Talk on moral and religious education

My final talk in Romania has been posted on you tube, I've just discovered. In segments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ3UrDEh2co – ep. 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhJ_LdNpBeQ – ep. 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hgqz2d2e1w8 – ep. 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fmr77U3F754 – ep. 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4i8WO_0TwY8 – ep. 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYrkHuJMSWQ – ep. 6

Why is there anything at all?

Sally and Mike N commented on previous post about the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" As Mike suggests, it is a very popular recruiting device among theists. It puts atheists on the defensive:

"Well, we theists can explain why the universe exists - so what's your explanation, then?"

The atheist must admit they have not got one, which makes their position look weak. At the very least, the theist may think that, by getting the atheist to admit they don't know the answer, the atheist is, in effect, admitting that, for all they know, God might be the answer. Theism and atheism end up on an equal footing, rationally speaking.

But of course, the Judeo-Christian explanation is just one among countless answers that might be offered. Why the Judeo-Christian God rather than, say, an evil God or a morally neutral God? Or countless other explanations.

Actually, the question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" may well not make sense.

But even if it does, it does not follow that, because the atheist must admit they don't know the answer, then they cannot rule out the Judeo-Christian God as the answer.

Compare my earlier Sherlock Holmes analogy:

Sherlock Holmes is having a bad day. There’s been a terrible murder. There are hundreds of suspects. And he just can’t figure out who dunnit.

However, while Holmes can’t say who the culprit is, he is quite sure that certain people are innocent. The butler, in particular, has a cast-iron alibi. So Holmes is rightly confident the butler didn’t do it, despite the fact that he doesn’t know who did.

In the same way, an atheist can admit that there is a mystery about why the universe exists, and that they are utterly baffled by it, while nevertheless insisting that there’s overwhelming evidence that, whoever or whatever created it (if anything) it certainly wasn’t the all-powerful, all-good God of Judeo-Christian theology.

They can be as sure of that as they can be that it is not the creation of an all-powerful, all-evil God. For there is, in both cases, little evidence for and overwhelming evidence against (too much suffering, in the case of the good God; too much good in the case of the evil God) (see my God of Eth, for more on the evil God hypothesis).

Theists shouldn't make the mistake of supposing that, because there’s a deep mystery about why there is anything at all, that puts theism and atheism on an equally rational/irrational footing. It doesn’t.

POSTSCRIPT 17.33PM

Incidentally, theologian Denys Turner is notable for suggesting that we atheistic moderns are inclined somehow to dismiss the question:

"Denys Turner (DT): Well, I think that you've got to find a way of asking a certain kind of question if you're going to be a proper, card carrying, atheist. I think one begins to be a theist - to start at that end - when one realises that there's a certain kind of question which gets swept off the agenda and my point was that you have to work quite hard to ensure that question doesn't keep on re-emerging... and that question is, "Why is there anything at all?", as distinct from, "How are things, given that we've got them?"...

...even more important than the question of whether God exists is the question of "What questions are legitimate?", and the standard answer to, I suppose the theistic position in our time, is that the question which the name God appears to be some kind of answer to doesn't make sense as a question - it gets ruled out. So it's the agenda of questions which I would start and why is it that, umm, that a culture limits itself to asking, as it were, a set of routine questions which it has handily the methodologies for answering. It's almost as if the methods we've got for answering questions dictate what questions we allow to be asked. And I just think there's a very troubling question which kind of niggles on the edge of all the other questions."

Source here.

"God", or merely "some intelligence"?

Author@ptbooks has been defending a form of creationism, and also arguing for the existence of God.

I pointed out that the arguments for authors specific God are weak, and that the problem of evil provides seemingly overwhelming evidence against the existence of any such being.

Author's response has been to say that that are "too busy" to discuss the issue of whether God is good or not, and that they are merely defending belief in God, not his goodness.

But this seems highly evasive to me. Surely it is now misleading for author to continue to use the term "God" here, as, for most people, "God" means something far more specific - a personal God who is supremely benevolent and powerful, among other things.

Indeed, author's arguments from design really only support, at best, the hypothesis that there is some intelligence behind the universe. This intelligence may not even be divine (for example, perhaps this universe is the virtual, Matrix-like creation of a perfectly natural intelligence). Nor need it be unitary (perhaps its the work of a team).

So, unless author is prepared to defend the view that the intelligence is supernatural, unitary, and indeed bears at least some connection with the God of the Old Testament, etc., shouldn't they drop the otherwise highly misleading "God" and just talk about "some intelligence"?

Otherwise it looks like author is guilty of humpty-dumptying (making words mean whatever you want them to mean).

In any case, we can now do this: I have provided, I believe, overwhelming evidence that if the universe has a designer, it is not the all-good God of traditional monotheism - the one believed in by author@ptgbooks.

Moreover, author has, by his own admission, provided no evidence in support of that specific God-hypothesis.

So, let's now consider other possible design-hypotheses, but, until author deals with the evidence now provided, let's be clear that whatever the designer, if any, is - it isn't his particular God.

On demonizing religion

Following on from my post on Romania, I want to add that, as a matter of fact, I met only one Orthodox priest while I was there, and he was a lovely chap for whom I've the greatest respect.

We stopped off at an Orthodox Church which we spotted to take a look. There turned out to be a funeral in progress, with an open casket in the back of the hearse and the priest doing his thing. Straight after, he beckoned us over and was extremely welcoming, giving us a very informative tour of his church, of which he was rightly proud (it all had to be translated via our taxi driver and host).

So let me clarify - I am not attacking religious people per se, many of whom are wonderful. Nor am I really attacking the institution of religion much (though I do argue against religious belief on the grounds that it is false, and, in some forms, dangerous).

Fact is, religions aren't all bad. Indeed, I wouldn't like to say they are more bad than good (as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins do, for example).

True, I don't like religious homophobes and other bigots. But the reason I don't like them is that they are bigots, not that they are religious.

In fact I am as keen on defending people's right to be religious as I am to defend their right to be atheist.

Yes I am very much a defender of freedom of thought and expression, which some religious folk restrict in various ways. But then so do some atheists (e.g. Stalin).

It's really worth teasing out what we do and don't object to, in case we slip into demonizing the religious, which I think would actually be highly counterproductive. And largely unjustified.

Letter from Romania

I'm currently in Romania, guests of some fabulous people. I am also doing some talks with Paul Kurtz and Norm Allen for CFI.

Religion in Romania: some interesting facts:

• Only 0.2% of the population claim to be atheists.
• The main church is the national Orthodox Church, which gets to teach religion to all kids in state schools, unless their parents pull them out. They are teaching creationism.
• The church has great political influence.
  
• As a result evolution has been pulled from the curriculum, as has any philosophy of religion in which religion is critically examined.
• Only 14% of 10-18 year olds believe the theory of evolution.
• I spoke to a young woman today who says that because she is an atheist, her academic boss victimizes her and is destroying her career. And this sort of bullying and victimization, she tells me, is not at all unusual.
• Our CFI sponsored discussion/conference of secularism today was, to the organizer's knowledge, the first ever in Romania. All the press were informed but none showed up.
  
• It also seems to be illegal to criticize religion in Romania - there will shortly be a legal test case (today I met the guy who is bringing it - against himself).

Speaking again on Wednesday: MIERCURI - 7 MAI 2008 - ORELE 10:00 - 12:00 - Centrul de Cercetri Antropologice "Francisc Reiner" (Bucureti, Bd. Eroilor Sanitari, nr. 8, Sala de Consiliu).



POSTSCRIPT 8th May

I paste in below the comment from Dan, and then from Liviu Andreescu, which contains and confirms some statistics:

FROM DAN

Hi Stephen,

I am afraid the facts you listed here about religion in Romania are far off from reality. I'm sure that your Romanian guests had no intention to misinform you, but they seem disconnected from the religious phenomenon in Romania. I will quickly go over your list for some clarifications:

1. I am not convinced that only 0.2% of the population declares themselves as atheists, but certainly the number is low, most likely below 10%. This is a reaction to the communist times when it was impossible to declare one’s personal religious beliefs.

2. It wasn’t the Orthodox Church that made the religion study mandatory in schools, but the Romanian politicians trying to capitalize on the trust that the population has in Church. At the moment, there are already many clerics that want to pull out the study of religion from school. Orthodox Church encourages spiritual exchange with own confessor and mentor, not the memorization of the Scriptures.

3. The Orthodox Church is trusted by the population and therefore feared by politicians, but it has no political involvement, by its own decision. There were exceptions to this rule in the past, but they were short lived. In general, the Orthodox Church, compared to other Christian Churches, strived not to be involved in politics. I think this is one of the main reasons why the Orthodox Church has kept its reputation intact in the eyes of the population.

4. Evolution was definitely not pulled from the curriculum, and Orthodox Church does not teach Creationism. Orthodox Church, in contrast with other Christian Churches, has kept the Old Testament as part of the dogma. But the Church never tried to interpret ad litteram the Old Testament (Genesis for instance), it sees the Old Testament as apophatic truth (descriptions of the revelations, impaired by the use of human understanding and language).

Orthodox Church has no stance in regard to evolution theory, or any other scientific theory for that matter. At most the Church is against scientific dogma, the use of “science” to rally people against other scientific theories, populations, or against the Church. The fact that Philosophy is taught very briefly in the last year of the high school is because of the poor curriculum, it has nothing to do with the Church. This is my own perspective: I am a biostatistician, I see support for evolution every day in the lab. At the same time I am a Romanian Christian Orthodox, I see no conflict between the two.

6. I have never heard of anyone being persecuted because he or she declared to be atheist. This seems to me a very unlikely situation, probably an attempt by someone to put the blame for a personal failure on something else than the actual reason. The Orthodox Church is very much against forcing people to come to Church, in fact it is actually against proselytism as well (attracting people to the Church).

7. Criticism of the Church is possible in Romania, but don’t expect to attract media attention with such a topic. Romanian TV channels, like any other (young) consumerist society, would rather report latest TV star gossip than doing anything else. In addition, if you plan to discuss the Orthodox Church make sure that your information is correct (ask people outside the atheist circles as well) and that your criticism does not repeat the general criticisms made against the Catholic or Protestant Churches, which most likely do not fit well the Orthodox Church.

Regards,
Dan

FROM LIVIU ANDREESCU

Hi Stephen & co.

This is in response mostly to what Dan above said.

1. Judging by the 2002 national census, there are LESS than 0.2% self-declared atheists in Romania. Those of you who read Romanian - and even those who don't - can find the census results here: http://www.recensamant.ro/datepr/tbl6.html. Hope this is convincing enough. AFAIK, this is the only comprehensive piece of statistics on this point.

2. The Orthodox Church (ROC) has been at the forefront of the campaign to make religion (taught confessionally) MANDATORY in Romanian public schools. And they were very successful in persuading politicians this was a good thing, so much so that it took a Constitutional Court decision to make religion an elective - and even so the status of this subject remains quite unclear. So religious education in public school has been and remains a chief goal of the ROC, ABSOLUTELY no question about that. Indeed, though under Romanian law religion is an elective subject, the official ROC Patriarchate website lists it as mandatory. There might be isolated priests who support taking it out of the public school curriculum, but the official position is quite the opposite. Indeed, I have been working and writing on the subject for the past 3 years and have never encountered one Orthodox priest of the type Dan referred to. More about the history of how religion became a quasi-mandatory subject in Romanian public education, here: http://www.proeuropa.ro/norme_si_practici.html#istoric. (Romanian language)

3. The ROC has been, on the contrary, VERY ACTIVE in Romanian politics, both overtly and behind the scenes. Those of you who can access academic journal databases would do well to read a recent article that deals precisely with this issue: Lavinia Stan and Lucian Turcescu. "Pulpits, Ballots and Party Cards: Religion and Elections in Romania". Religion, State and Society, 33(4), 2005.

4. Evolution WAS DEFINITELY pulled from the biology curriculum through a Ministry of Education Order. (In fact the former minister of education who signed this decision publicly admitted it might have been a mistake.) Those of you who read English can find a summary here: http://www.humanism.ro/articles.php?page=62&article=223. And here: http://www.thediplomat.ro/reports_1207.php. A list of those who protested is here (Romanian lg): http://www.humanism.ro/articles.php?page=62&article=228,

And of course the ROC DEFINITELY teaches creationism: just take a look at the Romanian religion textbooks commonly used in RO public schools. The Genesis account is commonly offered.

6. It depends a lot on what you call "persecution". No one was jailed for being an atheist, afaik. But people have been called things, have fallen off with their bosses, have been denied a floor or an audience on that account, etc. - the usual shenanigans. More significantly, atheists ARE being commonly persecuted when their kids are forced to attend religious education classes in public schools, religious ceremonies in public institutions etc. You can find some more in English in this academic article: Lavinia Stan and Lucian Turcescu, "Religious Education in Romania," Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 38, no. 3 (September 2005)

For general information on religion in Romania in English I recommend a series of academic articles by Stan and Turcescu (see http://people.stfx.ca/lstan/articles.html) as well as their latest book at OUP.

The only comprehensive study of religious education in RO (Romanian language) is available here online (it can be obtained in book format as well): http://www.proeuropa.ro/educatie.html

So Dan, you seem to me to be a decent fellow who's completely misguided and has done no research on these matters.

One final point on what Stephen wrote. Article 13.2 of Romania's new (2007) law on religious denominations stipulates that ‘Any form, means, act or action of religious defamation and antagonism, as well as public offending of religious symbols are forbidden in Romania.’

Some people are concerned this may be used to stifle criticism of religion. As yet, this has not been the case - but the law is merely 1 year old.

I myself am skeptical that the article will be used to such purposes on a regular basis, but I do not find it unlikely that in some isolated cases it might be used to intimidate.

Latest response to author@ptgbooks

author@ptgbooks has been contributing to this blog on creationism.

I have divided my posts into two: those dealing with the issue of whether it's reasonable to suppose the authors' Judeo-Christian God exists, and those dealing with whether creationism should be explicitly acknowledged in school science classes as something science has not disproved (which is what author wants).

On the first issue: two posts ago I pointed out that evidence from design etc. is very weak evidence for the very specific god believed in by Christians (who is all-powerful and good), and that there is, in addition, very powerful evidence against the existence of that God supplied by the problem of evil/suffering. So, in terms of reasonableness, author's belief system looks very unreasonable indeed.

In response, author comments that:
(i) he doesn't want to focus on this issue
(ii) that he has faith - i.e. "chooses to believe what God says" about his own goodness
(iii) that the evidence for his good God is "of such a subjective nature that I wouldn't suggest it to someone who is biased against it".
(iv) he adds "And even to the extent that there may be objective evidence of God's goodness, I don't think you would accept it, and I wouldn't want to debate it here."

So author suggests he might have "objective" evidence, but refuses to present it because I am biased and would not accept it. Also much of his evidence is "subjective", and a matter of "interpreting".

Seems to me the author's "subjective" evidence is not evidence, for it appears to boil down to just always insisting that, no matter how horrific the suffering unleashed upon humanity, etc. might be, he chooses to see it - "interpret" it - as somehow all for the best. But this is not "evidence for" a good God. Actually, that's simply choosing to ignore (or explain away) the evidence against what you believe.

As for the "objective" evidence which is hinted at but never presented - why not present it?

It seems to me author is now becoming highly evasive. These are exactly the kind of moves we expect from believers in auras, astral planes, chi-energies, etc.

They say such things as:

"You can't see the aura? - well, that's your problem: you are not subjectively attuned like me. Plus I have lots of objective evidence for auras, but I won't present it to you 'cos you're biased and won't accept it!"

I bet author sees straight through such moves when employed by practitioners of these flaky arts. So why does he feel he can get away with the exact same moves here?

Summary: seems to me that, on my point that belief in the author's specific God is not supported by his evidence, and in fact the empirical evidence pretty much conclusively refutes that belief, the author is now quickly running out the door...

So perhaps I should now turn to his case for saying school science classes should explicitly acknowledge that creationism has not been disproved by science...

Creationism, and intellectual black holes

Incidentally, has anyone got any information regarding Young Earth Creationists who have ceased being Young Earth Creationists (or even become atheists)?

And have any once confirmed atheists ever ended up YECs?

While lots of religious have become atheists, and vice verse, I am guessing there are very few examples of either of these categories.

I suspect (though it's speculation, I admit), that Young Earth Creationism is an intellectual black hole - that the psychological and other forces that make religion so seductive become so concentrated in the U.S. version of YEC that they reach a critical mass: so that, once you're in, there's no way out again (certainly, not by means of reason).

But I would like to be proved wrong....

Gods, designers, and author@ptgbooks

Here’s my latest response to author@ptgbooks. I am focusing here just on the reasonableness of belief in the Judeo-Christian creator-god.

Author said:

You and other participants have often used examples of ridiculous beliefs like dogs being spies from Venus. I suppose you think belief in a creator God is just as ridiculous. I guess it would do no good to try to point out evidence for God, because you would just discount it.

On the contrary, I have pointed out that the evidence you have provided thus far is very poor, and that there is, in a addition, very good evidence against belief in such a maximally powerful and good God.

Can I suggest you read my “The God of Eth” article, to give you a quick overview of why I think the problem of evil/suffering is fatal to belief in such a God, and why I think your appeal to “mystery” etc. just won’t do. I’d be interested in your response.

I see you put forward as evidence for your God that:

(i) the world shows signs of design
(ii) naturalism can’t account for consciousness; God can
(iii) Biblical prophecies support belief in God

Now I have already explained that, by themselves, these design-arguments, even if good arguments for a designer (which they’re not, but let it pass), no more support belief in a maximally good and powerful god than they support belief in a maximally evil and powerful god (i.e. hardly at all).

Ditto consciousness. Even if consciousness requires a supernatural explanation (which is highly debatable), it’s a huge, unwarranted leap from this to “So the explanation must be a maximally good and powerful God.”

Be good to hear what you think is the most impressive Biblical prophecy. Can you spell it out for us, and why you think it’s good evidence for your god?

Otherwise, it looks very much as if, on the evidence, you are taking a right pasting, doesn’t it?

Summary: Your evidence for your very specific God is weedy [(i) and (ii) no more support belief in your God than they do belief in, say, a maximally powerful, but amoral, God]. Moreover, your attempt to deal with the evidence against the existence of this specific being seems to amount to not much more than this: perhaps in some mysterious way this really is the sort of world we should expect a maximally good and powerful God to create.

Compare this case: Every morning, we find sticks on the beach set in geometric patterns. You say this is clearly evidence that there’s a wonderful designer at work on the beach early each morning. But suppose that woven into these patterns are little animals that have clearly been slowly tortured and killed in the process of being thus-arranged. Is it remotely reasonable still to conclude that the designer is wonderful? Surely not. Yes, there may be a designer. But it’s clear he ain’t that wonderful. Anyone who continues to believe that the designer is wonderful isn’t being terribly rational.

Of course, you might come up with all sorts of ingenious explanations for why what we see is consistent with the designer being wonderful after all (I'm sure we can all think of some). But the fact remains the evidence would point firmly away from that hypothesis.

Creationism - further comments

Here’s a quick-ish response to some of author@ptgbook’s (a creationist, if a slightly unorthodox one) comments on my preceding post.

1. EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR/AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

First, author suggests that the supernatural/God is not something that science can address.

Yet he or she suggests that, actually, there could be empirical evidence for God’s existence. Indeed, he/she cites the truth of prophecies, the fine-tuned character of the laws of nature, etc., and suggest there might also be evidence for ID.

Well, good, so we agree that there can be empirical evidence for, and thus also against, God’s existence.

Let’s look at some of author's alleged evidence supporting belief in God (which is threefold, thus far: fine-tuning, ID and truth of Biblical prophecies).

Actually, fine-tuning and ID-type evidence are evidence, at best, for some sort of intelligence working behind the universe. It’s a huge further, unwarranted leap to conclude this intelligence is all-powerful and supremely benevolent, rather than, say, morally neutral. So it’s a huge further, unwarranted leap to the conclusion that the intelligence is the author’s God.

Second, there’s fantastically good empirical evidence (whether or not you call it “scientific”) against the existence of an all-powerful and supremely benevolent being such as that believed in by author. I am referring to the sheer quantity of suffering unleashed upon humanity, and of course the other countless other sentient creatures with whom we share this planet, suffering taking place not just now, but stretching back over millions of years. Surely such a being would not inflict such literally unimaginable amounts of horror, often on the most innocent?

Quick summary. The evidence offered for the author's God is very weak. We have, in addition, fantastically good evidence that there's no such being.

Conclusion: A quick survey of the alleged "evidence" suggests that what author believes is highly irrational (not withstanding his/her evidence from “prophecies”, which to me seems comical, frankly - but perhaps s/he’d like to defend a particular example? In fact, I'd like them to - be a good discussion, I think.)

2. CREATIONISM

On author's comments on the whole creationism/evolution issue (he/she defends a form of creationism on which humankind and all currently existing species were created as described by Genesis about 6k years ago, but the universe itself is much older, the Earth previously being populated with dinosaurs etc.), I have not much to add to what others have already said, other than to point out (as does Steelman and others) that author does pretty much exactly what I described in my essay.

That’s to say, he/she tries to show that what they believe is consistent with the fossil record E.g. There's evidence of an ancient Earth with dinosaurs etc. developing over millions of years; the Bible doesn’t explicitly deny this (if we suppose this all took place before day 1 of Genesis); therefore the author’s Biblical theory “fits” the evidence too! Of course this move raises all sorts of other problems, but I don’t doubt that, just like the lunatic who believes dogs are spies from Venus [see my essay below], author can and will continue to come up with further explanations that make his theory "fit”.

Scientists, by contrast, have repeatedly strongly confirmed the theory that current species have gradually developed from simple life forms over millions/billions of years, by natural selection, etc.

Author objects to the latter theory being taught as “fact” in schools because, for example, it is not “proved” that God didn’t intervene on occasion.

But as others have pointed out, there’s no good evidence that he did intervene, and, moreover, the naturalistic explanation offered by science seems to do the job of explaining the emergence of new species, etc. without any supernatural help.

So, to insist that the above naturalistic theory not be taught as “fact” is akin to insisting that children should not be taught how plants function by photosynthesis as scientists have not proved that, say, invisible, intangible fairies are not somehow also sometimes involved in the process (for how could scientists "prove" that?).

But bear in mind, in any case, that even if there were evidence for an “intelligent designer”, there’s also abundant evidence that the designer in question is not author’s God.

POST SCRIPT. I am pleased that author is contributing as it's fascinating debating with someone with such a bizarre belief system.

But I wouldn't want anyone, including the author, to go away thinking that this debate - and the way it tends to go on and on - shows there must, then, be at least something to creationism after all. It doesn't (anymore than the fact that my debate with a schizophrenic who thinks dogs are Venusian spies goes on and on shows that there must be something to what they believe).

The interminable character of the debate is not evidence that it cannot be rationally settled (it can) - rather, it shows that, by adopting a certain sort of strategy, any theory, no matter how ridiculous, can be defended ad nauseum.

What most interests me is the question: how do we reach author? I know he/she will find this terribly patronizing - and I guess it is - but he/she has locked themselves inside a bizarre and seemingly impenetrable bubble of belief which leaves us scratching our heads as to how anyone could believe such patent cobblers (to me, author really does seem very much like the lunatic who thinks dogs are spies from Venus), and leaves him/her convinced that we are part of some global conspiracy against THE TRUTH (and perhaps also the agents of Satan).

My essay suggests that it's the overall patterns of thought exhibited by creationists like author that we need to expose. I guess I want to ask him/her: why do you think you're not like someone who believes that dogs are spies from the planet Venus? After all, they can make their beliefs "fit" the evidence too. And by much the same means!

"Creationism" defended and "evolution" attacked

Here's a comment from author@ptgbook.org on my post on Darwin, creationism and evidence. Reminds me of Spencer Tracey towards the end of Inherit The Wind (the Tracey character puts to the blustering old creationist prosecutor that perhaps the "days" of the Bible lasted millions or billions of years). I am posting it here as it deserves special treatment, I feel. I'll respond further in next post...

Your article is interesting and makes some good points, but it is missing the larger picture.

Not all Bible literalists believe in a six thousand year old earth. A literal understanding of Genesis allows a time period of unspecified length between verse 1 and verse 3. This could have been billions of years. In other words, in verse 1 God created the earth. The earth could have become filled with life. At some point, the surface of the earth became covered with water as described in verse 2. Then starting in verse 3, God restored the earth to a condition of having life on it.

Those who believe in a 6,000 year old earth do not believe this because they literally believe the Bible. They believe it because they believe the religious traditions they grew up in.

A literal reading of the Bible fully allows for an earth billions of years old even with life forms that existed for hundreds of millions of years.

You are correct in saying that more is required for evidence to confirm a theory than that the theory be consistant with the evidence. So far, you have avoided the word "proof". Has science proved evolution has occurred? And if not, is it right to teach children in tax supported public schools in a country that prohibits government from hindering the free exercise of religion, that evolution is a fact if you are unable or unwilling to say you have proved that it happened?

You gave a definition of creationism that includes belief in a 6,000 year old earth, even tho not all creationists believe in a 6,000 year old earth. But that definition is convenient for you because the idea of a 6,000 year old earth is the easiest for you to try to refute. It is also the majority opinion among creationists who claim to believe the Bible literally, so that is no doubt another reason you define creationism that way.

I will also give a definition of evolution that I think expresses the majority thinking of evolutionists and the teaching of science in the public schools. Evolution is the teaching that life in all its variety arose on the earth only through natural causes. In other words, evolution as taught in the public schools does not allow for supernatural intervention by God in a process of new species descending from other species. If someone suggested that God intelligently and supernaturally made genetic changes over millions of years to produce new species descended from older ones, that is not "evolution". To prove evolution is how life came to be, you have to prove that there was no supernatural intervention or creation in the origins of species.

How can science do that if the scientific method does not allow for consideration of supernatural causes? You have to consider and examine the possibility of supernatural causes in order to rule them out. But science cannot even discuss the supernatural.

Many of those who believe in a literal reading of the Bible also see confirmation of the inspiration of the Bible in the predictive value of its prophecies, and these predictions and their fulfillment serve as evidence for the Bible just as scientific predictions about fossils suggest to scientists that more complex life forms appeared gradually on the earth.

Many thanks for this contribution. Here's a question to the author to kick things off:

My question: I take it the author has no objection to teachers in public tax-funded schools teaching children that species have evolved over millions of years and that natural selection has played a important role in that process, for of course that would not rule out supernatural intervention of the sort proposed by the author, and also by I.D. theorists such as Michael Behe?

Secondly, I'll make a point. The author says: "How can science do that if the scientific method does not allow for consideration of supernatural causes?"

Well, as I understand it, the scientific method, as such, does allow for consideration of supernatural causes. There could be a scientific investigation into the existence of ghosts or reincarnation, for example.