Geological Time: A Republican Explains

[Jack Springer]

[Quoted Post: Removed by Moderator]

My position on creation again -- I believe God created everything. I don't know how he did it -- the how is not important to me. The how has nothing to do with my faith or salvation.

I do have a problem with the theory of evolution. There are many gaps that cannot be explained. An evolutionist has to have a very strong faith or belief in the theory to accept it.

[cityboy-stl]

No one ever seems to bring this up but I've noticed it since I was a little kid. In Genesis all the plants and vegetation are created on the third day and the sun on the fourth day. It doesn't take a scientist to know that you can't grow plants in the dark! So while "light" was created on the first day, the sun specifically was created later. Do you think God got his days mixed up? Or maybe taking this as a literal series of sequential events is not what God really intended? You think?

On the other hand, I say that "Let there be light!", is as good a description of the Big Bang as any in science. It does say "Let the earth bring forth life" which sounds like an evolutionary process to me. In very general broad terms from the big bang to the emergence of humanity over 13.75 billion years, Genesis comes pretty close. Big Bang, formation of stars and galaxies, formation of the earth, emergence of life on earth, beginnings of intelligence and humanity, an initial union with God.

I personally do not see a conflict between the Genesis story and science if viewed from a much higher perspective. It just makes no sense at all to view the Genesis story as an actual, literal, day-by-day creation story. It kind of reduces God to a magician. The more science tells us about the facts of the universe the more we know about God. For example, the fact the iron in the hemoglobin in my blood that allows me to breathe was created by a super nova billions of years ago is far more awesome and spiritual than a one day "poof, there you are" creation.

Maybe I'm crazy but that's how I look at it.

[xbuzzerx]

Except they don't. Young Earth Creationism is no more Christian than is monarchy being the only acceptable form of government. Both those ideas are something that have to be forced in the Bible; they don't come from it.

That never stopped any true believer. Look at all the things that are, actually in fact, IN the bible and are utterly ignored. Shellfish, anyone?

[Rolyo85]

You're calling me a coward? This is political forum man -- it's not a boxing ring or a battlefield.

I answered your questions -- I just didn't answer them the way you wanted.

You got your panties in a wad when you and others couldn't accept the fact that Obama answered the creation question the same way Rubio answered it. Neither man wanted to be put in a corner -- they're politicians.

I am not calling you a coward. I am saying you are acting like one at the moment.

You did not answer my questions. You made a snarky retort, ADMITTED IT WAS SNARK, and told me I don't deserve better. Which is cowardly.

The claim about Obama and Rubio saying the same thing after PAGES of discussing the glaring difference - whether it should be taught in schools - is a lie, and will be reported as I have been reporting all of your direct lies so far

[xbuzzerx]

My position on creation again -- I believe God created everything. I don't know how he did it -- the how is not important to me. The how has nothing to do with my faith or salvation.

I do have a problem with the theory of evolution. There are many gaps that cannot be explained. An evolutionist has to have a very strong faith or belief in the theory to accept it.

There are gaps in evolution, true. However evolution does not require pure faith for its credentials.

To simply leap from "there are some gaps in the evolutionary chain that haven't been discovered yet" to "believing in evolution at all requires faith, just like a religion!" is ridiculous. If there's no evolution why are there antibacterial resistant diseases? Why does the flu come back?

If you believe in the Christian cosmology and a literal interpretation of its story of creation-- fine. But don't expect rational, secular people, or even people who aren't of your religion, to give it any more attention than they would a Greek myth. And don't equate it with something that does not require blind faith in order to actually see at work in the natural world as objective, measurable fact.

[Rolyo85]

My position on creation again -- I believe God created everything. I don't know how he did it -- the how is not important to me. The how has nothing to do with my faith or salvation.

I do have a problem with the theory of evolution. There are many gaps that cannot be explained. An evolutionist has to have a very strong faith or belief in the theory to accept it.

There are "many gaps that cannot be explained" but "and God said "let there be light"" is legit? O.o

[Jack Springer]

There are "many gaps that cannot be explained" but "and God said "let there be light"" is legit? O.o

Try to understand man. There are people who have different beliefs than yours.

[Rolyo85]

Try to understand man. There are people who have different beliefs than yours.

Try to understand, man. That's not a good enough answer in an online argument. You can either defend your positions, or you're not able to play with the big kids. Will you answer my question with a direct, non-evasive or abrasive answer?

Which class do you want creationism to be taught at? And should it be JUST creationism and evolution, or do we teach the Koran version and the Greek and Norse myths about the creation as well?

[xbuzzerx]

Try to understand man. There are people who have different beliefs than yours.

That's completely off the point. He pointed out a completely legitimate double standard in your position. You reject evolution because of "gaps" when religion is nothing but gaps. It requires faith and that's the SOLE thing that lends to believing in any religion.

[Kulindahr]

No one ever seems to bring this up but I've noticed it since I was a little kid. In Genesis all the plants and vegetation are created on the third day and the sun on the fourth day. It doesn't take a scientist to know that you can't grow plants in the dark! So while "light" was created on the first day, the sun specifically was created later. Do you think God got his days mixed up? Or maybe taking this as a literal series of sequential events is not what God really intended? You think?

On the other hand, I say that "Let there be light!", is as good a description of the Big Bang as any in science. It does say "Let the earth bring forth life" which sounds like an evolutionary process to me. In very general broad terms from the big bang to the emergence of humanity over 13.75 billion years, Genesis comes pretty close. Big Bang, formation of stars and galaxies, formation of the earth, emergence of life on earth, beginnings of intelligence and humanity, an initial union with God.

I personally do not see a conflict between the Genesis story and science if viewed from a much higher perspective. It just makes no sense at all to view the Genesis story as an actual, literal, day-by-day creation story. It kind of reduces God to a magician. The more science tells us about the facts of the universe the more we know about God. For example, the fact the iron in the hemoglobin in my blood that allows me to breathe was created by a super nova billions of years ago is far more awesome and spiritual than a one day "poof, there you are" creation.

Maybe I'm crazy but that's how I look at it.

Well said!

The imposition of a modern view of history on something that was written in an entirely different manner is insulting to God exactly because it makes of Him a little boy popping animals and plants into existence full-blown to populate his farm and forest. Grandeur is found in realizing that God could put out His finger and where there was nothing and nowhere a place emerges, one that over time unfolds and then focuses on a process we call life. That from a few constants imposed on His burst of 'light' we got a world with sunsets and snow and horses and beer -- that is grandeur!

[Kulindahr]

That never stopped any true believer. Look at all the things that are, actually in fact, IN the bible and are utterly ignored. Shellfish, anyone?

LOL

The shellfish rule is irrelevant anyway -- God says so, twice, in the Book of Acts.

[xbuzzerx]

LOL

The shellfish rule is irrelevant anyway -- God says so, twice, in the Book of Acts.

Touching a woman during her unclean time should get you cast out of the tribe! I'll be here all week.

[Kulindahr]

Try to understand man. There are people who have different beliefs than yours.

The one who needs understanding is you: when it's science v not science, "beliefs" are irrelevant. "Beliefs" about the world can only be relevant as acceptable options if there is no God, or if there is but God is unpredictable, undependable, not to be counted on. If God is as the Bible describes, someone who is trustworthy and constant, then science is to be relied on. When science has established something, either it's sound or God is a liar.

And that's my problem with young earth creationists: they're calling God a liar.

[Jack Springer]

Try to understand, man. That's not a good enough answer in an online argument. You can either defend your positions, or you're not able to play with the big kids. Will you answer my question with a direct, non-evasive or abrasive answer?

Which class do you want creationism to be taught at? And should it be JUST creationism and evolution, or do we teach the Koran version and the Greek and Norse myths about the creation as well?

There is nothing wrong with teaching kids that there are different opinions regarding how the world was created. A science class in 5th grade, 3rd hour on a Tuesday would be a great time. Specific enough?

You're a person who believes in choice -- why not outline to the students that there are different opinions regarding how creation happened. Go over the different theories. Explain that there are many differences and that not just one may be the correct one.

[xbuzzerx]

There is nothing wrong with teaching kids that there are different opinions regarding how the world was created. A science class in 5th grade, 3rd hour on a Tuesday would be a great time. Specific enough?

You're a person who believes in choice -- why not outline to the students that there are different opinions regarding how creation happened. Go over the different theories. Explain that there are many differences and that not just one may be the correct one.

It doesn't belong in a science classroom. All it requires to understand why that's inappropriate is a very very rudimentary understanding of the scientific method.

Why do you think every single kid alive in the western hemisphere isn't already aware that there are alternate, spiritual beliefs as to how the cosmos was created, and why do you think they need a special time slot set aside in education to reinforce this knowledge?

And, going back to the issues that were raised earlier-- how exactly are you going to have any time to teach any science at all if you have to split the time with Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Judaic, Daoist, animist and every other creation story?

[Kulindahr]

It requires faith and that's the SOLE thing that lends to believing in any religion.

Not so. I had the privilege to be part of a Creationist club back before the fundie Christians stole the term. It was a group of people who because of their studies of science and other subjects had concluded that there had to be a Creator who at the very least launched the whole thing. There wasn't even a requirement that the Creator believed in be considered a person in any sort of the word. It didn't matter if you were Christian or Buddhist or agnostic, because doctrine and revelation had nothing to do with it.

[Kulindahr]

There is nothing wrong with teaching kids that there are different opinions regarding how the world was created. A science class in 5th grade, 3rd hour on a Tuesday would be a great time. Specific enough?

You're a person who believes in choice -- why not outline to the students that there are different opinions regarding how creation happened. Go over the different theories. Explain that there are many differences and that not just one may be the correct one.

There are no "different theories". What comes out of a holy book is not a theory. If somehow it could be used to make unique predictions that would set that version apart from others, it could rise to the level of a hypothesis -- and only once the predictions proved out would there be a chance to call it a theory.

[xbuzzerx]

Not so. I had the privilege to be part of a Creationist club back before the fundie Christians stole the term. It was a group of people who because of their studies of science and other subjects had concluded that there had to be a Creator who at the very least launched the whole thing. There wasn't even a requirement that the Creator believed in be considered a person in any sort of the word. It didn't matter if you were Christian or Buddhist or agnostic, because doctrine and revelation had nothing to do with it.

I read this post and while I appreciate separating sane Christians from fundamentalist ones, I don't see how one viewpoint was based on evidence presented to support the existence of god over the other viewpoint. Both still require faith.

I believe perhaps you misinterpreted me as saying that the scientific view and the religious view of creation are mutually exclusive-- which I did not say nor mean to imply.

[Jack Springer]

It doesn't belong in a science classroom. All it requires to understand why that's inappropriate is a very very rudimentary understanding of the scientific method.

Why do you think every single kid alive in the western hemisphere isn't already aware that there are alternate, spiritual beliefs as to how the cosmos was created, and why do you think they need a special time slot set aside in education to reinforce this knowledge?

And, going back to the issues that were raised earlier-- how exactly are you going to have any time to teach any science at all if you have to split the time with Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Judaic, Daoist, animist and every other creation story?

Do kids know the different theories? They don't even know the name of the current vice-president or who Hitler was.

I doubt that teaching this subject and the different theories would really take that much time.

[Rolyo85]

There is nothing wrong with teaching kids that there are different opinions regarding how the world was created. A science class in 5th grade, 3rd hour on a Tuesday would be a great time. Specific enough?

You're a person who believes in choice -- why not outline to the students that there are different opinions regarding how creation happened. Go over the different theories. Explain that there are many differences and that not just one may be the correct one.

Like Kulindahr pointed out, Creationism or Norse mythology are NOT theories. They are MYTHS. The big bang is a theory, rooted in quantifiable facts. It is not certain, but it has a body of proof, and things that you could point out in the real world and say "those make that theory valid". No religion has that. If it did, it would not be a religion to begin with.

I believe in choice, which is why I'm fine with a religion class that teaches kids ALL religious systems (to the horror of you and yours). But science class should be exclusively reserved for science. Or else I could just demand that my theory of the Big Evil Llama that disgorged the world after eating a bad coconut be respected on equal footing with the Christian mythology. I mean, why not?

[xbuzzerx]

Do kids know the different theories? They don't even know the name of the current vice-president or who Hitler was.

I doubt that teaching this subject and the different theories would really take that much time.

This implies a woeful ignorance on your part of how many stories there are and how complex they are. But if you're the typical creationist then all you care about is inserting the Christian belief into the education curriculum, which would not only be preferential and discriminatory against other beliefs, but would be unconstitutional. There would be no legal way to interpret the inclusion of Christian beliefs preferentially into the education curriculum other than as unconstitutional state sponsorship of a certain religion.

If you try to include them all there will quickly be no time for almost anything else. It'll go way beyond the bounds of science class. Btw, do you know that every Native tribe has its own story? There's a few hundred recognized tribes in the continental U.S. alone.

[Rolyo85]

Do kids know the different theories? They don't even know the name of the current vice-president or who Hitler was.

I doubt that teaching this subject and the different theories would really take that much time.

Maybe it wouldn't. However, it would misrepresent the very notion of what science is, and what it isn't, and how facts and proof work.

[xbuzzerx]

Maybe it wouldn't. However, it would misrepresent the very notion of what science is, and what it isn't, and how facts and proof work.

The scientific method, yup. Putting religion into science class is completely parallel to undermining the teaching of science.

[Stardreamer]

No one ever seems to bring this up but I've noticed it since I was a little kid. In Genesis all the plants and vegetation are created on the third day and the sun on the fourth day. It doesn't take a scientist to know that you can't grow plants in the dark! So while "light" was created on the first day, the sun specifically was created later. Do you think God got his days mixed up? Or maybe taking this as a literal series of sequential events is not what God really intended? You think?

On the other hand, I say that "Let there be light!", is as good a description of the Big Bang as any in science. It does say "Let the earth bring forth life" which sounds like an evolutionary process to me. In very general broad terms from the big bang to the emergence of humanity over 13.75 billion years, Genesis comes pretty close. Big Bang, formation of stars and galaxies, formation of the earth, emergence of life on earth, beginnings of intelligence and humanity, an initial union with God.

I personally do not see a conflict between the Genesis story and science if viewed from a much higher perspective. It just makes no sense at all to view the Genesis story as an actual, literal, day-by-day creation story. It kind of reduces God to a magician. The more science tells us about the facts of the universe the more we know about God. For example, the fact the iron in the hemoglobin in my blood that allows me to breathe was created by a super nova billions of years ago is far more awesome and spiritual than a one day "poof, there you are" creation.

Maybe I'm crazy but that's how I look at it.

Always been the way I've seen it. I've never had a problem with evolution either. To me that just how God 'did it'. I have my own personal version of 'intelligent design' (not to be confused with the what most people who use that term mean). I rather like God as the clockmaker view of creation, God set in place the makings of the Universe and gave it a nudge that we call the Big Bang to get it started and it largely unfolds according to plan on its own from there little or no divine tinkering required.

[bankside]

Jack Springer, you don't need to worry. No child will ever be taught in a science class that you can put rocks in a box and get a lexus after a million years, because that has nothing to do with any scientific theory.

It is clear you know absolutely nothing about the Theory of Evolution which you fear. Next, these are not opinions, they are explanations anchored in facts.

To review:

• Facts are things we can observe, measure, show to other scientists or other people to confirm whether we made a mistake or not.
• A hypothesis is an educated guess about how all those factual things might be related.
• A Theory is a hypothesis that works again and again, lo and behold when a new fact is found the Theory has already predicted it or made sense of it or worked it out from what was known before the fact was uncovered. It's a hypothesis that has finally proven itself with existing and new data, and with challenges from alternative explanations where it still explains things better. That's how a hypothesis becomes a theory.

First, Evolution is not an opinion. It is a well-tested theory that explains all the things we find about the development of life and how those facts come together. It covers fossils, what we see in petrie dishes, dog breeding, scanning tunnelling electron microscopes, carbon dating, geology, farming, cancer research, the human genome project….

There are plenty of facts yet to be discovered, but those are not gaps in the theory. The theory is complete. All of those new facts have fit right into place with evolutionary theory. That is why it is so robust and so reliable.

If you can put a bunch of rocks in a box and come up with a lexus or a potato or a leprechaun or perhaps that idiot Kirk Cameron's crockoduck, then you will likely have stumbled upon a fact that cannot be explained by the Theory of Evolution; you will have falsified the theory, and scientists will have to go back to the drawing board. And I'll owe that idiot Kirk Cameron an apology. Until then the theory stands.

Second, the Theory of Evolution is different from theories about Abiogenesis. That means, the way generations of living organisms change over time is one theory. Where that life came from in the first place is another. And both of those theories have nothing much to do with the Big Bang Theory. So lets stop muddling them all together.

Abiogenesis (life springing forth from non-living matter) is the least-well-developed theory of the three. What happens once life gets here is a settled question; it evolves. But how did it get here? If you wanted to call Abiogenesis a hypothesis until it is proven by more data, I won't argue with you.

But it's looking better and better for Abiogenesis the more data we collect. Scientists can demonstrate that the right commonplace chemicals from some primaeval pond can organise themselves into cell-like structures. And we have discovered things like prions (the things that cause alzheimers and mad cow disease by disrupting the brain). They aren't quite alive, but they are too close to being alive to be called just another ordinary chemical. So there are plenty of strong leads that if the right chemicals fell into a pond at the start of time, life would be the outcome of that reaction without anyone having to put any creativity into it.

None of this, big bang included, actually rules out what some people might imagine about god or divinity. However it does rule out most of what has ever been preached in the history of humanity about god or divinity. It absolutely rules out treating the Bible as a catalogue of facts about the unfolding of the universe. So should we add that to the lesson? No; it's religious speculation, not part of a well-developed theory that belongs in a science class.

[Rolyo85]

I loved everything about this post...

[Ninja108]

SOrry,religion has no place in a science class.

[rareboy]

How do you tell a child that people, plants, and things just appeared? How do you tell a child that if you leave minerals and water alone for millions of years those components will make a human being or a tree?

Science is an evolving process -- all the answers are not there yet and never will be.

Are you fucking kidding me? Seriously? Did they even teach science in your school?

If you have ever watched an after school special on what happens in the bottom of the ocean trenches around the fumaroles of volcanoes, you would learn about the basic building blocks of living organisms. I can explain that to a child. I can also explain cell division as well as modification through irradiation and I have no trouble explaining selective adaptation of living things over hundreds and hundreds of millions of years. Why is it that you find these concepts so difficult to grasp?

We recently went through the Smithsonian...along with groups of schoolchildren....and the Smithsonian has no difficulty explaining all of this to children.

What I can tell you though, is that religious people reaching for stupid examples like a box of rocks turning into a Lexus if you just leave them alone for a million years is just an extremely intellectually dishonest way of trying to 'prove' that there are gaps in evolutionary theory because you can't explain how it happens.

What I could explain to the child though, is that this planet, bombarded by meteors that left deposits of rare metals, forged and re-shaped and concentrated by volcanoes and tectonic action produced the materials that primates discovered could be used for tools and how this process rapidly evolved leading to an age where it was possible to not only manufacture a Lexus, but to run it on fuel made from the deposits of millions of years of rotting vegetation.

You see Jack, in science, you don't need magical thinking.....as you say, science itself is always evolving as one discovery leads to others and we learn more and facts about how our planet, the other planets and the universe itself was formed.

I would much rather that children be told what we do know and that we don't know many things in order to set them the challenge of researching and discovery in their own lifetimes. This is much better than to try to shut down the human intelligence by cutting off all knowledge with 'God did it'. That might have worked in the Dark Ages, but it doesn't suit our world today.

So while Bill O'Reilly can say that his proof of God is that 'Tide comes in, tide goes out, never a miscommunication'. I'd much rather live in a world where I understand the physics of how this happens.

[rareboy]

There is nothing wrong with teaching kids that there are different opinions regarding how the world was created. A science class in 5th grade, 3rd hour on a Tuesday would be a great time. Specific enough?

You're a person who believes in choice -- why not outline to the students that there are different opinions regarding how creation happened. Go over the different theories. Explain that there are many differences and that not just one may be the correct one.

You are so wrong. It would not be a good time.

Creation myths do not belong in science class as alternative equal theories.

If someone wanted to teach a class on the creation mythologies of all religions and demonstrate how they stand up to scientific and factual scrutiny, I'd have no problem. You would though.

I have learned over the years of many of the creation myths of different eras and religions. I did it in classes that dealt with human social development and history.

I still don't get it though. Are all the religious fundies afraid that their god's feelings will be hurt if humans learn as much as possible about the creation and development of life? Wouldn't any god worth human attention be big enough to take this on board?

[Rolyo85]

Mostly, I find that Christians are butt hurt by science because it disproves their ignorant literal interpretation of the Bible. Who knew that an allegorical collection of fables was not to be taken literally?!