Of course, you have not quite got it when you talk about "before the Big Bang", because there is no "before" in and understandable sense of that language. Time began at the Big Bang. So there is/was no "before", in our experience, or scientific theory, etc....
And you've generalized quite a bit, when you describe "religion" as "assuming an anthromorphic made-up 'person....'". I suppose you are really thinking of the Judeo-Christian religions. Of course, there are many more. And one might even make a hell of a good argument that "scientism", "naturalism", and "athiesm" can be considered religions. And certainly, I always argue that "Evolutionism" is a religion. It certainly has a full-fledged theology, and most of those who believe in "Evolution" think it supplies all the same answers, the "how", and "why", even the basis of their "morality", virtues", "identity", and reasons for how they deal with the rest of their world. Indeed, it even defines their "reality".
I agree, we may (well, not you or I, likely) last long enough, as a species, to get the observations that explain or verifie some of our more difficult cosmological and physics theories. But, as far as you and I are concerned, we are far more likely to get the answer to the "God" and "hereafter" theories of "religion", including those of the Bible! In our personally limited time, that is.
Actually, we observe various things, or measure or calculate or interpret various features of our universe, as best we can, through telescopes and various observatories on earth or satellite, and some scientists choose to regard them as "effects" of the Big Bang. Others don't. Others argue as to whether those observations (call them "data") prove or disprove the Big Bang, or one of the several variations or modifications of that theme (you know, different models of an hypothesized event that still essentially looks like the original paradigm called "Big Bang). Yet others use that same data to build their own cosmological or physics theories, most of which are very different from any type of "Big Bang".
I'm not sure what you mean by "complete scientific theories". I don't think, actually, there is any such thing in any of science, though I'd be willing to consider any candidates you might proffer. But, certainly no one can say even such staples of the standard model as Relativity, or Quantum Mechanics, or Big Bang, or any of its several popular "corrections" or versions (some of which lead to...) String theory (or I should say, "theories"), Brane theory, or... well, you know. Most, and in the opinion of many in and out of science - all, are "philosophy" or "pure speculation". But, the truth is, that really IS science. And the good practice of which is the effort to flesh out those speculations or philosophies with good data/arguments, and diminish our doubts, and using the "models" or "paradigm" to build useful technologies or adventures (like space satellites or travel, or better computers or communication devices, or medical therapies, etc). Newton's theory was great for describing the solar system, aiming artillary shells, building automobiles, etc., even though it was so simplistic and "wrong". And what better example is there, today, than the "spooky", and so unexplainable paradigm of quantum mechanics?
And, of course, we should not forget that old standby, "the theory of evolution", which is still ripping our society apart and fueling "the culture wars" (and, perhaps, the anger of Al Queda). How many people are arguing that that is NOT a "complete" theory... or "fact"? All the while others (most scientists, to be sure) are absolutely insisting we all accept it as complete fact, while they continually debate and revise it to fit new data, etc.
I agree, though that was once, and until about the time of Darwin, exactly what scientists thought "science" WAS all about! The field, or idea of science, has "evolved" a lot since then.
Or has it?
Do we have any sort of chance of observing the "Big Bang"? Or other universes. Or the "bulk" (a sort of space outside "spacetime" as we "know" it? Or the origin of life (not to be confused with "origin of species", which Darwin theorized was how that original life form(s) became as varied and complex and interdependent as it is today)? Or do you think we (in this millenia) have any way of actually seeing, measuring, or studying, wormholes or the "other dimensions" inside the "strings" (our best "scientific" theory of everything)? Or almost any of the ideas about cosmology, or origins or reasons for the way things are that yet are considered "good science" (essentially because they don't include "God" or... uh, the "supernatural"! Uh, sorry, they ALL seem pretty "super, or supra-natural" to me!)
Actually, science is quite willing to consider anything equal to, or even more undefinable than "God", just as long as they don't have to call it "God", or read about it in the Bible first!. But, hey, it's a free country and they are entitled to believe in, and develop a theology about, anything they want. Their theories are often good enough guesses that they actually bear good fruit, and make such things as the technologies that sustain/.!
Just wish they were more tolerant of new ideas! Where would we be if Einstein had not been allowed to replace Newton (whose theoretical construct, by the way, still works best for certain branches of science and technology!)
Neither does "It all happened by chance." The absolutely arbitrary but incredible necessary (as far as we can or shall ever know) design of all the forms of matter, energy, forces, and laws of physics, the cosmos, and living things.
So, if you prefer "singularity" (read, "infinitesimal point of nothingness that somehow encapsulated and provided everything in the universe") to "God", and "Big Bang" (read, "explosion") to "intelligent designer", hey, it's a free country (read, "we don't cut off your head, or put out a fatwah on you), enjoy your own reasoning, intelligence, and interpretation of all that science has discovered!
Which (what you've said) is essentially "horse pucky" (I think that means absolute nonsense)!
The GREAT majority of Christians are not "fundamentalists. Most, in fact, are Catholics, and most of the rest are what real "fundamentalists see as "liberal". But, that aside....
I think I'm a rather fundamentalist Christian because I do believe in God and that the Bible is true... Yet I am ardent about science, have two degrees and was near the end of my Phd when I left the program for personal and business reasons.... and I am continue to focus my study and writing on physics, with cosmology and astronomy as close seconds.... why? Because I think that physics is the most important, revealing, and exciting of all the sciences...
You know, I really don't know a single Christian who wants to die, or is "not particularly interested in the physical world". Indeed, we do feel that "eternity" is a lot bigger, and hence more important than this mere moment in life, but we all enjoy and live in this mode of reality as much as anyone...and I care about physics because, as the Bible tells me I can learn more about who God is, and his nature, by studying his creation, and I find that absolutely true! And, when I try to explain God to others, I find that physic's theories of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics do it! They explain him, and sovereignty and human free will perfectly, that the Big Bang gives us both a proof and picture that there was a creation moment, that the multi-dimensional aspects of string theoty readily explain how he and angels and Jesus' ability to move through spacetime in the ways the ancients thought "miraculous", etc. etc., well, physics only explains and confirms my (newfound) Christian beliefs!
Now I began my career with about a dozen years of teaching evolution. I began losing my belief and confidence in that theory LONG before I became a Christian, and far longer before I decided Intelligent Design filled in the blanks, the places where evolution (which I still see as a very useful, likely true theory) fails to explain.
What I really find absurd, however, is the idea that to support ID is to be anti-science! First, 99% of science has nothing to do, and no need to even consider, "evolution". Second, ID doesn't even contradict (however much some of its advocates think it may, and its supporters might hope it may) evolution. I comfortably (as do most Catholic scientists and theologians, and as many other Christians as I can persuade) agree with both theories. I just see ID as answering questions where evolution (and Darwin) never intended, or were designed, or presently is able tp go (ie, the origins of life, or the reason that Genesis outlines the history of major life forms so well - perfectly, if you read my translation). Evolution only talks about the descent and modification of life already existing, and fails miserably - doesan't even try, actually - to talk about the origination of life!
If you should check out my work, including my own translation of Genesis, you'll find why I absolutely disagree with your assertion "Science isn't incompatible with spirituality, but it's totally in opposition to biblical literalism". I show EXACTLY the opposite!
I don't denigrate science but praise it, practice it, love it! And try my best to help those who do to realise the error of their ways, and misiled beliefs. I hope I can do the same for you!
When this story first appeared in February, I wrote an extensive review and analysis for my own blog, Alcaide's Café, http://www.alcaidecafe.com/. I was especially talking about it from the perspective of the evolution versus Intelligent Design debate, so titled it, "'It's Alive!' Sez They. "'It's an Intelligent Design!" Sez I." (Published March 1, 2005)
Trying to "create life" has been going on in laboratories for centuries. This is just one of several attempts going on now. A lot of the discussion going on here is right on the money. A couple of points you might have missed:
(1) It's interesting to note that Packard essential admits that science has yet to be able to even say what "life" is, what indicates "life", what tells us "something" is living!
(2) He's decided to define life as something that can "evolve", which is one way to end the debates about evolution!
(3) The threshold between matter and structures and processes and whatever it is that is a "living thing" (say, a living cell) is very huge! Just as it takes a lot to transform mud into a 3 story office building full of staff (which is what "nature" is said to have done), or even a junkyard full of already-manufactured car parts into an operating car (which is about what Packard is trying to do), it takes a lot to transform the elements into a living cell.
We should be a shining example with breathable air and water coming out of the tailpipes of our cars. And they will WANT to follow the example.
I'm sorry, but that's about as naive a statement as one could possibly imagine... MOST people in this world are not like "Leave It To Beaver" ideal types of MC Americans. They will not look at us with admiring (let alone comprehending) eyes and emulate our expensive idealistic technologies and versions of todays opulence and buy in. Look at Mexico City, or Havanna, or Bhagdad if you want to see what the 3rd world (and even poorer Americans) will do.
While we, for example, start building nice new clean cars, they will buy up all our older junkers and run them for the next 50 years, all the while undoing our few percentile improvement. If anything, making the atmosphere even worse. And in other respects, other economic developments, should they become available, well Kyoto already gives them an unregulated free hand to repeat our 200 year history of "modernization" and industrialization and becoming all-too consumptive, and to the degree they succeed they will undo and overcome and surpass our cleaning up the environment with new-produced filthyness and exploitation by an order of magnitude.
Think about it. Who's really "raping the forests" now? Not us, the rest of the world. And not because of us, but for themselves. We don't get most of their trees, they do. And who's strip mining the world. Them not us. For their own selfish desires, by their own emergent "robber barons". You want to see where Kyoto would lead, compare the declining Europe, which worships the Kyoto idealism and self-sacrifice, and China, which ignores Kyoto and simply appreciates our (or the EU's) stupidity and willing ness to ride slowly, idealistically into the sunset while they grow into the new power economy, dwarfing the US's own history and accomplishments - including the worst side of it!
Clean energy might be profitable to some, but overall, mostly to a few at the GREAT expense of many. We do need to clean up our act, but not by sacrificing our own economy and strength. The world is better off - at least I believe - if the US remains a (and somewhat generous) super power rather that giving China the chance to be the only super power with nary a drop of generosity in their vision of the future!
Instead of needing one brilliant campaign advisor with all the best ideas in the world...you can skim the Great Ideas from those people who otherwise have mediocre ideas the rest of the time... much more than any one brilliant campaign advisor will ever be able to give you..."
Ok, but just what do you think makes for a "brilliant campaign advisor" but some one person with the abillity to "skim the Great Ideas" from out of the sea, populated by the "mediocre"... Genuises don't invent everything, but know how (1) to get the best out of less-able helpers, and (2) know the "great Idea" when they see it, and (3)_ do something with it besides "blog" about it, or toss it out in a puddle of mediocre stuff?
Everyone "advises" the candidate of their choice, but only the really bright one (Carl Rove?) actually gets to advise the candidate. Everyone thinks they know better, but only the winner can prove he really did! Everyone "Monday Morning Quartebacks" except for real quarterbacks!
Then you have to read mine. Every Bible version on the market today merely repeats, with some minor polishing of the language, the King James, done in 1611. And that one relied heavily on the traditional Jewish version from rabbinical times a 1000 years older. I did mine over a 2 year stretch about 5 years ago (well, only Genesis 1 & 2, and a few other verses)
You can go to my blog website (www.alcaidecafe.com), and there link to a page that gives the results - a full translation of Genesis 1 & 2, or another that gives it with a commentary. They are actually pages on a website I put up about 4 years ago (www.in-this-place.com). BUT, at the moment it won't work because my host had an outdated email and I missed my annual payment, and it (in-this-place) was down for a day, and it is resisting my efforts to get it back up. Waiting now for the host's "support" to help. BUT, in a day or two, I expect it to be back. "Alcaide's Cafe" is working, but the link to the Genesis translation is not working.
Also, via same system, is a book I wrote that takes you through the science, the linguistics and explains and justifies my translation. I sell it, myself, cheaper than book stores, Amazon, etc., but, of course, that link is also waiting on the website repair.
Whoa there! You are wandering off into something of a different tirade, and losing your grip a little, I think.
For instance, You say, "u assume i am against the stickers." Go back to my first posted response to you. I actually said this: "I appreciate the fact you are willing to grant them their stickers, in a vague sense of fairness".
You now say this: "the sticker is not trying to get the students to question and think for themselves". Go back and read the actual text of the sticker. What does it say except that? You also say, here, "The stickers are put their by stupid uneducated (becasuse if they actually read about ID..." Now where is there anything at all about "ID"? ID may be something that many of the parents think is a valid alternative to evolution, and wish it were at least mentioned as theory that many - including scientists and folks with excellent credentials (from good universities, even secular schools) think has a lot to offer (if only as a counter "null hypothesis" to evolutionary explanations), and should be allowed in the public place - even schools! I think you're being rather arrogant and, yes, bigoted if you can not respect them and only call them "stupid". Do you really think you have enough training and expertise in both evolutionary science and the paradigm of ID(and research and writings of its advocates) to make such intemperate statements?
I have a couple of degrees from some very good schools (U/C/ Berkeley, U of Oregon, and doctoral study at UC San Francisco) and taught both evolution and human evolution at several colleges and Universities. I think I am pretty up on it. But after many years of absolute acceptance and advocacy of evolution, I came to have questions and doubt it had all the answers. I now consider ID to be a paradigm (you know there is more than one theory/version of ID, just like any major theory in science) worth consideration. It does offer answers to some of the evolutionary school's weakest points. And, btw, ID is not a shoe-in for the God of the Bible - if that's your fear or assumption. About 98% of the world (are they all stupid?) believes in ID, but the gods, or powers, or forces that they would give the credit to are many and various. A lot of sci fi fans readily accept a "creator" from "out there", but refuse to accept the Christian God. Others believe the whole universe is organic, alive, intelligent, and self creative. Some of the better known scientists who believe evolution has all the answers fall into that school, because Darwinism/neoDarwinism cannot account for ultimate origins, including the brilliantly designed universe, and incredibly complicated "first cell" of life.
You say, " they want their religion imposed on others because they think it is better) hypocritical (afraid to say the previous) people." Come on now, you don't know that. But, if it were true, do you think it any better that "the other side" gets to impose their religion (there is no creator, no god, no greater intelligence, no real design, and the "evolution is a fact" equivalent of "God is a fact", etc.)? You know, there are a huge number of scientists who are theists, and many of them of the Judeo-Christian persuasion. Well over half of astronomers, close to half of physicists and cosmologists are. And why? Because the know just how incredible, awesome, and unexplainable by any current science, the univers is. Check it out. Einstein, of course, was a theist. His faith in an Intelligence having designed the universe (and he said "God", usually) was what led him to Relativity! So, he too, was pretty stupid, I guess. Though he didn't work in biology, I suspect he'd have been an advocate of keeping an open mind, and not thought it was a, anti-science plot. Unless you've swallowed the postmodern thesis that each of is our own creator, determining truth and reality for ourselves because there is no universal objective truth and reality (which completely negates science) you must admit science is a method for seeking the truth. And there are essentiall
If you read the sticker (the topic of this discussion) it only said (accurately) that evolution is a theory, and that students should keep that in mind, reflect, weigh the evidence themselves, keep an open mind... that sounds like the epitome of tolerance, temperance, gentle open-mindedness, to me. Not to mention a fair and honest way to teach, and encourage young people to conduct themselves. They aren't hating (well, most aren't) evolutionists, or trying to banish them from the book or curriculum, but just asking that the truth and fact that evolution is a theory be clearly stated, however meekly. It is those who wish to banish even open mindedness, refuse to treat that 2000 parents with any respect, calling them stupid, etc., who seem to be bigots. They're unwilling to compromise or yield an inch.
And remember, the public school, and the teaching of "evolution is a fact", and the obvious implication there is no God and no possibility "creation" or "intelligent design" lies behind origins, etc., is compulsory and mandated under penalty of law. So those 2000 parents are forced to send their kids to school, pay for it, and allow it to "brainwash" (in their view) their kids every day. And know the teachers are likely to push their own values/opinions, at least as a constant subtext, even more. Small wonder they get upset, and ask at least this tiny compromise!
Your sarcasm (perhaps a bit justified) aside, do you understand that it was Einstein's biblical worldview that led him to his theory of relativity? And that the theory led to (following Hubble's demonstration of the expanding universe - which Einstein"s belief in God made it quite difficult for him to accept, tho he eventually did) the theory of the Big Bang. Which is the very predominant theory of the universe's history, and was hated by the atheists and the anti-Bible folks because it re-opened the door to the possibility of a Creator because it says the universe is NOT eternal (which was the predominant belief until Big Bang), but had a beginning (as the Bible says), and thus a "creation event", which some scientists say was a "singularity exploded", and others say God or some other bigger force/power had to institute? And Relativity says the universe is a precise, orderly, unbelievably well-designed lawful physical entity, which causes even many scientists - especially astronomers - to think the blind chaos of a super explosion is a poor candidate for Creator, but a god, if not the God, makes more sense?
Now, by the way, gravity is not a theory, but a fact. And we still have not got a theory that satisfies all the questions of scientists. Newton's theory was good. Einstein's much better. But the so-called "holy grail" of modern physics and cosmology, is a better theory. Though the Bible, to my knowledge, says nothing about gravity, and most Christians have no "christian" or biblical leanings in any way that I know of, the Bible does have a few things to say about the way the universe began and was stretched out to where it is today, that gives some strong hints as to what actually is the nature of spacetime and the "fabric" of space that creates gravity (in relativitistic terms), and the cosmological constant, that scientists are trying to figure out because it may answer why the universe is expanding, and gravity works...
Ditto, liittle in the Bible about continental drift (a fact, about which there are several theories, and much research going on today), but for one verse about how when the earth was covered with water God said "let dry land appear. Watch, patiently, it will!". Which implies plate tectonics in action, and the idea of continental drift!
Beware sarcasm (and speaking about things you have really not much real scientific knowledge of), it can bite you in the... Sarcasm is a pitbull!
Read that idea a bit earlier. And answered that the same way: sounds fair and good to me!
By the way, a theory is an idea that we all must form an opinion about. Scientists, lay folks, anyone who hears it. We choose to believe it or not. Actually, we usually have a degree of belief ("strongly", "moderately" etc.) in it. And based on the strength of our belief we develop a certain amount of faith in it. And act upon our faith. Stronger belief, more faith that the theory is right, more act upon our belief. Without much faith, we aren't likely to do much with the theory. Scientists are exactly the same, though what they do (act out in that faith) might be a bit different, like spend a lot of their careers developing experiments, reasearch money, writings, etc, on that theory. So, creationism (there are several kinds in Christianity, alone, such as "young-earth", and "old earth") is a theory which many believe in, and many act upon. Evolution is also. And so is intelligent design (which is accepted by many christians, but also by many other religions, by new agers an by sci fi fans and even the UFO crowd, eh?). Etc, etc.
"those people who are keenest on Creationism are very often the same people who have the most blase attitude towards the environment"
That, my friend is a baseless and very inaccurate generalization. You are speaking from prejudice, not knowledge. Indeed, if you went into almost any Christian church you'd find many an ardent environmentalist, many a sermon about being good "stewards" (caretakers, respecters) of the environmental. Try "googling" a few environmental sites, and Christian environmental sites, and professional organizations of geologists, biologists, etc. Learn something.
I've met some very nasty evolution advocates. But I know some (quite a few) who are Christians, including professional biologists, paleontologists, etc. And who are not taking the hard line of anti-tolerance, or anti-Christianity, that many do. It's so easy to fall into bigotry, and from that into stupidity and ignorance. Don't let yourself go there, OK?
And you know, those stories, those creation myths, have every right to be taught in the public schools, in several types of classes. And will especially be taught, I expect, in BIA or public schools on the various reservations. Only the Bible and Christian stories are not allowed!
And you know, a minute or two, or even a day, spent on these stories in a science class would be OK. As a university science teacher, myself, I did get into such topics (Navajo was a specialty of mine. I also raised their ideas of time - circular rather than linear - and way they looked at the world - looking at the landscape as actors passed through it, rather than focusing on actors and actions as the primary interest), and through that was able to get a much better idea of "our" modern science, and why we reach the theories we do.
Actually, I think YOU are missing the (or a few) point(s).
Math and English grammar are not theories. And almost anything else, except for a curriculum on religion, and perhaps US history, doesn't reflect on, or try to teach something that contradicts a fundamental worldview or set of values, or who and what those 2000 parents believe they are, and are about, and want to pass on to their children (every parent's desire).
Evolution, if it is treated as a scientific theory, is pretty well tolerated and even considered (that is, they will consider the possibility it is true) by most of that 2000. But to many pushing evolution and opposing the stickers (or any other type of qualifying language in the schools), if not most, evolution is a religion. Few who debate it here, or in front of school boards, even have a rudimentary understanding of it as a scientific theory/paradigm. They see it as a "not-God", as a refutation of religion(s), of the Bible, of Christians, and thus it is the doctrine of most atheists (read "religion's about a naturalist universe"). And it is almost always taught by the teachers as a refutation of, and proof that there is no God, never mind it was never intended to, and few (except dogmatic atheistic) scientists think it does. So, evolution has become "the other religion" in the culture wars, and that 2000 parents (and about 80% of the rest of America, and 98% of the world) know that, and that it will destroy the values and beliefs of many of their children if taught by such determined authority figures as anti_Christian, and ani-theistic school teachers. I know, because I was a university teacher in human evolution and paleontology who believed absolutely in evolution, and was absolutely atheistic, and felt it my duty to convert any Christian student in my classes. I rarely failed!
You don't have to be "Bible-based" to object to the dogma that "evolution is a fact", and "evolution is the real creator", to find that offensive, if not threatening (to your family and your right to teach your children your own heritage and values). Because it is the "evolutionists" who are imposing their beliefs on the rest of the world, their anti-Christian, anti-creationist (whether bible or other religion-based), anti-intelligent design, anti-any "supernatural power or force or explanationfor the origin of the universe and life" (though they might believe in ghosts, magic, or any number of sci-fi theses, themselves, without recognizing it ie, "UFOs anyone?") beliefs.
I appreciate the fact you are willing to grant them their stickers, in a vague sense of fairness, but your racist classification of them as "bigoted neanderthals" rather spoils it. I once (some 40 years ago) went to Mississippi as a civil rights worker. I met a number of whites who were fair enough to give "the damn niggers" the vote, or right to go into Walgreens, but never turned my back on them. I fear the culture wars, and postmodernism have erased the word "respect" out of our dictionary, and rendered the idea of pluralism moot.
Actually, gravity is a fact, but our theories of just what it is, and from whence it comes and how it actually manages to do its thing, have changed several times since Newton, and nowadays have become such a perplexing problem, frustrating and holding up the development of physics, astronomy, and cosmology, that it has become the heart of most modern research, oft called the "holy grail"!
The amazing "web of life", the rich panorama of species of life on earth is a fact. Exactly how it got to be so is a question that interests (and divides, it seems) almost everyone on the planet. Evolution is one theory (or set of, actually) of how it did. Intelligent design is another type of theory (that is, there are several version). Creation is another ("young earth" and "old earth" are the two major sets of that type of theory). And if you look at the major cultures and religions of the world, you'll find a few others.
Uh, since it's been two days, and you're not likely to be checking back here, I'd like to draw your attention to a reply I posted to the post you replied to.:)
"This book contains material on Creationism. Creationism is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things."
Exactly. I got no problem with that. Nor with the science-book sticker under discussion. In fact, as a scientist (Two degrees, two fields, and a new field of resource policy analysis) turned Christian, and quite unable to understand or accept the Genesis account of creation, I then spent 2 years re-translating the Hebrew language in light of my knowledge of science. I became convinced of its accuracy and relevance, and have since written a book on my findings, and dedicated myself to (1) getting both sides of the "creation/evolution debate & culture wars to realize neither of them had hardly any idea of what the Bible really said, and (2) reconciling science and scripture, and showing how science is moving closer and closer, in almost every discipline and every advance, to a parallel account. So, I find it quite reasonable and fair to treat the actual creation account in Genesis as a theory, and keep on testing it. One might think Genesis is at quite a disadvantage, being written down 3500 years ago and unable to adjusd or modify itself, but to my ever-increasing surprise, it isn't. In fact, that disability gives it all the more respect, and gravitas, I think.
"The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
We should only wish! What is good for the Christian goose, it seems, is never good for the science "groupie" ganders, who tend to run school boards, the ACLU, courts, and flamers of Slashdot.
""The Bible has been neither peer reviewed"
Actually, I'd say its been being reviewed ad infinitum, both by peers and hostiles, for 3500 plus years (OT) and 2000 years (NT). And never more than in the last 100.
And by the way, as for that rejoinder submitted to your remarks, here, saying the Bible should be "moved into the fiction dept.", obviously that person is not particularly well-schooled or very familiar with the Bible him or her self. It is often said it doesn't belong in the science dept., though I believe I've shown elsewise, and often speak to science audiences, I think most of academia, even that rather hostile and sceptical sector known as "criticism" (think of the "Jesus Seminar" crew), would say it belongs in the History dept. At least. Quite a few thousand anthropologists, archeologists, historians, Middleeast scholars, etc., would agree, and have made their careers checking out the historical accuracy and usefulness of the Bible!
Still have a problem with vocabulary, and respect, I see. Does such vehemence improve your argument? No, just makes slashdot sound more like a tavern than a forum. Of course, it is safer.
Now, I never called you an "atheist", or said or implied anything about your religious affiliation, beliefs, or lack thereof. And I don't recall talking about creationism, or the problem of "source (origins?) of life", here. You must have me confused with someone else. I think we, you and I (I admit I've been posting replies to several others, here, so I could be wrong) are talking about evolution which, as I think you are acknowledging, really doesn't apply to creation or origins of the first cause sort.
It's true that so-called micro-evolution does not "require" speciation. But if you know much about the field, there has been great and heated debate over that concept, "micro-evolution". Not too many scientists think it matters, or has much to contribute. Of those who first developed and advocated the paradigm, many have given up on it as not particularly useful, while a few have continued on, oft rather angrily. So what is the point of "micro" evolution?
Every species has a gene pool filled with alleles and genetic variability. We see some expressed in the current population, and know much more is just there, latent or ignored by natural selection, or being utilized by sub-populations within various other habitat or niches. Should any small ("micro") trait gain in frequency, by chance, or by some new factor inb the environment, it may well appear and increase in its frequency or degree of expression. Natural selection may not be relevent, there being no survival or reproductive advantage to the new trait, or it may select against it, or by selecting against the other members actually bestow de facto an advantage to that genome. This would be an example of micro evolution. But so what. All that has happened is a preesisting gene/allele has increased in population. Unless it is actually a new gene, provided by mutation, it's essentially a non-event. About like Iraqis gaining in population relative to Kurds. Only if the trait can be attributed to a new gene establishing itself is it at all relevent to Darwin's (and most evolutionists') theory. And only if it succeeds in replacing the older allele or genome, can it lead to permanent change. And only if it can prohibit the new population from interbreeding can it be said to have originated a new species. Anything less than that amounts to mere (probably temporary, until things change again) adaptation. So what?
"Micro-evolution is to evolution what a single footstep is to a hike, or one brick to a building. Perhaps necessary, but a rather trivial concept. Unless we can show that minor changes can and do add up to wholly new species, we are not talking evolution, merely variation in population genetics.
So if you think "A species does not need to be defined for evolution to be observed", then what is it you are observing? Can you see a mutation occurred, and demonstrate exactly what phenotypic change it wrought? That's good, but we already know about genetics. The debate is about whether the theory of the origin of species is correct, not the origin of a new gene. See that in medicine, and in the lab every day. But we are still questioning (and in so many ways, we might ask does the answer really matter?) if Darwin's theory (or the latest version) holds up, if it explains life as it exists today. And contrary to what many think, the answer really doesn't prove or disprove the Bible or God or most of creationists' (even young-earth!) beliefs.
I cannot prove that god exists or not, but it is true that point 7 is false, since it claims that god exists (and there is a possibility that it doesn't).
I cannot deny that it created all that is, but within this exercise no other known properties can be proven (except he is the cause of something at "initial time"). Nobody shoud be able to claim he's right about god (since nothing else is known about him, in this exercise of course).
You know, you are absolutely right about this. What one believes about any "first cause", whether it be of spacetime, or the universe, or life, or whatever, is a choice of belief And to the degree one holds that belief, and acts upon that belief, is a matter and measure of one's faith. Faith in what one believes.
Evolutionists, theists, atheists, Christians, Bhuddists, animists, and scientists who rest their enquirey at the throne of the Big Bang or string theory or Brane theory - all of us/them do that. They find the ultimate answer/belief/"theory of everything" that they are most satisfied with and stop, usually to shut down their minds in more or less "blind faith", or to work mainly to shore up and further support their decision. Some may switch, some may not, but all choose the belief they want.
It is a fact we can never claim we know or are right about god, or God, or the Big Bang, or string theory or quantum theory, or any such thing. We only have our own personal convictions, and accumulate experience and things we consider evidence to shore up or argue for our own belief. Some are content with tradition, or peers, or the Bible, or Hubble photos. But you can be pretty confident, that most will be very resistent to hearing or seeing or admitting anything that contradicts their choice, once they've made it!
I'm not going to say you are wrong, but must point out that YOU are denying the almost-universally accepted paradigm of modern science that there was a "beginning" of time, The Big Bang. And you are not accepting Einstein's theory, which has worked so well and survived every experiment so far, that time is not a separate dimension, but is integrated with space, hence there is only spacetime. It could not exist before the "space" of the universe existed. To speak of time before time is to fail to grasp his theory. Nor is there anything to suggest that time or spacetime is a "loop", or eternity. Eternity, in fact, is exactly what relativity, and the Big Bang cosmology, have said does not exist. And neither is time a "continuum". The "fabric" of spacetime is replete with discontinuities, and the whole point of quantum mechanics (the other best proven, best utilized theory of all physical and cosmological sciences, is that spacetime is quantised, discrete quanta. It's more like grains of sand, or like a collection of bubbles or loops - that's what string and M theory are about, and why science is having such a tough time with understanding gravity.
The very fact that everything in science (well, in physics and astronomy and cosmology) points to a Big Bang beginning begs the question of a "First Cause". The rather fantastic imaginations of "branes" and "multiverse", even of "wormholes", are the hopes and dreams of scientists stepping outside science and into metaphysics, and science fiction if you will, trying to come up with a "not-God", "not-Bible" or "not-Intelligent Designer" answer to the obvious need for a first cause. Of course, they merely postpone the inevitable: when one is finally done regressing into "branes" and the "bulk", and whatever lies beyond even them, you reach another boundary that begs still, a First Cause!
I'll only address the things you said about what the Bible says about creation. The rest of the stuff you said gets pretty well taken to task by others.
1. "The Bible doesn't mention anything about God creating a bunch of new, drug-resistant bacteria ". No, it doesn't. And while it seems to tell us that life forms at the level of "kinds" (which may be species, or may be genera, or may be even higher classifications) will not evolve (kinds will reproduce true to themselves), it says no such thing about insects or lesser/lower forms of life. This is not apparent in the English translations you'll find in all modern versions, it is what it says in the Hebrew scriptures from which they are translated (that's something I've written about in my book, a retranslation of the Hebrew with a scientist's expertise). It doesn't say they will reproduce only their own kind.
BUT, the emergence of antibiotic-resistant varieties of bacteria is still not a proof-positive of evolution. Such varieties may well have always existed in the gene pool and merely now show up and appear to be predominant because our antibiotics erased most of the others. In fact, if we take away the antibiotics, the old strain usually returns. Maybe antibiotic resistence is "expensive" in the environment, so that variation of the species is only successful when antibiotics give it a strong advantage.
2."Of course, what little the Bible says about the subject is so abstract that it can twisted to survive scientific enlightenment". Actually, that's not true. Only the translation you read in modern Bibles is so imprecise (not "abstract") and general that it doesn't allow for much comparison or textual testing. That's because the creation account was translated in 1611 by the King James scholars, who knew nothing about dinosaurs and genes and bacteria, etc, and had no need, call, or ability to recognize the details or significance of scientifically significant details. My translation does. And the text that is revealed is quite exact and precise, and aligns astoundingly well with what science has learned and/or concluded now, 3500 years after the account was first recorded!
3. "Maybe he set it all in motion by creating the big bang ". Maybe He did! Do you know, that until the Big Bang theory developed, many thought they had proved the Bible wrong because it says "In the beginning" and "God created". The accepted theory before Big Bang was that the universe is eternal, thus had no beginning, and had no "creation event". Atheists hated the Big Bang about as much as young-earth creationists hate "evolution". Big Bang says "in the beginning" something (a "singularity") created (exploded into being) the universe. That opened the door, and to the thought that God sounds more sensible than a "Big Bang", and intelligent design sounds more reasonable an explanation of the incredibly perfect and complex and lawful universe than the unpredicable chaos of a super explosion.
Slashdot Mirror
And you've generalized quite a bit, when you describe "religion" as "assuming an anthromorphic made-up 'person....'". I suppose you are really thinking of the Judeo-Christian religions. Of course, there are many more. And one might even make a hell of a good argument that "scientism", "naturalism", and "athiesm" can be considered religions. And certainly, I always argue that "Evolutionism" is a religion. It certainly has a full-fledged theology, and most of those who believe in "Evolution" think it supplies all the same answers, the "how", and "why", even the basis of their "morality", virtues", "identity", and reasons for how they deal with the rest of their world. Indeed, it even defines their "reality".
I agree, we may (well, not you or I, likely) last long enough, as a species, to get the observations that explain or verifie some of our more difficult cosmological and physics theories. But, as far as you and I are concerned, we are far more likely to get the answer to the "God" and "hereafter" theories of "religion", including those of the Bible! In our personally limited time, that is.
I'm not sure what you mean by "complete scientific theories". I don't think, actually, there is any such thing in any of science, though I'd be willing to consider any candidates you might proffer. But, certainly no one can say even such staples of the standard model as Relativity, or Quantum Mechanics, or Big Bang, or any of its several popular "corrections" or versions (some of which lead to...) String theory (or I should say, "theories"), Brane theory, or ... well, you know. Most, and in the opinion of many in and out of science - all, are "philosophy" or "pure speculation". But, the truth is, that really IS science. And the good practice of which is the effort to flesh out those speculations or philosophies with good data/arguments, and diminish our doubts, and using the "models" or "paradigm" to build useful technologies or adventures (like space satellites or travel, or better computers or communication devices, or medical therapies, etc). Newton's theory was great for describing the solar system, aiming artillary shells, building automobiles, etc., even though it was so simplistic and "wrong". And what better example is there, today, than the "spooky", and so unexplainable paradigm of quantum mechanics?
And, of course, we should not forget that old standby, "the theory of evolution", which is still ripping our society apart and fueling "the culture wars" (and, perhaps, the anger of Al Queda). How many people are arguing that that is NOT a "complete" theory ... or "fact"? All the while others (most scientists, to be sure) are absolutely insisting we all accept it as complete fact, while they continually debate and revise it to fit new data, etc.
Or has it?
Do we have any sort of chance of observing the "Big Bang"? Or other universes. Or the "bulk" (a sort of space outside "spacetime" as we "know" it? Or the origin of life (not to be confused with "origin of species", which Darwin theorized was how that original life form(s) became as varied and complex and interdependent as it is today)? Or do you think we (in this millenia) have any way of actually seeing, measuring, or studying, wormholes or the "other dimensions" inside the "strings" (our best "scientific" theory of everything)? Or almost any of the ideas about cosmology, or origins or reasons for the way things are that yet are considered "good science" (essentially because they don't include "God" or ... uh, the "supernatural"! Uh, sorry, they ALL seem pretty "super, or supra-natural" to me!)
Actually, science is quite willing to consider anything equal to, or even more undefinable than "God", just as long as they don't have to call it "God", or read about it in the Bible first!. But, hey, it's a free country and they are entitled to believe in, and develop a theology about, anything they want. Their theories are often good enough guesses that they actually bear good fruit, and make such things as the technologies that sustain /.!
Just wish they were more tolerant of new ideas! Where would we be if Einstein had not been allowed to replace Newton (whose theoretical construct, by the way, still works best for certain branches of science and technology!)
So, if you prefer "singularity" (read, "infinitesimal point of nothingness that somehow encapsulated and provided everything in the universe") to "God", and "Big Bang" (read, "explosion") to "intelligent designer", hey, it's a free country (read, "we don't cut off your head, or put out a fatwah on you), enjoy your own reasoning, intelligence, and interpretation of all that science has discovered!
Which (what you've said) is essentially "horse pucky" (I think that means absolute nonsense)!
The GREAT majority of Christians are not "fundamentalists. Most, in fact, are Catholics, and most of the rest are what real "fundamentalists see as "liberal". But, that aside....
I think I'm a rather fundamentalist Christian because I do believe in God and that the Bible is true... Yet I am ardent about science, have two degrees and was near the end of my Phd when I left the program for personal and business reasons.... and I am continue to focus my study and writing on physics, with cosmology and astronomy as close seconds.... why? Because I think that physics is the most important, revealing, and exciting of all the sciences...
You know, I really don't know a single Christian who wants to die, or is "not particularly interested in the physical world". Indeed, we do feel that "eternity" is a lot bigger, and hence more important than this mere moment in life, but we all enjoy and live in this mode of reality as much as anyone...and I care about physics because, as the Bible tells me I can learn more about who God is, and his nature, by studying his creation, and I find that absolutely true! And, when I try to explain God to others, I find that physic's theories of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics do it! They explain him, and sovereignty and human free will perfectly, that the Big Bang gives us both a proof and picture that there was a creation moment, that the multi-dimensional aspects of string theoty readily explain how he and angels and Jesus' ability to move through spacetime in the ways the ancients thought "miraculous", etc. etc., well, physics only explains and confirms my (newfound) Christian beliefs!
Now I began my career with about a dozen years of teaching evolution. I began losing my belief and confidence in that theory LONG before I became a Christian, and far longer before I decided Intelligent Design filled in the blanks, the places where evolution (which I still see as a very useful, likely true theory) fails to explain.
What I really find absurd, however, is the idea that to support ID is to be anti-science! First, 99% of science has nothing to do, and no need to even consider, "evolution". Second, ID doesn't even contradict (however much some of its advocates think it may, and its supporters might hope it may) evolution. I comfortably (as do most Catholic scientists and theologians, and as many other Christians as I can persuade) agree with both theories. I just see ID as answering questions where evolution (and Darwin) never intended, or were designed, or presently is able tp go (ie, the origins of life, or the reason that Genesis outlines the history of major life forms so well - perfectly, if you read my translation). Evolution only talks about the descent and modification of life already existing, and fails miserably - doesan't even try, actually - to talk about the origination of life!
If you should check out my work, including my own translation of Genesis, you'll find why I absolutely disagree with your assertion "Science isn't incompatible with spirituality, but it's totally in opposition to biblical literalism". I show EXACTLY the opposite!
I don't denigrate science but praise it, practice it, love it! And try my best to help those who do to realise the error of their ways, and misiled beliefs. I hope I can do the same for you!
When this story first appeared in February, I wrote an extensive review and analysis for my own blog, Alcaide's Café, http://www.alcaidecafe.com/. I was especially talking about it from the perspective of the evolution versus Intelligent Design debate, so titled it, "'It's Alive!' Sez They. "'It's an Intelligent Design!" Sez I." (Published March 1, 2005) Trying to "create life" has been going on in laboratories for centuries. This is just one of several attempts going on now. A lot of the discussion going on here is right on the money. A couple of points you might have missed: (1) It's interesting to note that Packard essential admits that science has yet to be able to even say what "life" is, what indicates "life", what tells us "something" is living! (2) He's decided to define life as something that can "evolve", which is one way to end the debates about evolution! (3) The threshold between matter and structures and processes and whatever it is that is a "living thing" (say, a living cell) is very huge! Just as it takes a lot to transform mud into a 3 story office building full of staff (which is what "nature" is said to have done), or even a junkyard full of already-manufactured car parts into an operating car (which is about what Packard is trying to do), it takes a lot to transform the elements into a living cell.
We should be a shining example with breathable air and water coming out of the tailpipes of our cars. And they will WANT to follow the example.
I'm sorry, but that's about as naive a statement as one could possibly imagine... MOST people in this world are not like "Leave It To Beaver" ideal types of MC Americans. They will not look at us with admiring (let alone comprehending) eyes and emulate our expensive idealistic technologies and versions of todays opulence and buy in. Look at Mexico City, or Havanna, or Bhagdad if you want to see what the 3rd world (and even poorer Americans) will do.
While we, for example, start building nice new clean cars, they will buy up all our older junkers and run them for the next 50 years, all the while undoing our few percentile improvement. If anything, making the atmosphere even worse. And in other respects, other economic developments, should they become available, well Kyoto already gives them an unregulated free hand to repeat our 200 year history of "modernization" and industrialization and becoming all-too consumptive, and to the degree they succeed they will undo and overcome and surpass our cleaning up the environment with new-produced filthyness and exploitation by an order of magnitude.
Think about it. Who's really "raping the forests" now? Not us, the rest of the world. And not because of us, but for themselves. We don't get most of their trees, they do. And who's strip mining the world. Them not us. For their own selfish desires, by their own emergent "robber barons". You want to see where Kyoto would lead, compare the declining Europe, which worships the Kyoto idealism and self-sacrifice, and China, which ignores Kyoto and simply appreciates our (or the EU's) stupidity and willing ness to ride slowly, idealistically into the sunset while they grow into the new power economy, dwarfing the US's own history and accomplishments - including the worst side of it!
Clean energy might be profitable to some, but overall, mostly to a few at the GREAT expense of many. We do need to clean up our act, but not by sacrificing our own economy and strength. The world is better off - at least I believe - if the US remains a (and somewhat generous) super power rather that giving China the chance to be the only super power with nary a drop of generosity in their vision of the future!
Instead of needing one brilliant campaign advisor with all the best ideas in the world ...you can skim the Great Ideas from those people who otherwise have mediocre ideas the rest of the time ... much more than any one brilliant campaign advisor will ever be able to give you..."
Ok, but just what do you think makes for a "brilliant campaign advisor" but some one person with the abillity to "skim the Great Ideas" from out of the sea, populated by the "mediocre"... Genuises don't invent everything, but know how (1) to get the best out of less-able helpers, and (2) know the "great Idea" when they see it, and (3)_ do something with it besides "blog" about it, or toss it out in a puddle of mediocre stuff?
Everyone "advises" the candidate of their choice, but only the really bright one (Carl Rove?) actually gets to advise the candidate. Everyone thinks they know better, but only the winner can prove he really did! Everyone "Monday Morning Quartebacks" except for real quarterbacks!
You, for one, need to correct that to:
"welcome our new, censored, creationist-supporting, theocratic 'scientists'".
OK?
You can go to my blog website (www.alcaidecafe.com), and there link to a page that gives the results - a full translation of Genesis 1 & 2, or another that gives it with a commentary. They are actually pages on a website I put up about 4 years ago (www.in-this-place.com). BUT, at the moment it won't work because my host had an outdated email and I missed my annual payment, and it (in-this-place) was down for a day, and it is resisting my efforts to get it back up. Waiting now for the host's "support" to help. BUT, in a day or two, I expect it to be back. "Alcaide's Cafe" is working, but the link to the Genesis translation is not working.
Also, via same system, is a book I wrote that takes you through the science, the linguistics and explains and justifies my translation. I sell it, myself, cheaper than book stores, Amazon, etc., but, of course, that link is also waiting on the website repair.
For instance, You say, "u assume i am against the stickers." Go back to my first posted response to you. I actually said this:
"I appreciate the fact you are willing to grant them their stickers, in a vague sense of fairness".
You now say this: "the sticker is not trying to get the students to question and think for themselves". Go back and read the actual text of the sticker. What does it say except that?
You also say, here, "The stickers are put their by stupid uneducated (becasuse if they actually read about ID..." Now where is there anything at all about "ID"? ID may be something that many of the parents think is a valid alternative to evolution, and wish it were at least mentioned as theory that many - including scientists and folks with excellent credentials (from good universities, even secular schools) think has a lot to offer (if only as a counter "null hypothesis" to evolutionary explanations), and should be allowed in the public place - even schools! I think you're being rather arrogant and, yes, bigoted if you can not respect them and only call them "stupid". Do you really think you have enough training and expertise in both evolutionary science and the paradigm of ID(and research and writings of its advocates) to make such intemperate statements?
I have a couple of degrees from some very good schools (U/C/ Berkeley, U of Oregon, and doctoral study at UC San Francisco) and taught both evolution and human evolution at several colleges and Universities. I think I am pretty up on it. But after many years of absolute acceptance and advocacy of evolution, I came to have questions and doubt it had all the answers. I now consider ID to be a paradigm (you know there is more than one theory/version of ID, just like any major theory in science) worth consideration. It does offer answers to some of the evolutionary school's weakest points. And, btw, ID is not a shoe-in for the God of the Bible - if that's your fear or assumption. About 98% of the world (are they all stupid?) believes in ID, but the gods, or powers, or forces that they would give the credit to are many and various. A lot of sci fi fans readily accept a "creator" from "out there", but refuse to accept the Christian God. Others believe the whole universe is organic, alive, intelligent, and self creative. Some of the better known scientists who believe evolution has all the answers fall into that school, because Darwinism/neoDarwinism cannot account for ultimate origins, including the brilliantly designed universe, and incredibly complicated "first cell" of life.
You say, " they want their religion imposed on others because they think it is better) hypocritical (afraid to say the previous) people." Come on now, you don't know that. But, if it were true, do you think it any better that "the other side" gets to impose their religion (there is no creator, no god, no greater intelligence, no real design, and the "evolution is a fact" equivalent of "God is a fact", etc.)? You know, there are a huge number of scientists who are theists, and many of them of the Judeo-Christian persuasion. Well over half of astronomers, close to half of physicists and cosmologists are. And why? Because the know just how incredible, awesome, and unexplainable by any current science, the univers is. Check it out. Einstein, of course, was a theist. His faith in an Intelligence having designed the universe (and he said "God", usually) was what led him to Relativity! So, he too, was pretty stupid, I guess. Though he didn't work in biology, I suspect he'd have been an advocate of keeping an open mind, and not thought it was a, anti-science plot. Unless you've swallowed the postmodern thesis that each of is our own creator, determining truth and reality for ourselves because there is no universal objective truth and reality (which completely negates science) you must admit science is a method for seeking the truth. And there are essentiall
If you read the sticker (the topic of this discussion) it only said (accurately) that evolution is a theory, and that students should keep that in mind, reflect, weigh the evidence themselves, keep an open mind... that sounds like the epitome of tolerance, temperance, gentle open-mindedness, to me. Not to mention a fair and honest way to teach, and encourage young people to conduct themselves. They aren't hating (well, most aren't) evolutionists, or trying to banish them from the book or curriculum, but just asking that the truth and fact that evolution is a theory be clearly stated, however meekly. It is those who wish to banish even open mindedness, refuse to treat that 2000 parents with any respect, calling them stupid, etc., who seem to be bigots. They're unwilling to compromise or yield an inch.
And remember, the public school, and the teaching of "evolution is a fact", and the obvious implication there is no God and no possibility "creation" or "intelligent design" lies behind origins, etc., is compulsory and mandated under penalty of law. So those 2000 parents are forced to send their kids to school, pay for it, and allow it to "brainwash" (in their view) their kids every day. And know the teachers are likely to push their own values/opinions, at least as a constant subtext, even more. Small wonder they get upset, and ask at least this tiny compromise!
Now, by the way, gravity is not a theory, but a fact. And we still have not got a theory that satisfies all the questions of scientists. Newton's theory was good. Einstein's much better. But the so-called "holy grail" of modern physics and cosmology, is a better theory. Though the Bible, to my knowledge, says nothing about gravity, and most Christians have no "christian" or biblical leanings in any way that I know of, the Bible does have a few things to say about the way the universe began and was stretched out to where it is today, that gives some strong hints as to what actually is the nature of spacetime and the "fabric" of space that creates gravity (in relativitistic terms), and the cosmological constant, that scientists are trying to figure out because it may answer why the universe is expanding, and gravity works...
Ditto, liittle in the Bible about continental drift (a fact, about which there are several theories, and much research going on today), but for one verse about how when the earth was covered with water God said "let dry land appear. Watch, patiently, it will!". Which implies plate tectonics in action, and the idea of continental drift!
Beware sarcasm (and speaking about things you have really not much real scientific knowledge of), it can bite you in the... Sarcasm is a pitbull!
I agree Hovind's offer is bombast, insincere, and essentially a sham. Unfortunately, the same can be said about most participants in talk.origins
By the way, a theory is an idea that we all must form an opinion about. Scientists, lay folks, anyone who hears it. We choose to believe it or not. Actually, we usually have a degree of belief ("strongly", "moderately" etc.) in it. And based on the strength of our belief we develop a certain amount of faith in it. And act upon our faith. Stronger belief, more faith that the theory is right, more act upon our belief. Without much faith, we aren't likely to do much with the theory. Scientists are exactly the same, though what they do (act out in that faith) might be a bit different, like spend a lot of their careers developing experiments, reasearch money, writings, etc, on that theory. So, creationism (there are several kinds in Christianity, alone, such as "young-earth", and "old earth") is a theory which many believe in, and many act upon. Evolution is also. And so is intelligent design (which is accepted by many christians, but also by many other religions, by new agers an by sci fi fans and even the UFO crowd, eh?). Etc, etc.
That, my friend is a baseless and very inaccurate generalization. You are speaking from prejudice, not knowledge. Indeed, if you went into almost any Christian church you'd find many an ardent environmentalist, many a sermon about being good "stewards" (caretakers, respecters) of the environmental. Try "googling" a few environmental sites, and Christian environmental sites, and professional organizations of geologists, biologists, etc. Learn something.
I've met some very nasty evolution advocates. But I know some (quite a few) who are Christians, including professional biologists, paleontologists, etc. And who are not taking the hard line of anti-tolerance, or anti-Christianity, that many do. It's so easy to fall into bigotry, and from that into stupidity and ignorance. Don't let yourself go there, OK?
And you know, a minute or two, or even a day, spent on these stories in a science class would be OK. As a university science teacher, myself, I did get into such topics (Navajo was a specialty of mine. I also raised their ideas of time - circular rather than linear - and way they looked at the world - looking at the landscape as actors passed through it, rather than focusing on actors and actions as the primary interest), and through that was able to get a much better idea of "our" modern science, and why we reach the theories we do.
Math and English grammar are not theories. And almost anything else, except for a curriculum on religion, and perhaps US history, doesn't reflect on, or try to teach something that contradicts a fundamental worldview or set of values, or who and what those 2000 parents believe they are, and are about, and want to pass on to their children (every parent's desire).
Evolution, if it is treated as a scientific theory, is pretty well tolerated and even considered (that is, they will consider the possibility it is true) by most of that 2000. But to many pushing evolution and opposing the stickers (or any other type of qualifying language in the schools), if not most, evolution is a religion. Few who debate it here, or in front of school boards, even have a rudimentary understanding of it as a scientific theory/paradigm. They see it as a "not-God", as a refutation of religion(s), of the Bible, of Christians, and thus it is the doctrine of most atheists (read "religion's about a naturalist universe"). And it is almost always taught by the teachers as a refutation of, and proof that there is no God, never mind it was never intended to, and few (except dogmatic atheistic) scientists think it does. So, evolution has become "the other religion" in the culture wars, and that 2000 parents (and about 80% of the rest of America, and 98% of the world) know that, and that it will destroy the values and beliefs of many of their children if taught by such determined authority figures as anti_Christian, and ani-theistic school teachers. I know, because I was a university teacher in human evolution and paleontology who believed absolutely in evolution, and was absolutely atheistic, and felt it my duty to convert any Christian student in my classes. I rarely failed!
You don't have to be "Bible-based" to object to the dogma that "evolution is a fact", and "evolution is the real creator", to find that offensive, if not threatening (to your family and your right to teach your children your own heritage and values). Because it is the "evolutionists" who are imposing their beliefs on the rest of the world, their anti-Christian, anti-creationist (whether bible or other religion-based), anti-intelligent design, anti-any "supernatural power or force or explanationfor the origin of the universe and life" (though they might believe in ghosts, magic, or any number of sci-fi theses, themselves, without recognizing it ie, "UFOs anyone?") beliefs.
I appreciate the fact you are willing to grant them their stickers, in a vague sense of fairness, but your racist classification of them as "bigoted neanderthals" rather spoils it. I once (some 40 years ago) went to Mississippi as a civil rights worker. I met a number of whites who were fair enough to give "the damn niggers" the vote, or right to go into Walgreens, but never turned my back on them. I fear the culture wars, and postmodernism have erased the word "respect" out of our dictionary, and rendered the idea of pluralism moot.
The amazing "web of life", the rich panorama of species of life on earth is a fact. Exactly how it got to be so is a question that interests (and divides, it seems) almost everyone on the planet. Evolution is one theory (or set of, actually) of how it did. Intelligent design is another type of theory (that is, there are several version). Creation is another ("young earth" and "old earth" are the two major sets of that type of theory). And if you look at the major cultures and religions of the world, you'll find a few others.
Uh, since it's been two days, and you're not likely to be checking back here, I'd like to draw your attention to a reply I posted to the post you replied to. :)
Exactly. I got no problem with that. Nor with the science-book sticker under discussion. In fact, as a scientist (Two degrees, two fields, and a new field of resource policy analysis) turned Christian, and quite unable to understand or accept the Genesis account of creation, I then spent 2 years re-translating the Hebrew language in light of my knowledge of science. I became convinced of its accuracy and relevance, and have since written a book on my findings, and dedicated myself to (1) getting both sides of the "creation/evolution debate & culture wars to realize neither of them had hardly any idea of what the Bible really said, and (2) reconciling science and scripture, and showing how science is moving closer and closer, in almost every discipline and every advance, to a parallel account. So, I find it quite reasonable and fair to treat the actual creation account in Genesis as a theory, and keep on testing it. One might think Genesis is at quite a disadvantage, being written down 3500 years ago and unable to adjusd or modify itself, but to my ever-increasing surprise, it isn't. In fact, that disability gives it all the more respect, and gravitas, I think.
"The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
We should only wish! What is good for the Christian goose, it seems, is never good for the science "groupie" ganders, who tend to run school boards, the ACLU, courts, and flamers of Slashdot.
""The Bible has been neither peer reviewed"
Actually, I'd say its been being reviewed ad infinitum, both by peers and hostiles, for 3500 plus years (OT) and 2000 years (NT). And never more than in the last 100.
And by the way, as for that rejoinder submitted to your remarks, here, saying the Bible should be "moved into the fiction dept.", obviously that person is not particularly well-schooled or very familiar with the Bible him or her self. It is often said it doesn't belong in the science dept., though I believe I've shown elsewise, and often speak to science audiences, I think most of academia, even that rather hostile and sceptical sector known as "criticism" (think of the "Jesus Seminar" crew), would say it belongs in the History dept. At least. Quite a few thousand anthropologists, archeologists, historians, Middleeast scholars, etc., would agree, and have made their careers checking out the historical accuracy and usefulness of the Bible!
Now, I never called you an "atheist", or said or implied anything about your religious affiliation, beliefs, or lack thereof. And I don't recall talking about creationism, or the problem of "source (origins?) of life", here. You must have me confused with someone else. I think we, you and I (I admit I've been posting replies to several others, here, so I could be wrong) are talking about evolution which, as I think you are acknowledging, really doesn't apply to creation or origins of the first cause sort.
It's true that so-called micro-evolution does not "require" speciation. But if you know much about the field, there has been great and heated debate over that concept, "micro-evolution". Not too many scientists think it matters, or has much to contribute. Of those who first developed and advocated the paradigm, many have given up on it as not particularly useful, while a few have continued on, oft rather angrily. So what is the point of "micro" evolution?
Every species has a gene pool filled with alleles and genetic variability. We see some expressed in the current population, and know much more is just there, latent or ignored by natural selection, or being utilized by sub-populations within various other habitat or niches. Should any small ("micro") trait gain in frequency, by chance, or by some new factor inb the environment, it may well appear and increase in its frequency or degree of expression. Natural selection may not be relevent, there being no survival or reproductive advantage to the new trait, or it may select against it, or by selecting against the other members actually bestow de facto an advantage to that genome. This would be an example of micro evolution. But so what. All that has happened is a preesisting gene/allele has increased in population. Unless it is actually a new gene, provided by mutation, it's essentially a non-event. About like Iraqis gaining in population relative to Kurds. Only if the trait can be attributed to a new gene establishing itself is it at all relevent to Darwin's (and most evolutionists') theory. And only if it succeeds in replacing the older allele or genome, can it lead to permanent change. And only if it can prohibit the new population from interbreeding can it be said to have originated a new species. Anything less than that amounts to mere (probably temporary, until things change again) adaptation. So what?
"Micro-evolution is to evolution what a single footstep is to a hike, or one brick to a building. Perhaps necessary, but a rather trivial concept. Unless we can show that minor changes can and do add up to wholly new species, we are not talking evolution, merely variation in population genetics.
So if you think "A species does not need to be defined for evolution to be observed", then what is it you are observing? Can you see a mutation occurred, and demonstrate exactly what phenotypic change it wrought? That's good, but we already know about genetics. The debate is about whether the theory of the origin of species is correct, not the origin of a new gene. See that in medicine, and in the lab every day. But we are still questioning (and in so many ways, we might ask does the answer really matter?) if Darwin's theory (or the latest version) holds up, if it explains life as it exists today. And contrary to what many think, the answer really doesn't prove or disprove the Bible or God or most of creationists' (even young-earth!) beliefs.
You know, you are absolutely right about this. What one believes about any "first cause", whether it be of spacetime, or the universe, or life, or whatever, is a choice of belief And to the degree one holds that belief, and acts upon that belief, is a matter and measure of one's faith. Faith in what one believes.
Evolutionists, theists, atheists, Christians, Bhuddists, animists, and scientists who rest their enquirey at the throne of the Big Bang or string theory or Brane theory - all of us/them do that. They find the ultimate answer/belief/"theory of everything" that they are most satisfied with and stop, usually to shut down their minds in more or less "blind faith", or to work mainly to shore up and further support their decision. Some may switch, some may not, but all choose the belief they want.
It is a fact we can never claim we know or are right about god, or God, or the Big Bang, or string theory or quantum theory, or any such thing. We only have our own personal convictions, and accumulate experience and things we consider evidence to shore up or argue for our own belief. Some are content with tradition, or peers, or the Bible, or Hubble photos. But you can be pretty confident, that most will be very resistent to hearing or seeing or admitting anything that contradicts their choice, once they've made it!
Pretty obvious in threads like this, huh?
The very fact that everything in science (well, in physics and astronomy and cosmology) points to a Big Bang beginning begs the question of a "First Cause". The rather fantastic imaginations of "branes" and "multiverse", even of "wormholes", are the hopes and dreams of scientists stepping outside science and into metaphysics, and science fiction if you will, trying to come up with a "not-God", "not-Bible" or "not-Intelligent Designer" answer to the obvious need for a first cause. Of course, they merely postpone the inevitable: when one is finally done regressing into "branes" and the "bulk", and whatever lies beyond even them, you reach another boundary that begs still, a First Cause!
1. "The Bible doesn't mention anything about God creating a bunch of new, drug-resistant bacteria ". No, it doesn't. And while it seems to tell us that life forms at the level of "kinds" (which may be species, or may be genera, or may be even higher classifications) will not evolve (kinds will reproduce true to themselves), it says no such thing about insects or lesser/lower forms of life. This is not apparent in the English translations you'll find in all modern versions, it is what it says in the Hebrew scriptures from which they are translated (that's something I've written about in my book, a retranslation of the Hebrew with a scientist's expertise). It doesn't say they will reproduce only their own kind.
BUT, the emergence of antibiotic-resistant varieties of bacteria is still not a proof-positive of evolution. Such varieties may well have always existed in the gene pool and merely now show up and appear to be predominant because our antibiotics erased most of the others. In fact, if we take away the antibiotics, the old strain usually returns. Maybe antibiotic resistence is "expensive" in the environment, so that variation of the species is only successful when antibiotics give it a strong advantage.
2."Of course, what little the Bible says about the subject is so abstract that it can twisted to survive scientific enlightenment". Actually, that's not true. Only the translation you read in modern Bibles is so imprecise (not "abstract") and general that it doesn't allow for much comparison or textual testing. That's because the creation account was translated in 1611 by the King James scholars, who knew nothing about dinosaurs and genes and bacteria, etc, and had no need, call, or ability to recognize the details or significance of scientifically significant details. My translation does. And the text that is revealed is quite exact and precise, and aligns astoundingly well with what science has learned and/or concluded now, 3500 years after the account was first recorded!
3. "Maybe he set it all in motion by creating the big bang ". Maybe He did! Do you know, that until the Big Bang theory developed, many thought they had proved the Bible wrong because it says "In the beginning" and "God created". The accepted theory before Big Bang was that the universe is eternal, thus had no beginning, and had no "creation event". Atheists hated the Big Bang about as much as young-earth creationists hate "evolution". Big Bang says "in the beginning" something (a "singularity") created (exploded into being) the universe. That opened the door, and to the thought that God sounds more sensible than a "Big Bang", and intelligent design sounds more reasonable an explanation of the incredibly perfect and complex and lawful universe than the unpredicable chaos of a super explosion.