Real-Life Drama involving People and Their Ideas
What happens during encounters between people with different ideas about origins? Unfortunately, the personal interactions are sometimes hostile & hurtful instead of peaceful & productive, when the differing ideas are held with a confident passion by individuals (and their groups) who behave as if they think people with other views are enemies who must be fought and conquered. Much of the drama is motivated by the importance of our questions about origins, which have religious implications in life, and practical applications in education.
In this FAQ the condensed summaries (about creation, evolution, and design) will help you learn a lot in a little time. There is a sprinkling of illustrative stories – including potential dramatic conflict in three contexts (for questions about age, evolution, and education) – but these stories are just “extra spice” to supplement the main goal, which is to help you understand the theological & scientific reasons for interpersonal drama, and to help us think and respond in ways that will lead to less drama. How? With...
Accurate Understanding and Respectful Attitudes
Students in my high school learned valuable lessons about understanding and respect from our civics teacher, who often held debates in class and used his rhetorical skill to persuasively argue the strong points of one view on Monday, then the next day he argued for another view and made it also look strong. After a few months of discovering “what he didn't tell us Monday,” we learned that to get accurate understanding we should try to get the best evidence-and-logic that every side of an issue can claim as support. And after we understood more accurately, we recognized that even when we have valid reasons to prefer one position, people on other sides of an issue may also have good reasons (both intellectual & ethical) for believing as they do, so we learned respectful attitudes.
But you can respect someone and their views, yet criticize their views, which you have evaluated based on evidence, logic, and values. The intention of our teacher, and the conclusion of his students, was not a postmodern relativism. Instead our goal was to rationally evaluate ideas in a search for truth, to reach conclusions based on evidence, logic, and values.
A Website with Multiple Perspectives
Unlike most other organizations that provide information about origins, the American Scientific Affiliation doesn't claim to offer The Origins Answer. Instead of telling you what to believe, we'll give you information about a wide range of positions. I also have this goal in my FAQ – and more generally in my website for Whole-Person Education (homepage & sitemap) – so I'll try to avoid one-sided “Monday without Tuesday” indoctrination. Some people won't think the overall result is NEUTRAL, due to both perception (because they want a website to be biased in favor of their own views, and they think a website is “neutral” only when it's biased in this way) and reality (because it's impossible to say anything substantial in a way that is truly neutral). But I will try to be FAIR by giving you accurate descriptions of all positions, not weak “strawman distortions” of what others believe.
Providing information about multiple perspectives is consistent with the policy of the American Scientific Affiliation: "As an organization, the ASA does not take a position [what are the views of ASA?] when there is honest disagreement between Christians on an issue [such as the "when and how" of creation]. We are committed to providing an open forum where... legitimate differences of opinion among Christians who have studied both the Bible and science are freely expressed... in a context of Christian love and concern for truth." (from the preface to ASA's Statement of Faith)
What is the relationship between me and ASA? As explained in the FAQ HomePage, my FAQ – with its descriptions and opinions written by me as an author – "is being written for ASA, but does not claim to speak for ASA. ... It is one ASA-FAQ rather than the ASA-FAQ. Within ASA there is a wide range of strong opinions about some questions, and in the future we'll add other FAQs, written from other ASA perspectives." In the present, each part of my medium-sized FAQ links to other pages, including some of my own and also LINK-PAGES (written by me as editor) where you'll find links to pages by other authors with different perspective.
This FAQ is written by me as an author expressing my own views, not by me as an editor trying to be consistent with the "does not take a position" policy of ASA. This is Craig's FAQ (written by one member of ASA), it isn't The ASA FAQ. It's written for ASA (for my part of the ASA Website, re: Whole-Person Education) but does not claim to speak for ASA.
a three-stage FAQ (short, medium, long)
My system-of-FAQ's has three levels of detail: the brief outline (it's only 19 k) of Sections 1A-7D in this short FAQ,* a medium-sized Overview-FAQ (107 k) that I think is the best balance between brevity & completeness, and the 8 full-length pages (165 k total) for more detail. {* this Short Intro-FAQ also has stories}
The 3-level approach of my FAQ's (short, medium, long) is consistent with an educational strategy described in the homepage for Whole-Person Education:
This website is a self-education resource for busy people with “too much to do and not enough time.” We know that you don't want you to waste your valuable time – because, as Ben Franklin said, time is “the stuff your life is made of” – so we want to help you learn a lot in a little time. For each of many interesting topics, you can learn about a variety of views in our Multiple Perspectives website that gives you a Quick Education in two stages: introductory pages quickly show you a “big picture” overview [as in Cliffs Notes], and then (in the pages we link to) you can explore what you want in more depth.
When you read the outline below, remember that it's extremely condensed – so you can get a quick “big picture” – and many details have been omitted. Generally it will give you an accurate picture of what's in the longer FAQs, but the picture will be incomplete. If you want a more thorough understanding, I strongly recommend reading the corresponding sections in my Overview-FAQ, which I think is the best page I've written about origins. But the outline below is brief so it's a good place to begin.
1 — Views of Creation and "When we disagree..."
1A. Christian Views of Creation: Who, When, How. Too often, we see oversimplification and unnecessary conflict. When you listen to some Christians & atheists, you may think there are only two views of origins: young earth (for authentic Christians) or old earth (for atheists & misguided Christians). In the media, we often see only one “Christian view” due to its sound-bite simplicity, and its value for promoting a false perception of dramatic conflict between science & religion. In reality, there are three authentically Christian views of creation — young earth, old earth progressive (by independent creations and/or genetic modifications), and old earth evolutionary — plus variations of each view.
1B. Relationships between Worldviews and Science. There can be mutual influences between our worldviews — our views of the world, used for living in the world — and our science. A theist (but not an atheist, deist, or rigid agnostic) is free to “follow the evidence” to any scientific conclusion. But sometimes Christians don't use this freedom, as when a Christian thinks “if the Bible is true, the earth is young” so their science must reach young-earth conclusions.
Living a Worldview: A person's worldview is their view of the world, used for living in the world. A person who is a theist — who believes (unlike an atheist) that God exists, and (unlike a deist) that God actively “does things” in the world — has a theistic worldview. But if a theist, in their thinking-and-actions, lives as if God is not active, they are not living their worldview, they are not using "their view of the world" {or at least the view they claim to believe} for "living in the world." Instead they are using an atheistic/deistic worldview {so is this what they actually believe?} for their everyday living.
1C. Why are so many so confident? Because vigorous advocates for each view “make adjustments among their ideas” until they become satisfied with the quality & consistency of their ideas, so they confidently believe their view-of-origins is certainly correct, is The Answer. This self-confidence can lead to unintentional distortions of our opponents' views (due to lack of knowledge) and intentional distortions (due to abuse of knowledge), but we should avoid these if we want to be intellectually honest. In ASA we explore Origins Questions, but don't claim to offer The Origins Answer; instead we try to promote accurate understanding and respectful attitudes.
1D. What are the views of ASA? Are we creationists? (yes and no, it depends on how creationist is defined: all of us believe that God created everything, but most of us are not young-earth “creationists” because we think the earth is old, and we have a range of views about how He created) ASA does not advocate a particular conclusion about the WHEN-and-HOW of creation (even though we all agree about WHO) but we do endorse a process of respectful discussion. We won't tell you what to conclude, but we will provide information (as in this website with multiple pespectives) so you can make an informed evaluation and reach your own conclusions.
{for more, see Sections 1A-1D in my longer Overview FAQ}
2 — Using Information from Nature and Scripture
2A. Warfare between science and religion! This colorful portrait of history — with inherent conflict causing rational science to be opposed by ignorant religion — is dramatic (with heroes & villains clearly defined) and entertaining. It's useful for anti-Christian rhetoric, and this was the main motivation for its most prominent popularizers. This “conflict” perspective is oversimplistic, inaccurate, and is rejected by modern historians. But it has exerted a powerful influence on popular views, and many people mistakenly think irreconcilable conflict exists, and it cannot be avoided.
Why? Because... some atheists (and rigid agnostics) want to believe in “conflict” to support their personal rejection of Christian faith; and some Christians think statements in the Bible cannot be reconciled with conclusions in science; and some people are confused by a scientism that goes far beyond science, as in thinking that science claims “miracles in the Bible couldn't occur” even though science cannot say these did or didn't occur, or – with an assumption that is common even though it's not justified – that when science explains “how it happened by natural process” this shows “it happened without God.”
2A is a pivotal section, since the next 16 sections (from 2B thru 5G) are a response, to show why science & Christian religion can peacefully coexist, despite the claims for “conflict” made by some non-Christians (against Christianity) and by some Christians (against science).
Drama you can Imagine
Earlier, I describe the exciting "real-life drama involving people and their ideas." You can get a feeling for what often happens in real life by using your imagination to visualize the ideas & feelings in five common situations where we see dramatic conflict; one is below, and four are later when we look at evolution & design and education. These stories illustrate dramatic conflicts — internal & external, within people & between people — that commonly occur in real life. Imagine that:
• your pastor confidently declares “the Bible says the earth is young, so you should believe it.” But at another church you've been attending a Sunday School class because it's taught by a close friend, who has explained (as an expert geologist) why science shows the earth is old, and (as a theologically conservative Christian who has studied the Bible carefully) why Genesis does not teach a young earth. But your pastor insists that Genesis 1 must be interpreted as six 24-hour days. And what about the geology? You're not a scientist and neither is your pastor, but when you ask him about this he loans you a book by young-earth scientists, and you think their arguments make sense, but your geologist friend explains why their arguments are not consistent with the realities we observe in nature, why scientific evidence-and-logic strongly supports a conclusion that the earth is old. Your pastor wonders why the pastor of the other church lets your friend teach, and you have questions.
We'll look at these questions below (in Sections 2, 3, 4) briefly, and with more depth in the Overview-FAQ.
2B. Science and Scripture (in the Bible) cannot be compared. But we can compare our interpretations of nature (in science) with our interpretations of the Bible (in theology). And we can look at the mutual interactions between our views of physical reality (in science) and spiritual reality (in theology). And we can learn from history, by comparing interactions between science & theology in the 1600s (with stationary-earth science) and now (with young-earth science).
2C. God has graciously provided us with two sources of information, in scripture & nature. For the most important things in life — for learning about God and how He wants us to live and love — the Bible is more important. But for other questions we don't have to make an either-or choice; instead we can learn from both scripture & nature. When we do this, our understanding of total reality (spiritual plus physical) will be more complete and accurate.
{for more, see Sections 2A-2C in my longer Overview FAQ}
3 — What does Bible-information say about age?
I urge you to please think carefully about this undeniable fact of logic: When a young-earth believer claims that “IF the Bible is true, the earth is young” they are claiming “IF the earth is not young, the Bible is not true.” Do you see the danger?
3A. In Genesis 1 the most important meaning is theological, but is it also historical? Does it describe a recent 144-hour creation, or six long periods of creation, nonconsecutive days, proclamation days, or a re-creation? Probably not. Instead, I think the days form a framework for the history of creation, a framework that is logical but is non-chronological.
3B. If the earth is billions of years old, and if animals died before humans sinned, is this theologically acceptable? Yes. Due to human sin, in Eden the full supernatural protection-from-death provided by God – symbolized by His "tree of life" – was removed by God (because, as explained in Genesis 3:22, sinners "must not be allowed to... [eat from the tree of life and] live forever") so Adam & Eve would begin to perish, with natural processes temporarily allowing life while leading gradually to their death. But... God has a wonderful plan for our salvation, for converting sin & death (of humans) into grace & life (for humans). God uses the life-death-resurrection of Jesus Christ — when God lived as a human among us, with a sinless life & sacrificial substitutionary death & victorious resurrection — to show us that He can-and-will give salvation to every person who accepts His gift. God's plan of salvation will work whether the earth is young or old.
3C. Is belief in a young earth an essential Christian doctrine? Is it taught with certainty in the Bible, and is it important? No and No. There are good reasons to think a young earth is not true, and is not “essential theology” because the full gospel of Jesus — including His deity, virgin birth, teaching & miracles, sinless obedience to the Father in life, substitutionary atonement in death, victorious resurrection, ascension into heaven, and second coming — is fully compatible with a young earth or old earth.
3D. It seems unwise to claim that “if the Bible is true, the earth is young” because this means “if the earth is not young, the Bible is not true.” When a believer (or sincere seeker) thinks a young earth is essential, and concludes — based on a logical evaluation of evidence from nature — that the earth is not young, their faith can be weakened or rejected. Proponents of a young earth should be admired for their desire to believe what the Bible teaches, but they should humbly consider the possibility that their interpretation of the Bible might be wrong, and they should adopt a more loving attitude toward their brothers & sisters in Christ who don't include young-earth belief as part of their Christian faith.
{for more, see Sections 3A-3D in my longer Overview FAQ}
4 — What does nature-information say about age?
4A. The scientific predictions of young-earth “flood geology” don't match our observations of reality, so young-earth science fails in these scientific reality-checks. Abundant evidence from a wide range of fields — studying sedimentary rocks, coral reefs, geological and biogeographical patterns in the fossil record, seafloor spreading and magnetic reversals, genetic molecular clocks, radiometric dating, the development of stars, starlight from faraway galaxies, and more — indicates that the earth and universe are billions of years old. Thus, we have multiple independent confirmations, and if all of these fields are wrong we must discard much of modern science. This isn't likely to happen, nor does it seem desirable. But (as explained in 3C) "the full gospel of Jesus... is fully compatible with a young earth or old earth" so we can examine the evidence-and-logic of science with an open mind, to learn what information from nature shows us about the world created for us by God.
4B. We cannot observe ancient history. Proponents of a young universe ask, “Were you there? Did you see it?”, and imply that “no” means “then you can't know much about it.” But scientists can logically evaluate the evidence produced by past events, and historical sciences provide reliable ways to learn about the history of nature.
4C. But can we believe what we see? If the universe is young, to be immediately functional it would have to be created with some essential features (mature humans,...) having a false appearance of old age. But why would the “antiquing” include many observable features that would not have been necessary for immediate functioning? I think this proposal for apparent age is worthy of respectful consideration. But there are strong theological reasons to prefer a proposal of actual age, with God creating a universe that “began from the beginning” so what we observe is the actual history of what really happened.
{ for more, see Sections 4A-4C in my longer Overview FAQ and testing Young-Earth Science }
After you have "learned from both scripture & nature so your understanding of total reality (spiritual plus physical) is more complete and accurate," you can decide whether you think the universe probably is young or old, and either way you can be confident that God loves you, and Jesus offers you salvation. {Biblical Theology for young-earth Christians}
Now we'll shift our focus from WHEN to HOW. You can get a feeling for the drama of "people and their ideas (in Sections 5-7)" by imagining that...
• you're a flexible agnostic, uncertain about God but willing to search for truth. You hear Richard Dawkins declare that evolution did happen, so God isn't necessary, and smart people don't believe in God. But another respected scientist explains why evolution (astronomical and biological) is possible only because the universe was intelligently designed with the detailed fine-tuning that is necessary for life. And another explains how evidence for “intelligent design” is evidence against a totally natural evolution. You're confused, wondering why scientists have differing views and claims. Some scientists claim that design — but which one (trying to explain evolution or challenge it?) — is scientific, while others claim it's religious and it has no basis in science. And some claim the evidence for an all-natural total evolution is strong, while Intelligent Design challenges this. Different scientists disagree, but all of their arguments seem logical, so you're baffled, wondering “what is science” and “what is (probably) true” and “what should we teach” and you have questions.
5 — What can a Christian believe about evolution?
5A. In a Judeo-Christian theistic worldview, “natural” does not mean “it happened without God” because we believe that God designed and created natural process, continually sustains it, and can guide it to produce a desired natural-appearing result in formative history and (more important) in our daily lives.
5B. Many properties of nature are “just right” for life. Why? Maybe our universe was cleverly designed to allow sunshine, proteins, and people. Or maybe we live in a multiverse (with many universes) and “many things will happen,” including life, if there are enough universes with enough variety in their properties of nature. Based on our current science, it seems impossible to know whether we live in a designed universe, a designed multiverse, or an undesigned multiverse.
5C. Some debaters try to prove (or disprove) the existence & actions of God. But proof seems impossible, which is frustrating for those who seek certainty. God seems to want us to live in a state of uncertainty, with enough logical reasons to believe or disbelieve, so we are free to make an internal heart-and-will decision without being overwhelmed by external evidence. We can use evidence (historical, personal, interpersonal, scriptural, and scientific) to estimate the plausibility of various worldviews. But there is no proof, so each of us — no matter what we believe in our unique personal worldview — must live by faith in what we believe. For a Christian, a trust in God should be the foundation for all thoughts & actions in daily living.
5D. Scientifically, when we ask “is nature 100% naturally assembling?” the answer is uncertain. Theologically, we should praise God whether He designed nature to be totally self-assembling by natural process, or if He used some formative miracles, which would be necessary IF a world cannot have total natural assembly and also optimal operation, and if God wanted optimal operation.
5E. Can theistic evolution be theistic? Yes. An evolutionary creationist can believe that miracles are used by God in the salvation history of humans, but miracles were not necessary (due to His clever designing of nature) in the formative history of nature. Even though atheists claim that “natural” means “without God” so natural evolution would occur without God, proponents of theistic evolution do claim that God designed nature so natural-appearing evolution would occur, and they can claim that God actively guided this evolution to achieve His goals, including the creation of humans with the characteristics (physical, mental, emotional, ethical, spiritual) desired by God. { Later, but not yet, God's creation of humans will be discussed in this FAQ. }
5F. During the formative history of nature, has God ever used miracles to bridge “gaps” in the cause-and-effect chain of natural process? If someone says “yes” (or even “maybe”) their claim is often criticized by calling it a “God of the gaps” claim. But this criticism is sloppy because “God of the gaps” has many potential meanings, since it might be criticizing a theologically unsatisfactory implication that God works only in nature-gaps, or an acceptable claim that (in general) gaps are possible, or (in a specific situation) a nature-gap did occur. Some God-of-the-gaps criticism is theologically-and-logically justifiable, but some isn't. To minimize misunderstandings & confusion, I think we should replace this multi-meaning term with several single-meaning terms.
The Bible tells us that God works in two ways – usually natural & occasionally miraculous – so affirming one mode of divine action does not require rejecting the other. An either-or choice isn't necessary. God usually works in natural-appearing ways, so we should not allow implications that “natural” means “without God” so “if it isn't a miracle then God didn't do it.” God occasionally works in miraculous-appearing ways, and a claim that God occasionally does miracles – in the formative history of nature and/or the salvation history of humans – is not a claim that God does things only in this way.
5G. In theology & science, our humility should be appropriate — not too little, not too much. We can make some claims, but not others, with confidence. Regarding the WHEN of creation, theological humility & scientific confidence seem justifiable, so it's appropriate to say “the earth is old.” For the HOW of creation, theological humility & scientific humility both seem justifiable, and all Christians should humbly acknowledge that “IF God created using any method (even if His actual method differed from the way I think He created), THEN God is worthy of our praise.” But this conditional humility (if... then...) is compatible with explaining, using arguments based on our studies of scripture & nature, why we think a particular view is most likely to be true.
{for more, see Sections 5A-5G in my longer Overview FAQ}
6 — What is intelligent design? Who proposes it?
6A. four types of design: Maybe a feature was produced by intelligent design, by a) natural process because nature was designed so this would occur, or b) natural process that was supernaturally guided to produce a desired natural-appearing result; or by the detectable design-directed action of c) a natural agent, or d) a supernatural agent. Or maybe there was no design.
6B. In current culture the usual meaning of Intelligent Design is "detectable design-directed action," so evolutionary creationists — who say “this kind of action was not necessary in formative history” but affirm two types of divine design (a, b) — are not included in the “big tent community” of Intelligent Design. Logically, a basic design theory — which only claims “design-action did occur” and does not propose divine action, but does acknowledge this as a possibility — is not a creation theory. Sociologically, there are connections between design & creation (including young-earth “scientific creationism”) and unfortunately this can produce undesirable effects when origins education in public schools is being debated.
{for more, see Sections 6A-6B in my longer Overview FAQ}
7 — How should we evaluate evolution and design?
Sections 7A-7D don't evaluate theories of evolution & design, they just examine the process of evaluation.
7A. Most scientists think the support is very strong for astronomical evolution (in an old universe) and geological evolution (on an old earth) but is very weak for chemical evolution (of the first life). The support varies when we look at four related aspects of biological evolution (for development of life): micro-evolution (as in drug-resistant bacteria), fossil evolution (in the geological context of an old earth), common descent (with all species related), and a Total Macro-Evolution of all biocomplexity & biodiversity. We should ask “what does each origins theory claim about each aspect of evolution,” and then logically compare different theories to see where they agree & disagree. Support should not be illogically shifted from one aspect of evolution to another; this occurs, for example, when evidences for micro-evolution, fossil evolution, or common descent are claimed as support for a Total Macro-Evolution without any genetic modifications that might be detectably miraculous-appearing IF we had complete genomes of all species throughout evolutionary history; but we don't, so we should be appropriately humble.
7B. A feature of nature must be produced by either undirected natural process or design-directed action, so these possibilities (in our defining of the terms) are mutually exclusive. Everyone agrees about detectable design-action by a natural agent, which we infer when we see “signs of design” in a house, newspaper, car,... But there is disagreement when we ask whether we can infer design in nature, especially in biology — by looking at minimal complexity, irreducible complexity, or rates of evolution — and when the agent (& design-action) might be supernatural. We cannot prove anything in science, but — by asking “what do we know now, and what is likely to happen in future science?” — maybe we can develop a logically justified confidence about some claims for design, concluding either Yes or No. But should we ever say Maybe? When the evidence is not conclusive, our decisions about “where to place the burden of proof” will influence what we conclude, and with how much confidence.
7C. questions {and responses} about a Methodological Naturalism (MN) claiming that every scientist should always include only natural cause-and-effect in their scientific theories:
Is science possible in a world with occasional miracles? {yes, because science requires a world that is usually natural, but not always natural.}
Can non-natural events be studied using the methods of science? {in most ways, no; but in some ways, yes.}
Is MN scientific? {no, because MN cannot be derived from science; but MN is compatible with science, so it isn't unscientific.}
In natural science, must we explain all natural phenomena and natural history by natural causes? {do you see the two different meanings of "natural" that convert this claim-of-MN into a logical fallacy?}
Do proponents of design want to replace non-design research, or supplement it? {the goal is to supplement, not replace; if non-design is supplemented by design, with its distinctive critical thinking, this could be useful in science; a design theory claiming “maybe there is no natural mechanism for producing this particular feature” will not cause all scientists to abandon their searching, it will not stop science.}
Should we view science as a game with rules, or an activity with goals? {forcing all scientists to play “a game with rules” might occasionally be unproductive; why? because if one goal of science is to find truth about nature, and IF science is restricted by rigid-MN so everyone must automatically conclude – no matter what is being studied or what is the evidence, even when [as in the origin of life] current evidence does not support a naturalistic conclusion – that “of course, it happened by natural process,” and IF history has included some non-natural events, THEN rigid-MN must reach some conclusions that are incomplete or incorrect; this doesn't seem scientifically useful, or wise; if rigid-MN forces us to always conclude “this happened by natural process” independent of scientific evidence-and-logic, we are bypassing the process of science; instead of being forced to assume conclusions, scientists should be free to investigate questions.}
7D. Can a Christian use methodological naturalism (MN) by including only natural cause-and-effect in their scientific theories? Yes, I think Christians can use either an open search (with rigid-MN in science but not outside science) or open science (with testable-MN, by starting their science using MN, but viewing MN as a theory to be tested). We have a choice because naturalism can mean either “only natural process in this situation” (this is theologically acceptable for a Christian) or “only nature exists” (not acceptable for a Christian). But most people are influenced by science, so our worldviews can be influenced by MN-Science and its naturalistic conclusions about “what can (and cannot) happen in the world, according to science.” Therefore, theists should try to develop-and-maintain a theistic worldview, and live it.
{for more, see Sections 7A-7D in my longer Overview FAQ}
8 — Wise Education about Origins and Creation
The questions in Sections 1-7 can produce uncertainties & tensions within a person. When we make decisions about education, internal personal questions/tensions can produce external interpersonal questions/tensions that become visible & vocal.
To get a feeling for the drama of people and their ideas, and the effects on teachers and students, imagine that...
• you are a science teacher in a private Christian school, and last year several parents didn't like what you said about the “when and how” of creation, about the evidence for an old earth with creation occurring over a long period of time, not 6000 years ago in 144 hours. They removed their children from your school and began a campaign in local churches, encouraging other parents to also boycott your school. Now your principal is blaming you for the school's damaged reputation and financial problems, and is saying “if you want to keep your job, you will change the way you teach science.” { or... an earlier story asks you to imagine that "your pastor confidently declares... [and your close friend explains why...] and you have questions." }
• you're a public school teacher who is wondering what to teach about origins: Is there any scientifically justifiable controversy about the “how” of origins? If you think “maybe there is” and you explain why in class, will you get in trouble with school administrators who fear the threat of an expensive lawsuit? But if you don't explain what you think, will you get in trouble with parents? What is the best way for you to survive and thrive in the current climate of controversy?
• you are the friend of a student who is Christian, who has been taught by her parents (and by her pastor and all of the teachers in his church-run school, which is the only school she ever attended) that the earth is 6000 years old, and that evolution is scientifically proposterous and is an evil idea invented by atheists who hate God. She is very smart, has excelled in learning science and is enthusiastic about it, and will soon enter college. How do you think she will respond — and what will happen with her interest in science, her views about creation, and the quality of her faith — in each of these situations:
A) she attends a private college that teaches the same ideas as in her K-12 school, but then she leaves this safe haven for a graduate school where conventional old-earth science is assumed.
B) she goes to a public college where her first science teacher is an aggressive atheist who ridicules Christians and tries to destroy their faith.
C) in her public college most of the science teachers (for astronomy, geology, and biology, plus chemistry and physics) just "teach the conventional science" with no apparent worldview bias.
D) same as C, but her geology teacher is a devout Christian who hosts a Bible study for college students in his home, and is a respected elder at her new church in the college town.
E) she attends a private college where the teachers, who are all devout Christians, think there is no conflict between their faith and the old-earth science they teach, and are sensitive & thoughtful in their interactions with students who have other views.
Eventually these questions will be examined in Section 8, which (since it isn't yet written) currently just links to pages that are now available.
8A. What should Christians teach about creation?
When this section is written, it will use the earlier FAQ-pages (1-7) as a foundation for understanding creation — who, why, what, when, and how — and what to teach about it. And it will include many ideas that are now in CHRISTIAN EDUCATION.
8B. What should public schools teach about origins?
Until this section is written, you can read my links-page for ORIGINS EDUCATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS (written by me as editor, trying to be fair & relatively neutral) and my personal page (written as author, freely expressing my own views) for Critical Thinking – about Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design – in Public Schools.
other related pages:
This page, written by Craig Rusbult (editor of "Whole-Person Education" website), is an "editorial" that doesn't claim to speak for ASA, as explained above. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/intro-faq.htm
Copyright © 2006 by Craig Rusbult, all rights reserved
The top-of-page images are from NASA/NSSDC, U.S. National Park Service, ASA's Teaching Science in a Climate of Controversy, The Nature Conservancy, and NOAA.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||