“Sure, why not?”

“tarabull, thanks for your explaination.

Has anyone ever thought that evolution is a part of God's plan, and it is not creation vs. evolution? God made life to evolve.”

“LOL Violin!

LH - Did ya ask him?”

“I had a physics professor in college who was a researcher at Fermilab - really brilliant guy.

He said that he found his work to be beeeauuuutifullll (he said it that way) because he got to see how God created the universe on the infinitesimal scale.

Science and religion aren’t opposed, some people just view it that way.”

“lol Violin!

deuce - Scientist have uncovered enough data to show life on earth as long ago as 3.5 billion years ago (in the form of single-cell life forms). Using scientifc deduction, they've created a lineage to the first "replicating molecule" being RNA. "Big Bang" is a loose term. The idea is that the whole universe once began as a single atom and expanded since. The universe continues to expand. This includes life w/in the universe. Somehow, and I can't remember exaclty how, Einstein's theory of relativity can be used to mathematically back this up.

LH - According to Evolution, the earth was created a kajillion years ago (ok, i'm exaggerating. but it was lots). The first life (RNA) evolved in the ocean and remained there for most of our planet's history. Animals didn't make their appearance until about 600 million years ago. Etc. Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to the bible, life began a few thousand years ago (6?), right? If you believe in Creation you can't believe in Evolution in terms of how life began. You can, however, believe in Evolution in terms of how life evolves. I think the basic fundamental arguments of evolution vs. creation begin there.

FWIW, the Pope has declared that the Vatican accepts Evolution. And, as you suggest, that Evolution is God's plan.”

“btw, the lol was about v's reference to the "circling gestures." too funny.”

“Tara, my point is that it takes some amount of faith to believe that one single atom was there at the beginning. Where did that atom come from? Was it always there? And you are correct, most biblical scholars believe that the world is much much younger than the millions of years that some scientist believe it to be. They use examples of carbon dating that are in contradiciton to each other. However, there is some discension (sp?) amongst them when it comes to creation as a literal 7 days or a figurative 7 days (that is where christian evolution theorists come in). I personally believe in creation and I also believe that it can be taught in a way that does not neccesarily promote religion such as intelligent design does. I think if we want our kids to make their own decisions on everything else in life (such as sexual preference, when to have sex, amongst many other things) the least we can do is give them a brief overview on all the options.”

“That belongs in a comparative religion class, not science.”

“I have never heard the "One Atom Theory"?????”

“deuce - My argument is simply about what belongs in the classroom and what does not.

If you're trying to suggest that allowing myself to believe, w/out concrete scientific proof, that the single atom was there at the beginning makes Evolution "faith-based", I have to respectively disagree.

There is scientific evidence of what followed, which makes the underlying theory of Evolution a scientific one. Creation is a faith-based supposition.

So, the bottom line to my argument remains: Science should be taught in the classroom. Everything else should be taught anywhere else.

I completely agree that we want our kids to make their own decisions. Schools can offer one idea (Evolution) and family and/or church, etc. can offer others. If you noticed earlier, I did say that I will tell my students that there are other ideas out there and encourage them to explore those ideas. But, that's it. Nothing beyond that belongs in the classroom.
last edited: 12/10/04 5:13:37 PM”

“Bearmagnet, yes I do speak to God and he answers me back by giving me one more day to live.

tarabull, I'm not up on my bible studies, but I thought there was some interpertation involved.”

“tara - The "one atom" theory: What about the first law of thermodynamics? Isn't there a conflict?”

“Do you mean the second law of thermodynamics?”

“No, I mean the first.”

“I'm familiar w/ a common arguement including the second law. I don't know about the first. And, I'm no physicist (thank goodness! lol) so I'll have to look that one up.

Are you suggesting that the first law of thermodynmaics will in any way prove that Evolution is not based on scientific evidence? If not, I may spare myself the physicis lesson. Cause all I'm really talking about is teaching Science in the classroom and teaching faith elsewhere.”

“Oh, I was just wondering about the one atom theory. The first law is about not being able to get something from nothing.

If there is only one atom, you can't get two or more atoms (of equal mass) from the first.”

“Hopefully you can come back to this tarabull.

I'll check back tomorrow.

Thanks.”

“I didn't forget about you. But, dinner and a short evening out became a priority!

I am not a physicist. I certainly have never claimed to be. I cannot debate the laws of thermodynamics. With what little investigating I did this morning, I do know that physicist around the world have found evidence that says that the first law of thermodynamics wasn't voilated. Something to do with the first atom absorbing vacuum energy to reproduce. Anyway, I have a feeling you've already heard the arguments.

So, I'm still not sure how an explanation will change what I believe should be taught and what shouldn't.

FWIW, There's a book that a professor of mine had recommended, called Atom, that I have been considering reading. When I do, I'll let ya know what I learned.”

“"If there is only one atom, you can't get two or more atoms (of equal mass) from the first"

if i understand big bang theory correctly, it does not state that the universe started as one atom, but as an infineitely massive (something) concentrated in an infineitely small point. going back far enough, the rules of relativity and quantum mechanics start clashing with each other and not making sense. some believe that string theory may resolve the apparent contradictions.”

“I honestly have not heard the arguments, and surprisingly could find very little on this subject (after you mentioned it) on a Google search. I really wasn't arguing, I was not sure how that (law) fit in to the theory.

Thanks for the info on the book when you get it.

I'd just add one thing, their argument about absorbing vacuum energy to reproduce seems to put us right back into the original problem. Where did the energy come from for the vacuum? Another vacuum? LOL ... and on and on it goes .....
last edited: 12/11/04 9:12:02 AM”

“I think the bigger question is why are they teaching science and personal finance and politics in the pulpit?

I believe in God. I go to church every Sunday. I pray.

But when I want a plumber, I go to the plumber.

Of course, it might do the priests some good to fix the toilets of every parishioner.

But, anyway, I don't think the theory of evolution answers a damned thing in a cosmic sense. Wow, the universe started with this big bang. But why the hell did that happen? No one's got a clue. I've always thought that science answers the "how" and religion answers the "why."

I'm an English teacher. We write 15 page research papers in the Spring. I've had students write papers on evolution/creationism in the past. They often end up being some of the worst papers in the class.

However, the great thing is that there is a point in the paper-writing process where I become "Devil's Advocate." I tell the kids that no matter what I believe, I will come out hard and fast against their arguments and evidence. I will try to destroy their paper. They have to come up with logical responses.

That is always fun on a topic like this. BTW, no complaints in my six years as a teacher. I want to make the strongest-arguing religious/science people I can.”

“Lips: I think many scientists believe exactly what you suggest (I think Darwin probably did, in fact): that God created the Universe and set forth the circumstances that allowed for evolution. Similarly, Newton might have said that God doesn't go about deciding which apples will fall from trees and when they will fall - God created gravity and the other forces in nature and they will bring the apples down.”

“Deuce: Evolution doesn't address the bing bang. It's completely compatible with the big bang, as well as some versions of intelligent design, and with many other views on the creation of the universe. Evolution doesn't take anything on "Faith."

I see nothing in Flew's reported views that are inconsistent with evolution. In fact, I would expect him to support evolution as the best available scientific theory to explain the origin of the species we see today.”

“Nothing was created.It has been here for past infinity. Things only change, nothing is destroyed or created. Language is a parasite of humans, because WE are vulnerable for so many developing years.TT is proffffff of all the above. Are we not men? We are Devo-----D--E--V--O.”

“Listen to this. I see at the bottom of the tv screen for the CNN news, I think I had on, and it says a flute made out of Wooley Mammoth tusks was found in a German cave and dated back to 35,000 years ago. I'm wondering if that was a typo, like maybe it was 3,000 or 5,000 years old, but it's probably 35,000 years. I just don't think I ever heard of anything being dated back anywhere near that amount of time.”

“I have a question.

When I pray, I don't expect God to answer it. But, I think that he could because I believe that God is at work in the world.

I don't believe in a distant God. I believe that Jesus Christ is my personal lord and savior. God/Jesus can help me teach, hike and love my family and friends better.

So, when I graduated from college, I thanked God because he was a part of it. When my mom died, I prayed to God to help me through. And I think he was there.

When I stand on top of a mountain or on the edge of the lakeshore, I think that God was a part of what happened there.

A corollary to my belief is that if God is in the world, then he is, in part, observable in the world. When I read stories about DNA sequencing, the human genome and astronomical happenstance, I look on in wonder and think that God was working overtime to create the circumstances of those complexities.

So, I tend to believe that science is not oppositional to faith and belief. I think, in fact, that it is enhancing my belief. I also believe that because God was at work in these processes, that science is another piece of divine revelation (small r).

So, my question: If God is at work in the world, how can a believer ignore the revelation of God present in scientific research?”

“they can carbon-date things back 35,000 years, but the farther they go back the rougher their estimations are. i believe the wooly mammoths died off sometime around 13000 years ago, at the end of the last ice age.”

“Reformed Lurker, I know you know this prayer, but I thought I would print it, because it seems to correlate to your thoughts, and maybe others have not seen it before.


FOOT PRINTS

One night a man had a dream. He dreamed he was walking along the beach with the Lord. Across the sky flashed scenes from his life. For each scene,he noticed two sets of footprints in the sand; one belonging to him, and the other to the Lord. When the
last scene of his life flashed before him, he looked back at the footprints in the sand. He noticed that many times along the path there was only one set of footprints.
He also noticed that it happened at the
very lowest and saddest times in his life. This really bothered him and he questioned the Lord about it.

'Lord, you said that once I decided to follow you, you'd walk with me all of the way. But I have noticed that during the most troublesome times in my life, there
is only one set of footprints. I don't understand why when I needed you most you would leave me.

The Lord replied, "My precious, precious child, I love you and I would never leave you. During your time of trial and suffering,
when you see only one set of footprints, it was then that I carried you."
last edited: 12/12/04 6:11:06 PM”

“what does that have to do with the intelligent design debate?”

“Suddenly we are supposed to stay on topic?

I figure Lips was responding to RL as an aside - and that kind of thing helps make TT a friendlier place than it might otherwise be.

RL put things very well. I'd also try to add something relevant and positive, but nothing comes to mind.”

“I also agree that science and religion go hand in hand and have heard the whole science is the "how" religion is the "why." My point goes along with what pedx was saying, there are many points, some at least as "out there" as creationism yet it seems as if creationism is the one that gets the brunt of the opposition. Just an observation. I think this has been one of the most thought provoking threads in a while!”

“I'm with you RL, only I am not assured of the form of God.
I don't see a disconnect between faith and science.

However I do see plenty of people who seem to have an intellectual or emotional need for there to be a disconnect between faith and science. They seem to be afraid that one somehow diminishes the other. That attitude (IMHO) is particularly acute on the faith side of the fence. Whereas the Athiestic side seems to view the notion of a divine power as a personal insult.

All things are connected wether we like it or not.”

“An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture”

“Bearmagnet, yes I do speak to God and he answers me back by giving me one more day to live.
lipstick hiker
6:42:26 PM
12/10/04

You are here each day only by the Grace of God?

Why am I here?”

“I think the reasons that creationism gets so much opposition are:

1) In the US, it is the only non-scientific doctrine being advanced as an alternative to evolution to account for the origins of the species.

2) It was only last century that people weren't allowed to teach evolution, that creationism reigned supreme in much of the country. The famous Scopes trial was in 1925 in which a teacher was tried for violating a creationist inspired law against teaching evolution. In fact, it wasn't until 1968 that the Supreme Court over-turned the Arkansas ban on teaching evolution. Anti-evolution bans were part of a creationist attack on evolution. Of course, they weren't called creationists back then, they were mostly called Biblical literalists, so far as I know.”

“I have seen evolution in our DNA. I have seen it in our Immunoglobulins. I have seen ancient retroviruses that have been incorporated into "us". You can "see it" going on today through chickenpox and herpes. This is evolution in front of your face.

Yet you deny it.

BTW - there are no "opposing" theories in Science denying that we, like other species, have incorporated non-self DNA for the purpose of evolving.”

“You are right bear, I don't think anybody can deny evolution within a species but the larger evolution that is assumed in the making of life is what most people think of when you say "evolution." I wonder, if we are evolving in the overall evolution scheme, what humans will look like in a million years?”

“That is true Ped. But IMO a good part of that opposition to creationism is a tit for tat reaction to the historical heavy handedness used by not just creationists but almost all religions to enforce thier views.”

“tara - I don't know if you're still following this, but have you reconsidered whether or not your "one atom theory" is faith based or not?

As a reminder, you stated:

"If you're trying to suggest that allowing myself to believe, w/out concrete scientific proof, that the single atom was there at the beginning makes Evolution "faith-based", I have to respectively disagree.

There is scientific evidence of what followed, which makes the underlying theory of Evolution a scientific one. Creation is a faith-based supposition."

If your theory violates the First Law of ThermoDynamics, maybe you should reconsider. I'm thinking maybe your theory is faith-based after all, which maybe you should question teaching it in the classroom.”

“Right. Since people can not fathom that we evolved from simple life-forms then God must have created us.

And the world looks flat, and The Sun God gives us light, and I cannot see atoms or particles so they do not exist, and Plagues are brought on by Gods wrath.”

“"You are here each day only by the Grace of God?

Why am I here?”
Bearmagnet
10:01:12 AM
12/13/04

By the grace of Dog, of course!”

“Oh. I thought it was by the Grace of Bob?

I make a great sandwich, btw.”

“Hmmmmmm.......maybe it was the grace of Gog.


I get those deities mixed up.


What's in your sandwich?”

“Perfectly-Normal beast, of course.”

“Sarge,

Still around. Just been busy writing papers all day.

Because I can't explain how the theory of Evolution (in terms of how life began) doesn't violate the first law of thermodynamics doesn't mean it hasn't been explained. Scientist around the globe have scientific explanations for it.

Just because I can't explain how anti-biotics work, doesn't mean that they don't. Scientists around the globe have scientific explanations for that, as well.

Believing in science isn't faith. It's believing in something with logical proof and evidence.

Maybe it's just semantics. Perhaps we're operating under different definitions of faith...

ok. back to writing papers.”

“The laws of physics work in our Universe which began at the Big Bang. The energy was there, that's why the Bang was so Big.

Comprende?

I mean, this is no ordinary boom, this is the energy of the Universe escapin in one massive Bang.

It was loud, to say the least. Quite spectacular, too.
last edited: 12/13/04 2:18:09 PM”

“My ears are still ringing.”

“I still see spots in front of my eyes. On occassion I can make out ancient galaxies.”

“tara - But YOU are operating under faith. For you, it is faith. Faith in other men.

For me, religion is faith, faith in God, not in other men.

So why is your faith more secure than my faith?

That is, I understand your right to believe what you believe, but you are teaching under the premise that you aren't using faith, but you are.

Many people knew Jesus. They knew the man personally and wrote about it.

Your beliefs are in men that you most likely have never met. You are not only putting your faith in those men, but in their beliefs. So really, your scientific belief in the one-atom theory requires more faith than my faith in Jesus. I'm putting faith in people with first hand knowledge. You're putting faith in men with theoroms.

I'm just saying, your premise that teaching science does not require faith does not apply in your situation. Just something to seriously consider as an educator of young impressionable minds.

PS (added this) - To rectify this, you should be able to provide first hand evidence in the one-atom theory that you can back up if you are going to mention it in the classroom. You admitadly do not even know how to justify it with the First Law of Thermaldynamics. I think since science builds on itself it should be able to be explained with that law.

Maybe you could provide a link to something that justifies the theory with the 1st law of thermaldynamics, because I have looked pretty hard and found absolutely nothing about that.
last edited: 12/13/04 2:41:31 PM”

“I love theological debates and subjects but for some reason the whole evolution debate never really appealed to me. If and when I ever had a child it would not step foot in a public school system so it's a dead issue to me.”