Posted by Mike O on: 11.09.2006 /
Something interesting happened this week. My son is a senior at a Christian school. He has been frustrated since his junior year that the views presented in his World Views class are quite unbalanced in favor of Christianity. It is a Christian school after all. But this week they set up a mock debate between a Christian, an atheist, a Marxist and a cosmic spiritualist (whatever that is), and the students in the class were assigned to one of the four differing world views. And as luck would have it, my son drew the part of the atheist debator.
With all the time I’ve been spending out here on eBay atheist, watching Hemant interviews, etc., he decided that he was going to come prepared. He had less than a day, but prepare, he did.
The debate was yesterday and the topic was “Death.” The class was divided into the four camps, and apparently the “atheists” were the only ones that came prepared. My son had answers to the questions he thought he would be asked, and he prepared questions for the other “atheists” in the class to ask. Their strategy was to ask a fairly innocuous set up question and when the Christian gave the pat Christian answer, a related, more difficult question … one that actually required some THOUGHT … was asked.
My son won the debate. I don’t think that was supposed to happen.
I am very proud of my son. Not because he “disproved” Christianity … he didn’t disprove anything, he just made them think a little bit … but because he used his brain. And his classmates got a chance to see that they will need more than pat answers to survive as Christians in the real world.
That was a good experience for him, but on the way home from church last night, we got to talking about whether or not it is possible to actually prove the existance of God. And the only way I know of is to start with evolution. Evolution doesn’t prove there isn’t a God, but if evolution could be disproven, that would prove there is a God (if not evolution, then intelligent design. And if intelligent design, then God).
The problem is, while I personally find the theory of evolution to be extremely unlikely, I have been unable to disprove it. But rather than start down that path here, let me ask this … is it true that if (and I know that’s a HUGE if) evolution could be disproven, that would prove there is a God (not necessarily the Christian God, but a God of some sort)? If not, why not?
NOTE - Let’s keep this at the discussion level. I’m just asking a logical, philosophical question and don’t want the pat Christian answer. So I’m coming to you. The appropriate place for debate is on the discussion board, so I will be taking it there to continue this. But for the here and now, what’s your take on this opening question? If evolution could be disproven, would that prove there is a God?
Leave a Reply
Comment by: Julie Marie
1 11/9/06 7:51 AM | Comment Link |I would not think so. If evolution were disproven, it would mean Darwin was wrong. But proving a theory wrong is a far cry from proving an alternate theory right. There’s alot of work to be done if God is to be proven. Ways to quantify the unkowable…perhaps at some stage there will be instruments to measure the spiritual, but I doubt it. I’m not sure there will ever be anything physical that can record, measure, or otherwise describe a non physical being.
btw, congrats to you and your son!
Comment by: Mike O
2 11/9/06 8:11 AM | Comment Link |But here’s the thrust of my question … if we didn’t evolve (hypothetically speaking) and we weren’t created (hypothetically speaking), how can we be here now? I has to have been one or the other, doesn’t it?
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
3 11/9/06 8:13 AM | Comment Link |Your son took the atheist side and won the debate? LOL :) Are you getting worried about him yet? ;-)
I don’t think that disproving evolution would prove God exists. As Julie Marie points out, it would simply disprove that evolution is the mechanism by which the life we see around us came into being.
By the way, one thing I think Christians sometimes overlook is - suppose you could get to the point “the universe and life on earth as we know it is strong evidence that a Creator God exists”. It’s still a long way from there to the creator having the attributes described in the Bible. Maybe the Creator God is mean or callous; after all, the life he created includes viruses and the world he created includes hurricanes and earthquakes.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
4 11/9/06 8:20 AM | Comment Link |Mike here’s a third option - we keep evolving and one day we get so advanced that we go back in time and create the world and ourselves.
Yeah, I know, it makes my brain hurt too…I don’t even know whether it makes sense.
Comment by: Mike O
5 11/9/06 8:30 AM | Comment Link |He had fun with it, and yes, he’s given himself some things to think about. But the only reason he won was because they were so unprepared. I’m guessing they just expected the Christian viewpoint to go unchallenged since it’s a Christian school. Au contraire.
I’m hoping this will help the school see the need to present balanced arguments and the need to teach our kids critical thinking on difficult questions. Yes, it’s a Christian school, so go ahead and teach that. But don’t oversimplfy the opposition.
That’s true, but “what is God like” or “whose God is right (if anyone’s is right)” is a different question. First things first … is there one?
Comment by: Mike O
6 11/9/06 8:32 AM | Comment Link |At what point do we leave the realm of reasonableness and find ourselve just trying to find a way for there to not be a God?
Comment by: Mike O
7 11/9/06 8:36 AM | Comment Link |I just posted this on the discussion board.
I gotta get back to work!
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
8 11/9/06 9:00 AM | Comment Link |Mike wrote:
It’s fascinating you should say that, because many atheists/nontheists would say that theists left the realm of reasonableness the moment they started thinking that “God did it” is the right answer.
See, that’s the thing Mike - what Christians think is reasonable and what people who aren’t Christians think is reasonable can be very different. So, ‘what’s reasonable’ is not a very helpful concept imo in these sorts of discussions. (I’m not criticizing you for using it - I’m just saying why I don’t find it very helpful)
Comment by: Mike O
9 11/9/06 9:31 AM | Comment Link |There either is a God, or there isn’t.
If there is a God, creation is reasonable. So is evolution.
If there isn’t a God, evolution is the only possible ‘reasonable’ explanation.
Your going back in time scenario isn’t reasonable in either case. I mean, if it is, find me some reasonable people who think that.
The problem is, Is there a God? It’s a difficult question when neither side can be proven.
But we’re getting away from the original question … if evolution could be disproven (whether that’s a reasonable possibility or not), then do we know there is a God? I propose that we do. Unless there’s some other reasonable explanation that has never been pursued in all of history or we would be teaching it in our schools as a third theory.
Is the world flat or round? There are two reasonable answers … flat or round. Square is was never a reasonable answer.
Comment by: Julie Marie
10 11/9/06 9:46 AM | Comment Link |is this why IDers fight so hard? Do they think that by disproving one theory then ipso facto, their theory must be true?
That isn’t how science works.
If evolution were proven false, that would be a big shakeup, no doubt. New questions would be posited and explored.
But it sure wouldn’t be any kind of proof for a creator God. I don’t think evolution addresses Creation, it addresses biological development.
Comment by: Mike O
11 11/9/06 10:01 AM | Comment Link |If it’s a binary theory (there are only two possible, mutually exclusive answers answers) like evolution vs creation, then, yes. I’ll concede that it’s possible that there is a 3rd, yet undiscovered theory out there. But if the only reason to pursue it is to try to prove an existing theory false, then what’s the motivation for finding a 3rd theory?
For example, I’m not saying evolution vs the Christian God, because there are literally hundreds or thousands of possibilities. But evolution vs a God … there’s only two choices. Actually, if you’re familiar with boolean logic, given two choices, there’s four possible combinations:
- Evolution is true and Creation is true
- Evolution is true and Creation is not true
- Evolution is not true and Creation is true
- Evolution is not true and Creation is not true
The fourth scenario, I propose is not logically possible, leaving us with three. Of those three, if evolution is not true, then Creation must be true.
The only other question I would ask is, if evolution were to be disproven, would you be more likely to believe in creation or look for a third answer?
Comment by: Drakim
12 11/9/06 10:31 AM | Comment Link |I don’t agree on you with that, there isn’t some rule that states that there can only be creation or evolution. I could think up a few on the fly:
1. There never was a begining, life as always existed, time is simply a concept we have made. Since time has no start nor end, there was never need for a “creation”, since life and stuff has always been around. (kinda hard to imagen ^^).
2. The first life, according to science, came from spontaneous generation (matter becoming life by “being” placed just how life is). What if evolution is wrong and all life generated into living at the same time? Chances are slim, but it is still a possibility.
3. We are all Gods, but due to an accident, we forgot?
A lot of these are silly, but it all possible. (maybe not with the current laws of physics though . But another theory is that laws of physics are constantly changing, but so slow we don’t notice)
Comment by: Julie Marie
13 11/9/06 10:35 AM | Comment Link |Evolutionary biology does not attempt to explain the origin of life…it confines itself to explaining the origin of species. Ideas about the creator God are concerned about the origin of life.
Since they are not attempting to explain the same things, then they can’t be put into an either or logic equation.
Comment by: Arlene Olson
14 11/9/06 10:49 AM | Comment Link |Interesting discussion. I am impressed at how long intelligent people will try to solve an impossible question. We all look for faith in something - God or otherwise. By it’s very nature, faith can not be proven or it wouldn’t be faith, now would it?
Comment by: Siamang
15 11/9/06 11:01 AM | Comment Link |I think Drakim is on the right track here.
I’ll posit that there are actually an infinite number of ways we could have come about without evolution or a genesis creation. We are limited only by our own imaginations here.
The only way to narrow it down is to examine each one and see which one butts up with reality.
Let’s list a few:
1: We don’t exist in the physical world, the entire universe is an illusion in our minds. We are infinitely existing beings.
2: We are just seperate intelligent agents within a computer program that has always existed.
3: We are brains sitting in jars being assaulted with stimulus in a lab where time has no meaning.
4: Life on earth has always existed.
5: This single instant is the only moment in all of time. Memories we have of past time are only illusions.
6: Time itself is on a permanent loop, no creation event is necessary.
Let’s get into purely physical ways darwinian evolution could be wrong:
7: Animals develop and change through a natural force called “the metamorphic force”. This metamorphic force is purely physical, just like gravity. The metamorphic force pulls inanimate objects naturally into life, starting at the microscopic level.
8: animals develop and change by passing their abilities onto their young. If an animal stretches his neck out to eat leaves, that stretching passes to their young, and in a few generations you get a giraffe.
9: Lifeseeds exist thoughout the universe. They are an aspect of quantum physics, and they get spun out of exotic particles fused together deep within a supernova. Once these lifeseeds crash on a planet from a comet, life arises.
10: Just as there is natually an order to the periodic table of the elements based on nothing more than the rising number of protons in each element, so there is also a great chain of being. This chain of being goes from rocks and minerals at the bottom, then pond-scum, then worms, to fish, birds mammals…. to an all-powerful immortal, god-like superbeing at the top. We are in the middle. It is a force of nature that just as matter self-organized after the big bang into the elements, so it also self-organizes along the great chain of being.
I can keep going. The point is, disproving evolution doesn’t prove God.
Just because you only are aware of two options doesn’t mean one of them has to be correct.
Comment by: Ernie Olson (Mikes Dad)
16 11/9/06 11:35 AM | Comment Link |My solution to this comes from Sermon a year or so ago. From God’s perspective, time does NOT exist. Before the Sun, Moon, Stars etc were set in place, in a structured way (God) There was NO conscious measure of Time. Creation was a process and our attempt to understand it, we try to measure it with Time which is meaningless.
Just because our physical attempts to understand seem to say something had to take millions of years is meaningless. Unless there was some divine intervention, junk would become good stuff.
We also must admit that big people have big children, diabetes is inherited. But there is divine order
Comment by: David H
17 11/9/06 11:38 AM | Comment Link |Mike O, I’m not sure plausibility is something you or I or anyone can use as the critical test of the equation. I’m sure Archimedes and Issac Newton would have thought it quite implausible that gravity could bend space and time. Plausibility is based on what we know now. What we know now can be incomplete or dead wrong. Therefore, the unbelievable or unkown could in fact be the correct explanation.
Comment by: Siamang
18 11/9/06 11:40 AM | Comment Link |BTW, I think it’s awesome how your son really took it upon himself to give the best argument he could.
When dealing with each other in a pluralistic society, I often think the the people who are the best at dealing with other people are the ones who can see things from many different perspectives.
Comment by: David H
19 11/9/06 11:50 AM | Comment Link |I went to a conservative Christian college. We had to take a course called World Religions. The year I took it the prof included aethism, existentialism and fatalism amongst the belief systems. Toward the end of the term she told us we would have to write a paper espousing a particular belief system other than the one we claimed to hold. I.E. if I said I was a Christian, then my paper couldn’t be about why I believed Christianity was the correct belief system.
I found the class frightening, disturbing and very eye-opening. I didn’t walk away any more certain of what I believed, but with an understanding that a) I was in no position to argue anyone to Christian conversion and b) there was quite a bit of logical thought behind many other belief systems. I loved the course and thought it tremendously valuable.
The majority of my classmates felt otherwise. More than 30 of the 40-some kids in the class signed a petition to the Dean of Students asking that he fire that professor because she obviously wasn’t a Christian. While I had her for only that one class, I thought her to be the best teacher I had during my four years in school.
Comment by: Mike O
20 11/9/06 12:19 PM | Comment Link |David H said …
Perhaps. But it’s interesting to me that in the presence of the two most plusible explanations … at least the only two we mere mortals have had the capacity to seriously consider … if one of the two is removed, atheists would prefer to find a new alternative rather than consider what the majority of the world believes … that a God of some kind may be the most likely solution.
If it were proven that God did not exist, I would believe we are the product of evolution, not lifeseeds, or computer programs or brains in a jar.
Comment by: Mike O
21 11/9/06 12:21 PM | Comment Link |Siamang … thanks for that. I honestly believe he will be stronger for it. But now I wish the teacher would make him debate FOR Christianity … it might be good for his classmates to hear solid arguments for what they believe rather than platitudes.
Comment by: David H
22 11/9/06 2:15 PM | Comment Link |If the Christian concept of God is in fact true, then (so the Bible seems to say) he will eventually prove himself beyond the shadow of any doubt. If he/she/it is, in fact, not (either a being that exists or what Christians say he is) we will likely never know. But the bottom line is, if you spiritual search for truth requires proof, there is a good chance you will have trouble.
Comment by: Friendly Atheist » A Christian in Atheist Shoes
23 11/9/06 2:25 PM | Comment Link |[...] Mike O. tells an interesting story at Off the Map. His son attends a Christian high school. In History class, students were assigned to represent different faiths for a mock discussion. Mike’s son was assigned to atheism. [...]
Comment by: TXatheist
24 11/9/06 3:25 PM | Comment Link |Mike O,
I’m very happy you and your son were able to present the atheist side of the debate so objectively. I am grateful for that.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
25 11/9/06 7:24 PM | Comment Link |This is what I most appreciate about Zack taking on that assignment. It is the actual practice of humility which is unforgettable
Comment by: Mike O
26 11/10/06 5:50 AM | Comment Link |Thanks, you guys! That means a lot.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
27 11/10/06 6:14 AM | Comment Link |txatheist, it’s great to see your name on here again!
I met Mike’s son Zack at the conference last week and I can affirm that he is a wonderful young man. I haven’t sensed any disrespect for atheists in Mike or Zack - which I greatly appreciate. I wish more conservative Christians shared their ability to disagree without being disrespectful. (I know we have a few others here and/or on the discussion board who do share it and I appreciate them too)
Comment by: The Atheist Jew
28 11/10/06 8:25 AM | Comment Link |Don’t forget, there were Atheists throughout history and they existed prior to Darwin. I’m not quite sure how they rationalized how humans came to being or even how old the earth and universe was, but I just think they focused on the inconsistencies of their biblical teachings and concluded that any God given certain characterics could not exist based on logic.
Atheists today have lots of science to fall back on.
One more thing, if evolution and an ancient earth (I know a lot of theists accept an ancient earth but not evolution) were false, science would be able to disprove it, just as science disproved the hypothesis that the sun revolved the earth.
Comment by: Siamang
29 11/10/06 10:44 AM | Comment Link |Wecome, Atheist Jew!
Good points.
Comment by: Mike O
30 11/10/06 10:49 AM | Comment Link |If the Bible is correct and it says he created Adam and Eve as adults, it’s no further stretch to believe he created the earth as “an adult.”
To creationists, it’s entirely possible that the earth was created 6,000 years ago AND be 6 billion years old. It’s entirely possible for there to be dinosaur bones when no dinosaurs ever actually lived here.
I know that doesn’t prove anything, I’m just explaining how, to a Christian, the fact that science shows the earth is billions of years old doesn’t mean God didn’t create it 6,000 years ago.
You can’t use science to disprove the supernatural. That’s what SUPERnatural is … it’s beyond the bounds of science. All science can do is provide information that, in the absence of the supernatural, can be relied upon.
I know I’m talking about the supernatural which atheists do not accept. But I’m asking you to try to understand the Christian perpective even though it doesn’t fit your world view (atheism doesn’t fit mine, and I’m trying to understand yours). Creationism does make sense to us and here’s how (but it requires the supernatural) …
The perspective of creationists is that creation does not imply that the thing that was created was “a baby” when it was created. So the new-earth/old-earth argument doesn’t really weaken a supernatural argument. But I will concede that it does support evolution which, if it occurred, had to have taken billions of years.
Comment by: The Atheist Jew
31 11/10/06 11:08 AM | Comment Link |To creationists, it’s entirely possible that the earth was created 6,000 years ago AND be 6 billion years old. It’s entirely possible for there to be dinosaur bones when no dinosaurs ever actually lived here.
************************
Well if you are going to believe in the trickster God to explain away science, then you could also believe that God put all the evidence on this planet to make it seem that life evolved.
Comment by: Mike O
32 11/10/06 11:44 AM | Comment Link |He did? Aren’t there a lot of gaps in the theory? Like how life started, for example? Or any examples of one stage evolving into the next?Or examples of cells mutating into something higher? Even evolutionists agree that the chances are a billion billion to one, but “it must have happened that way because here we are.” Evolution has not been proven, it has been deduced.
Comment by: Julie Marie
33 11/10/06 11:49 AM | Comment Link |Mike,
I interpret the Adam and Eve story as a metaphor for when humanity evolved to a point where God could step in and breathe spiritual life into his creation. The flesh and bone of us are not what is in God’s image, imo.
Comment by: Siamang
34 11/10/06 12:52 PM | Comment Link |We’ve got a thread in the conversation discussion board for this stuff.
Comment by: The Atheist Jew
35 11/10/06 1:00 PM | Comment Link |Julie Marie, there are many who believe in theistic evolution. One of the greatest scientific minds when it comes to evolution, Dr. Ken Miller is a devout Catholic.
Mike, abiogenesis is not evolution, but there are theories that are very plausible when it comes to how life began in science, none needing a God. As far as your other claims, they are wrong. I could point you in the right direction, but all you have to do is look for yourself, search science sites on the web. I’m tired of arguing against creationist’s misconceptions of macro evolution and the odds of evolution happening. You are very wrong. But I will leave it at that.
Comment by: The Atheist Jew
36 11/10/06 1:28 PM | Comment Link |I’d like to add, that if evolution was incorrect, there would be loads of scientific studies out there to disprove it. For example, at one point the majority of the world believed the sun revolved around the earth. That was the hypothesis, but science came along and showed that no evidence supports that theory.
If someone could come along and make a scientific find that contradicted evolution theory, he/she would be the most famous person on this planet…don’t think it hasn’t been attempted. Many scientists are devout theists as well, and most would revel in the fame.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
37 11/10/06 4:27 PM | Comment Link |The Atheist Jew, thanks for joining in this discussion. If you’d like to be part of the one on the discussion board, go here
Off The Map Discussion Board
and register. Then you can post comments on the ID vs evolution discussion, here
Comment by: NCxian
38 11/10/06 4:28 PM | Comment Link |I think so too.
Comment by: Karen
39 11/10/06 5:54 PM | Comment Link |Wow! that’s wonderful. Congrats, Mike O. Good on your son for preparing and presenting a solid case. But watch out - my sons have both won debates at their public high school and now they want to be lawyers!! ;-)
What kind of school is this where the kids don’t think they have to prepare to argue intelligently for any side of a debate they are assigned? It’s the very essence of good debate to be able to argue persuasively for the position you are personally opposed to! And the teacher gives them only one day to research their case?! That’s not a sign that she’s taking the assignment very seriously.
Comment by: Karen
40 11/10/06 6:00 PM | Comment Link |Oh my. That’s sooo sad, David H. I hate hearing stuff like that. :-( What became of the professor, do you know?
Mike O. I hope your son is not going to a college like this. He really deserves a better education than that. So does every young person.
Comment by: David H
41 11/10/06 10:33 PM | Comment Link |She lasted a couple more years at the school but then left. I didn’t keep track of where she went as I was already out of school and facing life issues of my own. To the school’s credit they did not force her out. The bigger issue was the kids at the school. Can’t tell you the number of students who complained about the rules (no smoking, no drinking, no dancing, no boys in the girl’s dorms etc.). Lost count of those I talked to who were pissed at mommy or daddy for forcing them into such a backwards school. Knew plenty of kids who broke every rule. But still the sudents seemed most fearful if classes veered off the conservative Christian track. This was almost 30 years ago, but a couple from our church just sent their daughter to the school. She left after one year because there seemed such a disconnect between what the school was trying to teach and what the kids were willing to learn.
Comment by: Mike O
42 11/12/06 8:13 PM | Comment Link |It’s a good school, but they’re really weak when it comes to real world concepts. It’s rural, small, and run by parents who are the fundamentalists you think of … very tunnel-visioned.
This experience was really good for them. I suspect when basketball season starts next month, I’ll be hearing from some of the parents as we sit together in the stands watching our kids play. Some may be too closed-minded to see the value of what happened, but I hope some will see that their kids are stronger now. Did it shake their faith? I don’t know. But it made them think about whether it’s really true, or if it’s just what they were taught.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
43 11/13/06 7:21 AM | Comment Link |Mike O wrote:
Mike, you sure are going to be in trouble if Zack’s presentation was so convincing it turned any of their kids into atheists! ;-)
Comment by: Mike O
44 11/13/06 11:15 AM | Comment Link |;) They’ll be fine …
Comment by: Karen
45 11/13/06 11:29 AM | Comment Link |Even better, then, that Zack showed them how to debate for real. I hope the teacher continues to have them address controversial topics. I think debate is one of the best ways to get kids learning for themselves and excited about it.
One of the debates that my younger son won last year was over renewal of the Patriot Act. The kid on the other side of the aisle didn’t believe what he was arguing and it showed in his lackluster demeanor. My son, a freshman at the time, got up and argued so passionately for the side that he wouldn’t support personally (they were assigned positions by picking from a hat) that he persuaded the class he was right - the first time in a week of similar debates that his side “won”!
After watching him do that, I realized he’s a natural. He’s always loved to argue - I learned when he was 5 not to get into a debate with him. Law school, here we come. ;-)
Comment by: Tom W
46 11/14/06 10:51 AM | Comment Link |The whole issue of evolution and Christianity being at odds with each other seems like a very stupid argument to me. The only way they could be at odds is if the Bible is to be taken as “word for word truth” - one of the admitted teaching techniques of the bible is the parable - How can you take a parable as word for word true - the message conveyed by the parable can certainly contain truth - but the parable itself is just a story. The bible is just riddled with errors and contradictions too numerous to mention here - but if there is any doubt in your mind just Google ‘Bible contradictions’ and get ready to waste a few hours if not days. But just to get you thinking without the trip to Google - the mustard seed is not the smallest seed in the world - numerous orchid seed are much smaller - its an unimportant observation - I just present it to illustrate one of the numerous ways in which the Bible is mistaken. For a question I’m sure you will be able to answer with some verbal gymnastics - who did Cain and Able breed with to create the rest of the species - I’m sure some preacher somewhere has taught a pat answer to this perplexing question - but the Bible does not. But irregardless - I prefer to believe that it is by faith alone you are saved - as a book of facts - the Bible is obviously flawed - that doesn’t mean it can’t teach us how to live good lives and help many to reach salvation - it does require the faith of that rather large mustard seed though. An omnipotent all powerful God can create the world or the universe in anyway he sees fit. He could use a Big Bang or evolution. I see nothing wrong with leaving a book around - or a collection of books - to give us religious instruction that is appropriate to the times in which it was written. I would not expect that collection of books to be a science manual that explains the concepts of modern physics. That doesn’t make the Bible useless or the science faulty - the world used to be flat at one time - the earth used to be the center of the solar system - the stars used to be little dots of light in the sky - not suns with planets revolving around them. Things evolve - even the Bible has a New Testament. Read your Bible (which ever translation you choose) - hope that the translators and scribes didn’t make too many errors in punctuation and meaning over the years - and try to learn the essential message of ‘do unto others’ - honor the ten commandments - and take comfort in an afterlife if you need it.
Comment by: NCxian
47 11/14/06 12:41 PM | Comment Link |Good point.
Comment by: Sean Michael Murphy
48 11/17/06 8:44 AM | Comment Link |I’m trying to figure out why your son would be worried about the Christian school leaning toward Christianity - when they actually set up debates giving other world view’s a voice in the discussion?
it seems like they’re very open towards hearing other view…am I missing something?
Comment by: Mike O
49 11/22/06 9:51 AM | Comment Link |This is the first time they ever did it and I wouldn’t be too surprised if they didn’t let him do it again.
Looking at the material they’re teaching from, it is patently biased in favor of Christianity. Don’t get me wrong … I’m a Christian and the things they are teaching aren’t wrong, per se. But their approach is weak. It uses weak arguments for Christianity and patronizingly weak arguments against the alternatives. My problem as a Christian father isn’t the conclusion, it’s the method. The kids are not being taught (whith this debate as a much needed exception!) how to support their faith in a real world of people who believe otherwise. They’re only being taught to support their faith in a world of people who agree with them.
Comment by: Agersomnia
50 07/4/08 2:44 PM | Comment Link |Well… Isaac Asimov (Sci-Fi and science writter) who happens to be the author to so many intresting “guides (Brief Introduction to Science, Asimov’s Guide to the Old Testament…) had two very funny stories: The Last Question and The Last Answer.
In one of them, humanity with the help of a megacomputer and a network of robots, meld their concisiousness into a single entity just as the universe about to colapse. Then, the colective of humanity and the computer brain solve the ultimate problem and “restart” the universe with the words: “Let there be light”.
In the other tale, a scientist is turned into a bodyless mind after death by an eternal entity who created the universe, intelligence and our world because he likes to watch people think for its amusement, and because it is so bored he wants somebody to find a way to destroy itself.