article I cited below. I placed a period after the link in my original response which might prevent one from accessing the article.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html

  • Fri May 08, 2009 1:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ifeelfine72,

    Please explain to me how all the circumstantial evidence proffered for macro-evolution does not violate basic principles of logic.

    With regards to direct observation of macro-evolution see: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html.

    This article comes from a pro-common ancestry website. The article offers four responses to the claim that macro-evolution has never been directly observed. Let's analyze each of these points to see if they correspond with basic principles of logic (again arguments made in all disciplines must conform with logic and reasoning).

    1. "We would not expect large changes to happen quickly." Very true, but you've had since 1859 (publication of Darwin's Origin of Species) to observe fruit flies, which can replicate extremely quickly. I'm not asking for a fruit fly descendant to sprout arms and legs, but it would be nice to see something other than a fruit fly emerge from their reproductive zoo.

    2. "Evidence for common ancestry does not depend on directly observing macroevolution." Yes, it does. If there is no direct evidence for macroevolution, than all evidence proffered for it is circumstantial. However, circumstantial evidence requires an underlying fact with which to bridge the gap between the evidence and the inference argued therefrom. (Example, DNA testing is accepted in paternity cases precisely because we know that a child had to have had a father). In this case, there is no requirement that humans had to have evolved from a common ancestor. Therefore all circumstantial evidence for macroevolution is circular reasoning, as the underlying premise (that macroevolution is true) has never been proven.

    3. "Macroevolution means at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed." Question: what qualifications do scientists have when labeling something a new species. It seems that anyone could view a plant or animal with slightly different traits and claim, "hey, a new species!" Also, it seems that many of the evidence used for speciation is merely proof for microevolution (variances within a certain species, which can be directly observed). Based on this, it seems that scientists are taking evidence from one type of evolution that can be observed and are arguing that this proves that macroevolution (a type of evolution that can't be directly observed) is true. This is affirming the antecedent, a logical fallacy.

    4. "There are many transitional forms that show macroevolution is true." A link explains that these transitions can be viewed in the fossil record. Again, why couldn't these alleged transitions simply be a separate species that went extinct? As macroevolution as a process itself has never been directly observed, these alleged transitions might not even be transitions in the first place, but simply separate, distinct species with similarities in their design to other species.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 1:16 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    "if creationism is such a fluke then bring it into the science classrooms and blow it out of the water once and for all!"

    I think schools should also spend at least 6 to 8 weeks discussing the Loch Ness Monster, alien autopsies, and the tooth fairy. Once they blow those out of the water, which I know they won't be able to do because I believe in them and no amount of evidence could change that, then they should move on to an in depth study of vampires, the lost city of Atlantis, and the bogeyman.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 12:23 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Greetings desl,
    I am just passing through but I have seen your comments directed to me, I will try and catch up with them later.
    BW
    Steve

  • Fri May 08, 2009 12:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Daniel Paul - good question. compelling Bible study. of course however it doesn't 'state specific time frame' BUT, if taken in 'context' we understand the surrounding references to time as a common 24 hour day. are you elluding to the 'gap theory' yet another 'debate' between us?

  • Fri May 08, 2009 12:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hi steven20 - more questions - what about the subterranean cave system all over the world? they are (obviously) not connected but it clearly points to a massive amount of fast moving underground water? did it move to the ocean? what? my science experience went as far as HS biology & college liberal arts (although A+ astronomy). now, as adult learner (home schooling mom, nursing/bio student) i'm so curious about it all.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 11:50 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Good morning Believer - wholeheartidly agree. allow 'critical thought' to engage the student.

    Blessings to you Ifeelfine72 - reconsider what you said, 'online' and 'observed in the lab' - both can be directly 'intelligently' manipulated outcomes. i think the point for speciation = "new bio.species of 2 or more genetically distinct species" is at best highly tricky and quite involved process and WHERE in the 'natural world' unaffected or influenced by intelligent Man has this been found to occur outside of natural selection/mututation/adaptation?

    -Hello NateS777 - your question is fun for thought. can you expand a little more on your line of thinking?

    Hello Logic -most excellent references; 'uniformity' & 'good science follows the evidence'. Watch for Senate Bill 320: 'Science Ed. Academic Freedom Bill'

    Hi Steven20 - here's an earth science question, the core is molten rock/mineral...could there also be a 'layer' of water heated to steam which would help to propel planet? where did all the water come from/go (ie. grand canyon) during the Deluge?

    Morning, Michael - your comments 'respectable bio-teacher' and 'educated people'...listen, these folks have been indocrinated, like we all have, by academic professionals steeped in 'evo-aetheistic' worldview. It's already slanted and biased information. what more can i say.

    Talltree 01 and BobTx - good morning gentlemen, thats EXACTLY my case in point, 'evolutionary' theory was just a 'theory' however 'professionally academic' it may appear. Evolution is intrinsically an 'aetheistic religion' which has 'used' science to find it's evidence. Today, brilliant scholars using modern technology are discovering something else. And, gentlemen, it points to a Divine Creator.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 10:31 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    bobtx, so the "moral implications" of an issue are not important or is it that you want to avoid dealing with those issues and by putting the word "vague" on the issue, it provides you an easy exit point from the discussion?

  • Fri May 08, 2009 10:28 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

    bobtx, my issue has and will always be that creationism should be presented in science classes and allow the students to determine from the presented data and evidence which view they choose to adhere to, but for what ever reason evolutionists aren't willing to allow for honest discussion of both theories. And I will continue to make that challenge every opportunity I get and one of my points will be is that if creationism is such a fluke then bring it into the science classrooms and blow it out of the water once and for all!

  • Fri May 08, 2009 8:54 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    logicshgouldprevail: You keep parroting that speciation has not ever been observed (you did it twice in two of your last postings). We've directed you to places online where you can see that speciation has been observed in the lab. As one Christian to another, I'm begging you to stop lying about this. Please.

  • Fri May 08, 2009 5:44 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Concerning the bread that Jesus fed to the thousands, would science find the bread to be wheat of months in age or would it have been minutes old if one were able to measure the age of that bread, after God made it out of nothing?

  • Fri May 08, 2009 1:35 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    "the reality is those in the evolutionist camp appear to be very afraid to take on this flukey theory and put it to bed once and for all!"

    In the scientific world, this is pretty settled. In the culture war pseudo science world of ICR vs. militant atheist authors, one could easily be fooled into thinking there are still large numbers of scientists on both sides.

    However, even though evolution is incredibly well described, documented, peer reviewed, and supported by all natural science evidence available, that DOES NOT really have any bearing on the existence of God or not. One can quite comfortably believe in evolution and the God of the Bible.

    PS: Believer: repeatedly and vaguely accusing people of avoiding discussion of issues when they plainly are doesn't exactly help keep discussion moving effectively. I can see it is a preferred fallback tactic, but it might help to clearly and pointedly describe an issue you wish another participant would discuss (a specific issue, not something vague like "the moral implications of evolution" or something).

  • Thu May 07, 2009 11:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hello Logic

    Thank you for your answer, I appreciated it.

    My area of interest is Earth sciences and I am up early in the UK (lovely morning outside)finishing an assignment on Core formation processes in the early Earth, its so interesting.

    Hi mathetes, yes poor old Chelsea, still, looking forward to the F A cup, Everton V Chelsea, I want the Toffees (Everton) to win.

    BW

    Steve

  • Thu May 07, 2009 10:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    steveh20,

    You asked me to posit an alternative theory to Darwin's theory of common ancestry? Certainly.

    First, note I am interested in the truth. If the evidence suggests that humans and the universe were created randomly, by chance and coincidence, fine. However, if the evidence suggests that an Intelligent Designer is somehow involved, I will be willing to listen as well.

    Science, by confining itself only to naturalistic explanations is adhering to a grievous bias. By refusing to consider supernatural explanations, it is assuming that (1) there is a naturalistic explanation for everything and (2) that a naturalistic explanation has to be the correct viewpoint. This is biased, and is making an assumption about truth and the world, which may not be true.

    That being said, the better approach is to be open to whatever the evidence suggests.

    With respect to the origin, development, and diversity of life, my theory is this: We had an intelligent designer that created the individual species with a potential for variance depending on the environment. This is why humans can observe changes within species, but have never witnessed one species morphing into another.

    For me, this Intelligent Designer is the God of the Bible. For someone else, it might be a space alien. For still someone else it might be the flying snickers bar monster. I'm not concerned about the nature of the designer, that is for theologians to talk about.

    What I am concerned about is whether the evidence points to a designer. In my opinion, it does. First and foremost (I won't go on an evidentiary rant, unless you ask me to) principles of forensic science adhere to the notion of uniformity, that is if something is true today, it probably was true in the past. This means that if an intelligent message requires the work of an intelligent agent today, same for in the past.

    If I wrote a note accusing you of being a close-minded naturalist, but no one ever saw me write it, they would assume that the words were not formed by chance, but were written by someone else.

    Same with the universe. The effects of the universe, the order and structure demand that there was an intelligent cause behind it.

    This doesn't mean that science needs to give up, there is much to learn about how the various structures in this universe work and how they function. The fact that there may have been an intelligent designer does not somehow mean we need to stop thinking and questioning.

    The difference between you and me is that I am open to where ever the evidence leads, whereas you follow the perspective of methodological naturalism. This is self limiting and ultimately closed-minded.

  • Thu May 07, 2009 10:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    klm68,

    I am sorry I took so long to respond. The stench of liberalism (i.e. hypocrisy under the guise of selective open-mindedness) and atheism (this earth exists without an intelligent cause-itself a form of magic) really had me feeling down this week. Thankfully I am better and am ready to respond.

    I would like to know why all the evidence you (and others like you) have put forth for macroevolution and common ancestry should not be categorized as circular reasoning or affirming the antecedent-both logical fallacies.

    Remember, scientists have observed microevolution (i.e. changes within a species taking place) but scientists have not observed the process of macroevolution (i.e., a species morphing into a completely different, new species) taking place. That being said, they rely on circumstantial evidence.

    While I admit that circumstantial evidence can be used in a court of law, there must be an underlying fact with which to bridge the gap between that evidence and the inference implied therefrom. (Example, DNA evidence works in paternity cases precisely because we know that a child had to have had a father).

    However, with macroevolution, the process itself has never been directly observed. Hence, all the evidence of DNA commonalities,
    etc can only be taken as evidence for macroevolution if one rejects all other viewpoints and objectivity and assumes that methodological naturalism is the only correct viewpoint. Remember, evidence of DNA similarities between all species equally could be used as proof for a common designer.

    In the nature of trying to educate, I digress. Please answer my aforementioned question.

  • Thu May 07, 2009 10:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    michael-j,

    You obviously have never taken a First Amendment course. The Establishment Clause has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to mean that no government can endorse or HINDER religion. This has been interpreted further to mean that Government must remain neutral on religious matters. This means that sometimes, to prevent overt hostility towards religion, the government must actually accommodate it. Example: if a public school opens its doors after hours to allow extra curricular activities, it cannot prevent religious groups from using the classrooms as well.

    With respect to teaching creationism and intelligent design, I would argue a legal case could be made for its constitutionality. Under the U.S Supreme Court case of Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, the Court ruled that religion could be taught in public school as long it served a secular, non-indoctrinating purpose.

    With respect to teaching creationism and intelligent design, such an approach would allow students to gain an understanding for how other cultures and beliefs view such fundamental questions as "why we are here." The purpose in teaching these positions would not be to coerce students into accepting these beliefs but merely to provide diversity of thought and allow students the freedom to think for themselves. Based on this, teaching these approaches in public school could be upheld, albeit not necessarily in a science class, thanks to methodological naturalism (i.e. bias and closed-mindedness).

    As for you referring to the "magic" of creationism, do you personally have evidence that God does not exist? I know, I know, you can't prove a negative, but seriously, atheism believes in not believing, which is a "by faith," spiritual position in itself. The fact that we got here without intelligent design is itself "magic."

    As for science, good science should be concerned with the truth, regardless of whether the evidence points to a supernatural cause or a natural one. By refusing to consider an evidentiary position with suggests intelligent design (intelligent effects warrant intelligent causes) the scientific establishment is propping forward the biased world-view of methodological naturalism.

  • Thu May 07, 2009 4:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Steve, I'm sorry about Chelsea. I finally got to see one of their matches, only to see Barcelona tie it in the final minutes. For the record, I thought your lads played well.

  • Thu May 07, 2009 4:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    m-j,
    Perhaps you have done some reading in science, but you should probably take a class on civility and etiquette. The debate is not won by the person who insults his opponent, but by the person who presents his side best. How about less of the former and more of the latter?

    As Steve would say, Queensbury rules, gentlemen!

  • Thu May 07, 2009 4:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

    OK...food for thought question....

    Premise...Genesis is true.

    How many years were Adam and Eve in the garden before they sinned?

  • Thu May 07, 2009 2:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mj, as far as your establishment clause, another smoke-screen to avoid a thorough discussion of creationism vs. evolution!

  • Thu May 07, 2009 2:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    mj, even your copouts are a poor excuse for why evolutionists are so afraid of taking on creationism. Oh, and by the way I took science classes in both high school and college! And as I've said before those in the science arena who support creationism have the same credentials and have attended many of the same schools the evolutionists have, so you can discount AIG and ICR all you like, but the reality is those in the evolutionist camp appear to be very afraid to take on this flukey theory and put it to bed once and for all!

  • Thu May 07, 2009 10:51 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Another problem is the Establishment Clause.

    Biology teachers actually would like to talk about magical creation because they would like to point out that only the most stupid and most insane people believe in it.

    They can't do that because of the Establishment Clause. Biology teachers are not allowed to talk about the stupidity of Christian beliefs, so they don't talk about religion at all.

  • Thu May 07, 2009 10:48 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "what are those of you in the evolution camp so afraid of"

    Afraid of your childish belief in magic?

    I'm too busy laughing at it.

    You really are hopelessly ignorant and gullible.

    Did you know this is 2009 and not the Dark Ages?

  • Thu May 07, 2009 10:46 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "if creationism is the fluke you all claim it is then bring it into the science classes and show it for the fluke it is!"

    No respectable biology teacher would waste valuable class time talking about something as childish and anti-science as magical creation.

    What the heck is the biology teacher suppose to say? How about "Another idea is a magic fairy waved its magic wand and poofed everything into existence."

    If a biology teacher said that to the students, after they got done laughing at the stupidity of their teacher, would demand that he or she be fired immediately.

    What happened in Dover was interesting. The biology teachers were ordered to read a statement about intelligent design (fancy words that mean THE MAGIC FAIRY DID IT). Every single biology teacher in that school refused to read it. Later a federal court ruled that intelligent design is equal to cow manure.

    I'm curious mr. or ms. believer, have you ever in your entire life made any effort to study science?

    I didn't think so.

  • Thu May 07, 2009 10:37 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    talltree and michealj, as I said what are those of you in the evolution camp so afraid of, if creationism is the fluke you all claim it is then bring it into the science classes and show it for the fluke it is! That is unless you can't without spewing a whole bunch of useless rhetoric that simply chooses to claim it's not science, it's not science!!

  • Thu May 07, 2009 10:20 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Answers in Genesis claims the entire universe was magically created 6,000 years ago. That automatically makes them unqualified to say anything about science. Any educated grammar school student would agree the weirdos of Answers in Genesis are insane. hide

  • Thu May 07, 2009 10:18 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    desl49 wrote "Don't you find that curious?"

    What I find curious, desl49, is that you invoked answers in genesis without expecting educated people to laugh at you.

  • Thu May 07, 2009 10:11 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "The demerits of ID theory itself - so woeful as to be funny: in this world of ours, with so much failed experiment of life, so much repetition and haphazard variety of endeavour to meet the challenge of passing on genes, to claim the existence and activity of a supernatural designer would be a sort of blasphemy on the latter, if it existed - are well enough known not to require the wasted effort of iteration; nor does the overwhelming security of evolutionary theory in biology require defence."

    -- AC Grayling

    http://newhumanist.org.uk/1856

  • Thu May 07, 2009 9:54 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    This is where the great divide in intellect is going to occur. I live in PA, and when that bogus-Dover ID news happened, it was an absolute joke to surrounding school districts, and an embarrassment for many of us. It is incredibly sad that conservative believers don't understand that religion and religious undertones have no place in science; you wouldn't want a disclaimer called 'atheist design' forced into the curriculum of religion classes?

  • Thu May 07, 2009 9:25 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    And lastly Viking,

    Q. 11:57 -

    We are on the same page as thoroughly taking delight in our magnificent Creator, who has designed all that we see, hear, touch, smell, taste and then some in such a way that our simple minds can comprehend discovery in the natural world.

    A magnificent Creator, who has fully and perfectly illustrated all His ways for us to behold in the natural world.

    An incomprehensable intelligence so far from our grasp of understanding who came to us as a llittle babe, in Christ, and grow among us, live like us, die for us, come alive for us, ascend for us and continue to pray for us...is awesome and beyond words.

    Have a great day. And, don't stop asking.

  • Thu May 07, 2009 9:19 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    For Viking:

    Q.11:48 -

    the fossil record as reported by a number of archeologist (of course, see Answersingenesis.org) has stated in various articles 'there appears to be no eco-system decay along with the dino-bones'.(The only plant life has been found in the stomachs, which again show a 'rapid cover' as in Deluge). Don't you find that curious? Of course, there are plenty of strata records of ancient dead plant life however, there are no bones along with it. Why? Surely, if a creature suddently died where it was standing amid the 'jungle forest' all else would be evident. But, it is not. So. what does this mean?

    Can you point me in the direction of any studies which clearly prove this? How about you giving some credence to your assertions.

  • Thu May 07, 2009 9:09 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Viking - here we go : ) +

    Q. 11:34 - " entropy = a way to 'measure' energy spreading out = HOWEVER, original energy of each component ISN'T CHANGED, just spread apart" www.secondlaw.com/entropy

    Does this sound like the 'Big Bang'theory? Again, Viking you are bringing foundational, evolutionary precepts to this conversation. It's 'bad science' with a worldview filter of agnosticism/aetheism/scepticsm. But hey, it's all we've had for a long time. Yet, the changes are on the horizon and we will be better people for it.

  • Thu May 07, 2009 9:01 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    hi Viking -

    Q.11:16 - I can not 'imagine' or 'envision' a Creator who basically lies. 'Evolution', as it has been taught to you and I and thousands of other people over the last 100 years worldwide, is in direct conflict with the assertions made by God as we know Him.

    What more can I say to this statement?

  • Thu May 07, 2009 8:58 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Viking -

    Q. 11:06 - okay: new information = 'additional' genetic stuff ie. DNA/RN =cell growth= something new

    this again, is bottom line - in order for a creature to actually transform, transmutate, 'evolve' into another complete different species (which evolutionary theory asserts)...the existing cellular structures MUST gain new genetic coding to support the new systems. And, this just ain't so in the real world of science. It's never been proved in the fossile record, existing life, or in the lab. It just hasn't been done.

  • Thu May 07, 2009 8:50 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hi Viking -

    Q. 11:06 - (again, thanks for spending time going through my response), okay to respond to your statements -
    like i said i am not an 'official astronomer' but as once a girlscout leader who's taken the kids on star gazing field trips (years ago)....here we go....


    please read these books. you will be amazed by the 'science' of it....'The Case for a Creator' and 'The Priviledged Planet'...super good reading.

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.
Also on CP
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