LearnGospelMusic.com Community
Main => Gospel Music Lounge => Topic started by: J31 on November 06, 2007, 12:37:46 PM
-
Mr Darby,
Averi came to me this morning with your concerns about the evolution curriculum this fall.
I would like to let you know that I grew up in private Christian schools my entire life, and through college.
I am aware of the current debates and why people feel strongly about this issue. Many students at this school are from this similar background at home.
I was taught Creationism in school, and not much of evolution. I remember that the Creationism I did learn was not in science class, but usually in some sort of philosophy, or religious class.
In class, I strictly denote the difference between theory and fact.
It seems that Creationism, or Intelligent Design, is a belief based strictly on faith. Therefore I don't see it's relevance to science.
For example, when asked "why did this species mutate?", a Creationist may say: "Because of the actions of God." whereas an evolutionary theorists may say: "Because of the stresses put upon that creature by its natural environment." The first is a belief of faith. The second leaves ulitmate causes up to interpretation, and only states what we can physically record and observe.
I also think that many scientists have a faith about particular aspects of evolution--and this needs to be presented as theory.
For instance, the "Big Bang" is still a theory, though more and more evidence points toward its potential truth. The same is true of humans evolving from another primate. The evidence shows that humans share 98% of the same DNA as a chimpanzee; and fossils have been found that show creatures that aren't homo sapien, and are more similar than the nearest living primate. But connecting the dots is still theoretical.
Some scientists make the leap and "believe" that we evolved from apes. I will teach this as a theory because of the evidence.
The only thing I will teach as fact is what I like to call "micro evolution" as documented in mutations of bacteria, viruses, and birds.
If I teach that a Creator exists, then I wouldn't be scientific. I am more inclined to present the evidence and let the students decide for themselves. In fact, I do plan on having a "debate" in class, where students will have to use what they've learned to argue one way or the other. Last year I had some students come in and quote passages from the Bible. They did not receive a good grade because they did not use what they had learned in class as an argument tool. (Not to mention that our students represent several different faiths).
Because there are species in existence today that did not exist 100 years ago, I believe that creation is still happening, has been happening, and will continue to happen.
I make it a point not to share my personal beliefs with the students. But I tend to agree with Darwin that Creation and Evolution may be more complimentary than antagonistic.
Please feel free to come in and take a look at the curriculum. Most of it is about fossils, time lines, and survival. I do teach the theories of Darwin, but stay away from the origins of matter and of humans.
We will be finished with it by Thanksgiving.
-Todd Vandermeulen
************************************************************
my response
Mr. Vendermeulen,
I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I do plan to reply in more detail but I leave you with a few things to consider. Not, in an attempt to change your disposition, but to simply encourage you in the pursuit of equipping children with all of the tools needed to come to an intelligent place of reference on this subject.
Here is a basic overview of what runs around in my head regarding Intelligent Design vs. Evolution:
Cosmological Argument: every effect has a cause EXCEPT that of the "Uncaused Cause" and "Unmoved Mover". A thing cannot create -- creation cannot create itself. The universe must have been caused by Someone that was itself uncaused.
Hence, every finite and contingent being has a cause; nothing finite and dependent can cause itself; and a causal chain cannot be of infinite length (it has to end somewhere & that somewhere will be at the Uncaused Cause!
Teleological Argument: or argument from design (from the Greek telos which means end or purpose) -- the universe is too complex, orderly, beautiful, and purposeful to be random or accidental! Voltaire said, "If a watch proves the existence of a watchmaker but the universe does not prove the existence of a great Architect, then I consent to be called a fool."
-- The Anthropic Principle: there is an apparent delicate balance of conditions necessary for human life (e.g. the earth is JUST the right distance from the sun!)... that's not an accident - that is by Design!
Ontological Argument: (from the Greek ontos meaning "being" or "to be") -- this argument espouses that God is the entity greater than which no entity can be conceived or compared; the concept of God EXISTS IN HUMAN UNDERSTANDING; God is necessary and necessarily exists.
You have affirmed that the "Big Bang" is still a theory and that connecting the dots between the DNA of chimpanzees & fossils is still theoretical YET it appears that you are teaching it as "Science".
You also affirmed that some scientists make the leap and "believe" that we evolved from apes and that he will teach this as a theory... how can he teach it as "theory" 'because of the evidence' -- if there is 'evidence' wouldn't he then teach it as fact??? It takes MORE FAITH to believe that human beings (living material) evolved from non-living matter (a pre-supposition of evolutionists) than that of Intelligent Design...??
I look forward to our future discussion.
-
looks like you've ben reading the works of William Dembski.
Problem is, scientists are as aligned to their "scientific beliefs" as christians are to the "biblical truths".
In essence, its gonna be hard for you to come to common ground with the guy.
At any rate, Dembski has a nice set of books even though I don't agree with "everything" he says.
Jlewis
-
Some Dembski but also Dr. David DeWitt of Liberty University
-
Good to see ya postin again J31! And I wanna tell ya that I applaud your determination and courage. It takes alot to stand up for what you believe in. ;)
-
My small opinion:
In my view, evolution is a religion. And it's a theory. To me, the "Missing Link" has to be half human and half something else, alive and well, walking past me, instead of being frozen in a rock. The ape exist. Man exists. The "Missing Link" should exist, also. Show me that!!
-
My small opinion:
In my view, evolution is a religion. And it's a theory. To me, the "Missing Link" has to be half human and half something else, alive and well, walking past me, instead of being frozen in a rock. The ape exist. Man exists. The "Missing Link" should exist, also. Show me that!!
Intresting point.
PianoWiz...
-
Welcome to the LGM family "Fingers!".....Stay Blessed.
PianoWiz...
-
The problem I have with evolution is it stopped with us. If it is really evolution, then we should be changing or evolving into something else. Shouldn't we?
-
You cannot convince someone that God exists, just like you cannot convince someone that everything evolved on its own. Both systems are beliefs, and is the reason why we call it faith. If we could prove that God exists then it would no longer require faith. The bible says "Hbr 11:1 - Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." What is our evidence for God? Faith. None of us have seen him. We experience things in our lives, and through faith attribute them to God.
As believers, and the teacher is correct, we generally see faith and science as opposites. Science, by its basic definition, is the search for truth. Faith is acceptance without proof. For now, no one has proof. Until God cracks the sky, or science can see the creation and complete evolution of the species, neither will be proven. DNA is not evidence; if I used DNA then I'd be 70% banana. On the reverse, the bible is not evidence of God. We cannot prove God exists by merely quoting scriptures. If we could then there would be no argument.
Sometimes they work together. I like to use the Big Bang as an example. "Gen 1:3 - And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." To be this goes hand in hand with the Big Bang theory. God called it into existence. You can go through most of the Genesis and marry the two together.
-
...
Sometimes they work together. I like to use the Big Bang as an example. "Gen 1:3 - And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." To be this goes hand in hand with the Big Bang theory. God called it into existence. You can go through most of the Genesis and marry the two together.
I wonder if this is the reason why theories like the Big Bang have started to gain more acceptance?
Basically because people started to find proof of these various events in the bible.
-
Up on the apologetics... WTG.. ;)
-
The problem I have with evolution is it stopped with us. If it is really evolution, then we should be changing or evolving into something else. Shouldn't we?
The catch is this, evolutionists will say, is that the actual evolving takes place over millions of years.
That's their 'out'. If the earth and universe, etc...is 4.5 billion years old, as they suspect, then taking a few million years here and there to have dramatic life change occur is not out of the realm of possibilities.
They'll claim that man has not been around for millions of years, so we're unable to have morphed into something else before our very eyes...yet.
I'd claim that the old tried-and-not-so-true theory of punctuated equilibrium is all they've got to present and it's a poor theory at best, but they keep rehashing it and putting it out there to see who will bite on it.
-
Does the bible say how long Adam and Eve were in the garden before they were kicked out? It could have been a very long time.
-
Absolutely! I've always evolution but this thread intrigues me to study this a little more.