TEACHSOC: Re: Teaching environment

[Del Thomas Ph. D.]

In the definition that you use do you see no difference between creation and setting in motion?  Do you see a difference between creating and beginning?  Would the creator have to be  a being?  If so was the creator  created? To get this from faith to science there must be evidence. So far we have almost reached the beginning of this universe (there may be many others) without a hint of evidence of a creator. It has been thus from the time of Giordano Bruno and later Copernicus.  Where is the evidence of a creator by any definition. Basic to life is the passing on of genes/information.  Darwin found that this is not a mechanical process where the next generation simply adopts from the former.  It is to the contrary messy, in flux and requires adapting.  In a word learning.  This requires language or code... and a science of sociology. Getting back to the classroom. Should we be scientific or faith based?  The Pope has declared war on the "dictatorship of relativism."  Perhaps that is better than being the great satin. Relativism is a code word for science and the questioning that comes with it. Yet some claim that science causes the departure from orthodoxy the mechanical adopting of what is passed on for our forefathers.  The problem is made worse as both science and religion have attached industries. I don't think you can have it both ways.  I use Jefferson as an example.  He could have said that he would not let his belief in slavery get in the way of the constitution. Yet it did.  And we are still paying a dear price for it. To be a religious person, a Christian for example must on believe that  the universe was created by  a supreme being?  If not perhaps there is a meeting ground. Del Gerry Grzyb wrote: At 05:40 PM 8/29/2005, Del Thomas Ph. D. wrote: Hi, I'm getting double and triple mail that seems to defy what we know about time. Gerry Grzyb wrote: At 10:51 AM 8/29/2005, Del Thomas Ph. D. wrote: A recent report found that 90+ Americans believed that the universe was created by a supreme being.  I have no more information, and it could be spin. However, there have been a series of "findings" indicating that close to half the population has been born again and or rejects Darwin. Students and sociologists will be included in these findings.  That leads me to the following questions. 1.  Can you be a sociologist and believe that the universe was created by a supreme being? Sure.  Sociology has nothing to say about the origin of the universe--it isn't even an object of scientific inquiry for sociology. If the universe was created by a supreme being Darwin would not be correct. Define "created."    I see no conflict whatever between the idea of a creator (or creators) setting the evolutionary process in motion, and Darwin. With out Darwin there is no science of sociology. How so? As such, sociology can neither confirm or deny such a belief.  More generally, any scientist could hold such a belief since there is no way for such a belief to be subjected to a scientific evaluation of evidence. There are ample ways to test this question. The use of Hubble has bee able to see back 10 billion + years.  Durkheim distinguished between the created, mechanical and the evolving, organic.  Things that are created or made behave differently from things that happen. That assertion (and that's all it is) is based on a very narrow definition of creation, and I doubt it will hold up to scrutiny.   For example, people create organizations all the time, and then they often proceed to "happen"--sometimes quite contrary to the intentions of their creators.   The social world is full of such examples, where "create" and "happen" become hard to distinguish. Science is usually based on observation of happenings. As opposed to things created?  Again, I don't think that is a defensible point. The problems arise when believers convince themselves (and try to convince others) that their beliefs ARE based upon scientific research.  As such, a big part of my job is just to get students to see the difference between scientifically-established fact and belief. I personally believe in a jolly, roly-poly, red-coated guy with a beard who brings an end to every fall semester just before I go nuts. Oddly part of my comments were a result of Brock Chisolm's paper on world mental health.  He cites Santa as the first of many lies in the adopting process, handing down information to the next generation that is not to be tested or adapted.  He says it much much better. Santa?  What Santa?  I was talking about the guy who closes up the residence halls and forces students to return home for clean clothing between semesters (we've got a 6-7 week break). Gerry Grzyb