6 worst things about American Christianity

[brandon1984]

Am I the only one here that went to public school?!

Actually, public school in the 90's in northern TX did not teach evolution very well. It was sort of brushed over. Or maybe that's how I remember it because I was indoctrinated to be YEC at the time. . .

[Blue]

Am I the only one here that went to public school?!

I have.

Kinda happy I did. I'd probably be a completely different person if I was homeschooled my whole life.

[delve]

I was public schooled as well (sorry if my post was misleading I was referring to the section after the ellipsis, the first part seem less observational and more autobiographical). Grew up through the public schools in the suburbs of Houston TX at that. I wouldn't have said the science curriculum was particularly ... un-scientific, but upon reflection I think I misapprehend some of the solidity of the science based on the way things were cast. We weren't taught anything even faintly tinged with creationism but evolution was treated as less solid theory than I think it was at the time. It may not have been incredibly accurate but it didn't do me a disservice either I think.

Like CS says much poor primary education can be corrected in college and university assuming the student goes that far and is not heavily indoctrinated. But of course not all students meet those criteria.


Edit: Fixed a minor grammatical booboo

[Nate DaZombie]

I suppose the real problem here is that neither side is very open to the other theories out there. I've read more than a few "Christian perspective" school books that I thought were utter s*** (I was home-schooled), but it seems like normal school books aren't exactly unbiased either.

[delve]

To be fair science as it is practiced these days does not allow for theories which don't explain observable facts in a way which can be objectively tested and offer predictive value. That's simply the nature of it.

Doesn't make the theories wrong necessarily it just means they don't have a place in science until they can meet the same criteria as all the other theories that science does accept.

[Nate DaZombie]

To be fair science as it is practiced these days does not allow for theories which don't explain observable facts in a way which can be objectively tested and offer predictive value. That's simply the nature of it.

That's why I tend to favor the idea of keeping theoretical science (anything that can't be proven yet, and that does in fact include the earth's origin and some of the more outlandish scientific theories) separate from subjects like physics or geography. Teach the absolute basics first, and then allow the students to diversify and explore the other ideas out there. I realize that evolutionists/creationists think their theory is correct, but we really don't have enough evidence to be sure. Why force one over the other?

[LAVA89]

As a staunch Creationist, I completely agree with you Nate

[delve]

There is more than plenty of evidence for evolution. There is only one evidence for Creation and where it can be carbon dated it turns out to be a lot younger than the bones we can dig out of the ground. Additionally evolution offers predictive powers and in fact we use evolutionary processes to guide software design and some manufacturing processes. Beyond that and more troubling we can predict, based on evolutionary principles, how infectious diseases will become immune to our present remedies. We are watiching this happen. Life is evolving all around you.

Does that mean God didn't make the universe and everything in it? No. But it does mean He made life to evolve and set the state of existence in such a way as to point every observable fact toward the accepted science of the origins of man. Why? I really would love to hear His answer, but so far He hasn't let me in on the secret.

However if you mean going back as far as the creation of the planet... there's actually a lot of room for error there (as far as I know) but we have a pretty good idea about the basics of it.

[Nate DaZombie]

There is more than plenty of evidence for evolution. There is only one evidence for Creation and where it can be carbon dated it turns out to be a lot younger than the bones we can dig out of the ground. Additionally evolution offers predictive powers and in fact we use evolutionary processes to guide software design and some manufacturing processes. Beyond that and more troubling we can predict, based on evolutionary principles, how infectious diseases will become immune to our present remedies. We are watching this happen. Life is evolving all around you.

Does that mean God didn't make the universe and everything in it? No. But it does mean He made life to evolve and set the state of existence in such a way as to point every observable fact toward the accepted science of the origins of man. Why? I really would love to hear His answer, but so far He hasn't let me in on the secret.

However if you mean going back as far as the creation of the planet... there's actually a lot of room for error there (as far as I know) but we have a pretty good idea about the basics of it.

See, but there's still doubt there. I'll be straight up with you; I dislike both sides of this argument. I despise the dogmatic, self-righteous tone many Christians have taken on, and I'm none too fond of the defiant know-it-all's either. I consider myself closer to being an agnostic than anything else; because, well, I wasn't there for any of this stuff. I believe in a God because I'd rather think I was created and not just some highly advanced pond scum. Despite what anyone will claim, I know there's not enough evidence for any theory to be without-a-doubt true. You'll believe what you want and so will I, because we both choose to believe what we find most likely. We humans are smart like that.

Evolution/Creation isn't an important subject in the end; it's a luxury. I refuse to indulge myself in a debate where both sides cannot win. My problem isn't the idea of evolution or even further study of it, far from it, it's that two opposed groups are hindering real scientific progress and education. I would much rather see both sides collaborate to fully expose students to all of the ideas out there and let them decide. Otherwise, this type of conversation really is pointless. And that's a really sad thought

[ArchAngel]

EDIT: Nate, go ahead and correct me whenever I incorrectly assumed something you said. I'm pretty sure I'm mischaracterizing some of the things you said, so I wanted to state I'm talking more abstractly than necessarily as a response to you.

One of the worst things that my creationist education gave me was the notion that evolution was unsubstantiated and was just another desperate attempt to try explain why we're here. It wasn't until I studied the material deeply did I realize, no, it really is the solidly established explanation. If we sound like know-it-alls, it's because we have the evidence and scientific research to back up what we know. But if you press me on details, you're going to hear a lot of "I don't know," because there is still much we don't know, but what we do know points to evolution in a strong way. More than many other theories.

This is actually one reason that convinces me that creationists don't care about the "holes" of evolution, disregarding what they say is almost entirely wrong (I say almost entirely, because some of it's not wrong, it's just irrelevant). There are a slew of theories that are less sound than Evolution, while still being entirely sound, and they go unimpeded by creationists. And it's not like they understand evolution and not the other theories, most cannot even conjure an explanation that's anywhere close to being descriptive.

There is no conspiracy among scientists trying to quell creationist theories, just as there is not conspiracy or controversy among historians about whether the roman empire existed. I suppose this is where my confusion on what you said about opposed groups hindering scientific progress and full expose students... Biologists ARE doing science and it's all supports evolution. We only (are supposed to, at least) teach evolution in science classrooms because that's the only scientific theory.

And no, we don't just believe whatever we want to. At least we're not supposed to. I'd like to believe I'd go to a great place when I die, but I don't because I found there was no evidence for such a thing. I accept a fate that I'd prefer not to have because I am convinced it is correct. Evaluation of truth, not opinion, should qualify belief. And that ultimately becomes the difference religion and science, and this is why you can't compare scientific theory with religious belief. Science is observed and methodologically verified; it doesn't matter if you like the conclusions or not, the evidence leads to it, or it doesn't. Religion is just about diametrically opposed to it. You cannot compare the two, and certainly, you cannot substitute religious ideas into a science curriculum. To do so is a perversion the scientific process and I personally hold to be morally and ethically abhorrent.

Hey guys, did I start another debate?

[Blue]

My finger is on the trigger.

[ArchAngel]

Haha, nice. Maybe move your cross-hairs down to split?

[Blue]

That depends on who you'll be debating with. I'm not sure if Nate wants to debate.

Maybe it's best you started your own topic. I can move this post over for you if you'd like.

[delve]

Hey guys, did I start another debate?

No you didn't. It evolved up from pond scum. OhwaitIforgotsomething...

Sarcasm Begin

No you didn't. It evolved up from pond scum.

Sarcasm End

Feel free to open another debate but, ah, what are we debating? Creation vs. Evolution? That doesn't seem to be a productive debate.

[brandon1984]

I despise the dogmatic, self-righteous tone many Christians have taken on, and I'm none too fond of the defiant know-it-all's either. I consider myself closer to being an agnostic than anything else; because, well, I wasn't there for any of this stuff. I believe in a God because I'd rather think I was created and not just some highly advanced pond scum

I can agree with you as far as the tone of the debate being sometimes frustrating. But, I don't think anyone is seriously debating Young Earth Creationism versus evolution anymore. The evolutionists have too many undisputable facts working in the favor of some kind of evolution. Besides the massive amount of evidence for an old earth. YEC only has a stiff interpretation of Genesis and some science that I don't know if has been subjected to rigorous peer review and confirmation. Genesis scholars could easily debate YEC with a very strong case against hyperliteralism. This is before evidence for evolution and old earth is even considered.

The real important questions aren't evolutionism vs creationism. It's how did life emerge on earth? And, what processes drive evolution because random mutation and natural selection are not sufficient? And, if God's hand was directly involved (i.e., not by distant causal actions such as at the Big Bang), then can we know this? Can we test this?

And that ultimately becomes the difference religion and science, and this is why you can't compare scientific theory with religious belief. Science is observed and methodologically verified; it doesn't matter if you like the conclusions or not, the evidence leads to it, or it doesn't. Religion is just about diametrically opposed to it.

I just wanted to make a quick comment here, I don't totally disagree with you on this AA. I agree to a large extent with Stephen Gould's non-overlapping magisteria (NOM) idea. For example, I can't discover God in a test tube whereas I can verify natural selection in bacteria cultures. But, I don't want this to leave the impression that all religious ideas are equal. Religious ideas are still subject to historical evidence and rationality.