Florida science standards dethrone God! Details at 11

Talk about a love/hate relationship…

I highly commend Gary Demar of American Vision for a number of reasons. Chiefly, he is on the front lines in arguing against the immobilizing effect premillennial eschatology has on the Church; I love that his postmillennialist approach emphasizes the advancement of the Kingdom of God over every facet of culture and society.

Unfortunately, another of his preoccupations is the “Darwinism Hate Train” of which he is the blindfolded engineer.

On a recent installment of American Vision’s weekly Gary Demar Show entitled “A state-sponsored religion?”, he gave us another doozie. He was sounding the alarm, criticizing the Florida state school board’s proposed revision of its educational standards. Specifically, he argued that the revised science standards come down too solidly on “a scientific question [on] which there is great deal of debate within the scientific community, not only coming from what we might call scientific creationists, six-day creationists, intelligent design advocates, but scientists in general who may still believe in evolution to a certain extent but still have a problem with some of the basic building blocks of evolutionary theory and want the topic discussed, think it ought to be discussed and in reality the science standards framer’s committee is in the process…[of] re-writing those standards to force compliance to a particular dogmatic worldview without question. It’s really something that’s unthinkable within the realm of science for anybody at any period of time to say, ‘This scientific theory is now established fact and there’s no way to debate that.’” He reiterated at another point that any public school curriculum that focused only on evolutionary theory was guilty of “cutting off debate” in the classroom.

Does anyone else see a problem with this thinking? Demar is apparently of the opinion that a high school classroom is a necessary forum for debating and challenging scientific theory — even one of the most universally accepted scientific theories. Say what?

Now I, like Demar, am a vocal critic of the public school system in general and as such I heartily advocate a model usually found only in classical schools in which a major part of high school (the “rhetoric” stage) is learning to rigorously defend one’s beliefs. In the classical education model, formal debates and peer-reviewed position papers are as integral to the curriculum as the actual facts being debated. You would likely receive equally high marks in the rhetorical side of things for winning a debate whether you were arguing for or against the notion that the earth is filled with marshmallows. But your education would be deficient if you didn’t graduate and go to college knowing that the vast majority of scientists would think the hypothesis of a marshmallow-filled earth to be utterly ridiculous and unsupportable, the possibility that this contradicts some religion’s holy book notwithstanding. My point is that I don’t discourage rigorous debate among high schoolers; I don’t want kids to sit there and accept everything their teachers say unquestioningly. But what Demar is saying is that in public schools, even the fringe views on scientific questions should be presented alongside the accepted ones.

And I’m saying that’s hogwash.

Another thing slipped into that quote above that Demar incessantly harps on about when discussing this topic was the following line: “… in reality the science standards framer’s committee is in the process…[of] re-writing those standards to force compliance to a particular dogmatic worldview without question.” Let me quote the entirety of the standard in question, as given by a guest on Demar’s show to show you the “dogmatic worldview” Demar finds so dangerous.

Standard 15, The Diversity and Evolution of Living Organisms:

a) Evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology and is supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence.

b) Organisms are classified based on their evolutionary history.

c) Natural selection is a primary mechanism leading to evolutionary change.

That’s it? Where’s the worldview? Where are the atheistic assertions and denials of moral absolutes? It’s certainly not in the Florida standard, which neither demands all discussion on the topic be banned nor differs substantially from any major biology textbook used in public schools today. Apparently even the barest, most anti-septic presentation of evolutionary theory is unavoidable indoctrination into secular humanism and militant atheism. As he so often does, Demar associates the nuts and bolts of this scientific theory with some fringe groups of scientists like Richard Dawkins who twist that theory into something philosophically and theologically in error.

Demar is primarily worried about children being indoctrinated into an anti-Christian worldview; naturally, I share this concern. He also seems to be under the impression that ID somehow leads to a better worldview, although key ID advocate Michael Behe’s latest book, The Edge of Evolution, once again demonstrates that ID actually posits evolution, albeit in a crippled form. Of course, that crippled form as described by the notion of irreducible complexity is essentially a God-of-the-gaps argument from ignorance; this argument essentially stands at the window and gesticulates wildly to demonstrate that there are things predicted by evolutionary theory that are not currently visible, attempts to convince everyone that nothing as yet undiscovered exists outside the view of that window, and then hastily closes the blinds.

The problem is that for all his guilt by association and slippery slope arguments, Demar has yet to provide any scientific or philosophical reasons to challenge the theory of evolution’s viability — dare I say probability — as a scientific theory. Until he can do so and he can provide a scientific alternative with traction among a significant number of biologists, he is just blowing smoke in the face of science and hoping it coughs up Christianity.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • PrintFriendly
  • Share/Bookmark

Related posts:

  1. Non sequitur, thy name is Gary! Okay, okay. Don’t read this if it annoys you when I call out Gary DeMar on his incessant Campaign for Idiocy. I questioned whether I...
  2. Creationism, education, and the state All right, here’s a rant for you. There’s a news story circulating about the well-known fact that homeschooling texts are ignoring or even (the audacity!)...
  3. Mohler on theistic evolution In a recent post on his popular blog, Al Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, presented a predictable take on the origins...
  4. Dr. Ard Louis on science and faith: two videos I was intrigued by this short video showing Dr. Ard Louis (Oxford University) articulate a simple but profound critique of this fundamental aspect of the...
  5. Enemies united against an imaginary foe I’ve been quite vocal on this blog in pointing out my disagreements with the Christian critics of science (ID advocates and other creationists). Unfortunately, these...

View Comments Posted by Steve on Monday, March 10, 2008 at 7:47 pm.

Filed under Science, , , , , , .

  • Heck, they just laugh at efforts to marry the two like the ID movement. If you have to go through all of the motions to try and include God as the agent of evolution, against the overwhelming push back from evolutionary scientists, why would it be any harder than to at least try to explain things through what Genesis says happens? That is what I don’t get about theistic evolution. Real evolutionists (including the early ones who put the theory together) believed in blind chance and randomness.

    Actually, my experience with atheists (and I've had quite a bit with atheistic evolutionists) is that they don't care what people believe about God. In fact, most, except the militant Dawkins type, acknowledge that science can only answer how, not why or Who. The theistic evolutionist believes that evolutionary processes are how the world was created in the same way that the laws of gravity are how people are not being flung off the planet into space, but that God has His Own purposes behind both of those natural mechanisms and is hence fully responsible for their results.

    I, too, encourage you to read a book such as the one Cliff commended to you. If it's not easy to procure, your local library will almost definitely have a copy of Francis Collins's The Language of God, another introductory work (and more beginner's level) that I thought laid out the case for evolutionary biology quite convincingly.
  • David,

    Thank you for your thoughts. I agree with you analysis. The problem is that you assume Theistic Evolutionists reject randomness. This is not true. I can’t speak for Steve, but I do hold to the premise that the evolutionary processes have involved “chance and randomness”, albeit not “blind”. Randomness as a principle is a necessary element in evolution, a concept Collings strongly supports his book Random Designer which I review here. In fact, several of my recent posts at OutsideTheBox have been on the subject of randomness, and how it relates to us on a practical and theological level. So I will not go into that here.

    You are also correct that Darwin himself had huge doubts about his theory. They did not arise from an absence of evidence. All the evidence he encountered as a naturalist, his observations of unique fauna in geographically isolated places, comparative anatomy, etc. pointed to a slow rise of species and common descent. What he lacked (and what troubled him) was a mechanism. The mushrooming science of Genetics has solved his riddle, mostly in the last 15 years or so. Michael Denton saw the same lack of a working mechanism in Darwinism, and wrote Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), the book which spawned the ID movement. But now, as a result on the powerful new DNA evidence for evolution, he has since returned to the evolutionary model in his more recent work, Nature’s Destiny. (see here)


    David, I strongly urge you to reconsider your bold statement that the lack of evidence for Evolution noted by Darwin himself “has not changed at all over the last 150 years.” What I observe is quite the contrary. The evidence has mounted with amazing consistency. Pick up Relics of Eden. You will be amazed. The evidence is so vividly clear, a honest person of faith is left with only two alternatives.

    1) Either evolutionary common descent really happened, or
    2) The Creator went to a great deal of trouble to make it look that way in highly consistent meticulous detail. Why would He have done such a thing??

    The evidence, David, is frankly so powerful that after you look at it, you will agree with me that something like evolution really happened, or God is a trickster and a deceiver. If the later is true, then of course there can be no such thing as meaningful science.
  • David Swain
    I'm not saying to go back to 1800's learning. What I meant was that, back then, before Lyell, Hutton, Darwin, et al, the established scientific (the emphasis being on scientific) view was a young(er) earth. Then the above came along, without any evidence WHATSOEVER and formulated a theory of long ages and biological evolution. Even Darwin in Origin says that the evidence for his theory is sorely lacking. IMO, that has not changed at all over the last 150 years. You say that the evidence supports the side who's interpretation of it is more internally and externally consistent. Well, I don't think that evolution is consistent at all. I know theistic evolutionists believe that God is the guiding and directing force behind it, but where does that come from? There is nothing in the Bible to support it (and since you don't believe what Genesis says to be historical, I guess maybe it doesn't figure in to this) and certainly no mainstream evolutionary scientist would buy it. Heck, they just laugh at efforts to marry the two like the ID movement. If you have to go through all of the motions to try and include God as the agent of evolution, against the overwhelming push back from evolutionary scientists, why would it be any harder than to at least try to explain things through what Genesis says happens? That is what I don't get about theistic evolution. Real evolutionists (including the early ones who put the theory together) believed in blind chance and randomness. That is why I think its disingenuous to claim that somehow the weight of science is more on your side, because it absolutely is not.
  • Welcome back!

    First off, how do you expect anything would ever get solved if we didn't build upon earlier confirmations? I find it somewhat humorous that you suggest we fall back to "before the early 1800's" in our view of the age of the earth -- would you advocate the same for medical learning? ;) An ancient earth was well-accepted and argued for by Christian scientists in the three decades between Lyell's landmark book on geology and Darwin's Origins. Does every scientist have to reinvent the wheel, or can they actually base any of their theories and research on other theories?

    And as for your dig against "blind chance and randomness", just what part about "theistic" evolution do you not get? :D The universe came about as we see it today through apparently random methods, but we know "the rest of the story". Divine intentionality rather than miraculous intervention is what sends the earth around the sun, causes photosynthesis, causes water to freeze at 32º, and made sure ol' Newton was rudely awakened from his nap under the apple tree. Evolutionary creation was no more or less independent of God's intervention than any of these things.

    You asked, "...if both sides have the same evidence, what makes one sides interpretation of that evidence valid?"
    That's sort of like asking how you know if you're putting all the puzzle pieces together correctly: either they fit together and make a cohesive picture, or they don't! That may be a bit oversimplified, though, because I don't believe either side has it figured out (especially -- well, you know ;) ). Rather, the more internally and externally consistent interpretation, the view more consistent with geology, astronomy, biology, anthropology, and chemistry is the one to bet on. You're right, both sides have access to the same data, since scientists submit everything for peer review. The creationist is well within his rights to try to test his own hypothesis by that evidence, but his test results are, for him, a given, such that if the data doesn't point toward his target belief, he has to either 1) ignore it, 2) pretend the data is faulty/forged, or 3) form an ad hoc explanation that has God playing Loki with all the scientists (this third is behind the "appearance of age" argument). Option 4, calling into question the likelihood of the target belief, is not on the table. That's the falsifiability aspect that's severely lacking.
  • David Swain
    sorry i've been absent for a few days, just got back from a weekend trip to chicago.

    In order to keep the discussion manageable, I suggest we focus on one area that seems to be at the root of the misunderstanding (or at least my misunderstanding :-P ). It seems as though, at least from what I am reading, that to you, and Cliff, it is a foregone conclusion that the evidence is there to support evolution. I think what is at issue here is a basic need to define what actually constitutes evidence. It isn't as though a scientist digs a bone out of the ground or studies the length of a finch's beak or whatever and it says to them that is is millions of years old or a process that involves millions of years. They start with the assumption that there are millions of years to work with (which is an interesting discussion of history in and of itself, given that before the early 1800's the dominant scientific view was one of a younger earth. And lets not forget that Christianity with its reason to believe in an orderly, rational, and testable creation is the foundation of the scientific method as we know it. Blind chance and randomness are the antithesis of that view) and interpret based on that. I think that, basically my question is if both sides have the same evidence, what makes one sides interpretation of that evidence valid?

    PS, I admit that NS is a valid process, but not valid for evolution. It idoes exactly the opposite of what evolution requires.
  • I am fascinated by the exact same theological issues you mentioned. Sounds like I need to dig into your blog a bit more.

    Ah! the life of the theological geek ;) (and yes, I include you, but mean it in a good way!)
  • I very much look forward to these discussions. At OutsideTheBox, I want to explore the significance of entropy which evidence suggests dates back the the Creation Moment. Imagine, God created the cosmos with a built-in death principle at its core, as its very driving force. That raises some fascinating questions for me. And I want to explore the significance of evolution and its necessary corollary, randomness. As a committed Christian, I am not threatened by truth, no matter what rock we find it under. And I find the significance of these findings of modern science to be theologically exhilarating! I will definetely join in more of your conversations here at Undeception, and with Mike at the Creation of an Evolutionist. I'm happy to have found you!
  • Hey, Cliff, thanks for weighing in!

    I recently read Relics of Eden (which I review here) by Daniel J. Fairbanks.
    Hmm . . . I might have found something to spend my Books-a-Million giftcard on :)

    It all sounded plausible when I was only immersed in the YEC rhetoric. I have since become convinced that there is not a single YEC scientist anywhere in the world who arrived at his view based on scientific evidence.
    That's it exactly, Cliff! I, too, thought all their arguments were wonderful until I started seeing them engage with the other side. Spending time reading the ICR's CliffsNotes (no relation!) (mis)representations of non-creationists' views doesn't give you a fair picture.

    All YEC proponents share a common hermeneutical approach to Genesis which demands a foregone conclusion.
    True, but one has a hard time convincing them that non-creationists do not demand their own foregone conclusion, even given the inescapable fact that such a large number of evolutionists/old-earth advocates are believers.

    ...several wonderfully stated points omitted...
    Within the Christian community today, the discussion needs to get past whether evolution is true. It is. We need desperately to understand its implications in Biblical interpretation, theology, redemption, salvation, teleology and even eschatology.
    I wish we could get further into the discussion than simply trying to demonstrate that the discussion is legitimate. It's important (and I know it would have been helpful for my transition) to have a rich exploration of the deeper issues influenced by evolutionary theory. And that's what I really want to get into on this blog. And I look forward to your input on those matters!
  • Dave,
    Sorry for the delay. I got caught up doing stuff last night. And yeah, one of those things was watching a new Lost episode. What a great show . . .

    I think that the presuppositions, or worldview to use a more christianese term, leads to the dogmatic acceptance of evolution.
    So some faulty presuppositions lead to "dogmatic" (a derogatory term for "confident") acceptance of evolution. Does that logically invalidate or even call evolution into question? What are my presuppositions, presuppositions that lead me to confidence in the theory?


    Nat Sel is not evolution, it is variation within a species.
    Quite right, Dave -- but did I or anyone say that natural selection = evolution? I said that it was a natural mechanism used for the evolutionary processes, a mechanism you admit is valid.


    For example, we have been breeding dogs for as far back as we have written records, and yet we never get anything but dogs.
    Actually we got dogs from wolves, and that was about 15,000 years ago. Our written records don't go back much more than 4,000 years, so naturally we have no record of that speciation.


    There has never been any documented evidence of an increase in genetic information required for evolution to even be feasable.
    At the risk of sounding dismissive, this argument has been refuted so many times, so long ago, and yet AiG and the like keep it on the books.


    As for creationist predictions. Just one example: Dr. Russ Humpreys, a creationist who works at the Sandia Nat’l Labs, predicted the magnetic field strengths of jupiter and saturn (if i remember correctly) several years prior to the Cassini spacecraft going past each planet . . . he was as spot on as one could possibly be, whereas evolutionary scientists predictions were of by several orders of magnitude.
    You should know that this has not gone unchallenged: here are two analyses (1, 2) detailing the problems with the calcuations of Barnes and Humphreys.


    This is just one of many time where they jump to water on mars even though there has not been one molecule of water found there . . . the initial reaction of jumping to unfounded conclusions without evidence is not science.
    Scientists are keen to find water elsewhere for several reasons. But hoping to find something that will confirm suspicions and jumping to conclusions are completely different things. A true jump to a conclusion would be for them to outright claim there was water on Mars, which hasn't happened yet. Is it unscientific to perform an experiment and expect it to confirm your theory? No -- what's unscientific is ignoring the result or pretending that it confirms your theory when it doesn't.


    There is a component of blind belief.
    Rather, what we get is scientists who actually go with what they believe and make the forgivable assumption that their understanding has some basis in fact. That's the whole point of having a working theory! If scientists were supposed to function without provisionally and pragmatically trusting what all their research and experimentation has told them, knowledge could never advance, theories could never be confirmed or emended, and nothing would ever be accomplished. If police detectives only acted on what was already certain, if they were shouted down for following and seeking to prove/disprove their working theories, most cases would never be solved.

    You seem to be arguing that the problem with non-creationists is that they don't know how to practice science or that they are purposefully skewing their findings. Do you attribute these failures also to believing scientists like Francis Collins?
  • Interesting discussion. Thank you Steve, for the post. I recently read Relics of Eden (which I review here) by Daniel J. Fairbanks. The DNA evidence supporting common descent is truly spectacular, and this book goes way beyond Collins’ book but is likewise easy to understand. Any Christian who truly wants to understand the truth about origins should read this book. I sense that David has an open and inquisitive mind. I recommend he read Relics of Eden .

    For years I was in the YEC camp. I read the works of Morris, Whitcomb, Humphreys, etc. I regularly read ICR literature and attended the seminars. It all sounded plausible when I was only immersed in the YEC rhetoric. I have since become convinced that there is not a single YEC scientist anywhere in the world who arrived as his view based on scientific evidence. All YEC proponents share a common hermeneutical approach to Genesis which demands a foregone conclusion. This being the case, none of them are scientists operating in the time-tested and much revered Western scientific method that is the foundation of so much of what we know today.

    A consistent misconception I find among YEC people (and I think that David suggests this) is that the wider scientific community is locked into a conspiracy to protect a common materialistic worldview, and thus they are all committed to Darwinism. And so, David suggests, the presuppositions of the YEC community are just on par with those scientists who defend Darwinism. This is simply not true.

    The scientist who uncovers evidence that disproves evolution (and this could happen in many fields, and in many ways) will be celebrated as the next great scientist, his name will go down in history, and he will be instantly wealthy. I have no doubt that plenty of motivation exists for scientists of all disciplines to disprove evolution. Scientists have always loved challenging and disproving the prevailing wisdom of their day. It is not different today.

    The fact is that every new discovery since Darwin has served to confirm his outline of life history again and again. DNA evidence is utterly remarkable in its 100% consistency with Darwinism. It could easily have been only 99% consistent, which would have sent all of biological science back to the drawing boards. Medical science would have been set back decades! But no, DNA evidence is completely consistent with everything Darwin’s theory predicts.

    Within the Christian community today, the discussion needs to get past whether evolution is true. It is. We need desperately to understand its implications in Biblical interpretation, theology, redemption, salvation, teleology and even eschatology. If you don’t mind me saying so, David sounds like the kind of thoughtful, intelligent believer who could contribute to these discussions. So I encourage him to do some serious science reading outside of YEC literature.
  • David Swain
    Steve,

    Again sorry, but I can't respond very in depth tonight because I'm on the way out yet again.

    I don't want to sound like I'm splitting hairs, but I don't think that evolution is a presupposition that is blindly adhered to. I don't think evolution itself is the presupposition. I think that the presuppositions, or worldview to use a more christianese term, leads to the dogmatic acceptance of evolution.

    As for natural selection, Edward Blythe, a creationist, first postulated the theory. More importantly, this is the ideology at work that blurs the facts, IMHO. Nat Sel is not evolution, it is variation within a species. For example, we have been breeding dogs for as far back as we have written records, and yet we never get anything but dogs. There has never been any documented evidence of an increase in genetic information required for evoltuion to even be feasable.

    As for creationist predictions. Just one example: Dr. Russ Humpreys, a creationist who works at the Sandia Nat'l Labs, predicted the magnetic field strengths of jupiter and saturn (if i remember correctly) several years prior to the Cassini spacecraft going past each planet. He based his predictions of an assumed age of the universe of 6000-10000 years. When the spacecraft measured them, he was as spot on as one could possibly be, whereas evolutionary scientists predictions were of by several orders of magnitude.

    As far as evoltuionists challenging their theories go, another example: On spaceflightnow.com (a lot of my examples are space related because I work as an electrical engineer for a major space systems company) in 2006 ran a story about possible running water on the surface of mars from images taken by the new mars reconnaissance orbiter (MRO) http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0612/06mgs/. This story immediately jumps to water without a single SHRED of evidence other than a blurry picture from 200 miles above. This is just one of many time where they jump to water on mars even though there has not been one molecule of water found there. An even older story talked about a flood of biblical proportions flowing down from the highlands of mars, a planet without any water observed, but they reject out of hand a global flood on a planet 70% covered by water. Evidence?!? This was later rejected ( http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0803/02mars... ), but the initial reaction of jumping to unfounded conclusions without evidence is not science. But wait, theres more.

    Just a few weeks ago, a new image was captured of an avalanche in process on mars ( http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0803/03aval... ). What I find interesting about this is how it talks about how surprised everyone is because "A lot of what we see there hasn't changed for millions of years." WHAT?!? Based on what evidence? That is the second even in just a few years showing that it has changed in just the last few? Why hold on to the assumption it has been unchanged for millions of years when you have observed it changing? Thats not science, sorry. Also keep in mind that these may not even be rare occurrences. The MRO and the rovers have only explored and examined a small fraction of the planet, and usually only once.

    I know this isn't proof, but I think that it shows that there is more to it than just practicing science. There is a component of blind belief.

    Gotta run, looking forward to your response :twisted: :wink:
  • Dave,
    No sweat about the "dishonest" remark -- I'd be able to handle it even if you meant it :)

    It's an old YEC canard (much beloved by Gary Demar) that evolution is a presupposition that scientists blindly adhere to. Although I don't doubt there are people who put too much stock into evolution without a good basis, it's entirely unfair to sincere Christian scientists who unavoidably come to the TOE without even wanting to. The difference between science and creationism is that scientists consistently challenge the theory of evolution and the current understanding of it under the assumption that the TOE might be debunked or seriously modified.

    I understand that it might appear evolutionists are merely tweaking and would never overhaul the TOE completely, but they actually have little cause to question the basics of the theory, seeing as how they are repeatable, observable (contra your comment above), and predictive. What is repeatable and observable about evolution? Well, for starters, the mechanics of the process of evolution: natural selection and survival of the fittest are virtually incontrovertible because these things happen before our very eyes all the time. Another basic mechanism for evolution that scientists aren't likely to assume is false is the fact that DNA carries the material responsible for genetic variation. Why is this so important? Because it is one of the greatest triumphs of science, being almost solely responsible for the hypothesis of evolution becoming a working theory: a biological mechanism for passing down traits was an important prediction made by evolutionary theory. The existence of junk DNA is a major coup for evolutionary theory, as well; see Francis Collins's The Language of God for more on that. So until YEC's attack those things (which are hard to argue against), their best tack is to argue for a young earth, which even Christian geologists have a hard time with.

    Although these basics are rarely questioned by scientists, scientists are likely to tweak and critique the outworkings of their theory and the evidences amassed to confirm it and its predictions. Haeckel's embryo drawings and virtually every other hoax or discredited claim were debunked not by creationists but by mainstream science. In contrast, creation scientists never challenge their own theory because their presupposition is inviolable, being tied up inextricably with their interpretation of the Bible. This is the falsifiability issue I referred to. In the end, they're spinning their wheels uselessly, because no matter what evidence for an old earth or evolution they cannot disprove, they can always claim, "God did it". That, my friend, is not science but ideology.

    Good discussion :)
  • David Swain
    Steve,

    I should've worded the dishonest part differently, because I meant something more along the lines of fooling yourself, not trying to imply that you were deliberately being dishonest :smile:

    I don't have time this evening to reply fully to all of your response, but just a few thoughts for now...

    For your point 1, I only know of DeMar because of his preterist materials, so I don't know his approach at critiquing evolution. When I personally do so, I rely on what has been published by scientists who do know what they are talking about, not my own ideas because I am certainly not a scientist.

    I almost completely agree with your second point. However, I think that in a lot of cases (at least this was true when I was in high-school 10 years ago) students aren't taught how to think critically in general, but particularly with regards to evolutionary theory. Scientific theories are constantly changing in certain areas, but are rarely updated in textbooks (for instance my science text in 1996 had Haekel's drawings which were showed to be forgeries around the turn of the last century along with "evidences" for horse evolution that were proven false, although I only now know this). So in a sense, I think that, as it stands, something needs to be changed so that students are taught to critically examine even the most thoroughly "proven" scientific ideas.

    I think some distinction should also be made between the science or evolution and other physical sciences. A scientist that is doing science, as you put it, in regards to evolutionary biology is not doing science like a chemist is. There are no experiments to reproduce a billion year process. Evolutionary scientists start from presuppositions just as much as a creationist does and interpret their evidence based on those presuppositions. Now, if someone can show me why their presuppositions are the correct ones, then I could reconsider what I currently believe, but I completely disagree with any position that makes it out as though it is science versus a belief or ideology. I think it is one interpretation based on presuppositions vs another interpretation based on different presuppositions of the same evidence.

    Thanks for the reply. Its always fun to talk about such things, even if we just agree to disagree!

    Dave
  • David,
    You didn't sound derogatory of me personally (except, perhaps, for the "dishonest" part), but of my argument. Perfectly in bounds, and I appreciate it :)

    My point wasn't that majority rules; of course the group with the larger number of adherents is not ipso facto correct. And yeah, FP would be outright stupid if that were the case. There are three things that justify my remarks.

    1) Demar is not a scientist, yet he feels he can critique a scientific theory held by most of those who actually are scientists - and do science for a living! Surely he would do better to enlist some actual scientists who make actual scientific arguments?

    2) Majority doesn't rule, but the burden of proof is always on the minority in any well-researched field. My argument was not that Demar should not believe or teach his own children ideas that aren't well-accepted by science, but that he should not be surprised or scandalized that such ideas are not put in the curriculum for high schoolers to learn! The whole point of having science standards is so that kids have an idea of what scientific theories prevail at present, if for no other reason than that graduates know which theories to test and debunk if possible. For the same reason, I'm neither surprised nor scandalized that FP isn't taught at seminary. We've got to show ourselves legitimate.

    3) Another thing behind my "traction among a significant number of scientists" comment was that in order for Demar to proclaim evolutionary theory as false based on it being bad science, he has to produce contrary scientific evidence that is peer-reviewed. Scientists are not monolithic, and many (even unbelievers) would jump at the chance at problematizing the predominant view: that's the stuff scientists' dreams are made of. ID is a non-theory, because it seeks only to say what couldn't have happened based on the argument from silence, so that doesn't count. Any honest biologist who accepts evolutionary theory will readily admit holes that are being tested by research, and they don't hold their punches when they come across them.

    Theologians do not argue from majority, but from how well a doctrine matches up with Scripture; they do not make up Scripture to bolster their doctrines. Now, a significant number of scientists (Collins claims nearly half) believe in God. Every year, a young Christian studies science and is completely convinced by the evidence that evolutionary theory is not fraudulent. Many, like Mike Beidler and I, try their best to disprove it with creation science, and simply can't. Scientists, like theologians, do not argue from majority, but from how well the theory supports all the evidence. AIG, ICR, etc. start with one presupposition: God made everything in the manner that a historiographic reading of Genesis 1-2 suggests. Their scientific method consists of trying to prove a young earth and debunking anything else. Their science is neither predictive nor falsifiable, and thus inferior. What's worse than their science, however, is their interpretation of Genesis that makes them think it is historiographic.

    Thanks for stopping in!

    Josh,
    Demar does advocate the work by YEC groups (he's had them on as guests), which by default removes him from the fideist camp and into the evidentialist camp; in other words, he doesn't think that young earth creationism is simply a matter of believing the Bible, but that it can also be confirmed by science. Of course, he has also spoken highly favorably of ID (which itself assumes evolution), suggesting that he does not care what it is so long as it contradicts naturalistic evolution. As a theologian, he can try to make this case from Scripture, but as someone who regularly presumes to critique science with scientific evidence, he needs to offer a scientific alternative. Besides, who can argue that a scientifically researchable question like the age of the earth is only a matter of faith?
  • Perhaps the reason DeMar doesn't offer "a scientific alternative with traction among a significant number of biologists" is because he is securely in the six-day creationist camp.

    I haven't heard him state where he stays. But he may simply think "God just made everything, end of story." But I have never heard him say so.
  • David Swain
    Steve,

    I hope I don't come off as sounding attacking, but I am surprised at your request that DeMar provide scientific and philosophical reasons and a scientific alternative acceptable to a significant number of biologists. For one, define what would be considered a significant number. Secondly, if you applied this reasoning to eschatology, I think your position as an FP would be considered "blowing smoke" compared to the much larger group of people who hold to the dispy paradigm.

    I will freely admit to being a YECer, but either way, I think their are some fallacies to your argument. A view point isn't made correct by a large number of adherents.

    I assume that you have read some of the material from CMI, ICR, and AiG, and still find it wanting. Which is fine to reject what they say, but I think it is dishonest to act as though there are no scientific viewpoints that are alternative to evolution.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Subscribe without commenting