Should evolution be taught in schools?

[Cirdan]

Science is thinking without beleiving.
Religion is beleiving without thinking.

Neither state is maintainable.

[Lief Erikson]

You know what, I don't think you've read most of what has been posted so far.

[Rían]

OK, folks, here's my thoughts - it will probably take 2 or 3 posts (darn length limit!), so hang in there!

After reading some of the comments out there along the lines of “well, I just can’t believe something that I can’t prove�, etc., it made me think about some things, and I’ll try to express my thoughts to you guys now, because a few of you seemed interested in things that I had to say. This may take a couple of posts, because I thought a lot about it, and it’s kinda long, but I hope you can hang in there and get through it all.

See, you people that posted like that, I think that after you read these things that you will no longer be able to honestly say that, basically, the only worthwhile truths are those that can be proven in a lab. You see, only a subset of the truth is measurable in a lab. Does that mean the truths that are measurable in a lab are the only ones that exist? No, it just means that there are truths that exist that cannot be measured in ways that you would like them to be. They are not measurable, but they are discoverable.

For example, someone that recently posted in this thread posted just a few days ago in the venting thread about how terrible the whole Washington area sniper thing was. Now why is it terrible? It is because the TRUTH is that people are beings of great worth. This person was reacting against the great injustice done to the victims and their friends and family by the sniper. Why didn’t I see a post like “well, good – one less person to consume valuable, measurable resources!�? (Now there are unbalanced people out there that would seriously say that, but the mere fact that we would consider them unbalanced I think supports my point.) Can we measure the victims’ worth by measuring the amount of blood that they lost?

(continued in next post)

[Rían]

(continued from previous post)

Also, there is a thread here called “did anyone else shed a tear� in the Middle Earth forum (or something like that). Why don’t I see posts like this: “I tell you, when I read about the distance between Gondor and Rohan, I really choke up. And when I think about the part where Gandalf falls into the abyss - OMGoodness, to think that I could calculate his velocity along various parts of his path of descent (always assuming an initial velocity of 0, which, however, may not be the case, and that really worries me) – that really brings tears to my eyes.� In other words, the things that we appreciate in Tolkien’s work are very real – because we ourselves have experienced them – things like love, honesty, courage, etc. (and sadly, things like treachery, cruelty, etc.). It is TRUE that they exist.

Now let me say that I think that I am probably very similar to many people that have posted here – I skipped a grade because I was so bored in class, I went to all the AP classes, took calculus in high school, etc. – and I never could understand why the teacher would explain things more than once – it was always perfectly clear to me the first time! In high school, I got into the whole Star Trek Mr. Spock thing – logic ruled! If you couldn’t explain anything scientifically, why, it was worthless!

I thank God that he saved me from that (please hang in a little longer, people!) You see, truths that you can measure are only a subset of the truths in the world, and an extremely cold and unfulfilling subset, at that. I know; I lived in it for many years, even after I became a Christian. But people – you come out of it all the time, you know – and those are your best times! (but sadly, also your most painful). Remember the joys of making a new friend? How wonderful to share your thoughts, or just even hang out and do nothing, with someone that likes and understands you! Then perhaps they betrayed you to “be friends� with someone that was more popular. You had very real (and TRUE in the sense that they are real) feelings of rejection and sorrow. Could you measure those feelings? Perhaps by counting the tears as they fell? You know, the Bible says that God keeps track of our tears, and that He is always faithful and will never betray us. Now, “not betraying� does not mean that He will give Christians the life that we think is best, but rather the life that He knows is best, which sometimes includes sorrowful things. However, many good and deep things are wrought in our souls through sorrow, when we turn to Him, and He is with us every step of the way.

(continued in the next post)

[Rían]

(continued from previous post)

Anyway, all this to say that please don’t believe the lie that the only truth out there, or the only truth worth knowing or basing a belief on, is to be found in a lab. Please consider asking God to show you if He is indeed real (and I mean REALLY ask Him, and continue to ask - not just throw out a flippant prayer). God does not ask you for a non-thinking faith – that would be worthless! - but one decided on by a thoughtful evaluation of the evidence, both measurable and non-measurable (e.g., you can look at the Bible in terms of its accuracy as a valid piece of ancient literature – it’s in a class by itself – no other piece comes close! In addition, you can consider the truth about the existence of moral values in people, and what that means). The Bible says those who seek Him shall find Him. And I tell you, it is worth the world to find Him. Please feel free to PM me with any comments or questions. Thanks again for such thoughtful and polite posts, I’ve really appreciated them. If you don’t feel comfortable PM-ing me, some good books that I would recommend are Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, and The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis.

And let me close with this thought and then a quote from The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, by C.S. Lewis. The scientific world may feel safe to you, but because it does not deal with the whole truth, it is not safe. Indeed, it will betray you at the end. God is truth, and the whole truth is with him, and He is there for the finding, if you truly seek Him.

In this passage, the people are talking about Aslan, who is how Lewis imagined Christ would appear in the world of Narnia. “Ooh!� said Susan, … “Is he – quite safe?� … “Safe? said Mr. Beaver. … Who said anything about safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King, I tell you.�

God wants to bless you all - please let Him.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
You know what, I don't think you've read most of what has been posted so far.

You would be wrong there. It wasn't meant as an insult, if that is the way you are taking it. I posted extensively on this in the "Theist" and Anti-Theist" threads. The point is that pure faith is about belief, but without doubt it would be servitude. Pure science is about rational thought based on fact, but without inspiration it would be dogma without innovation. These goals (pure thought and pure faith), however, are the necessary foundations of each system.

[Earniel]

I've been thinking (yes, I tend to do that from time to time) and wondering. RÃ*an and Lief, you've been telling how you both found god. I take it that was a personal experience but yet both of you (correct me if I'm wrong here) also seem to uphold the bible as the word of god. How can you be sure? The bible has been 'copied' for centuries by men and men are fallible. Do you really believe that what is written in the bible really happened that way? And further, how is the bible different from say, the greek myths? I know I'm deviating from the original topic, but I'm interested.

[Lief Erikson]

Ah yes, I was going to respond to that antecedent of Afro elf's, but my computer started glitching up in errors and I never sent my post.

One important thing to note about the Bible is its name. It is called the Word of God, and that isn't simply a Word that God spoke to people in the past, centuries ago.

So here is where I'd deviate from the loopty loop that was posted with that question. On the second answer. We don't believe that it's the Word of God because it says so in the Bible, but rather because of a spiritual experience which is hearing God speak through it. He speaks through the Bible more than any other book. The only other books that I've occasionally heard him speak through are devotional books, because those contain a good deal of truth, and sometimes God sends a message to a person through him. But the Bible is a living Word, and what he said in the past he speaks in the future as well, applied to all sorts of situation.

I'm not simply saying that because it says "Do not steal," in the past you shouldn't steal in the present. I mean he can speak through passages more directly, like to say: "Do your schoolwork today, and don't be such a pain to your parents."

He knows his book through and through, and if you're seeking an answer, you might open the Bible and the next second be looking straight at the answer.

Because of these spiritual experiences, we know it to be his living Word, speaking now and always. And if it is speaking now and always, we can assume that things like the story of David and Goliath aren't make believe, and aren't simple mythology. The contents of the book are important, and I don't think that God would speak through a book that was primarily a lie, or a fantasy.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Cirdan
You would be wrong there. It wasn't meant as an insult, if that is the way you are taking it. I posted extensively on this in the "Theist" and Anti-Theist" threads. The point is that pure faith is about belief, but without doubt it would be servitude. Pure science is about rational thought based on fact, but without inspiration it would be dogma without innovation. These goals (pure thought and pure faith), however, are the necessary foundations of each system.

I didn't take what you said as an insult. But one thing you should note is that faith isn't based upon belief, but is based upon the knowledge that God exists. If he reveals himself to you, then you have reason to have faith. God understands our need for evidence, and doesn't call us to believe in him without reason. Besides, he wants to have a personal relationship with each person, and how can you have such a thing when you don't even know that God exists? Thus, pure faith does have a basis of knowledge, and if you know that God exists and know something of his loving nature, then you can trust him.

So basically the main point that I'm disagreeing with is the "Christianity is belief without thought," concept.

[Rían]

by Lief
So basically the main point that I'm disagreeing with is the "Christianity is belief without thought," concept.

Absolutely!!!! That is the point that I have been trying to show is not valid, too.

whoops, 3 negatives contained in those phrases - NO, Christianity is NOT belief WITHOUT thought - let me rephrase -

Christianity is a belief entered into after much rational thinking and evaluation of evidence, both measurable and non-measurable (such as the undeniable existence of moral values in all people). God does NOT ask us for a brainless faith.

That's a great question, Eärniel - I'll get to it w/in a couple of days - sorry I can't sooner. As always, good, thoughtful questions take a lot of time to answer well, and with 3 small kids I just can't get time every day for thoughtful posts (although I can do lots of quick, fun ones!) (because I am a Christian, I believe that the moral code that God set out is not only right but also good, and one of the highest priorities for parents is to take care of their children). Now I know that Lief doesn't have kids and he might be able to get to you sooner!

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I didn't take what you said as an insult. But one thing you should note is that faith isn't based upon belief, but is based upon the knowledge that God exists. If he reveals himself to you, then you have reason to have faith. God understands our need for evidence, and doesn't call us to believe in him without reason. Besides, he wants to have a personal relationship with each person, and how can you have such a thing when you don't even know that God exists? Thus, pure faith does have a basis of knowledge, and if you know that God exists and know something of his loving nature, then you can trust him.

So basically the main point that I'm disagreeing with is the "Christianity is belief without thought," concept.

Even the statementy that faith is based on the knowledge of God is a statement of faith. Rational and logical don't make truth. The term "rationalizing" doesn't mean finding the truth. It means building a set of justifications. You can say you know God but cannot prove it. Yes, I've seen the posts about proof. They are flawed as well. "Knowing God exists" is a logically flawed way of saying "beleiving God exists". If you are less secure in your faith by admitting this then that is only human. Also I said "religion" not Christianity, so don't short-change the other faiths. I was pointing out that faith is the basis of religion, but CANNOT exist without thought. You are not reading my posts clearly.

[Lief Erikson]

I did recognize, actually, that you were talking about other religions besides Christianity. But Christianity is the one that I have been discussing. I can discuss the others too.

Some of the other religions are simple beliefs, based entirely on faith, and for which there isn't even any proof to the individual that is believing in them. Some of the other religions actually do get in touch with the spiritual, but Jesus in the Bible says that he is the Way. There isn't another way to access God except through him, and that implies that these other religions lead to access to the spiritual outside of God. The Bible states the existence of such religions, like when it describes the 'miracles' that the Egyptians could do when confronting Moses. Other people who belong to such experiential religions would also testify to the spiritual truth that they find, and which Christians believe to be frequently deception.

Cirdan, as for your other statements about belief and faith, all I can say is that you're wrong. If someone simply believes God exists, then their faith isn't based upon knowledge. A statement that faith comes from knowledge isn't a statement of faith, it's a statement of knowledge.

Let's say you meet someone named Robert, and then you go home and tell your sister about it. She says, "How do you know that you met Robert? That's a statement of faith."

You know you met Robert. You heard his voice, talked with him, encountered him in a way that couldn't be anything other than meeting Robert. Of course, there's not a single way you can prove to your sister that you met Robert, unless you take her to go and meet him too. And if Robert is a really wonderful person, then you might really want her to get to know him.

That is what I am trying to get across to you, Cirdan. If I meet God, you can't simply say that I have faith that I met God. It's an experience, and it's a real experience. Knowing God exists and believing that he exists are two completely different things. And those Christians who admit to not knowing him, but actually only believing he exists, well their faith isn't based upon knowledge, but as you say, upon belief.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I did recognize, actually, that you were talking about other religions besides Christianity. But Christianity is the one that I have been discussing. I can discuss the others too.

Some of the other religions are simple beliefs, based entirely on faith, and for which there isn't even any proof to the individual that is believing in them. Some of the other religions actually do get in touch with the spiritual, but Jesus in the Bible says that he is the Way. There isn't another way to access God except through him, and that implies that these other religions lead to access to the spiritual outside of God. The Bible states the existence of such religions, like when it describes the 'miracles' that the Egyptians could do when confronting Moses. Other people who belong to such experiential religions would also testify to the spiritual truth that they find, and which Christians believe to be frequently deception.

Cirdan, as for your other statements about belief and faith, all I can say is that you're wrong. If someone simply believes God exists, then their faith isn't based upon knowledge. A statement that faith comes from knowledge isn't a statement of faith, it's a statement of knowledge.

Let's say you meet someone named Robert, and then you go home and tell your sister about it. She says, "How do you know that you met Robert? That's a statement of faith."

You know you met Robert. You heard his voice, talked with him, encountered him in a way that couldn't be anything other than meeting Robert. Of course, there's not a single way you can prove to your sister that you met Robert, unless you take her to go and meet him too. And if Robert is a really wonderful person, then you might really want her to get to know him.

That is what I am trying to get across to you, Cirdan. If I meet God, you can't simply say that I have faith that I met God. It's an experience, and it's a real experience. Knowing God exists and believing that he exists are two completely different things. And those Christians who admit to not knowing him, but actually only believing he exists, well their faith isn't based upon knowledge, but as you say, upon belief.

You can say that I'm wrong but surely you can only believe I am wrong, since you have no way of knowing what my relationship to god is like. Yes, my sister believes Robert exists because I told her. "Knowing God exists" and believing God exists are two different things, and you are confusing them. Your particular brand of Christianity is different than most if you claim to have met God. Do you disregard the lesson of Doubting Thomas? In some branches of Christianity it is blasphemy to say you have met god since he was said to have hidden physical proof of his existence so that only through faith can he be realized. I think your use of "knowledge" is just a bit of sophistry that is a substuitute for "profound faith". I don't doubt your faith, but I will not accept your "testimony" as it is hersay. When I meet Robert I'll take his picture and you can post your picture of God.

Also, don't bother with any more lessons from the Bible as if I had never heard them before. Much of what is in the Bible is beautiful and there is much that is ugly. Some of the Hebrew law is barbaric.

[Elvellon]

“Willingness to look for the Truth� I’ve heard. Very well and fine, but how exactly does one looks for the Truth? And, most importantly, how does one actually knows he (or she) have found it?

Ask and hear, someone might have said. But what evidence would be that? What certainty could that truly bring?
Would someone truly be hearing the Voice of God, or merely the voice of one’s inner desire?
One can accept it and believe in it, but unquestionable evidence is another thing. To qualify as such it should be able to stand against all doubts, and doubters. And not by simple dismissal, but because the doubt itself could be explained as flawed, beyond any doubt.

It doesn’t exist any clear, undeniable, unquestionable, evidence of the existence of God. At most one can interpret certain events and construct certain explanations about His existence. If such clear evidence existed it should be able to stand any rational analysis.

Evidence outside our physical realm (if it exists) is neither quantifiable nor measurable (as it was already said), but because of that, its nature is unknowable. It may even exist, but cannot be proven.

[Lief Erikson]

No, I haven't met Jesus in a physical body. Doing that would remove need for faith, I agree. However, I have met Jesus in other ways, and heard his voice. Having these experiences doesn't remove the need for faith: you'd be amazed at how easy it is for people to forget things. Remember the Israelites who were taken out of Egypt?

I'm not trying to convince anyone that God exists. I am trying to convince people that the possibility exists that God exists, and that since numerous other people say that they know he does exist, it is worth looking into, and finding out for yourself.

And it isn't blasphemy to say that you have met Jesus. He continues to reveal himself to people in the New Testament after the resurrection, even if not in the physical. He speaks to Paul and others.

If you have encountered God in some way, and he has proved his existence to you, then you have a basis of knowledge. He knows the human need for evidence, and he is willing to give a person that evidence. He wants a relationship, and you cannot have a relationship with someone if you aren't even sure that the person you're talking to exists. If you have met God, you can then have faith, because you have reason to have faith, and your faith isn't blind. God doesn't want a bunch of people on his side who don't know if he exists and stumble along hoping that he exists and believing that he exists. God loves humanity and the world, and if God wanted blind faith, then that would destroy the possibility of a relationship between God and man, and most reasonable people wouldn't make it to heaven.

I believe that I am justified in saying that you're wrong about faith. The simple opinions about faith that you have hitherto stated have shown that you don't believe man can meet God, for that would destroy the reason for faith. And if you don't believe that man can meet God, but rather believe that faith is all based upon belief, then that shows that you haven't met God yourself. This shows that your relationship to God is very, very likely nonexistant. If this logic is somehow flawed, and you actually have encountered God, then please explain where I got off.

As to whether or not the old Hebrew law is barbaric . . . that's another discussion unto itself, and I won't get into that on this thread.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Elvellon
“Willingness to look for the Truth� I’ve heard. Very well and fine, but how exactly does one looks for the Truth? And, most importantly, how does one actually knows he (or she) have found it?

Ask and hear, someone might have said. But what evidence would be that? What certainty could that truly bring?
Would someone truly be hearing the Voice of God, or merely the voice of one’s inner desire?
One can accept it and believe in it, but unquestionable evidence is another thing. To qualify as such it should be able to stand against all doubts, and doubters. And not by simple dismissal, but because the doubt itself could be explained as flawed, beyond any doubt.

It doesn’t exist any clear, undeniable, unquestionable, evidence of the existence of God. At most one can interpret certain events and construct certain explanations about His existence. If such clear evidence existed it should be able to stand any rational analysis.

Evidence outside our physical realm (if it exists) is neither quantifiable nor measurable (as it was already said), but because of that, its nature is unknowable. It may even exist, but cannot be proven.

As I said in the above post, God understands the need of humanity for evidence, and he is willing to prove himself to an individual. Thomas, in the Bible declares what he needs to have done for him before he believes. He asks for something that most humans now wouldn't ask for, but he was answered.

God will give the proof that a person needs, if the person asks for it. And if, as RÃ*an says, they have a sincere desire to come to know God. This proof doesn't have to be evident to other people than the one person to whom it's given, and it doesn't have to prove to the world that God exists, only to the individual for whom it is meant. No physical evidence in this physical world can prove that God exists, and in that, you are right, Elvellon.

I'm sorry I don't have time to go deeper into this subject, but I really have to go now.

[Cirdan]

Your response brings us back to the topic which is the kind of "proof" that is accepted in faith, and that which is accepted in science. Heresay and non-verifiable personal experience are fine for an individual seeking a relationship with God. I does not, however, apply to scientific thought. You can say you know God exists because, as you say, you've experienced it. You can't expect me to accept that as proof, in fact, of God's existence. Since you cannot prove it to me, you have little basis to say I am wrong, except your own unverified "observations". If God did "understand" the human need for evindece he would just schedule a press conference. You cannot convince me that what you "heard" was not in your head. My beliefs are different than yours, as are many, many other people. It is a common problem with sects to believe than even people of the same faith but of different sects do not know God because they don't speak of God the same way you do. Yet another reason why scvience and religion are not the same and should not be treated as such. They are different things and cloaking creation in the garb of science is pointless, as it should just be taught as it is and for what it is. Evolution should be taught in schools for what it is, a useful theory for understanding the impact of the mechanisms of genetics, environment, and natural selection have on the world around us. The individual mechanisms are proven facts. The sum of the theory is, of course, conjecture at some point. This, again, comes back to my orginal point. Science and religion are to different ways of thinking that, while not compatible, must share some commonality.

[Elvellon]

As I said in the above post, God understands the need of humanity for evidence, and he is willing to prove himself to an individual. Thomas, in the Bible declares what he needs to have done for him before he believes. He asks for something that most humans now wouldn't ask for, but he was answered.

God will give the proof that a person needs, if the person asks for it. And if, as RÃ*an says, they have a sincere desire to come to know God. This proof doesn't have to be evident to other people than the one person to whom it's given, and it doesn't have to prove to the world that God exists, only to the individual for whom it is meant.

But this requires the willingness to not question one’s perceptions. I ask again, what makes someone to be sure he has found God and not his own inner desire to find God? What evidence exists that discredits and nullifies all doubts?

I can understand the belief that one has found God; yet, no true evidence that would substitute “simple� faith for Knowledge is extant in such experiences.

[Rían]

*sees the huge amount of posts that have been posted since her post* Wow, lots of catching up to do!

BTW, I didn't mean to imply that you people are not busy, too - I'm sure you are! It's just that the free time of MWSK (Moms with Small Kids) tends to be very fragmented. The interruptions that come into our free time usually must be attended to IMMEDIATELY! (e.g., "mom, I'm bleeeeeeding!" "mom, I accidentally opened the front door and the dog got out and he's running down the street!" "mom, it's ok to eat the small legos, isn't it? ) So for people that ask me, specifically, a question, it will usually take me a few days to grab enough quiet time to put out a thoughtful answer.

(Not that anyone really cared about this, but thought I'd put it out. And I know that Lizra understands! )

[Lief Erikson]

No, we quite understand. And I think you're actually doing quite well to remain on top of all these threads as well as you have, in view of the difficulty of running a household .

Cirdan, God does understand the human need for evidence, but let me explain to you now why he doesn't just schedule a press conference.

You have to have a sincere heart searching after God. If every person of twenty in a room was willing to serve him if he revealed himself, and was seeking after him, I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't reveal himself to them all. But he reveals himself to those who are searching, and everyone who watched those news channels likely wouldn't be searching.

Every person to whom he reveals himself is already at the point where they are ready to follow him; he knows a person's mind and heart, and he wouldn't reveal himself else. And who can understand God's timing? We believe that there is going to be a time when Christ comes back down to earth in power and glory. We don't know all ends, and who are we to question God's motives? He does know all the ends, and I am content to leave such a thing as his return to Earth in God's hands.

And as for my justification in saying you don't have a relationship with God going . . . You still haven't shown me at which point in my logic I was wrong. A relationship with God is to know him, to speak with him, to come to understand him better and to follow him. You have stated that you don't believe such a thing exists. I think you must be defining "A relationship with God," differently than I am.

Cirdan, as I have said before, I am not seeking to convince you, based on my own experience, that God exists. I know that there are many other people that believe differently than I do, and I'll take that a step further and say that there are plenty of people of other faiths that have experienced differently than I have. But there are plenty of other Christians who have experienced as I have; I'm not the only one to whom God has revealed his existence. I'm not going to get into a debate with you that says: because this many people believe this thing, it's truth. It doesn't matter how many people believe one thing; that doesn't effect what is truth itself.

All that I am trying to do is encourage you all to find out for yourself whether or not he exists. God will accept you at your own point of weakness, but you have to be sincerely interested in whether or not he exists. And if you won't believe your own senses when a spiritual message speaks to you, then perhaps God will use another way, like a miracle. He'll meet each person at their own need. But if your heart is unyielding, no matter what evidence you might receive, then God won't reveal himself in the first place.

Attempting to verify all of these spiritual things of which I am speaking would be pointless. God doesn't choose to reveal himself to the Earth in a dramatic way, and he doesn't make everything easy for those who do follow him. Faith comes in during the following of him, not during the coming to first experience him.