A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

I believe the teacher is trying to do the right thing but I don't agree with what he is doing, he is teaching the kids what to think and not how to think. Here is an article by a professor that explains what I mean better than I could-

Creation Archive > Volume 22 Issue 1 > Creation: 'where's the proof?'

	First published: Creation 22(1):39–42 December 1999 Browse this issue

by Ken Ham

Over the years, many people have challenged me with a question like:

'I've been trying to witness to my friends. They say they don't believe the Bible and aren't interested in the stuff in it. They want real proof that there's a God who created, and then they'll listen to my claims about Christianity. What proof can I give them without mentioning the Bible so they'll start to listen to me?'

Briefly, my response is as follows.

Evidence

Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

Past and present

We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.

However, if we weren't there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.

Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a 'time machine'. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.

On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.

Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.

Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.

That's why the argument often turns into something like:

'Can't you see what I'm talking about?'

'No, I can't. Don't you see how wrong you are?'

'No, I'm not wrong. It's obvious that I'm right.'

'No, it's not obvious.' And so on.

These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.

It's not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one's presuppositions.

I've found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist's glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can't put on the Christian's glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.

It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting 'evidence', you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense 'on the facts'. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found 'stronger facts'.

However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it is—a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions—i.e. starting beliefs.

As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the 'facts' for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, 'Well sir, you need to try again.'

However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher's basic assumptions. Then it wasn't the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn't accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.

What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think. What a difference that made to my class! I have been overjoyed to find, sometimes decades later, some of those students telling me how they became active, solid Christians as a result.

What a GA to this longstanding issue.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions.

I began with the Christian presupposition which greatly hampered my analysis of the evidence, information, and logic. Like Mr. Campbell was saying, science is not about believing. We ought not be encouraged, or in many cases, compelled to believe religious doctrines.

However, if we weren't there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.

We extrapolate from evidence all the time and treat it as fact. It is how we live. We observe cause and effect. Crime investigators do it too. If I see a big green blob fall past the curtained window, I am not surprised to see a branch laying on the ground when I go take a clear look.

Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a 'time machine'. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.

Over the years, I have seen more credible evidence that the Bible is mostly myth than not.

Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.

Not true for a lot of them, including me. I was raised on the Bible account of life's origin. It made it hard to see it the other way. The evolution viewpoint keeps getting more support from my study. I always doubted creationist evidence because my mind just could not logically accept it. My logical mind was thinking, even if subconsciously.

I was taught to be afraid to doubt anything not supporting faith in the Bible stories. What would God have to fear by us not having an open mind? The simple answer makes most sense. It is not of God. It is a form of human-created mind control.

We ALL begin thought process with some form of bias, whether it be past experience, religious or non-religious beliefs. The article made sure to point out that Mr. Campbell was a regular in church, but stated nothing about his beliefs. He could be going simply because his wife nags him horribly if he doesn't go!

One can start into the Creation/Evolution whirlwind while being on the fence on the issue and due to facts or lack of them be convinced either way into believing in one or the other. That "green blob" could have just as easily been one of my kids toys falling off the roof, or one of my kids

I was raised on the Bible account of life's origin. It made it hard to see it the other way.

The way things were 30 years ago are not as they are now, pastors were not expected to have to show how and why and then why should there be scientific investigation because there's no need to prove it,'just take my word for it'. But (most of) those guys were not well educated and couldn't explain the stuff if they had been taught it. Now, to become the pastor of a large church, you've gotta know your stuff and be able to teach others about it, as an example, my pastor has a Doctorate in Theology and is constantly studying new theories and evidence.

I always doubted creationist evidence because my mind just could not logically accept it.

Just like in evolution, with creation there are bridges that don't make sense and there has to be a certain amount of faith involved, no matter how logical the thinking.

I was taught to be afraid to doubt anything not supporting faith in the Bible stories.What would God have to fear by us not having an open mind? The simple answer makes most sense. It is not of God. It is a form of human-created mind control.

Please forgive me for using this, but it just goes to show that whatever bad or unpleasant things you are referring to have created bias in you. And you're right that God has nothing to fear, least of all from us humans but the simple answer you've come up with can just as easily be applied directly back to evolutionist belief.

Now I know that this hasn't "shattered" the way you look at the world or how it was formed, but there are those out there like me who do not believe evolution and are not just 'misguided youths that need saving' as the journalist for Mr. Campbell implies.

If the students are taught how to think instead of what to think, they can then draw their own conclusions.

That "green blob" could have just as easily been one of my kids toys falling off the roof, or one of my kids.

Yeah, like light in the early morning sky could just as easily be from a super nova instead of the rising sun.

You seemed to miss that my experience discredits Ken Ham's proposition of bias tending toward a particular outcome since my conclusion was adverse to what the bias should have caused. It made the determination harder, but the conclusion was still the one supported by evidence.

Friend of mine is required to teach both and it is really easy to him.

He told the class the first day "Religions teach that God created the universe and that he is everywhere all the time and he controls all things. "

Now Science on the other hand man has to make the discoverys using his brains and sometimes by accident.

He never geal back to Religion but on each test there is one God Question. Answer : He is everywhere. He created all things. either one is acceptable.

Hello,

I am being curious: it seems this debate between religion and science is somehow quite US specific. In Europe, we don't have this kind of problem, and you would have a hard time finding a priest to refuse evolution.

Why is it that, although even the Vatican has evolved in its interpretation of the bible to a more metaphorical, symbolic one, some people insist on the word-for-word interpretation being taught to children as a 'science'?

What's more, I am puzzled: for years, I thought that to influence politics (and education is politic) you had to have power, and/or money, and I thought that people of power, and/or money where "egotistical materialist bastards" (sic)... so, that leaves me wondering: what do they get from it? and who are they?

any idea?

In Europe, we don't have this kind of problem, and you would have a hard time finding a priest to refuse evolution.

Although there are many Catholics in the US, most Christians are Protestant (you know, Martin Luther, 95 thesis, Diet of Worms). A priest pretty much has to do what the Catholic church as a whole does, it's a bit different here. That's a lot of the reason why most of our descendants left Europe in the first place, so they didn't have to believe what the Vatican decides is the truth.

As for your last paragraph...What?

Sorry I didn't log in for my previous comment (#3 and only that one)

A priest pretty much has to do what the Catholic church as a whole does

That is true for the rites, I guess, but I have the impression that most priests (or at least those I have met) can demonstrate some freewill and open-mindedness. I must acknowledge, though, that we still have some miracle believers, as I found out recently.

I understand one reason the change is more difficult, in the US could be because, without a unique head for the numerous churches around the country, the process of explaining, proving, and convincing has to be repeated numerous times, and each time, with the same difficulties.

Whereas in a one headed structure, once the head is convinced, or at least sees there is no reason to fight the idea, the rest of the followers will have much less apprehension.

As for your last paragraph...What?

I'm sorry, I'm not an english native speaker, so I tend to be unclear, sometimes. ;)

So I will rephrase:

It must take a lot of energy from powerful people to fight the idea of evolution.

I think most powerful people are powerful because at some point, they let go of religion (at least for christianism, "love your brother", share, present the right cheek..) since it usually demonstrate that power and wealth in this world has little meaning.

So I ask: why powerful people, who let go of religion when they want, would want to take part in this debate?

[01] Catholics believe that the Pope, the visible head of the Church, is the apostolic successor of the Cephas the good Lord Jesus Christ built his Church upon. Catholics believe that adherence to the direction of the Magesterium, Sacred Tradition, and Sacred Scripture is necessary to stay true to the intent of the Lord. A Catholic, in friendship with the Lord, is to believe ALL of the teachings of the Catholic Church... no exceptions... and this means filial obedience with the Holy Father... regardless of location, disposition, or era.

[02] Evolution and the Catholic Church:

"Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man's body developed from previous biological forms, under God's guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution."

http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

There are many holes in the theory of evolution. And thus to "believe" that it is the end all to the discussion is as closed minded as Bible "believing."

Americans perceive (to their outrage) the enlightened European conclusion as elitism. "Can't you Americans see that you are superstitious fools."

I "believe" Americans are simply open minded enough to consider that life may exist in a sort of matrix or a "created" reality in which perhaps a god(s) or alien(s) control - for one reason or another.

Certainly those of us who have made a living studying and teaching science can see what appears to be an intelligent pattern of sophistication that defies conclusions based on big-bang random atomic organization and slime advancing to pullitzer prizes.