Do I dare? I know I shouldn't, but it's so tempting. . .
There are so many misconceptions about "us" Bible-thumpers flying around in this thread it's hard to go more than a couple posts without running into at least a couple.
The thread has been friendly so far. I think most of us are not extreme in whatever views we hold. Didn't see a single person so far who did not believe in science.
The first I'd like to dispel is our supposed dislike of science. I love science. I think it's a great tool that helps us understand the intricacies of the universe around us.
I agree there, and I don't think all religious people 'dislike' science. But you have to understand how this thread initially started: there was Bill Nye, the scientist - and Ken Ham, the creationist. Both of them represented a very black and white point of view. Hence the name of the debate: 'science vs creationism'. It implies that one will eliminate the other.
So what I think people have been doing, is attacking extremism. The biggest chunk of the arguments here against religion were directed towards extremely religious people.
And that only makes me more awestruck by God's awesomeness (is that too much awe in one sentence? I thought about trying to work in awful but it was too much thought required). But science is limited.
Science is limited. But that is because we as a species are limited. We learn new things everyday, look back and correct our mistakes. We don't have all the answers yet, and probably never will. I can't imagine we as a species are going to be around long enough to eventually 'know' everything.
The Scientific Method, on which all science is based, requires observable and repeatable experimentation. The problem with "Evolution" is that due to the extreme lengths of time postulated it is neither observable nor repeatable.
Actually, evolution is a fact. We can observe it. You see, there are animals with a very short life span (fruit flies, for instance) that live so briefly we can actually observe them evolving. And of course there is natural adaption, which is only a small chain of evolution.
Thousands of years ago, during the Ice Age, there were brown bears who tried to hunt their preys in the snow. Obviously, they failed - because it was too easy to spot them. There were also bears with a lighter skin color. Those succeeded more often, and lived longer. So did their offspring. This is how, eventually, polar bears came in existence. It's actually very logical. We all inherit stuff from our ancestors, and in nature the animals who inherited 'weak' characteristics die. The survivors procreate and their offspring will inherit the winning characteristics. Give this a few million years and over time bigger changes will be noticeable.
Instead, "evidence" must be used and interpreted to arrive at the current "accepted" version of evolution. So the entire dispute is not over science but over the "evidence". I say the evidence points to one thing you say it points to another. Who is right? We can't prove anything either way.
Actually, we can. And I might not be able to prove it to you, since I am no biologist. But the evidence is overwhelming. You can decide not to 'believe' something which is considered to be a fact - but that doesn't make it less true. It's like Neil Tyson said:
How many times has the theory been modified to fit the evidence?
Not once. Maybe by a few individuals, but here's the thing: no one has a monopoly on a specific scientific area. So if you decide to change your evidence, another scientist in Australia, or Asia, or Europe, or the USA will prove you wrong.
Science is based on making mistakes, and learning from those mistakes. Did we learn something new? Good, then let's take a look at our previous experiences and test them again. Who knows what we'll find this time.
If you can prove the theory of evolution wrong, you'd be a hero. You would be rewarded with prizes and you'd get a respected place in the history books. Your name will be on the same list with Newton and Einstein. Science encourages you to discover new things. If you think you have something important to say, go ahead and write that essay.
Anyone remember the Brontosaurus? Alas, I knew him well. . .and then he disappeared; a fatality of incorrect bone association.
The heart of the issue is that science cannot, and was never designed to, account for the miraculous. Science seeks a naturalistic answer to every question even if a "divine" answer is available. Sometimes this is a good thing driving past a simplistic explanation to a greater understanding and sometimes (IMO) it leads to an incorrect conclusion.
That's a good thing. I think science should always seek naturalistic answers, because that's what science is all about. You see; 300 years ago a person who was ill was being told that he was possessed by a demon. If science accepted that 'miracle' back then, no one would know about bacteria and viruses nowadays. That's the point. 'Miracles' are things that happen and that we cannot explain. Science will try to seek a natural answer, and many times they won't find that answer. Either because technology is not advanced enough, or because of other reasons. But filling in empty gaps with religion is not what science does.
I do think there's more going on between heaven and earth. It's just a gut feeling. It could be the God you believe in - it could be the Gods of the Egyptian pantheon. There are questions science cannot answer. And if you give it the time, some questions will be answered in the future. And some won't ever be answered.
Finally, regarding the topic of teaching intelligent design in schools. . .
The term intelligent design is religion-generic. It doesn't teach a specific religious viewpoint. Instead it teaches the interpretation of the "evidences" that points toward a creator (it does not define who that creator is). It teaches the holes that evolution currently has. It teaches an alternate viewpoint, explaining to children that evolution is hardly settled science rather than an unchallengeable monolith. When science claims to be unchallengeable it is no longer science (even Newton's "Laws" were superseded by Einstein's Special Relativity).
Science has
never ever claimed to be unchallengeable. If it did, it wouldn't be at the point where we are nowadays. Because challenging is exactly what science does. It keeps testing things and it keeps looking back and forth to see if there are errors made in the past. They are not embarrassed to admit they were wrong.
Evolution doesn't have 'holes' in the way that it has arguments
against it. However, there are things that they
cannot explain yet. But those are blanc and neutral areas. And neutrality is not a negative, therefor not evidence against evolution.
Most Christians I know believe in the Big Bang and evolution. They just think God put it in motion. This is a mentality which allows science and religion to work together. But the 'earth is 6000 year old' theory, has been proven wrong. Just proven wrong. That is no evidence against God, but it is evidence that the earth is older than 6000 years. We know that.
Oh, btw. Figured you're interested in this. I found this recently in a book.
