kerpal32: I don't consider evolution and Christianity (or even religion) to be in opposition

Not all strains of Christianity, no. However, perhaps you might agree that the theory of evolution is in conflict with the concept of Young Earth Creationism, which some (but not all) sects of Christianity take as doctrine.

As a result, your remark is not directly responding to what Bevets proposal seems to be: that coverage be given to Young Earth Creationism and to Intelligent Design along side with Evolution From Uniform Common Ancestry, if the latter origin is included as part of the curriculum for Biology (or whichever curricula include that latter).

Bevets:

Creationists are disqualified from making a positive case, because science by definition is based upon naturalism. The rules of science also disqualify any purely negative argumentation designed to dilute the persuasiveness of the theory of evolution. Creationism is thus out of court and out of the classroom-before any consideration of evidence. Put yourself in the place of a creationist who has been silenced by that logic, and you may feel like a criminal defendant who has just been told that the law does not recognize so absurd a concept as "innocence." ~ Phillip Johnson

My issue is not that my view is not taught. My issue is that competing views are taught. If we are going to address the topic of origin of life in the public classroom, we need to acknowledge that the topic is inescapably intertwined with metaphysics and we need to examine various metaphysical positons. We could ignore the origin of life topic completely -- that would be boring. If we do address the topic, I dont have a preference for venue. It can be Biology, History, Philosophy, or wood shop -- as long as my view is permitted a fair hearing.

kerpal32:

I don't consider evolution and Christianity (or even religion) to be in opposition

abb3w:

Not all strains of Christianity, no. However, perhaps you might agree that the theory of evolution is in conflict with the concept of Young Earth Creationism, which some (but not all) sects of Christianity take as doctrine.

As a result, your remark is not directly responding to what Bevets proposal seems to be: that coverage be given to Young Earth Creationism and to Intelligent Design along side with Evolution From Uniform Common Ancestry, if the latter origin is included as part of the curriculum for Biology (or whichever curricula include that latter).


Bevets:

If God exists he can act within any realm He chooses.
If Christianity is True, God has acted within the physical historical realm.
The best interpretation of Genesis is that God created everything in 6 literal days.

I need to know which of these postulates you deny, if I am to conduct meaningful discussion.

kerpal32:

If I had to pick and choose, I'd say this one....

"Evolutionism can not be reconciled with the Word of God" if you take evolutionism to mean the "belief that organisms are intrinsically bound to improve themselves, and that changes are progressive and arise through inheritance of acquired characters".

and my problem is with statements like the following....

The best interpretation of Genesis is that God created everything in 6 literal days.

Because I believe "literal" arguments are "illusionary"

Bevets:

Picking one is helpful. Picking all that apply would be much more helpful. Do you agree that God has acted within the physical historical realm (specifically wrt the resurrection)? Would you maintain that your objections are linguistically based or would you agree that your view of cosmology is driving your interpretation?

I drunk what:

but perhaps God wanted us to use Science to figure out for ourselves what the most accurate answer is, even if it does involve "updating-interpreting" older versions

the age of the Earth has zero bearing on our salvation, maybe it helps to keep that in mind...

We've covered this before. I do not think evolutionism has to be fatal either to individual Christians or the Church. It is like cancer. There are people who have cancer that are in better shape than people who do not have cancer. But cancer is bad. Accepting evolutionism means not accepting the clear teaching of scripture. If we can make the words of Genesis say what ever we want them to say, we can do the same with the Gospel of John or Romans. We don't have to. Most do not. But cancer has a way of spreading.

I drunk what:

and what bugs me is like what i mentioned before, that ID cannot be reconciled with theistic evolution, which i still haven't heard a good reason why not?

my first question being how is theistic evolution not intelligently designed??

ID is a very pliable concept. It is as compatible with TE as it is with YEC. I suspect the hesitation comes primarily from TEs who dont want their fellow 'E's to see them fraternizing with fellow 'T's -- It could hurt their job prospects.

Bevets:

If you lived on a planet where God actually created life approximately 6,000 years ago, how would you verify this? Would someone who denied the possibility of Divine intervention be persuaded by the evidence?

I drunk what:

6000 years ago? still plenty of evidence that is not the case, which still relies heavily on God creating things with the appearance of older dates

I can say 'Andy Rooney looks old' because I am able to see evidence of when he did not look old and I am able to compare him with other humans. We know a great deal about the human life cycle. The same can not be said for planets or universes -- which require assumptions -- you may think 'but my assumptions dont stink', but everyone has assumptions that stink.