The following exchange is from Dialogue Group 7, Thread 25.

1. Church and State
Tue, Dec 29, 1998 - 9:36 PM/EST
operabuff

I have alluded several times in my postings to my discomfort with declarations that this is a "Christian Nation." This is a time of year when the issue of church and state tends to come up. It may concern a creche on a state house lawn, or prayer in schools, or the teaching of creationism in science classes. It also concerns the prominence of the Christian coalition and other Christian groups in politics. I would dearly love to see what others in this group think about issues involving church and state.

I, for one, feel very strongly about the separation of church and state. I am a member of a religious minority, and I do find my rights trampled on at times. I am genuinely frightened by the declarations that this is a "Christian nation." What are your feelings?

2. Tough One
Tue, Dec 29, 1998 - 11:25 PM/EST
markearnest

This is a tough topic to touch, but I'm glad it was brought up :)

I don't think America should ever be called a Christian nation. I am a Christian, but I also know my history. Most of the people who came over to the 'new world' before it was the United States did so to escape an (insert religion here) nation.

We have aleways prided ourselves as a place of freedom, religious and otherwise. However, the early connections between church and state are evident. The 10 Commandments are written on the walls of the Supreame Court, Congress opens with a prayer (and ends with an indictment, as the old joke goes), and so on. I don't believe that state should ever meddle with church, however church played an important role in the creation of this state. I don't believe that we should attempt to wash out all references to religion from our past in order to make history class more 'PC'.

As for today, there are a large percentage of Christians in the country, and it they want to lobby, they have as much right as any other group.

Creationism should NOT be taught in school, but neither should evolution. There is not enough evidence to back either up. Evolution is still only a 'theory', but it's widely accpeted because it's the only alternative to some religious explination. Persoanlly I consider both a form of religion.

6. Seperation...
Wed, Dec 30, 1998 - 11:55 AM/EST
Maggiheart

Obviously the government should not endorse or force and certain religion on it's citizens and just as obviously, citizens should have the right to believe and practice what they choose as long as their practices don't hurt others, i.e. sacrificing goats and the like, but in some cases it seems people's rights get trampled anyway.

So far as creation and evolution being taught in the public schools, both theories require a leap of faith and neither of them can be proven. If you believe in God, creationism is most likely, if you don't than you must look for a solution that does not contain a god and thus evolutionism is most likely.

The thing is, science is based on observable, repeatable experimentation which is not possible concerning the origins of our species, planet or universe.

Therefore to my way of thinking, don't teach either of them or teach both of them as equal partners. They are the two most likely answers and the only two that have credibly existed this long and until one or the other is conclusively proven or disproven, I think they deserve equal credit in our public school systems.

Otherwise, by taking away any reference to a supreme being of any kind, you trample over other's rights to believe and be taught about one and if you teach only creationism, obviously you trample over other's rights to exclude any thought of a supremem being from their life.

In that respect, I think that this seperation has gone too far by trying to exclude any reference to any god from government controlled public institutions instead of including that the vast majority of us believe in some higher power or supreme being or at the least, have enough tolerance to believe that others do and some of those other's ideas are credible despite their beliefs.

8. evolution
Wed, Dec 30, 1998 - 8:39 PM/EST
operabuff

Evolution is a fact. It happened, it is happening even as I write this. (Example: resistant strains of bacteria.) Many non-scientists confuse the word "theory" with "guess." The word theory, as used in science, is much more than a guess. It is an explanation for a collection of observable phenomena. Gravity, after all, is called a theory, yet no one falls up. There is no scientist who would dispute the existence of evolution, even as no scientist would dispute the existence of gravity. What is in dispute is the mechanism by which evolution (and gravity) happen. Evolution must be taught in science classes. It is the foundation of all the biological sciences. It is based, not on a leap of faith, but on observable and measurable phenomena. We have extensive fossil evidence, with plenty of intermediary forms.

Scientists do disagree about evolution, but only about the specific mechanisms by which it occurs. The main issue in dispute today, for example, is that between gradualism, as posited by Darwin, and punctuated equilibrium, as suggested by Gould.

Creationism, of course, is based on faith, not on observable and measurable phenomena. The so-called creation scientists, who try to make creationism look like a science, are simply trying to inject religious instruction into the public school system. Their attempts have rightly been rebuffed. It is fine to teach creationism in the home and in the church, but not in the public schools.

9. Operabuff
Wed, Dec 30, 1998 - 10:14 PM/EST
markearnest

There are quite a few scientists who dispute the theory of evolution. You are confusing adaptation with evoloution. I have never seen one species give birth to a different species. And there have never been found missing links between species. Several times, I've seen reports of findings of missing links between humans and apes, but every one has been proven false (as far as I know)

That is just my belief, however, evolution is yours, but there IS enough doubt surrounding it (at least from my studies of it) to raise some serious questions.

10. markearnest
Thu, Dec 31, 1998 - 10:10 AM/EST
operabuff

No, I am not confusing adaptation with evolution. Of course you have never seen one species give birth, as if by magic, to another species. These changes take longer than our lifetimes. And yes, there have indeed been found missing links between species, including quite a few between humans and apes. Are you aware, for example, that we share over 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees? The fossil record abounds with proto-human remains. Furthermore, there are no true scientists who dispute the fact of evolution. There are some creationists, however, who call themselves scientists, as part of their attempt to put creationism into the school curriculum.

11. markearnest
Thu, Dec 31, 1998 - 10:35 AM/EST
operabuff

Having just reread what I posted above, I see that I left out one crucial piece of information. We are definitely not descended from apes, a fairly common misconception. Rather, we and the apes have a common ancestor. The fossil record abounds with examples of early primates to which both we and the apes are related. There is also an abbundance of proto-human remains of various types. If you would like to know more about these early humanids, I'll be happy to provide you with information.

12. Either way
Thu, Dec 31, 1998 - 3:54 PM/EST
markearnest

I disagree that no true scientists disagree with evolution. That kind of closed mind thinking is dangerous. Remember, there was a time when no true scientist disagreed that the world was flat and the center of the universe. Science has progressed this far because of people who disagreed with the beliefs of the time, and I personally know a few scientists at Penn State who are working on alternative possibilities (not creationisn by any means)

I'm only saying that evolution isn't the end-all explination. I've never met an evolutionist who could explain how everything started. Let say the big bang happend, what started it? Where did all the matter come from? No one can answer that, and that is why religion still exists.

13. no answers
Thu, Dec 31, 1998 - 4:14 PM/EST
operabuff

Of course no one can answers those questions, markearnest, at least, not yet. But, just because we can't know those answers now does not mean that we can never know them. The thing is, science and religion approach knowledge from opposite poles. Religion is based on faith, and science is based on evidence. They are both ways of understanding the world, and in many ways they complement each other, but in no way should they be conflated. The scientist says, I'll believe it when I see it, and the religionist says, I'll see it when I believe it. Faith is a beautiful and a wonderful thing. It provides a moral basis for many people, a source of comfort and solace for many more. Science is cold, hard fact. It is beautiful too, in its own way.

Religion may have had its origins in attempts to explain the unexplainable, to give meaning and purpose to seemingly random events. Frankly, I think it's wonderful that we don't yet have all the answers. The quest for the answers is a thrilling pursuit, and, though I'll never see the answers in my lifetime, it is a work which will go on for future generations. Religion, based as it is on faith and not on observation and measurement, is able to say that it has the answers. But, whose religion is correct? Christianity, Hinduism, Islam,Buddhism, Shinto, Mithraism, Animism, and so on. Each one claims to have a monopoly on the truth. Science does not claim to have a monopoly on the truth. That is why scientific evidence must be reproducible before it is accepted, why the data is constantly checked and rechecked.

Of course religion in important, it still exists because it meets the most basic needs of many people.But, it doesn't meet my needs. It seems to me that humans created God out of our own needs.

14. Science and evidence
Thu, Dec 31, 1998 - 5:27 PM/EST
Maggiheart

See, here is the problem concerning science and origins. There is no proof. We can't recreate the origin of us, we can only speculate about it by looking at what remains today. From those speculations have come very interesting theories and hypothesis, but the two most popular and the only two that I know of that have a shred of evidence to support them continue to be creationism and evolution.

There are many holes and unanswered questions in both theories, yes, but that's exactly the point. Creationism's biggest hangup is that it requires a belief in God. Evolution's is that it requires a nonbelief in God. The thing is, none of us were there and none of us can know for sure, we can only interpret the evidence remaining as we see fit and the fact remains, religious or not, there are some big problems with evolution, especially Darwinistic evolution which even many evolutionary scientists admit to. I simple think that we should not teach children something which has not been 100% proven fact as if it was. There's nothing wrong with teaching evolution as a theory in the public school systems with it's triumphs and flaws but there is also nothing wrong with presenting creationism with its triumphs and flaws.

The point of science is to have an open mind and look for the truth, not try to fit existing pieces into your view of the puzzle, which I think we are guilty of to some degree.

If we want to get technical, I will list several problems with the Theory of Evolution and many of the embarrasing inaccurate conclusions that some so called scientists have have concocted in their zeal to prove the precious theory, along with several sources to validate them. Those who disagree can list the problems with creationism with sources and we can have an all out learning fest. (Of course, that may require a whole other thread!)

Maybe if we can come to this with open minds, we can learn something. It is only then that they truth will ever be found, in my opinoin.

Think about it this way, if the flaws in evolution aren't known, how will the answers be found? Our children must know the whole story. No one looks for an answer without a question.

16. evolution
Thu, Dec 31, 1998 - 7:33 PM/EST
operabuff

Maggieheart, I would love to read your list of "problems" with evolution. As I stated above, there is a common misconception that because evolution is called a theory, that it is just a guess. The scientific definition of theory is an explanation for a collection of observable and measurable phenomena.

Evolution, as a theory, is also a fact, just as gravity is a theory and a fact. There is indeed controversy among scientists, but only about the details, not about the overall fact of evolution. Creationism, on the other hand, is based not on observation and measurement, but on the Bible. Belief in creationism is based on faith, not on science. Anyway, I do very much look forward to reading what you have to say on evolution and creationism. Let me just leave you with a few things to think about: why do men have nipples? Why is the bone structure of the flippers of a whale analogous to the bone structure of our arms? Why do squids have better eyesight than humans? Why are there so very many species of beetles? Do we really need approximately 500,000 species of beetles, or was God particularly fond of beetles? How do you explain the fossil record?

Finally, I have to disagree with you about evolution requiring a disbelief in God. Many scientists who firmly support evolution also are able to reconcile that belief with a belief in God. A belief in creationism does, however, require a belief in God.

Maggiheart, I look forward to your next posting. Your previous postings have shown you to be intelligent and open-minded, so it will be fun discussing this issue with you.

19. To teach or not to teach.....
Fri, Jan 1, 1999 - 5:15 PM/EST
Claudia

This is an interesting discussion with thoughtful statements offering diverse opinions BUT the answer appears obvious. Of course, we teach both theories of evolution and creationism in school. The above postings show much thought and strong feelings on both subjects. I am assuming that they stem from knowledge of the facts of each theory. Without that knowledge we cannot form our own opinions, or lack thereof.

20. Claudia
Fri, Jan 1, 1999 - 11:58 PM/EST
Maggiheart

I agree totally with what you said about teaching both sides; teaching people to learn. That's exactly what I was trying rather clumsily to say :)

21. Operabuff
Sat, Jan 2, 1999 - 1:27 AM/EST
Maggiheart

I think that this may be more fun than I originally thought! :) You will hear from me again soon, right now I'm snowed in with my grandparents.

22. Claudia
Sat, Jan 2, 1999 - 12:25 PM/EST
operabuff

Sure, you can teach both sides in schools, but only evoultion should be taught in science classes. Creationism is not science, and should never be taught as such in the public schools, where separation of Church and State must be maintained. By all means, teach creationism as part of a Bible as literature class, or in a comparative religion class, or anthropology, or philosophy class. I minored in religion in college (it was an important complement to my major in art history) and I found my studies of the Bible absolutely fascinating. But, I never confused it with science. Incidentally, if you are going to teach Biblical creation in schools, which creation story do you follow. There are two rather different creation stories in Genesis. Just to name one large difference, in one, Adam and Eve are created together, and in the other, Adam is created first, and Eve sometime later.

I'm very interested in what everyone has to say, and I'm concerned that we might run out of time before we run out of material for our discourse.

23. Operabuff
Sat, Jan 2, 1999 - 8:33 PM/EST
markearnest

I guess I agree with you more than I thought. Reading your above post, I agree that Creationism should not be taught in science class. I'm not sure if I ever made that clear. I also have no problems with evolution being taught, just as long as it's not presented as the 'end all' explination. Despite the scientific meaning of the word 'theory', it is just that, along with the big bang, and all the others. If we teach these as unquestionable truths, we could be depriving ourselves of the evidence that will clear all this confusion up. Perhaps the student who can unreval the mysteries is sitting in a class right now.

27. Operabuff
Sun, Jan 3, 1999 - 1:26 PM/EST
Maggiheart

I should have addressed your questions first!!

1. Men have nipples because I think they're cute :) (wink, wink)
2. Whale 'hands': You must admit that while they are sililar in some ways, they are radically out of proportion to a human's. To you, it says common ancestor and to me common creator.
3. The fact that creatures are uniquely suited to their envirnment, including squid, also speaks of a creator to me. We don't need to have their eyesight and they would die with ours. Although, it obviously can speak just as eloquently of evolution to you.
4. So far as beetles, whether or not God is particularly fond of them I have no clue, but I do think it is evidence that he is infinitely creative and loves every aspect of his work. I suppose I can see no reason why one beetle ancestor would find it necessary to split into 500,000 speices and I say that of course we don't need that many beetles. That's exactly the point. Some of the things that are the most fun aren't necessary.
5. So far as the fossil record, it matches perfectly with the world wide flood theory. Things that can climb are higher. Did you ever wonder why most of the 'foot'prints in the Grand Canyon strata are running north, to higher ground? Or why sometimes things that belong below can be found a layer or two too high? There are some very interesting discrepancies which do not fit with the eviolutionary theme right down to evidence that different layers plausiby formed much faster than previously thought.

Of course the case for either is not airtight and by pointing out some of the problems with one is not to say that the other one doesn't have it's problems as well. The thing is, we don't know and I find it a fascinating and worthwhile topic to discuss.
By the way, my point is not to convert people to creationism or prove that I'm right (who cares) just to show that contrary to popular belief, there is hard scientific evidence to support it. There is not any to support the various other religion-based 'guesses' that I know of, at least.

By the way, anyone else here get caught in the snow?

28. In the beginning
Sun, Jan 3, 1999 - 7:39 PM/EST
operabuff

I hardly know where to begin my rebuttal! It will take more characters than I am allowed in one posting, so I'll have to do this piecemeal.
Male's have nipples because they're cute? Is this evidence of God's cosmic sense of humor?
The bone structure of the whale's flipper is very much analogous to to that of the human arm, not to mention to forelegs of other mammals, and the wings of bats. Is this because God has a limited imagination? I should think an omnipotent and omniscient creator could have done better. Homologous structures are indicative of descent with modification.
The eye of the squid argues equally well for natural selection: a squid with better eyes is more likely survive and pass on its genes to the next generation.
There is no "reason" for an ancestral beetle to split into 500,000+ species. Evolution occurs without reason. The number of species of beetles demonstrates that there were that many niches to exploit, and that many isolated groups that could develop into new species of beetle.
The flood, huh. Let's leave aside the fact that the peculiar geology of the Grand Canyon occurred over vast time scales as the Kaibab Plateau gradually rose, and the Colorado River gradually cut through the rising land, exposing some of the most ancient rocks we have been able to study. How do you explain, using the flood idea, that not one trilobite or ammonite floated upward? Not one horse was on the beach and drowned in a lower layer? Not one flying pterodactyl is found above the Cretaceous level?How do you explain the evidence provided by radiocarbon dating? And, let's look at the flood story itself. How do you fit 2 each of millions of species, and their food, into a boat the size of the ark? Also, why did water-dwelling dinosaurs drown in the flood? For further info, see Michael Shermer's publications. One of my sons suggested that I add that two of each species is an insufficient gene pool for successful reproduction of a healthy population.
I still have to address your questions, Maggieheart, about the missing links and so on, but my kids want the computer, so that will have to wait for tomorrow.
You are absolutely right, it is fun to argue points in a friendly manner, without rancor or ridicule. Please look for more of my arguments tomorrow!