The Evangelical Rejection of Reason

Evolution is a fact, Quantrill. You cannot explain biodiversity if you cannot observe changes within populations. The latter is called observation of evolution. In science also known as fact.

Evolution as an explanation, i.e., the theory of evolution (or nowadays Modern Synthesis) is a very different thing from fact. It explains how biodiversity emerges and behaves.

What is missing seems to be basic education in science, so that Americans may become absolutely clear about the methodology that is science, even after graduating. Because that's often a mess.

Though I suspect it may have little to do with science education as such and instead being due to massive religious indoctrination. First of all, your educational system does produce some extraordinary brilliant scientists. So it must be fine on at least some levels. Secondly, there doesn't seem to be the same confusion when it comes to other scientific issues, which points more to an ideological lopsidedness than an educational weakness.

For example, the force that can be observed as an attraction between separate masses is called gravity. Thus gravity is a fact. But there is also a theory called the theory of gravity that explains how such attractions work. Hence, the word gravity is also used in the sense of a theory. This doesn't seem to spawn the same kind of controversy as evolution.

Terrible things happen when things are mistaken for the things that they are not.

 

A real "bible believing christian" would know deut 29:29, but what if, on the other side. "inquisitive minds", contradict the word of the Bible?

 

No need for science to contradict the Bible. It's contradicting itself in so very many different places that I regard it as God's clue that it's not to be seen as 'bible-believing' Christians tend to see it (down to the letter literal and inerrant with no human influences at all). Inquisitive Christians will get the message: "God created us" and they'll see the clay-bit for what it was: an explanation enabling people of its time to grasp the message in metaphorical pictures they could understand.

 

The know-it-all Christian is not only humble in his arrogance towards others, he also reduces himself to a state of nothing which is the epitomy of humility.

Sounds contradictive?

 

As though the mechanical workings of a keyboard are comparable to religious faith?

Faith precludes evidence. If there is evidence faith cannot exist. Therefore, the expectation that hitting an 'e' on my keyboard will produce and 'e' on the screen is not faith. Completely inaccurate analogy.

 

I'm sorry you see it that way.

 

So you don't believe the bible?

 

I thought I had made it clear that I do. Embracing its messages doesn't require me to read it in the way fundamentalist inerrancy-obsessed evangelicals read it, a way that not only is unsustainable (as the book itself will tell you as soon as you study it) but often is even in the way of the message. Just like taking every word of a poem literally can keep you from getting what it may be about.

 

He's right though isn't he? Having faith in my keyboard's functions is not having faith but expecting a foreseeable result that I've seen many times before and that - for a technician - is easily explainable.
Having faith in let's say the existence of a soul or eternal life after death is something completely different and something that is definitely less profane. Faith is not knowing and at the same time higher than just knowing. Or as Bonhoeffer once said: “A God who let us prove his existence would be an idol”.

 

I never really understood the rationale behind this argument. Couldn't God have just explained it to us? As an omnipotent being, surely He could have somehow given us this knowledge.

 

If their is a God, wouldn't His intelligence be far more superior than the brightest mind on earth? If so, do you think you could even comprehend anything that He would tell you?

 

Not in my opinion.

faith   /feɪθ/ Show Spelled[feyth] Show IPAnoun 1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. 3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims. 4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty. 5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

 

Assuming you are referring to the Christian God (which I am clarifying because you said "a God"), then yes.

Absolutely. Just because he would possess greater intelligence does not mean that I would be incapable of comprehending. Besides, as I pointed out, the Christian God is defined as possessing omnipotence. This means that he can do anything. Which means that he would have the ability to explain literally any concept so that I could understand it, regardless of my level of intelligence.

 

Well, then your science class should not mind the creation belief being presented.

If you can present your evolution belief in school, then I can present my creation belief also.

Quantrill

 

Evolution is not a fact. Its a belief or theory. And yes, any diversity can be explained by God creating.

Yes, I know the definition of a fact by science is still a theory. So, what I will say is that evolution is not true. It didn't happen. It doesn't happen. It won't happen.

Your explanation of gravity fails. You recognize an object falls. You seek explanation. You recognize different animals and creatures on the earth. You seek an explanation. The only fact in these is that an object falls, and, there are different creatures on the earth.

You believe it is done through evolution. I believe God created it.

Quantrill

 

It doesn't strike you as arrogant that you could understand the mind of God?

 

Your belief - that a god created it - is without supporting evidence - there a superstitious myth. - buckum.

 

Science doesn't deal with beliefs. It deals with the findings of scientific research.
Creationism has no scientific case. If anywhere it belongs into religious lessons.
My Church would probably be among the first to protest if creationism was taught in science classes and its religious classes because it rejects this - forgive me - childish interpretation of the bible and follows an approach that may be termed "theistic evolution or evolutionary creation" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
If you want to teach your kids creationism in your Churches religious classes, so be it. But don't molest other people's kids by trying to sneak your personal religious beliefs into science lessons.

 

What kind of church do you go to?

 

I think it can be called the Temple of Numerology.

 

I'm a member of the Evangelical Church in Germany (German: Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland, abbreviated EKD) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Church_in_Germany and in that body my parish belongs to the Evangelical Church of Westphalia (German: Evangelische Kirche von Westfalen, EKvW): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Church_of_Westphalia

I have to get going now but I hope to find time to answer your other post later. Have a nice day.

 

Evolution is based on facts as they are known.. I think its called the scientific method.. Its not based on beliefs or religious teachings at all.

 

Yes Science does when puts forth the belief of evolution. Then it sets out to find proof for it.

Why do you molest Christians children teaching them the belief of evolution?

Are your kids more important than ours?

Quantrill

 

Evolution is a belief for which science continues to look for evidence of.

Quantrill

 

Definition of a fact by science is still a theory? I don't understand what you mean by this, Quantrill. Fact is verifiable observation. This is not to be confused with theory, which is verifiable explanation. Those are two completely different things.

Indeed, biodiversity is also a fact. But the fact of evolution is not merely that there are different creatures on the earth, it is the observations that, 1., the differences between creatures are no static, and 2., the changes are directional (that is, a whale does not beget a parrot and a parrot does not beget a centipede). Those observations constitute the fact of evolution.