Educate me

[willie]

What is the difference between Theistic Evolution and Intelligent Design? Is it just a play on words? If the "great majority" of people in the U.S. believe in creation as the Post reports this morning, why isn't it taught in school? I find it hard to believe it is a majority opinion but if the Post said so, it must be true.

 

[Railroad]

but if the Post said so, it must be true.

I beg to differ with you there! Reading the Post was your FIRST mistake. (No offense meant).

As for the substance here, I've also heard that the vast majority of Americans claim to be Christians. But the morass of non-Christian (and downright evil) things this society permits these days seems to contradict that. As I see it, having the schools teaching ONLY Darwin's theory, is just more of the same garbage. Also as I see it, the schools should teach both and force the parents and churches to finish the job of getting the kid to pick and believe in the right thing.

 

[willie]

I'm guilty of scrambling some important words. The actual quote was "Polls show that a large majority of Americans believe God alone created man or had a guiding hand" Sometimes I've heard the description of ID missing the "or had a guiding hand" part. That inclusion, IMHO, makes the poll worthless.

 

[Railroad]

I'm guilty of scrambling some important words. The actual quote was "Polls show that a large majority of Americans believe God alone created man or had a guiding hand" Sometimes I've heard the description of ID missing the "or had a guiding hand" part. That inclusion, IMHO, makes the poll worthless.

I concur, it's like being "a little bit pregnant" - either one or the other, but not both.

My position is dictated by my faith - the Bible says that God created man and woman. Period. It doesn't say God EVOLVED Man, or that God modified a monkey to make a man. It says God CREATED man. And I can tell ya this - the Post notwithstanding, if it's in the Bible, it IS true.

 

[2ndAmendment]

More that you probably want to know:

Intellegent Design

Theistic evolution

Short version:

Intelligent design (ID)

is the claim that empirical evidence points to the conclusion that life on earth was deliberately designed by one or more intelligent agents.

ID presents a case for "reasonable doubt" about the standard scientific model of evolution by natural selection. ID includes arguments that abiogenesis is impossible, that evolution cannot account for the complexity of life (particularly what biochemist Michael Behe has called "irreducible complexity") and that the universe is "fine tuned" for living things in a manner that must have been by design, though ID makes no explicit claims about the identity, motives, or methods of the intelligent designer(s). ...

Evolutionary creationism encompasses the concept of theistic evolution, a synthesis of the religious belief in a creator God with the scientific theory of evolution. It holds that these two beliefs are not incompatible, and that the acceptance of evolutionary biology is not fundamentally different from the acceptance of other sciences, such as astronomy or meteorology.

 

[rraley]

Theistic evolution is the way to go...it is a person's job who has childrenin public schools to teach their children that they can reconcile the scientific proof of evolution and the belief in God's creation of life.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I am really surprised at you rr. Going against the Pope like that. Creationism for him and for me thank you very much.

 

[rraley]

The Catholic Church makes it clear that evolution is easily reconciled with creationism...get your facts right. The Church teaches that a person may believe in the word of Genesis exactly or that they may consider the story of Adam and Eve as the inspired story that God passed down so that the people of that time could understand.

 

[rraley]

Just to add...belief in evolution is perfectly fine according to Catholic teaching so long as one believes that God was the spark that started the process.

 

[Tonio]

Theistic evolution is the way to go...it is a person's job who has childrenin public schools to teach their children that they can reconcile the scientific proof of evolution and the belief in God's creation of life.

Rraley, how would you reconcile theistic evolution with the mission of public schools not to promote one religion over others? As I see it, the First Amendment certainly allows teachers to teach that some people believe in God. But it doesn't allow them to teach God's existence as a fact. Because it's not a fact--it's a matter of personal faith and religious doctrine.

 

[2ndAmendment]

The Catholic Church makes it clear that evolution is easily reconciled with creationism...get your facts right. The Church teaches that a person may believe in the word of Genesis exactly or that they may consider the story of Adam and Eve as the inspired story that God passed down so that the people of that time could understand.

Notice I said pope, not the Catholic church, so you may need to read more closely before you jump on someone.

 

[2ndAmendment]

As I see it, the First Amendment certainly allows teachers to teach that some people believe in God. But it doesn't allow them to teach God's existence as a fact. Because it's not a fact--it's a matter of personal faith and religious doctrine.

You miss interpret the First Amendment. It only prohibits Congress from making laws regarding the things enumerated in the First Amendment. Of course, you are not alone. Read the history of the Constitution if you are truly interested what was intended by the First Amendment. It is very clear, but largely ignored by the ACLU and the liberal judges. But this discussion is more suited to the politics forum I think.

 

[rraley]

Rraley, how would you reconcile theistic evolution with the mission of public schools not to promote one religion over others? As I see it, the First Amendment certainly allows teachers to teach that some people believe in God. But it doesn't allow them to teach God's existence as a fact. Because it's not a fact--it's a matter of personal faith and religious doctrine.

Sorry for the confusion, Tonio...I was not at all trying to say that Theistic Evolution should be taught in public schools. Absolutely not. I was saying that personally theistic evolution is the way to go for me.

Public schools have a responsibility to teach science, not religion. Science says that evolution is a very logical and proven theory so our public school teachings should include it.

 

[Tonio]

You miss interpret the First Amendment. It only prohibits Congress from making laws regarding the things enumerated in the First Amendment. Of course, you are not alone. Read the history of the Constitution if you are truly interested what was intended by the First Amendment. It is very clear, but largely ignored by the ACLU and the liberal judges. But this discussion is more suited to the politics forum I think.

I believe the First Amendment principle should apply to ALL governments. I believe that it's dangerous and wrong for ANY government in the world to endorse a specific religion. I see it as contrary to the spirit of democracy. Extreme examples, but how about Iran and Saudi Arabia, where the Koran is law? Or even England in the 1600s, where Catholicism was equated with treason?

 

[Tonio]

Sorry for the confusion, Tonio...I was not at all trying to say that Theistic Evolution should be taught in public schools. Absolutely not. I was saying that personally theistic evolution is the way to go for me.

Public schools have a responsibility to teach science, not religion. Science says that evolution is a very logical and proven theory so our public school teachings should include it.

Thanks, and good reply. I tend to believe in theistic evolution myself. But I don't agree with the concept of intelligent design. That concept seems to want to scientifically prove the existence of a Supreme Being, something that can never be proven or disproven scientifically.

 

[rraley]

My sentiments exactly Tonio.

 

[Railroad]

But it doesn't allow them to teach God's existence as a fact. Because it's not a fact--it's a matter of personal faith and religious doctrine.

Sorry you think so, Tonio, but God's existence truly is a fact, not a matter of faith. NO offense meant, I assure you.

 

[Railroad]

Sorry you think so, Tonio, but God's existence truly is a fact, not a matter of faith. NO offense meant, I assure you.

And my position in this matter is that schools should teach both and leave the responsibility for spiritual and intellectual guidance to the parents.

 

[rraley]

The existence of God can be accepted as a fact in one's belief system but there is absolutely no way that science can objectively prove the existence of Him.

 

[Railroad]

The existence of God can be accepted as a fact in one's belief system but there is absolutely no way that science can objectively prove the existence of Him.

Science is also unable to objectively prove that He doesn't exist.

Not to get too far afield with this, but I find it fascinating that cosmologists and microphysicists find things or postulate things that are equally unprovable to buttress their theories. There are abstracts and variables that are completely imaginary - they make no secret of that - used to explain the universe and the subatomic. There are quite a few areas where things like the uncertainty theory show our inability to account for some things while we continue to advance and discover other things. In that context, one might raise the question of God and watch a physicist squirm.