Sunday, August 14, 2005

ID=I Determine

In light of a comment (thank you to whoever posted - it helped me think through this issue in more depth!) posted in response to my post on the ID Movement, I want to clarify a few things. First, let me say that I believe in a literal 7-day Creation as recorded in the book of Genesis and presupposed throughout the remainder of the Bible. Second, I believe the ID Movement is the wrong battle for Christians to be fighting. Let me explain.

Having spent 5 years teaching Character First! Education in the public schools, I had the opportunity to observe first-hand some of what actually takes place therein. One thing that became undeniably clear to me is that evolution is not merely taught to its captive audience, it is assumed. On one occasion, I was grouped with some 5th graders to listen to them read their literature book for the day. It was a book on the history of writing. I don’t remember many of the details, other than to recall that it was very clearly written from an evolutionary view of history (millions of years, ape men, etc.). As the book was concluded and the students were preparing to return to their classroom, having absorbed, more or less, the information in the book as fact, I stopped them. I asked if they believed that the book was true. They looked at me unresponsively. It had not even occurred to them to question the information as presented in the book. A few answered in the affirmative. I pressed them further. Did they always believe everything they read? How could they know if something they read was true or not? By what standard could they measure the things they read? These concepts were foreign to them, but it got their attention, generated a bit of discussion and, hopefully, encouraged them to think for themselves, something which, I dare say, is not often promoted in our public school system.

Here is the key to my argument against the ID Movement: Evolution is not relegated to the teachings of science. Evolution is pervasive. It, or perhaps more specifically, the underlying humanistic philosophy upon which it is founded, infiltrates every realm of our public education system. Indeed, the system itself was designed to further that very philosophy! I would submit to you that every area of learning, not just science, hinges on one’s belief regarding the origin of life. If one denies the existence of God, or even allows room for some other form of “Intelligent Design,” they deny the authority and infallibility of the Word of God. This, in turn, is reflected in the teaching of language, art, music, math, government, etc.

We cannot successfully combat the teaching of evolution by merely introducing an alternative view of the origin of life in a set of science standards. Sure, let them add the theory of Intelligent Design to the list of scientific beliefs that some hold to as the explanation for the origin of life. But unless all education stems from a belief in the God of the Bible as the Creator and Originator of life, it will only further fuel the secular humanist worldview which places man at the center and bestows upon him the right to determine his own truth.

11 Comments:

At August 15, 2005 12:23 AM, Caleb Hayden said...

Good post, Natalie. I agree with these sentiments. In every area of life and thought, including the science classroom, we must replace the authority of evolution and man's autonomous reasoning with Scripture. ID advocates do not propose this; they may believe and affirm God's Word in their "personal" lives, but they are timid about proclaiming the truth in public. What good is an infallible, all-sufficient, authoritative WORD when we are unwilling to use it in our argumentation and statements before a watching world? Why are Christian ID advocates trying to hide the Light under a bushel? (See Matthew 5:15.)

 
At August 16, 2005 1:48 PM, non-farming agronomist said...

it is really a question of presuppositions... I agree, Natalie (whom I don't think I know...) it IS the wrong battle. We need to be much more foundational in our concerns.

Ken Ham mistakenly places evolution as the foundation of the castle of modern (Christian OR pagan) thought. He has a cartoon castle where evolution is on the bottom, and everything else arises out of that base. BUT... it is God's Word that is foundational.

That is where THE battles should be taking place.

 
At August 16, 2005 5:31 PM, Crystal said...

Excellent post! I've wanted to post something on ID on my blog and I think I'll just link to yours to do so. You said it so well.

 
At August 16, 2005 6:46 PM, natalie said...

Thanks for your thoughts, Caleb. I've learned a lot from reading your posts on this subject as well. Your last question prompted me to study in a little more depth what Jesus meant when He called us the "light of the world" in those verses. I may try to post on that soon...

 
At August 16, 2005 6:48 PM, natalie said...

So true, Mr. NFA. It is not a belief in Creation that will restore the Word of God to its rightful place, but a belief in the Word of God that will restore Creation to its rightful place.

 
At August 16, 2005 6:50 PM, natalie said...

Thanks, Crystal. Go for it! You know, that's how us "little" people in the blogosphere gain visibility - when someone "big" sends others our way. :-D

 
At August 18, 2005 12:41 PM, Anonymous said...

Evolution is information that has been observed and documented. Creationism is no more that blind faith that cannot be proven or observed.

 
At August 18, 2005 5:21 PM, non-farming agronomist said...

anonymous:
Not to put too fine a point on it... (a line from Jurassic Park) but...
both EvolutionISM and Creationism are ways to interpret what has been observed and documented.
No one has seen evolution take place (obviously we are not talking about micro-evolution in which a horse is bred for long legs. But the transformation of species.) place any more than they "saw" creation take place.

Choosers of creationism simply understand that there is a foundation and source of knowledge stronger and more reliable than simple observation. Anyone who has "seen" an optical illusion understands the need for this.

Thus our earlier comments... we are simply saying that we are having a foundation of God's Word instead of humanism.

I appreciate your comment though... since it is a common misunderstanding of what "science" is.

 
At August 19, 2005 12:18 AM, Erin said...

I, too, used to teach Character First! in our local elementary school:o) Wow...talk about an education. Through that experience, I probably learned more than the kids did.

 
At August 31, 2005 11:19 PM, shari said...

wheres the missing link? how many missing links have "scientits" been found to have manufactured?>

 
At September 19, 2005 11:16 PM, Adrian C. Keister said...

As a scientist who firmly believes in literal 24-hour 7-day creation, let me add my two cents, if you please.

Science is a collection of useful falsehoods. Thus spake Gordon Clark, a very interesting theologian. Some of his thoughts are somewhat controversial, but I think he's right on target here.

Science is based on the idea that if you perform an experiment 100 times and get the same result each time, then if you do it one more time, you'll get the same result. This is actually a logical fallacy. It simply is not true. It's a good assumption, and most likely you will get the same result, but you have not arrived at truth. It's an assumption that will gain you much predictive power. But to say that you have truth is certainly arrogance.

Thus, if a scientist says anything like, "science has proven...", you can immediately infer two things. Firstly, what the scientist claims to have proven is not actually proven, it's only very probable from his perspective. Scientists are very far from being unbiased! The second thing is that the scientist in question is most likely a secular humanist. They tend to be the ones who place all their faith in science.

Definition: a scientific statement is a statement that can, in theory, be falsifiable by observation.

Definition: science is the collection of all scientific statements, along with all the apparatus of checking them and coming up with them.

Others have mentioned it, but I think this idea can be made even stronger. I'm talking about the idea that evolution is not science but religion. Evolution is totally religion, and is not a bit of it science. Evolution makes many claims that simply cannot be falsifiable by observation. Thus, most of its claims are outside the realm of science. Of course, creation is in precisely the same boat. They are both in the realm of religion, and not in science. For my part, believing in a God who created the universe is a whole lot easier than believing we all came about by "chance", which incidentally is not any kind of force.

Hope this gives you some helpful ammo.

Love in Christ.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home