HI MZ,

No offense taken at all and I hope I didn't offend anybody (except radical Islamic fascists who want to kill me).

I agree with everything you said... Are you asking a question?

I believe in One God, whose son is Jesus Christ who came to earth to teach us to love each other, care for each other and then He died on the cross so that sins could be forgiven. After he died he "descended into Hell" to free the souls who belonged in Heaven. The Holy Spirit is the third Person in one God. It is a complex matter of faith. Hell is the absence of God's love; those souls were not being tortured; just waiting. Better known as Limbo. And yes, God gave us free will to make choices in our lives. All people who "treat others as they would like to be treated" (meaning loved) can go to Heaven. But if a person is introduced to Jesus and turns his back on Him, then, well, I don't know.

Kids hurting themselves hurts me. I came from the Flower Child generation and we liked to feel good. Those were also the days of two-parent homes, safety in the streets and on the busses (perhaps not for black Americans and hopefully our Melting Pot has given them all the opportunity everyone else had. They do still suffer (a joke I saw about "how black were you going" when a cop stopped black kids driving down the street). As I saw Civil Rights for Black Americans develop, Black people dressed and talked like everyone else, with their own culture blended in: I really enjoy that culture. But young blacks who have lived their whole lives with Affirmative Action (maybe we see it more in the south) seem racist toward me: teaching their children to not look at me, a white woman who is usually smiling at people I pass in the stores). But back to (all) kids doing the tattoos and piercings: why do they want pain? Is it because they grew up as latchkey kids, or had to spend 10 hour days in daycare; and Mom and Dad were both exhausted in the evenings. Also, when prayer was removed from the schools, that's when I observed a loss of innocence and hope develop in young people. My only point was that today's children live in a dangerous world. Girls having fistfights at school? I mean, what's wrong with this picture???? My daughter gets mean stares because of her manner of dress, and she is a fashion designer! I always go out of my way to be friendly to the freakiest looking kids. I show them respect, and they respond in kind.

There's a big difference between Religion and Spirituality. Religions are organized, churches need to make money, on and on. In the very old days, it was thought that there was a different "God" when you moved to a different part of the world. The Catholic Church was the first Christian church. The Dead Sea Scrolls and other archaeological findings do prove some stories in the Bible. Jesus never told his apostles they couldn't get married. The Catholic Church doesnt' want their priests to get married because of the money situation: a man has responsibility to support his wife and children: sounds a bit like greed but that is what I've heard. The Catholic church made rules, and more rules, (sounds like government, huh?) and then some people protested, and along came the Protestant churches. Picking and chosing which practices to follow. This is what I mean by Religion being run by people. Some get so out of control: that is the danger of Religion.

But at the base of all religions is the commandment to treat each other as we want to be treated. The great flood is mentioned everywhere as well. There is historical evidence to support the Bible. But the Bible was written in parables, and deeply edited because the whole story could not be explained in one book. Who knows where Cain and Abel got their wives? Personally, I don't care. It is a nice story to help develop children's faith and desire to "be good" so that they can go to Heaven.

I agree with you that "Holy War" is a non-sequitur. But again, that is Churches, run by huMANs seeking power. But there are also people doing Missionary work to bring the Word of God to the people. I like that. Could you imagine if there were a fire in a school, and all of the teachers got out but the children burned to death? It wouldn't happen here: to give one's life to save another's is a Go Straight To Heaven act. I believe that is why America has been so generous with her blood and money to save people from human atrocities committed by insane dictators. BTW, a school did, in recent years, burn down and only the teachers escaped. I do not recall which country it was, but it wasn't a Christian country.

I find it interesting that in the movies, whenever demons are terrorizing the town, it is always a Priest that is called upon to save the person's soul. That is why I respect my Church, feel sorrow for Priests who have sinned because the Church is requesting them to live an unnatural life. Greed is one of the seven deadly sins, and any human can be tempted and fail. But with true remorse, there is still a way to heaven.

My beliefs are my own, and I never wish to insult anyone who, in his/her heart believes differently. But an excuse to need "proof" seems to me to be a cop-out. It is difficult to lead the kind of life Jesus taught. I happen to believe there is life beyond this one, and I hope I can find my way to the place I need to be with the lessons I learn here on Earth. I hope that I can atone for my sins here, by defending our children, and helping them to lead a happy productive life. Everyone wants to know "who am I" and "what am I doing here". We have to have answers that children can understand and go forth with. As they grow, they develop their own paths. But to teach children to hate others who are different, teach them to kill in the name of Allah is uncivilized and evil. The evolution of our knowledge should not empty our lives of the spirituality (our souls) that makes us who we are, and take us where we want to go as we travel eternity with each other.

I apologize for the length and depth of this. I hope it doesn't come off as preaching. It is meant more to be "teaching" ever since I read someone write that Creation was just invented, and maybe in another two hundred years we can prove it...

May you be blessed, mz, and all of us in this discussion so that we can learn from each other. If I completely missed your point, mz, please send me a PM. I did not intend to disrespect Christian religions.

Peace!

Here's the problem. I was having lunch one day (I'm in college) and one of my friends saw this little paper advertisement saying they were gonna hold a debate on the subject of evolution. So at the table was me (a buddhist) and 2 other very faithful Christians.

Okay, I just want to state this right now, so I don't "offend" anyone. I have nothing against Christians. I have absolutley nothing against them, nothing at all.

The problem I have with Christians is that, it almost comes off to me as a cult ya know? They believe in what they believe (not that this can be a bad thing) so much that they almost can't "see" other people. They have this one mindset and they don't even want to hear your opinion.

This is where the story above about lunch comes in. We were eating and they start talking about evolution. During this "discussion," they were talking about "how can anyone believe in something as 'ridiculous?'" The basically said "the theory has been proven incorrect many times, why the heck do people still believe in it?" "Believing in evolution just proves that there is no God, therefore is incorrect." "If you believe in God then what happens after you die? You can't 'make' your own 'ending' in life when you die."

Now don't get me wrong, these two guys are great guys, I'm really good friends with both, they are both my Army buddies in ROTC. So after they talk about this for about 15 min, they look over at me and ask, "so Don, what do you think?" How am I supposed to react after these guys just basically talk about evolution like that in front of me? Does it even matter? It won't even matter because anything short of what they believe will be immediately shot down right away.

What I'm trying to say is that religion can be VERY scary. Something created for good suddenly is bad; wars are fought because of it, people are divided. I mean, religion was created for the good of Man, and instead it makes people into enemies and hate rises; the opposite point of religion. The Christians I know are very biased to topics, and it is very hard to talk to them. They will gang up on me, and I just give up. So yeah, lol this turned out a bit long eh?

-Don

Hi Go Twins. Thanks for contributing to this thread. All view points are welcomed for discussion. Not all Christians are closed minded about evolution, but many are. Being a Christian myself and a creationist I believe that evolution theory should be examined objectively. That is both the merits and the flaws should be taught. In my high school (Homestead Sr High in Florida 1984-1991) evolution was taught as fact and students were not allowed to raise any questions about it or point out any of the flaws in it. That was indoctrination not education. the more I look into the debate, the more I see the right to question the validity of evolution in the class room restricted. This has also included disciplinary actions against students that try to question the theory.
There have been many examples where even just proposing the addition of teaching evolution objectively (that is the flaws along with the merits) has resulted in law suits by evolutionists to stop it. I would submit that Evolutionists can be just as closed minded as Christians can be. As a Christian I do say that your Christian friends were wrong to pressure you into agreeing with them. The model that Jesus gave us is the tell people the Good News. if those people don't accept the message, then go to other people and tell them. He never said to coerce people into believing.

Now back to the topic. My contention is that teaching only the strong points on evolutionary theory and not allowing flaws to be explored is just as much indoctrination as Evolutionists claim the teaching of creationism is. not allowing the flaws of the theory to be taught along with the merits is a failure to teach students to think objectively. That is a disservice to science which requires objectivity and critical thinking.


Seafox14

Isn't it still taught as "the theory of Evolution"?

and,

isn't religion (any religion) a belief?

For our schools to teach information regarding scientific theories makes sense.

Whether schools should be teaching various religious beliefs is a totally separate question, and, if the schools are government schools, it may be a problem under the concept of separation of church and state in the US. It would seem virtually impossible to provide an equal description, and teaching session, of every religion, even though that might meet the criteria that the government isn't supporting any specific religious concept.


Someone correct me, here, but don't the majority of Christians believe in the concept of "free will". Isn't one of the precepts to that free will concept based on the inability to prove that God exists? Therefore, shouldn't it be impossible to scientifically prove the existence of God? If so, then any thing that occurs in our known universe should, must, have a logical, scientific explaination. Wouldn't God have created a universe in such a manner that everything that happens, happens in a logical, scientifically proveable manner?

I believe the answer is "yes", and people who insist that the process of evolution negates the existance of God, or vice versa, will find that their stance does not hold up to scrutiny.


The above, by the way, comes from someone who does not believe in God, but is not willing to deny the possibility of God's existence, either.

If evolution is to be examined objectively, then it would be---and in fact is---examined by the scientific community, where continuous research into the related fields of inquiry would confirm or contradict evolution. However, when its "flaws" are such only when considered from an external and certainly non-objective point of view, then that is an entirely different matter indeed.

I think it strange---and absolutely telling--- that this external point of view does not challenge the scientific method when it does not contradict pre-determined, sectarian dogma (thermodynamics says nothing about the garden of eden; therefore it is to be permitted and not challenged). That some science is seen as indoctrination while other science is not seems so contradictory that the intellectual tension so generated in a mind can only be stifled or "reconciled" by a great deal of effort of the will that completely compartmentalises thinking itself.

The real motivation for this attack on evolutionary theory (and the attendant scientific method in select branches) is, at least for many I have read and even talked to, not a desire for intellectual openness or for the promotion of objective and independent thinking, but actually just the opposite. What kind of objective argument, what kind of search for the truth, is put in terms "Believing in evolution just proves that there is no God, therefore is incorrect"?

Now these students may be, and certainly are, good people and capable of friendship, but it certainly seems to me that they are not taking advantage of a higher education that should train people how to think authentically--- to free themselves from the tutelage of others (to paraphrase Kant).

Regards,
John

Seafox, you bring up some good points. I do agree with you that Christians really aren't supposed to "behave" that way (sorry I can't think of a better way to say this). It's just that I find it strange that so many Christians are so "aggressive" on matters like this, it almost gets hostile.

And also, you brang up that evolution was being taught as a fact, and yes, that is wrong to do. I totally agree that it is wrong to kind of "force" the knowledge of evolution as a fact, at least give the student what to choose to believe. It is almost brainwashing, and them teaching by force is no better then what my Christian friends were doing at the lunch table to me.

Also, in that same lunch conversation, I felt really threatened towards the end because one of them brought up the fact that if I didn't believe in God/Christianity, or I believed in evolution, I was pretty much gonna go to hell. Well, thats just basically saying everyone short of not believing in God is gonna go to hell then...? So every buddhist in the world is gonna go to hell now...I mean, him just saying that kind of made me angry, I left so I didn't end up arguing with him.

-Don

As far as short-comings to evolution, read "Of Moths and Men" by Judith Hooper. This book deals with the well-known example of selective predation during the Industrial Revolution of light-colored moths. However, the book reveals what shoddy science the experiment was, and how we cannot re-create the results reported. This information has been accepted by the science community for quite a while now. However, I recall college Biology with the pieces of paper and the quilt experiment. This is an example of a non-objective approach to evolution.

I am a Christian. Do I believe the Earth is 6000 years old? No. Do I believe God created everything in a pragmatic and logical pattern? Yes. Thus, in my mind there is room for both, science opens the door to God.

That's what I can't really understand, why there can't be BOTH. I don't get why it has to be one or the other.

As a buddhist, this also extends to other topics, like the idea of the "correct" religion. I know I was taught as accepting other people's religion, and there is no right or wrong, and the other religions are just "other ways to enlightenment." Enlightenment doesn't have to be a pure buddhist ideology, it can relate to religions like Christianity as well.

-Don

Some may argue (not me necessarily) that the theory of Evolution negates the existence of God because the origins of being are based on chance and natural pathways.

Others may argue that Creationism negates the theory of Evolution because nowhere in the creation story is there any mention of God making creatures with the intention of them changing.

The more I study the Bible, the more questions I have. There are truly some seriouos GAPS in the Bible. I am confident these gaps will be resolved eventually through my faith. However, I am also a scientist (chemist by profession) and the observation of some phenomena contributes to the idea that creatures change over time. As I have said before, I don't see why they must be mutually exclusive. And I have yet to read anything in the Bible that is contrary to this. (I should add that I have only begun to study).

As for the students, teaching Evolution should be prefaced with a statement that it is Scientific Theory, and as such open to new developments and refutations. There used to be scientists that proposed a Heliocentric Solar System. They were considered heretics and their claims were seen as a threat to Christianity. Yet, I have not met a person who thinks the Earth is the center of the Universe, and Heliocentric knowledge has not stunted the growth of Christian faith. Man has historically battled faith vs science, to the detriment of each.

Hi Everyone,

Having attended Catholic schools for 17 years, I'd like to offer some answers. First of all, there are many flavors of Christianity. Some churches are extremely serious about promoting the faith, with the "born again" verbiage. These folks can be very forceful. I attended some prayer sessions with a Baptist church just because it was so close to home. When I met the Pastor, he wanted me to convert, stating that I was no longer a Catholic but a Baptist. I said sorry, I was just there to pray and was not looking for a new religion. I dated two Jewish men. When things got serious, each did the same thing: got me together with a group of other Jews who insulted Jesus Christ and wanted me to deny Him in favor of the Old Testament. I no longer socialize with any of these folks. At least I can tease the Jews that they didn't accept Jesus because He wasn't born in their families, and I do know many "Jews for Jesus".

I was taught that God gave us Free Will, that Jesus died so that sins could be forgiven, and that Catholics were certainly not the only people who had a road to Heaven available to them. There is a new, current assault on Christianity by the ACLU, its attempt to rewrite America's history and remove all references to Judeo-Christian principles. Concepts like giving one's life to save another, helping people in need, respect for all life, comes from these principles and created a Nation that has spilled more blood to save other countries from being overrun for racial and religious persecution than all other countries combined. It is unfortunate we are so dependent on oil that we are trying to "give" Democracy to a people who have lived in Theocracies for thousands of years. I am personally offended by the attempted overthrow of America's Christian heritage, and that (along with some religions' requirements to convert n number of souls per week) has caused some Christians fear and therefore disrespect the religious beliefs of others.

When it comes to the radical Islam fascists who want to kill us all, that's the best argument against Theocracy there ever was. In my opinion, since Muhammed (a prophet, not the Son of God) taught how to destroy societies and commit murder as a way into heaven, and this is written in the Quran as Jihhad, Islam should be declared a social organization in America. Can you believe our jails are re-plumbing toilets - something about their orientation toward Mecca. This is insane waste of taxpayer's money, and since we are a million times more apt to be murdered by a young Muslim man, I believe racial profiling is in order for the billion dollar information systems supposedly being developed to protect the Homeland.

Yes, evolution and creationism can and should co-exist, since our Intelligent Designer/Higher Power/God created Mother Nature, the design and physics of our universe. Miracles usually happen in a natural way, but they often happen without our having recognized them. I believe both should be taught in schools as "some people believe this... some that" and we would even be respecting Wiccans!

Children should be exposed to all the theories available so they can make up their own minds. As a smoker, when my kids were being taught that their Mommy and Daddy were going to die soon from cigarettes, we had lots of careful discussions. Both my kids ended up smoking. My parents didn't smoke, the evils of smoking weren't taught in school (but Daisy Duck smoked) and Big Tobacco was still hiding the findings of its danger and now that the cat's out of the bag, they are adding more additives and nicotine to make sure they stay in business. My dad quit smoking in college (about the 1940's) when cigarettes were made of tobacco - only. He quit rather easily to hear him tell it.

America's Democracy is being destroyed by the liberals who want the majority to step aside to respect minorities. Even after 40 years of Affirmative Action, there are still poor black people who realize the need for racial profiling and securing our borders. Now we are spending tax dollars to make illegal aliens feel at home (even though this is an English-speaking country, translators are required in hospitals etc), take our welfare and Social Security/welfare, plus work for cash - which is illegal (quoting a recent article from the St. Pete Times today). I don't think that's fair or ethical. Social Security was invented to insure and ensure working Americans could have dignity in their old age. Roe v. Wade was invented to give women the opportunity to control their own bodies within the first 3 months of pregnancy. But now we are having partial birth abortions (murdering babies in the birth canal without so much as a shot of novocaine: do that to an animal and you will go to jail), Congress is raiding billions from Soc.Sec. for their pork/pet projects/corporate welfare, and lawbreakers are being given amnesty, chain migration and educations making it harder for American kids to get into college.

We Americans who have seen these changes evolve in our Country over the last 50 years, watch the downward spiral of manners, respect, safety, resources and our own freedoms. And when there is fear, there is anger. So please forgive the Christians who see the danger of the liberal changes in our Country, and the resulting hopelessness of American children.

May we understand each other, and enjoy peace and love, here in America and all over the world. May I beg Islam to understand the need to make your own peace, and wonder how murder can buy one a place in Heaven. And to the scientists and political activists, let's "go green" and invent/develop machines that do not need fossil fuels. Hint: HEMP!

Animals do change over time. It's called Natural Selection. It is both observable and repeatable in experimentation, and therefore valid. Take canines for example, this family includes all domestic breeds. dingos wolves, foxes. Yet they are all still canines and have not changed into a totally different and more complex creature. The changing of one kind of creature into another more complex creature is what evolution is. many people get natural selection and evolution mixed up. the religious discussion all tho not unwelcome is a bit off topic (don't worry. I've been guilty of doing that myself). The issue at hand is the increasing pressure on the schools to only teach evolution as fact and not allow students to question any of the flaws in the theory. That is the main issue. As I stated at the beginning of this thread, all points of view are welcome.

Maybe I've missed it - do you have links?

Are the schools being presured to teach evolution as fact, or are they still calling it "the theory of evolution"?

I remember there was a scandal recently dealing with the teaching of evolution in a public school. My brother was telling me about it, and it involved a substitute teacher that was "set up." He was apparently instructed to go and teach evolution as fact somewhere (a state where it was banned or something). I'm sorry if this doesn't make sense and sounds unreliable, I don't know where to find this story.

Well anyways, the teacher was put on trial and apparently the figured out he was set up and was an apparent attempt by the city (who framed him) to get publicity and try to get "tourists to visit."

The story is more or less what I said lol.

goto foxnes.com and cnn.com and search for evolution and Cobb County and you will see an example the pressure.

Fox News search page

CNN Seach page.

these 2 links contain the search results.

Seafox14

I agree. Evolution is a religion, it describes how the world and life came to be, yet it is being forcefully taught? I agree with stopping Christianity from being forcefully taught in schools, but they should still have it as an elective, and any other religion that wants to join too. They do have a world religion class at the college I'm going to, so it is being taught. But they should stop forcefully teaching evolution and make it an elective.

Thanks Seafox, I think.

From the Cobb County Fox article - h e r e



and


Huh? It's got to be taught as fact, or else it's considered an "unconstitutional endorsement of religion"?



So, if it's taught as a "theory" it's unconstitutional, and if it's taught as fact, it's an affront to religion?

[Vinny Barbarino]I'm so confused![/Vinny Barbarino]

I'm interested to know where this is in the Bible, I've always been curious. Don't mean to spam or anything.

Hi Solaris,

I used my "Catholic Children's Bible" to respond to your question. It's got great pictures, large print and simplified, but the sources are referenced. So here goes:

From "Genesis 1" (the first book of the Bible, the "Old Testament" written before the birth of Christ.

"God, a living Being, all-sufficient and happy in Himself, had no beginning. He always was. Nothing existed but God alone. And then according to His plan, God's goodness broke out in a creative act and at that moment time was born. As the Bible describes this moment it pictures an unformed mass of earth, waste and empty, and darkness hanging over the abyss. And above the waters moved the Spirit of God like a mighty wind."

Then it goes on to describe the week of creation, starting with "Let there be light" and the separation of light from darkness, and there was evening and morning the first day. Second day: "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters to divide the waters" and so it was, and God called the firmament Heaven. On the third day, God said "Let the earth bring forth vegetation: seed bearing plants and all kinds of fruit trees that bear fruits... And so it was. God saw that it was good. Then the seasons, the stars. Then animals, birds and fish, God saw that it was good and blessed them, saying "Be fruitful, multiply and fill the waters of the seas; and let the birds multiply on the earth. On the sixth day, God said "Let us make mankind in our image and likeness; and let them have domination over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the cattle, over all wild animals and every creature that crawls on the earth". He created male and female in His image. Goe blessed them and said to them "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over all (creatures). And so it was. God saw all that He had made was very good. That was the sixth day when God finished all the work He had been doing and He rested on the seventh day from all the work He had done. God blessed the seventh day and made it holy because on it He rested from all His work of Creation.

The story of creation is a story about religion and not about science. Therefore, creation as told in the Bible does not offend against science. It is true, though, that in His creative act God set masterful forces of science into motion.

The Book of Revelations talks about creation of the Angels.... (very interesting reading)

We didn't have books like these when I took religion, and it was explained to us that "day" was not necessarily the 24 hours we know now. We were taught that God created Nature and life developed according to Natural Law.

Hope this interests you to do some reading of the Bible, or even a book written for Catholic children. Much easier start. When you get interested in the depths of the teachings of Jesus Christ, and you are looking for guidance in living your life, this is in the New Testament. You may find, like I did, how complex life is. And this is why Jesus Christ died on the cross, so that sins would be forgiven. With this gift, man may recognize his sins, express sorrow for offending God, go forth to try to sin no more, and some day be in the presence of God, known as Heaven, because such love as He has for us is His greatest gift to us.

Peace, y'all

Actually Joygreen, the Hebrew word for day (yom) can mean more that a literal 24 hour day. However, the way it is used in Genesis for the creation week means a literal 24 hour day (i.e. when it's used in conjuntion with the phrase "the evening and the morning of".

The article I just finished reading describing the "Creation Museum" has caused me to wonder aloud here. What would one find in a museum dedicated to creationism?
What evidence is there to support the idea that all of the universe was created by a "supernatural" being/force.
Instead of actually displaying this evidence, the creators of the museum? have elected to display depictions of Bible stories! What a cop-out!
The museum--hold on to your seat--in one display actually depicts human children playing in the presence of dinosaurs! When asked how this could possibly be since 60,000,000 years separated the two, the response was that dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark.
I have read the explanation of how Noah was able to have all of the millions of different animals on board because the animals were not adults. Imagine, all the eggs, and baby birds, primates, meat eaters,etc. being off loaded to fend for themselves in a totally devastated, muddy mess of an earth!
Ken Ham, an Australian, (as if we don't have enough scam artists in this country that we have to import them) is the idea man behind this "museum". $27,000,000 is supposedly being spent on this. Ken is the founder of the "Answers in Genesis" money maker.
In reality though, a museum, in all honesty, dedicated to the evidence of creation would be ...empty. How could you make money off of displaying nothing? Well, it does contain a huge retail book store and a restaurant. There is also a large portion dedicated to corporate offices.
I can see those church buses lined up now loaded with all those little kiddies just waiting to be brainwashed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from...ent/6549595.stm

Creation Evangelism in the Creation Museum ( this will probably enable tax-free status)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/

The 60,000 sq. ft. Creation Museum located within the greater Cincinnati area will proclaim the Bible as supreme authority in all matters of faith and practice in every area it touches on. Set to open in June 2007, this “walk through history” museum will counter evolutionary natural history museums that turn countless minds against Christ and Scripture.

Doesn't every street corner across this country already have such a "museum"?

Have you even bothered to look into the other portions of the AIG website at all or did you just go in there with the usual bias. There Is a lot of scientific data and review of science articles in that site if one bothers to look (including info on dinosaurs and humans). I do find the ridiculing tone of your post offensive. however I am willing to look past it for the sake of the discussion. Try these links if you are willing to look at the scienc behind the museum.


Creation Scientist

There is also many articles, if one but looks, that have a scientific look at astronomy, geology, anthropology, among other fields written by fully accredited scientists that support the biblical account of creation ( the articles eve have links to a bio of the person writing the article).

Last point. This thread is not for the discussion of evolution verses creation. That debate has it's own thread.

You are most welcome to post n the topic that this thread is about. " Why is Evolution taught as fact". If you do continue to post, I ask that you please keep it simple and tone down the ridicule of other peoples faiths.


Seafox14

I could see how you'd feel attacked, Seafox. But I am guessing that buddy215 was bothered by the idea of a museum that passes faith as fact rather than providing the service which is what we normally think of as a museum's function: the disbursal of accurate information.

Your words are very telling. "Please don't ridicule other peoples faith." Perhaps he was a bit blunt, but such a museum is indeed based on faith. No credible scientist in the world would claim that dinosaurs and humans coexisted.

The fact that your creation-based website includes the work of individuals who have earned doctorates does not mean they are conducting science.

Anyway, the title on the thread is, "Why Evolution is Taught as Fact." Is it really too far off the mark to ask "why should creationism, then, be taught as fact instead," since it appears to be the assumed "other option" on this thread?

Well, perhaps it is. The question probably requires its own thread, as it would unfold along a rather different path. Technically, this thread could and perhaps should have been conducted without one bit of theological consideration and treated as a purely scientific debate. It could have focused specifically on the strengths and weaknesses of the theory. But instead it was turned into a Science vs g(G)od debate in the initial post.



There are plenty of people who do not see evolution simply as a foil to religion. There are also many who do not see evolution and religion as mutually exclusive.

Christianity, by the way, has been "booted out of public schools" for no other reason than this: the U.S. is not a Christian Theocracy. How is teaching Christianity in schools anything but an attempt to force that one specific religion on children?

Evolution, when it is assumed to be truth as such, is no longer science...I will agree with you there. Teachers who describe the theory without explaining first what scientific theory actually is are doing us all a disservice. If anything, kids should be encouraged to ask questions about scientific convention; not only will it increase their understanding, it will help develop their analytical abilities as well.

Since it was my post that seemed to anger Buddy into that tyrade about a museum, I'll respond.

First, I'd like to thank Seafox for clarifying the Genesis story, it was indeed describing a week as we know it. I believe my teachers were offering the opportunity for us to think about this Bible story and the evolution theory. When she said that days were not necessarily the 24 hours we know now, she was offering us an opportunity to think critically.

LocallyP, if you only teach a child one theory, how can s/he analyze it? When I studied quantitative and cost/benefit analysis in college, we needed to have more than one point to compare. If you only teach the THEORY of evolution, what will the children have to compare it to develop analytical skills and make their own decisions? Children of today seem to feel very empty and sad.

America was designed to NOT be a theocracy, therefore the division of Church and State. But that doesn't mean that the concept of God/Intelligent Designer/Higher Power should be eliminated e.g. "In God (not allah) We Trust". If you read back on this forum, you will see many points having been made that you may have missed.

Reading between the lines of your post, I see your anger that people are making money by building a museum. There is much archaeological evidence of the stories in the Bible. If you want to get rich, develop an idea and make it go! Don't just criticize the success of others. The South Korean kid studying abroad who masacred the people on the Iowa campus mentioned his hatred for rich people in his note.

I've made this point before, and I will make it again. Children want to know "where did I come from" and "why am I here". The worst disservice we did to children was taking prayer out of the schools. One young person who wrote to Bleeping thought that Creationism was just recently invented and maybe in 200 years we would have proof. My recent response was merely an answer to a question. It is unfortunate that the greatest literary work of this planet has become so unknown. Children are naturally curious and I do not think it is fair to keep them in the dark about our Founding Principles.

Do you know what the Tower of Babel was? It is happening to America for no good reason. If you wonder where the jobs went, it was the same way of America's Melting Pot and the American Dream. Corporate welfare and corrupt politicians have destroyed America's founding principles, are failing to protect us from invasion, and blowing people's minds when they come here from other countries and cannot see why we were ever successful.

Buddy. Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive nor a war between religion/spirituality and agnostic, atheistic, irreligious, unbelieving, undevout, unholy. And I forgive your lack of respect for my beliefs, and the spiritual beliefs of those millions of Americans who worship in those "museums" on every street corner.

A scientific theory is not an arbitrary guess. A scientific theory is a theoretical framework based on observation and experiment.

Someone asks, "who ate the last piece of pizza?" You answer, "well, I have a theory about that." This is the sort of "theory" people are confusing with a scientific theory. They are not the same thing.

I think that the lack of scientific understanding in this country is a real problem, especially since the impact of science becomes greater every day.

So no, I don't think evolution should be taught as indisputable fact; but the thought that any hypothesis is as good as the next is simply incorrect. Would you like several engineers to make guesses about the wing loading of a plane you are riding in, assuming that each one is as valid as the next?

If new evidence is found, the theory must be changed or thrown out in favor of a new theory. Science is self-correcting, as long as we are taught the analytical skills to conduct scientific method. Can you say the same about religion?



1. I don't understand this statement. Was the "(not allah)" bit supposed to be a joke? Or was that truly an anti-Islamic comment?

2. Apparently many of us are missing points during the course of this thread. But, it's a long thread indeed. It would be helpful if you would be specific about a given point you feel has been missed instead of simply making condescending remarks.



Anger? No anger here, my friend. That was not a particularly constructive comment. Perhaps you should focus on what I actually say rather than your own interperetation; if you don't understand my meaning, simply ask. I will do the same.

But here's a question for you: what would you say about a "museum" started by neo-Nazis, "proving" that the Holocaust never occurred? The point is this: the term "museum" ought to be reserved for a building that distributes facts and information. The idea that anyone can call their exhibit a "museum" and thus add credibility to their claims is a scary thought indeed, especially considering the continued decline of analytical thought in western countries.

As for criticizing people for financial success, personal finances never entered my mind while composing that post.



Well, I do agree that our economic methodology has come back to bite us in the end. But the Framers more or less believed in Adam Smith's interpretation of economic theory; unregulated capitalism can only end in great disparity of wealth. Could our system have ever ended up any other way?

Ah, but I detect a tangent in the making! This sounds like the makings of a good thread, but we ought not digress too far from the topic at hand!

Not to change the subject, but joygreen, that "South Korean kid" wasn't studying abroad, he was brought here since about elementary school (I think), and it definitely didn't happen on an Iowan campus (unless your referring to another event...?). It was at Virginia Tech.

I knew I wrote the wrong state after I posted, didn't come back to correct. It's "Nawth" of the Mason-Dixon line, and I am geographically challenged. As bad a boo-boo if someone from my generation messed up the name of Kent State...

LocallyP, you make a good point about scientific theory, selff-correcting... There are occasional findings of ancient texts which puts things into perspective e.g. the role of Mary Magdeline. But I don't think we will be rewriting the Bible anytime sooner or later. Also, my whole post was not addressed to you, my dear. Sorry it looked that way.

If UFOs and Aliens were indeed found to be true, that would turn religion on its head. But the point I keep trying to make is that Children need spiritual guidance. Agnostics get upset when their children learn about God in school, and so it was taken out. But those children have the right to discuss their questions, but how are they going to question if they learn nothing about the subject. Plus it is such a help to make them want to do good and be good. (propaganda, did I say? hmmm)

I am personally of a spiritual nature with some immutable beliefs, but Religion as defined by the many churches can be a dangerous thing when it fails to tolerate others. We can look at history for examples, but why when it's going on in the middle east where Jews and Christians have no right to life in the mind of their neighbors. It is also a perfect example of the danger of Theocracy. I don't think our forefathers ever imagined such a manner of government fo America, but they did indeed recognize God and the Bible; and I do not want that changed - it was a recipe for success for 200 years. Unfortunately now we have muck in Washington and crime in America that blows my mind and I'm sure that of many, many others. I am so sorry for the Virginia Tech community; and I think you're right about another thread. Isn't Japan a country of little to no crime?

I cannot imagine that prayer in public schools was ever bad for anyone, (one little prayer said after the Pledge of Allegience). Children need it for guidance (i digress) and also if we are trying to teach them to think then Evolution should NOT be the only theory we teach them. Somebody must have postulated Creation - didn't they call it the "Big Bang"?

Perhaps, because of so many varied religious beliefs, the best place to learn and question would be via their parents and religious gathering places. But by the time our children hit high school, I've often wondered why there is not an optional course, perhaps called 'Religion and Tolerance'' offered. Not one religious belief but a class consisting of at least briefly covering the various religions. Not to teach each religion but to show children that each is valid to someone and why. Our world is changing - and quickly - and understanding and tolerance of each other's beliefs (or non-beliefs) would be a lovely thing to instill into our children to prepare them for the world as it is now and will become.

On a personal note, please don't take Christianity back "two hundred years" - eep and hoot! Many Christians firmly believed it was their Christian duty to ensure that slaves existed (and that they had no "soul"), that women were "subservient" to men and even later, that 'blacks' should not mix with 'whites' and when a woman teacher married, she could no longer teach (but a male teacher marrying could), and on and on and on. Times change and so do most religions, thankfully - gentle grin.

"But I don't think we will be rewriting the Bible anytime sooner or later."

Is not every new translation in effect a rewriting? And, as scholars improve the various critical editions of the original, is this not- - -in a way--- a "rewriting"?

I think the mental picture of the Bible as something static, somehow above any kind of existential process providing its words with meaning leads to much confusion. This can lead people to conclude that, for example, the Bible was read by the writers of the Constitution with the same meanings as we give it today or even at the time.
Regards,
John

John. the many translations that are out have more to do with the way the modern languages change over the years. I have read 3 translations myself (King James, new international version, and the new living translation). take a look at this: Manuscript Evidence for the Bible.

Is the Bible a credible history book? Weren't there a number of changes made to the Bible over the centuries? What about all those interpretations of the oral tradition?

When it comes to the biblical text, there's a common misunderstanding about interpretations and translations. Yes, the Bible has been translated from its original languages, but it has not been changed or interpreted along the way. Translations such as the King James Version are derived from existing copies of ancient manuscripts -- the Hebrew Masoretic Text (Old Testament) and the Greek Textus Receptus (New Testament).

Today's Bibles are not translations of texts translated from other interpretations - they go right back to the ancient source manuscripts. The primary differences between today's Bible translations and those from earlier periods are based more on the need to update the target language than on the fact that our ancient manuscripts are not reliable. For example when it says in the old King James Version that Caiaphas "rent" his clothes (Matthew 26:5), it does not mean that he let someone else use his clothes for money. In 16th Century English "rent" meant "to tear." A modern translation needs to update based on the change in word meanings in a living language.

Dramatically, when the Bible is compared to other writings, it stands alone as the best-preserved literary work of all antiquity. There are thousands of existing Old Testament manuscripts and fragments copied throughout the Middle East, Mediterranean and European regions that agree phenomenally with each other.1 In addition, these texts substantially agree with the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which was translated from Hebrew to Greek during the 3rd Century BC.2 The Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in Israel in the 1940's and 50's, also provide astounding evidence for the reliability of the ancient transmission of the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament) in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Centuries BC.3

The manuscript evidence for the New Testament is also dramatic, with nearly 25,000 ancient manuscripts discovered and archived so far, at least 5,600 of which are copies and fragments in the original Greek.4 Some manuscript texts date to the early 2nd and 3rd Centuries, with the time between the original autographs and our earliest existing fragments being a remarkably short 40-60 years.5

Interestingly, this manuscript evidence far surpasses the manuscript reliability of other ancient writings that we trust as authentic every day. Look at these comparisons:

o Homer's Iliad (643 manuscripts remain, with the earliest one dating to 400 years after the original autograph);
o Julius Caesar's The Gallic Wars (10 manuscripts remain, with the earliest one dating to 1,000 years after the original autograph);
o Pliny Secundus' Natural History (7 manuscripts remain; with the earliest one dating to 750 years after the original autograph);
o Thucydides' History (8 manuscripts remain; with the earliest one dating to 1,300 years after the original autograph);
o Herodotus' History (8 manuscripts remain; with the earliest one dating to 1,350 years after the original autograph);
o Plato's essays (7 manuscripts remain; with the earliest one dating to 1,300 years after the original autograph);
o Tacitus' Annals (20 manuscripts remain; with the earliest one dating to 1,000 years after the original autograph).6

When it comes to credibility and accuracy, the huge number of biblical manuscripts is powerful. Like all other ancient documents, we don't have the original autographs. However, the sheer number of biblical manuscripts allows scholars to reconstruct the entire original with near complete accuracy!

In real terms, the New Testament is easily the best attested ancient writing in terms of the sheer number of documents, the time span between the events and the document, and the variety of documents available to sustain or contradict it. There is nothing in ancient manuscript evidence to match such textual availability and integrity.7

But if you don't read the text of the Bible for yourself, it doesn't make any difference to you how accurate it is!

1. Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999, 71-73.
2. Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, vol.1, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1979, 58-59.
3. Ibid. 56-57.
4. McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, 34-36.
5. John Ryland's Gospel of John fragment, John Ryland's Library of Manchester, England. See also, Ibid., 38.
6. McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, vol.1, 42.
7. Ravi K. Zacharias, Can Man Live Without God? Word Publishing, 1994, 162.

RE: yom

The interpretation of what the Bible "means" by day in its account of creation is open to debate. A discussion of the various interpretations, and their religious implications can be found here:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_world1.htm

Regards,
John

"LocallyP, if you only teach a child one theory, how can s/he analyze it? When I studied quantitative and cost/benefit analysis in college, we needed to have more than one point to compare. If you only teach the THEORY of evolution, what will the children have to compare it to develop analytical skills and make their own decisions?"

When one does a cost/benefit analysis, does one choose between different formulae, or does one's preferences about the procedure enter into how it is done? And what if one chooses to use ONLY one point to compare, would one be criticised for that and told "you don't know how to do it correctly?
***
In physics, does the instructor have to teach both the wave and the corpuscular theory of light?

How would teaching two different theories side by side improve critical ability, without a logically prior and thorough understanding of the rules by which one actually does critical thinking?

Does this mean that an teacher of English language should teach not only formal English spelling, but also that b4 is as good as "before." Does it mean that any discussion of theories of racial equality should also teach Nazi rassenwissenshaft, or that a high school library should always provide a copy of Mein Kampf? The argument that teaching different theories side by side surely implies that this "method" should be employed in every subject.

Regards,
John

Hey John, John here.

Isn't the Theory of Evolution a scientific concept,

while the Belief in Creationism is a religious concept?

There's a large body of evidence that can be analyzed regarding evolution, some of which may even shed doubt on it, but still, modern science continues to delve into the possibilities and self-correct as they discover more.

Creationism, on the other hand, changes quite a bit from religion to religion, and lacking a scientific basis hasn't been given "theory" status as far as I know. (Which isn't very far sometimes, by the way.)

As I've said before, I don't believe the two concepts are mutually exclusive. However, I don't support teaching a non-scientific concept based on a religious belief in U.S. schools, partly since it would clearly imply some support for that general religious belief system while ignoring other religious concepts regarding how the world came to be. Nor would I support teaching it as an alternate scientific theory.

Now, if someone wanted to discuss how God created our known universe using scientific principles, that would, maybe, be an acceptable course, perhaps at the "elective" college level.

Hi Mara! I was wondering where you were... Don't worry, Christianity won't be stepping backwards in time. Fortunately, we go forward as so eloquently described by Seafox in Post #179. Your entry made me recall that when I was a child some 50 years ago, I thought black people didn't have "angels" and that if one crossed his/her eyes and an angel passed, one's eyes would be crossed forever... We had a Nanny/housekeeper whom I loved dearly. I decided to test the theory: I bravely crossed my eyes as she was walking by and proved to myself that black people do indeed have angels! I was a brave 5 year old...

My Faith has done much for me through life, and I wouldn't give it up for anything. God has answered my prayers many times, in such strange ways I had to think about what just happened to realize that I had just gotten my answer! I know we disagree about this, but do you think it is right for a parent to insist that their children practice the same spirituality or lack thereof? I got married in church, but my son did not, it was his decision. He is now floating among Christian churches while I do not attend anywhere. And my daughter, who is younger and did not attend Catholic school, gets mad at me that I didn't teach her enough.

To all: But this forum has shown that many people are not familiar with the most basic Biblical passages. I have explained Genesis 1 twice now in this thread. Seafox said it the best, and I agree, how can one criticize that which has not been studied or at least reviewed?

And to whoever responded that a cost/benefit analysis of one item, well, ya just can't do that Perhaps you meant to say you would compare your item to "doing nothing" which is always an option and should be included in every cost/benefit analysis.

About the idea that "God created everything within Science..." well, God invented the Science that the universe exists within. And we Humans are discovering the depth and complexity of science, I just cannot imagine that it all happened by accident. And I don't want to, either. Living this life must be for some reason other than a sperm and an egg randomly colliding... And I like to think that at the end of this life, I will know which way to turn to continue on my journey.

Pace al tutti!

Science requires a belief in duality, but yet nothing can be proven without consciousness.

True science is objective and impartial, but this is its paradox for the act of identifying and proving is unobjective.
-----------------

As for the question, evolution is not taught as fact. The reason that it is called a theory, is the reflection of sciences aim to be impartial so how ever it is taught, its title states the truth, that it is just a theory.

Well said nn23.

Thanks blueandgold

Agreed. Aren't they, ultimately, two completely different methods for finding the same goal...which is to provide an explination of the world around us?



1. I am not sure what you mean by this.

2. I don't think it's a paradox exactly.

I imagine you are suggesting that by observing and categorizing an object or event we are interacting with it in such a way that we are no longer completely independent of it. This is true, but it is true perhaps for existence itself; even so, it certainly doesn't cancel out the usefulness of scientific method.

Or are you talking about the human tendency to apply emotional spin...our wants, expectations, ect. to what we observe, thus tainting objectivity? True, as emotional beings, humans can never be completely objective; objectivity instead exists in degrees. So, rather than the impossible goal of pure objectivity, it's a matter of asymptotic improvement over time in our level of objectivity.

What you said to both my points are true and i agree, but i feel these issues are often disreguarded simply because the scientific method is useful, and are often ignored when the scientific method cannot be applied to something that is unobservable, uncatagorizable or has no form.

These unobservable, uncatagorizable things that have no form are then classified as invalid or disproven, when actually they are simply imeasurable via scientific method.


mmm..no, i was being quite literal. Objective basically means without bias, but anything that has an aim is partial towards it. I simply find it interesting that many people who advocate the philosophies of science will refer to it as being rigorously objective, impartial and systematic but by its very aim, it shoots itself in the foot. As you said, it is still useful ...within its realm of interpretation.

NICE ONE!!
nn23

" Objective basically means without bias, but anything that has an aim is partial towards it. I simply find it interesting that many people who advocate the philosophies of science will refer to it as being rigorously objective, impartial and systematic but by its very aim, it shoots itself in the foot. As you said, it is still useful ...within its realm of interpretation."

In an absolute sense, nothing known to mankind is objective and without necessary interpretation, with the exception (perhaps) of the rules of reason, and even these can be questioned as "really" true. I am not sure that holding any endeavor to such an absolute standard gets one very far nor does the admitted intentionality of knowledge as such, automatically invalidate the results. As even Aristotle understood, one cannot demand the same level of truth for every branch of human knowledge.

However, in another and perhaps less severe sense, science does approach ever closer to the criterion of objectivity because it attempts to bracket the knower from the known. And by its inclusiveness in explaining ever more phenomena, by this very process, tends to eliminate anomalies.

More to the point, since consciousness can reflect on itself and its operations, it is able to understand its potentiality to be, for lack of a more precise word, "biased," ( I would prefer using a word with neutral connotations, such as "perspectival") ---and thus consciousness can make rules for avoiding biasness. The rules and procedures of science, developed especially since the time of Bacon, are designed to do just that.

Moreover, because its theories are tested by many humans in a position to know and who are humanly eager to disprove it, science in this way, too, increases its objectivity.Theories are examined and questioned by literally thousands of scientist spread all over the world, and countless experiments are conducted and a vast amount of data are analyzed to confirm or unconfirm any theory. Another way of putting it is that the agreement of various perspectives, while not a guarantee of abosolute and objective truth, certainly make science extremely probable.

*****
Consider the question of the "Real World" and the world as perceived through individual perspectives. Now if all we can, because of this, know is the apparent world (as it appears to each of our "biased" viewpoints) then of what use is the "real World" except in an intellectually normative way?

Now consider the question of Truth (objectively valid for all time, unchanging, absolutely absolute, here capitalised etc.), and truth as known by us. If everything we know is subject to "bias" or perspective (our place in historical time, our experiences, our educational wanderings, knowledge's intentionality, here in lower case,etc.). Then does this not mean that we can never know Truth, and nothing we can do or strive to know can ever meet Truth's criteria (or if perchance it did, then we would not know it).
[What if our conception of Truth turned out to be (truthfully) a convenient falsehood or lie?]
Except in a normative role,Truth (with a capital T) is simply as non-sensical as is demanding that a fact correspond to the Truth, since there could never be anything like a fact (I suppose I should spell it with a capital F)! In other words, we cannot in principle either know Truth, nor can we ever determine if something somehow corresponds to Truth. If this be the case, then we should abandon that definition of Truth altogether, and understand that all we can know is truth (or better, different degrees or ranks).

Regards,
John

Without researching to provide links etc my info will not be 100% accurate, but from memory.

Bible split into 2 parts, a story book - old testement, a series of letter sent between friends - new testement. Not all letters were included, but just the best ones cherry picked to make a nice book. Cant prove this but i believe it to be true.

Science has shown the world to be about 6billion years old, using the bible it would only make it about 6thousand years old.

All religions should be outlawed, they all brainwash you to some degree or another. (appart from the sacred order of the Jedi)

Finally the earth is flat and stationary, everything revovles around it. the Sun, the moon, and me.

Put down the bottle and slowly back away.

I am still laughing at DSTM's response..."Put down the bottle and slowly back away."

I can think of one "religion" that should be made illegal (or treated as a political organization such as the Ku Klux Klan) since its main purpose is to murder and maim Americans. Check it out! Anybody interested in doing a "Radio Free Middle East"? These children need help..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY0zE64thJ4

Now, Bilko, since the Earth IS billions of years old, could you imagine a cave man writing letters? C'mon now?! (what ARE you imbibing?) And hey, when the Jedi say "May the Force be with you", what do you think the "Force" is? Sounds like a higher power to me, my friend

PS: My hero, Ann Coulter, has a quote about why discussions of evolution always turn into religious discussions... more to come!

"In vino, veritas."
Cheers,
John

This is an interesting issue. It would appear that there is no way to clearly separate the "world that is" from the "world we perceive," since we can't analyze the world in any way but through our perceptions (ie, collection of data by physical senses and interpretation of that data by our brains).

One of my favorite examples of this often comes up in astronomy. Often people look at pictures of nebulae and ask, "is that what it really looks like?" Or, "are those true colors?"

What we think of as "true color" is first off only a tiny part of the electro-magnetic spectrum; second, it's been washed and analyzed by our brains to produce an image; third, the image is cross-referenced in our brain so that we can "make sense" of what we are looking at.

But what are colors in the first place? Are they not simply the way the brain interprets different wavelengths of visible light? Does it make sense to ask, "what color is a microwave?" or "what color is an X-ray?" No, because our brains have apparently arbitrary interpretations for the specific EM wavelengths detectable to our optic nerves.

When you look at the constellation Orion, look at the belt, then down to the tip of his sword. The white hazy patch is M42, the Orion Nebula. It's a vast molecular cloud of gas and dust ("dust" refers to anything more complex than hydrogen or helium). The light produced by the cloud is "actually there." Young hot stars produce EM radiation in the form of ultraviolet rays, which are in turn absorbed by the atoms in the cloud; the light is re-emitted in specific wavelengths. These wavelengths depend on the type of atom that absorbed the UV's. Hydrogen, for example, re-emits UV's in the wavelength our brains interpret as red. Since most nebulae consist mainly of H, (technically H2), often nebulae appear red in "true" color photographs.

But then...when you look at that nebula in Orion on a cold winter night, it's white? You decide to break out a telescope. It's still white. You look through an large telescope. Hmm, a bit of green, but still mostly white.

The reason is that the human eye is not sensitive enough to detect the redness of such feeble light. Only long photographic exposures can collect enough photons to produce "real" colors.

The point is, what we see and what is are often very different things, but we are often unaware. And even when we are aware, in the end, again, how can we draw a line between what exists and what we perceive?

--------

Speaking of Jedi:



Isn't Coulter the current Sith Master?

Uh,

Sith Mistress?

Wow you guys are smart. I can hardly follow you sometimes. What is a Sith? Do I want to know?

S i t h is a Star Wars reference.

May the farce be with you!

joygreen, a Sith is akin to an Evil Jedi. These are the Jedi who have "embraced the Dark Side of the Force."


locally pwned I really enjoyed your post. This is principally one of the reasons that I am so drawn to science (Chemistry in particular), this idea that things can be explained more succinctly through study. While what nn23 postulates has definite merit, I think you have made a good point. Granted, I cannot tell another person what color 'red' is without allowing my own biases to come into play. However, I can tell them that the wavelength of radiation that causes our brains to interpret the color red is approximately in the range of 750-650 nanometers.

As this can be measured repeatably, there is no need for interpretation. Thus, there is no need for bias. While it may be true that as time goes by, a better model may develop to explain electromagnetic radiation (in regards to its quantification), it will still be based on measurable and repeatable quantities. If these units of measure are used consistently within calculation and extrapolation, the role of bias and personal interpretation is mitigated.

Observation and sight are two entirely different methods of analysis. It is important to remember this distinction in many facets of our lives.