"What Are Evolutionists So Afraid Of?"

[Anomalocaris]

Shall we campaign to teach evolutionary theory in Sunday Schools?

Yes, Or at least teach evolutionary theology.

- god was unfit to compete with evidentiary thinking, so became extinct amongst the wise.

[Gawdzilla]

Shall we campaign to teach evolutionary theory in Sunday Schools?

Yes, Or at least teach evolutionary theology.

- god was unfit to compete with evidentiary thinking, so became extinct amongst the wise.

Tell me about evolutionary theology, please.

[Michael]

Shall we campaign to teach evolutionary theory in Sunday Schools?

I certainly think it should be discussed in Sunday schools. And I'd like to see creationism, ID and evolution (and any other reasonably common world view) discussed, contrasted and compared in a broad 'philosophy' or 'general studies' class at school. Where commonly held magisteria overlap there should be discussion, IMNSHO.

[KichigaiNeko]

They already are here Michael

[Mr.wizard]

Shall we campaign to teach evolutionary theory in Sunday Schools?

I certainly think it should be discussed in Sunday schools. And I'd like to see creationism, ID and evolution (and any other reasonably common world view) discussed, contrasted and compared in a broad 'philosophy' or 'general studies' class at school. Where commonly held magisteria overlap there should be discussion, IMNSHO.

The problem is evolution is not a world view shaped by belief. Evolution is a phenomenon that occurs among all species of life, this is a fact and has been tested. ID and creationism have no basis in fact, they are simply whatever an individual wants to believe about life. The main argument for both is that life is complex, therefore god, that in no way should discussed as an alternative to evolution.

The argument is easily shut down, all one has to say is "lets assume evolution false, now prove creation" this gets crickets every time which is usually followed by some response like "look how complex the eye is" or " look at the stars and the trees, how can there not be a creator?" There is no scientific argument for creation, which is why creationists spend so much time in debates and no time in laboratories.

[Whateverist]

I certainly think it should be discussed in Sunday schools. And I'd like to see creationism, ID and evolution (and any other reasonably common world view) discussed, contrasted and compared in a broad 'philosophy' or 'general studies' class at school. Where commonly held magisteria overlap there should be discussion, IMNSHO.

The problem is evolution is not a world view shaped by belief. Evolution is a phenomenon that occurs among all species of life, this is a fact and has been tested. ID and creationism have no basis in fact, they are simply whatever an individual wants to believe about life. The main argument for both is that life is complex, therefore god, that in no way should discussed as an alternative to evolution.

The argument is easily shut down, all one has to say is "lets assume evolution false, now prove creation" this gets crickets every time which is usually followed by some response like "look how complex the eye is" or " look at the stars and the trees, how can there not be a creator?" There is no scientific argument for creation, which is why creationists spend so much time in debates and no time in laboratories.

That is precisely why it would be so useful for kids to have an opportunity to discuss them. Obviously they are being given information which conflicts and there is a danger they will just throw out one or the other. Ignoring the problem won't help.

The point of the discussion wouldn't be to determine which is true. It would be to find ways to accommodate as much of the truth of science as possible by helping kids to modify their theology. (They really don't have to throw baby Jesus out with the bath water, much as we might prefer they would.)

[Chas]

Shall we campaign to teach evolutionary theory in Sunday Schools?

I certainly think it should be discussed in Sunday schools. And I'd like to see creationism, ID and evolution (and any other reasonably common world view) discussed, contrasted and compared in a broad 'philosophy' or 'general studies' class at school. Where commonly held magisteria overlap there should be discussion, IMNSHO.

Creationism and ID are common but not 'reasonably held', so there's that.

[Mister Agenda]

Here is a link about other religions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_...ous_groups

These are the groups with the lowest acceptance of evolution:
Hist. Black Protest. 38%
Evang. Protestant 24%
Mormon 22%
Jehovah's Witness 8%

I'm not sure what the first group is.

So it's only the fringe groups who have a real problem with it, all US as far as I can tell.

Unfortunately, those fringe groups add up to about 40% of our population, each of them have tens of millions of members. The first group is Protestant denominations that have been almost entirely composed of African Americans historically (and still largely so).

[Diablo]

Wow, is it that much?!? 140 million people? You're in trouble then.

[Mister Agenda]

I'm a scientist and a Christian. I believe in an ancient universe, extremely old earth and the evolution of life from simple to complex, with man being part of that evolution. I see a dynamic unfolding creation, a creative creation that has evolved, is evolving and will continue to evolve.

But I am perplexed by some of my scientific colleagues who are reluctant to engage with young earth creationism. It does come across as wanting to wrap evolution in cotton wool and to protect it from other perspectives. This, for me, is so against good science which comes of of challenge stronger, if slightly altered. The IDists, in particular ask some good questions about development of complexity (and I am not an IDist). It does look as if some scientists are reluctant to engage with those questions, because answers are frequently not yet known. But to close down discussion and debate, in schools even, is not the type of science that I know and love. An excuse if 'we don't want to give the enemy publicity' is far from the science of Galilieo or William Harvey, who willingly engaged with Ptolomists and Galenists. That closed-off form of science is scientisim, a form of science that seeks to protect itself where it appears weakest because it wants to present itself as a 'know all' philosophy (a science-stopper if there ever was one).

When I see creationists more interested in engaging in debate than fans of science, or even eminent science communicators like Richard Dawkins, then I can't help but feeling that science is coming off second-best. When a school is reluctant to let creationism be discussed then I can't help but feel science looks weak.

Believe me, the person who refuses to wrestle with pigs will wind up looking better than the person who invites them out for a tussle. The Ptolomists and Galenists were in no wise the Gish Gallopers (Duane Gish is a creationist who got a dishonest debating tactic named after him) who compose the ranks of creationist debators.

If debate was the goal, any articulate undergrad could take on the likes of Ham. They want guys like Nye and Dawkins because of the credibility it lends them. Not giving idiots credibility is a rational choice.

---

Whateverist. I think the good questions IDers ask are especially around what they call irreducible complexity; how did systems with complex mutual-dependency evolve? I think that's an area where evolutionary science is currently weakest (certainly in being able to produce good evidence rather than to propose possible solutions), though progress is being made on what may have been the precursors to, for example, the DNA/mRNA/tRNA/protein system (taking the most fundamental form of 'irreducible complexity'). Having people outside of science pointing to the weakest bits is, I think, actually useful: antagonists are often better at critical review; which is why Plato always developed his philosophy in a dialectic setting (developing his argument with Socrates arguing against his detractors).

Irreducible complexity is a claim that there ARE no possible natural solutions in the context of evolution. Showing one possible evolutionary path shows the example is NOT irreducibly complex. At that point, the refutation is complete.

---

Equilax. I wonder if we're talking across each other. What I am advocating is the engagement between different people. I'm not saying that ID doesn't have weaknesses, far from it. But I don't see that as a barrier to science and scientists engaging in a common market place of public discourse. Part of that can be, and should be, highlighting weaknesses in ID. It's the refusal to enter into the discourse that I was, and am, objecting to.

I know that sounds superficially reasonable, but the problem is that the other side in this case is composed of scoundrels who will take every unfair advantage that they can. They often 'win' formal debates, that is, are most persuasive to the audience, because it takes less time to lie than to explain why something isn't true.

---

Next time you here this guy by my example:

You challenge Anderson Silva to a fight but he says no. Does him saying no mean he is afraid to fight you? No it means you are not worth his time fighting.

Before you get to debate Dawkins and Nye, you should have to prove yourself by defeating their students!

---

Shall we campaign to teach evolutionary theory in Sunday Schools?

I certainly think it should be discussed in Sunday schools. And I'd like to see creationism, ID and evolution (and any other reasonably common world view) discussed, contrasted and compared in a broad 'philosophy' or 'general studies' class at school. Where commonly held magisteria overlap there should be discussion, IMNSHO.

Yes, because as a long time immigrant to South Carolinian I can tell you that teachers, at least in my state, can be completely trusted to teach a course like that objectively.