Nitpicky mode on: 1) All scientific theories must be falsifiable, so that's hardly a mark against evolution. 2) The concept of evolution as random chance is a misnomer and strawman. 3) There is no such thing as evolving to a 'higher' form. One question. You say you are a believer. How do you know what you believe to be true? Why do you begin from the point of that belief and not from a process of determining what is true?
Answer. We all believe what we think to be true. So in that sense we are all believers. I don't believe truth resides in man, I believe truth must be revealed or discovered by man. I have followed a process to determine the following truths- 1. I have a conscience. 2. I am a moral being. 3. Truth exists. 4. Truth can be known. 5. Faith in truth will always without exception validate truth. 6. Truth cannot be falsified. 7. There is moral government. 8. Laws exist. 9. Guilt exists. 10. Jesus Christ is truth. If you want to know more about the process you will be asking for a sermon.
I think rhester just describe the perfect way how ID should not be taught in the class rooms. Though we can definitelly put it into a philosophy class, kids should definitelly learn more about kant, locke, christianity, islam and such in school, just to know where today's morality's back ground.
As far as teaching ID in a class (philosophy?), what seperates ID from the watchmaker argument? Do you think philospihcal arguments for or against the existence of God should be taught in a public high school? Even if you think it's something children of all beliefs (or lack thereof) should be exposed, do you think our public schools could handle it in a fair manner without it becoming explicity biased towards one religion/belief (most likely Christianity)? When I took Phil 101 in college, we had a section regarding different conceptions of God, and arguments for/against its existence. It was a very interesting course and I thought it handled the subject well 'from a distance' so to speak. But college != high school. Would that sort of setting and presentation of the material be possible in a public high school? I fear that either such a course would be heavily biased in favor of Christianity or theism in general. Even if the course could be done well as an overview of the more famous arguments and examine their strengths/weaknesses, it would probably end up being heavily distorted by outside pressures. Given the volatility of religious discussion in the US and the pressures that would destroy any semblance of lack of bias in the material, teaching such topics would not work in a public high school. While I agree that exposure to different ideas, philosophies and religions is good for everyone, the public school system would not be able to handle it well. In the end, I fear it would cause much more harm than good.
You misunderstand. Let me say it this way- truth is truth is spite of what we believe. Faith in gravity will always be valid on earth, as long as gravity is valid. better? Just defining truth as absolute. If it isn't absolute then let's call it something other than truth.
Okay, that's the exact opposite of what I interpreted from your original. What you have above doesn't jive at all with "Faith in truth will always without exception validate truth." And, to be honest, the original is indicative of the whole problem of arguing science/creation with some Christians: "It's true because I believe it is." Or: "It's true because I believe everything in this particular book is true."
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/03/D8DL5LTO4.html Vatican: Faithful Should Listen to Science Nov 03 1:45 PM US/Eastern By NICOLE WINFIELD Associated Press Writer VATICAN CITY A Vatican cardinal said Thursday the faithful should listen to what secular modern science has to offer, warning that religion risks turning into "fundamentalism" if it ignores scientific reason. Cardinal Paul Poupard, who heads the Pontifical Council for Culture, made the comments at a news conference on a Vatican project to help end the "mutual prejudice" between religion and science that has long bedeviled the Roman Catholic Church and is part of the evolution debate in the United States. The Vatican project was inspired by Pope John Paul II's 1992 declaration that the church's 17th-century denunciation of Galileo was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension." Galileo was condemned for supporting Nicolaus Copernicus' discovery that the Earth revolved around the sun; church teaching at the time placed Earth at the center of the universe. "The permanent lesson that the Galileo case represents pushes us to keep alive the dialogue between the various disciplines, and in particular between theology and the natural sciences, if we want to prevent similar episodes from repeating themselves in the future," Poupard said. But he said science, too, should listen to religion. "We know where scientific reason can end up by itself: the atomic bomb and the possibility of cloning human beings are fruit of a reason that wants to free itself from every ethical or religious link," he said. "But we also know the dangers of a religion that severs its links with reason and becomes prey to fundamentalism," he said. "The faithful have the obligation to listen to that which secular modern science has to offer, just as we ask that knowledge of the faith be taken in consideration as an expert voice in humanity." Poupard and others at the news conference were asked about the religion-science debate raging in the United States over evolution and "intelligent design." Intelligent design's supporters argue that natural selection, an element of evolutionary theory, cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms. Monsignor Gianfranco Basti, director of the Vatican project STOQ, or Science, Theology and Ontological Quest, reaffirmed John Paul's 1996 statement that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis." "A hypothesis asks whether something is true or false," he said. "(Evolution) is more than a hypothesis because there is proof." He was asked about comments made in July by Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, who dismissed in a New York Times article the 1996 statement by John Paul as "rather vague and unimportant" and seemed to back intelligent design. Basti concurred that John Paul's 1996 letter "is not a very clear expression from a definition point of view," but he said evolution was assuming ever more authority as scientific proof develops. Poupard, for his part, stressed that what was important was that "the universe wasn't made by itself, but has a creator." But he added, "It's important for the faithful to know how science views things to understand better." The Vatican project STOQ has organized academic courses and conferences on the relationship between science and religion and is hosting its first international conference on "the infinity in science, philosophy and theology," next week.
Does this jive? The results of having faith in the truth is that what you believe will be valid. or If it's really absolute truth you can believe it and not be proven wrong in a valid manner. or Faith in what is absolutely true, will not be misplace, if it is truth the faith will be justified. What I said was confusing because I used the word validate as if faith does that, not the truth. Look at it this way- Faith in what is not true, can never be expected to validate what you believe. Just because everyone on the face of the earth believes a lie doesn't make it true. That's my point, in all my confusion.
There are many Christians who believe in evolution, rejecting a literal Genesis account. As far as creation, Jesus addressed the beginning, creation and God... Matthew 19:4-6 4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. Mark 13:9 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be. That about seals the deal for me, 'beginning' being the key word. If Jesus had said God made them long after the beginning after millions of years it would mean something else to me. If I have to doubt the words of Jesus on any point I am uncomfortable. Science just hasn't got all the facts yet.
Statements like this show a profound misunderstanding of what science is. Ultimately, it seems the reason so many people flock to religion while dismissing science is that religion provides certainty (whether this certainty is right or wrong) while doubt and uncertainty are fundamental to the nature of science. This makes people uncomfortable. They aren't quite sure how to deal with this tenuousness. It is simply easier and more comfortable to say, "This is the one, true way!" than it is to say, "We don't know everything. In fact, we know very little. But with a lot of work, experimentation and failure, we can achieve a better understanding of things."
