I took biology in college around the same time that one of the states (Tennessee?) was involved in some political anti evolutionary debates. Maybe putting a disclaimer on the textbooks that evolution was only a theory and that creationism was another valid theory? Not sure of the details.
Anyway my prof, in a class of 300, went over the syllabus the first day. When he got to the sections on evolution he asked if there were any students who would prefer not to study evolution because their religion didn't allow them to believe in it. A few tentatively raised hands. He said "No problem. I have some alternate materials for you all. Come on down and get them. When they got to the bottom of lecture hall they were confronted with drop slips.
lol
The debate seems to have turned from evolution vs. creationism to atheism vs. christianity. Not my cup of tea. Please keep it civil EVERYONE, and please be aware that in a real debate, logic holds sway. The position of neither side thus far can withstand serious scrutiny on that point. For the Christians, your intrinsic assumption is that the bible is the infallible word of an ultimate being. Every thing you have said is based upon that, but unfortunately there is no logic behind it other than "I was told that this is true, this is a cornerstone of my religion, and it seems reasonable to me." The other side doesn't believe this first point, so your job is to discredit their arguments without relying on "the bible says". This is a hard one without a scientific background. On the other side we have people who strictly speaking from a scientific standpoint can't PROVE their theories.
As a scientist, one of the most important things to consider is a precise vocabulary. I believe that the creationists here are, by and large, attacking Darwinism. Darwinism and "the evolution of species" ARE theories and nothing more. But evolutionary processes (constant genetic changes and natural selection) are FACT. I have mentioned 4-5 examples in this thread, and there are thousands more if you go into the literature. Whether the mechanism of evolution proceeded on geological time scales as Darwin suggested is conjecture though. And indeed there is room for evolution and even Darwinism in the belief systems of most denominations of Chrstianity. It's just a mechanism.
Why then does this debate push so many buttons and stir people up so intensely? It's in essence arguing over the meaning of rocks. Well I read a quote in Scientific American by Arthur C. Clarke the other day that said something like:
Science does not need to ignore religion to make it go away. It is enough merely to ignore it. Philosophers never rigorously disproved the existence of Zeus, but today he has very few followers.
So THAT'S why religious leaders keep debates like this going; the whole "I don't know about you, but my momma never had sex with no monkeys" argument is good press and is a relatively easy way to get people stirred up against an otherwise rather innocuous and socially-accepted group of people (when's the last time you saw a barfight break out at a scientific conference?). Ok then I have a motivation for leaders of ultra-conservative congregations to spark these debates. But what are we accomplishing by having them?
|