The Whys of Evolution

The first two possibilities that you suggest don't answer "Why?", they answer "How?" They both describe a mechanism by which the outcome is obtained and AFAIK, describing what my engine did when I drove myself to the shops comes nowhere near explaining why I went there in the first place.The third possibility, by its very nature, precludes any answer, since there can be no way of knowing what particular outcome is desired by the IDer, let alone why that outcome is desired. Even if we could find out the "Whys?" would continue ad infinitum, basically "It's turtles all the way down".

Not necessarily.Suppose I walk along the lake and see a set of footprints. I, therefore, can conclude that someone else walked this path before me.In science, especially quantum physics, we can't observe things directly. We have to rely on observing the influence that these things have on the observable things.I know what you meant to say. I just want to make sure as a preemptive strike against the popular "you can't see air..."

You are absolutely right. I made the stupid mistake of saying that there is no SCIENTIFIC evidence. My own argument was in contradiction to my original point. ID, or ID's non-existence is a question that is outside the bounds of science. It is either a philosophical or a religious question.Philosophically however, I maintain that it is an altogether different matter. Let's face it, there are very bright people that disagree strenuously over the issue.On a philosophical or religious basis the vast majority of us at some point in our lives make a decision on just what it is we believe. In addition our beliefs evolve, (if you'll pardon the expression ) throughout our lives.We aren't born an Atheist, Christian, or Muslim. We at some time in our lives make a decision in that regard. As there is no empirical proof of any kind, it requires an act of faith to come to a decision.If someone were to never consider the question at all, I would think he would be classified as an agnostic, which is not to say that all or even most agnostics have never considered the question.This message has been edited by GDR, 05-23-2005 02:39 PM

What if you couldn't make up your mind?After all, an agnostic--if I am defining it correctly--does have a belief. His belief is that there is not enough evidence one way or the other to decide, nor is it possible for there to be.But what if you don't know if there is enough evidence one way or another to decide? There might be enough evidence and there might not be.What could we call such an attitude as that?

If you couldn't make up your mind I assume that you would have decided that there is insufficient evidence, which would fit your definition.

I disagree. Most Christians and Muslims are born that way, or rather, the decision is made for them by the community they are born into. Try and be born in Saudi-Arabia and not be raised a Muslim. Having failed that, try making a conscious decision not to be a Muslim anymore, but still continuing to live in your Muslim community. See what I mean?In some Christian communities it is not much different.As for atheists, the very word should tell you that they do not require an act of faith to come to be one. It's a lack of belief that distinguishes atheists from religious people.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

I see what you mean but I don't agree. Within any religious community there are those that are part of the culture but don't intellectually accept the faith. (ie. secular Jews, Muslims etc.) Certainly our environment effects our decision but at some point in our lives we still have to give intellectual ascent to what we believe. I'm sure we all know religious people who were raised by non religious people and vice versa.

What decision? You were raised a certain way and that is the only way you know. I know that either of us can start pointing out isolated cases contradicting either of our claims, but the general trend seems to indicate that people are born into their religion. The other thing is people generally don't accept religions they don't understand. For example, would you ever consider becoming a Taoist? But when we are talking in such general terms, we look at the overall picture and not individual isolated cases, and the general picture seem to indicate that you are not very likely to find an Arab born into a Muslim family and decides to become a christian later on.

I'm glad that you agree that ID isn't science. It certainly isn't. So it has no business in the classroom. That's all I'm concerned about.

I agree wholeheartedly. That is why I admire the courageous few that reject their religious upbringing and decide to think for themselves (both my parents, for example). I know many people from diverse cultural and religious backgrounds whose beliefs are merely a function of where they grew up. It seems that the religions most effective at propagating themselves have all developed strong mechanisms for ‘transgenerational programming’ in their communities and also threaten a lot of very punitive consequences for those that 'disobey God's will'. The family is typically co-opted to ensure that the children are all brainwashed with the local ‘faith’ from the time they are old enough to learn anything. This is one of the primary reasons we need to keep ALL religion out of the public schools — to give kids a chance to learn how to ask the hard questions, think for themselves, and doubt the veracity of anything presented as dogma.To bring this back to topic though, I also agree with the premise of the first message. The teaching emphasis should be on HOW evolution works. However, questions of why could be reformulated as ‘why we use evolutionary theory’ (it works) as opposed to addressing any inferences regarding final purposes. It should be explained to students insisting on ‘final purpose’ explanations that these are completely outside the scope of science and cannot be addressed in a science course.

Antony Flew who over most of his life has been a major spokesperson for Atheism, was raised by a Methodist minister. He has more recently decided that he believes in Deism. Madalyn O'Hair had a son who made a decision to become a Christian.I believe that there is a metaphysical world. I can't prove it, so I have decided as an act of faith to believe that to be the case even though the evidence is circumstantial and not conclusive. I have been friends with and worked with people who were Atheists, Sikhs, Muslims, Agnostics, Budhists and Christians as well as many who decided not to decide. Certainly culture and environment played a part but we were all exposed to people who had made different choices. I would say though that the major choice we make, is whether you accept the concept that there is a deity or not. If one accepts that a deity exists then culture plays a much bigger part of one's decision as to the faith that we accept.You're right when you say I'm not likely to become a Taoist. (It's very similar to Buddhism anyway.) But, as in the case of the majority of the world religions there is a large overlap. For example the teachings of the original Buddha are virtually the same as the teachings of Christ. Frankly I see that the overlap between the various world religions is strong evidence that there is such a thing as divine revelation. I only bring this up to go back to my point that the major decision is the choice that we make as to whether we accept the existence of a deity or not, because divine revelation is, to a large degree, consistent in all major world faiths. (That doesn't mean that divine revelation can't be twisted to achieve physical human lusts for power.)What we believe about the metaphysical, whether we choose to believe or not, is a conscious decision in the same way that we decide who to vote for in an election.

I only agree that it shouldn't be taught as science. Science is only physical not metaphysical. Religion and phiosphy encompass the metaphysical.

Let's be fair. We all try to influence our kids, and even if we weren't they would be influenced by us anyway.I find it interesting that you think that the best way to help kids think for themselves is to keep them from being exposed to ideas that don't agree with your own.Atheism is a belief that says there is no Intelligent Designer or any other form of supreme being. When you deny students the opportunity to contrast Atheism with Theist religions you are then left with kids being taught Atheism or possibly Agnosticism in the public school system. If we want the kids to truly think for themselves then let's give them the tools and the information to do just that.

I have no trouble accepting the concept of a deity. But "faith" is not usually directed at some vague concept of a deity.How do you decide which deity you believe in? And what qualifies you to make that decision?We all have to come to grips with the "why's" in out lives - ("Why me?") - but that is a personal journey. It has no place in education.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

True enough. That's why we need objectivity in public education without any 'faith-based' influences. Not at all. I just happen to feel it is inappropriate to teach anything about 'religious values' in a public school. They can get all the exposure they want if they go to church. I am not advocating eliminating exposure to religious beliefs, but rather preventing religious beliefs from corrupting the teaching of what I consider to be more objective and unbiased ways of analyzing the world around us, e.g. the scientific method, inductive reason, logic etc. How so? You don't have to 'teach Atheism' to teach kids how to think logically and objectively and to reason for themselves. Issues of personal faith-based 'belief', in the sense you use it, need not be addressed in school. They only cloud the issue of what learning really consitutes: the development of models and algorithms for *reasoning*. Religious beliefs, or beliefs that religions are all garbage, are both completely superfluous to my concept of what education should consist of.