I went when I was really young. I think I mainly visited resorts and amusement parks.
The Origin of Species
-
Real, how has your mental health been lately? :D
-
Well teaching something that isn’t fact isn’t really a good idea so if you take out Evo you probably shouldn’t put in Creation.
F_alk basically re-iterated this again in the upper most section of his post before he dissolved into a little anti-american rant by my usage of the word “world” (which I maintain is still a factual claim as much of the world believes in alternative methods of creation of mankind and not necessarily evolution.)
And I agree. It should be removed and not replaced. You may reintroduce it when evolution is proved to be the only method that could have created life as we know it on planet earth. Personally, I think evolution holds up well to explain the differences in “flavors” of mankind (white, black, curly hair, straight hair, etc.)
And F_alk, as I said in my post, many religious people, of varrying “flavors”, view “this whole line of teachings is viewed by many religious families as a direct assault on their faith.” Whether it is or is not is totally irrellevant to the discussion. Evolution is a theory, there’s no proof that it exists and as a theory, to believe in it takes faith. That faith is contrary to the faith’s of other people who disbelieve in evolution and to force all children to study it and hold them accountable for repeating it as fact can be perceived by many to be detrimental to their children’s spiritual well being.
Notice, I’m saying “can be viewed” and referencing others then myself. Personally, I like to believe that my children will be raised properly and can tell the difference between opposing theories and choose which they believe in themselves, much like I was able to do. However, if we TRUELY want to be tolerant of all religions, then we really should not side with one theory or another that directly contradicts fundamental pillars of certain religions - especially when the facts supporting the theory in question are questionable at best and at times, completely doctored. (Yes, there are cases where men took bones from different animals and combined them to claim they had the missing link for personal glory, so no, I’m not making it up when I say even evolution has fictitiousness around it.)
-
(which I maintain is still a factual claim as much of the world believes in alternative methods of creation of mankind and not necessarily evolution.)
Okay I object to your oversimplification of origin mythology in non western cultures as being similar to intelligent design. Do the people who believe humans were made by the Jaguar that raped the first women fit into ID. I don’t think so. Unless God is a licentious feline deity.
No, but then again, you’ll notice I said that a majority of the world believes in ALTERNATE methods of creation and not in creation by God or some other form of god(s), thus, a jaguar raping the first woman creating the first man would fit into that alternate theory (alternate to evolution that is.)
Personally, I think evolution holds up well to explain the differences in “flavors” of mankind (white, black, curly hair, straight hair, etc.)
And this is where I previously attacked you for being a cultural evolutionist but not a biological one. You can’t the latter without the former. There is actually very little genetic variation between humans, far less than many other species in fact. The “racial” characteristics are entirely superficial. Could you tell an Arab from an Italian, a German from a Russo-Ukrainian. I seriously doubt it.
That’s the point I was trying to make. While we have minor genetic drift we did not evolve from another species. Yes, we have olive skin, tan skin, white skin, black skin, red hair, curly hair, black hair, blue eyes, brown eyes, etc. But we’re all still human. We have the same number of chromosomes, the same medicine works on us, we all bleed when we’re cut, we all have the capability to love and feel warmth.
We create larger ears of corn by planting only the kernals from the largest ears of corn. Does this mean corn evolved from grass? No, it means that through selective breeding we have brought the best traits of our corn to the forefront while limiting those traits we find least desireable…but it’s still corn.
many religious people, of varrying “flavors”, view “this whole line of teachings is viewed by many religious families as a direct assault on their faith.”
If thats the case then they should look into private schooling. These same christian fundamentalists would chafe at the idea of jesuits teaching there kids and if you open the doors to religion in the schools that is what will happen. You can’t reject one faith and allow in another.
Very true, and the same arguement I am making against teaching evolution in schools. How can you permit one theory that contradicts another without disproving one of the theories? Better would be to not teach any form of evolution/creation then to espouse one as true and all the rest as false. Later, when children are in their early twenties, they can take courses on the various theories and decide for themselves which they choose to accept on faith and which they choose to ignore. But having the government decide which to teach is the equivalent of having the government say that all other theories are wrong and that this is the only proper theory. A stance I do not feel the government should be taking - at least without concrete evidence to support their claims - spoken or assumed.
However, if we TRUELY want to be tolerant of all religions, then we really should not side with one theory or another that directly contradicts fundamental pillars of certain religions - especially when the facts supporting the theory in question are questionable at best and at times, completely doctored.
Okay lets let in religion but only the Jesuits b/c they are actually highly educated and therefore the only ones trained to teach to students. Or is it that you want less qualified persons to be teaching the young of America. In other words is your objections to public schooling that it doesn’t reflect the biases of mass culture enough?
No, I think I stated my stance quite well. Basically, the government is determining what theory should be widely accepted at the expense of other theories. It isn’t that they’ve proven their theory to be truth, but rather, have just chosen this theory as the one they want to teach - and thus the one they want people to believe. However, if they dropped the entire module from the curriculum and replaced it with teachings on how to fight viral infections, or some other factual information we have in the field of biology, all would be happy as all could teach their children their own theory and the children could learn the other theories on their own time. It isn’t like I’m advocating the abolishment of all evolutionary teachings from the public library or the internet. I just do not like the government choosing one theory over another based on nothing other then the opinion of a few men decades ago.
(Yes, there are cases where men took bones from different animals and combined them to claim they had the missing link for personal glory, so no, I’m not making it up when I say even evolution has fictitiousness around it.)
But you ignore that it was the scientific process and academic review that acted as a safeguard to prevent such misrepresentations from being taught. If we go to your extreme say there is a minister who preaches that God ordains little boys submit to being molested by him and that it is “scientifically” beneficial for them to be treated so would you permit that if this person could point to “proof” that suggests molestation isn’t harmful. Once you eliminate academic review you open up a pandoras box that can’t be closed. Just who will decide then what ideas are suitable for teaching in schools? Politicians have a conflict of interest to use school as propaganda instruments or is that what you want?
No, I didn’t ignore it. After decades of research peer review did in deed determine that the fossile records had been altered. But this does not negate the fact that the community was so desperate to prove their theory that they were willing to accept falsified records for years without proper scrutiny. It would be like the schools in Texas refusing to teach any form of creation but the Jewish theories and when evidence to the contrary arose ignoring it and when falsified information is brought forth supporting their theory, espousing it as validation.
We really need to get the conjecture out of the class room and leave it for the graduates to research. Our children need to be taught the facts, all the facts, and nothing but the facts. Since evolution is not fact, creationism is not fact and any other story of human existance is not fact, none of it should be taught - especially in an organization where you expect to receive the facts, such as school.
-
Among the majority of the scientific community, there is not contestation to evolution, it is the accepted theory. it has not been elevated to law yet, as there is not sufficient proof to ascribe it this status, but it is not under debate between most of the scientific world.
Jen:
the idea that the world was flat required nothing more than a tacit acceptance of what you see, that is, no investigation. as soon as people began to explore the world around them, and investigate things, as soon as they began approaching things scientifically, it became rather easy to conclude the world was round. in fact, by columbus’s time, only the unenlightened masses and religious zealots disbelieved the round earth theory. it was too easy to see flat ground and say: the earth is round? psshhh…as far as ancient religions: mars was ares. the romans adopted the greek mythology, but ascribed their own names to the greek deities. for some reason, apollo remained apollo however. (fyi: anybody know that “Hercules” was actually the roman name for the mythological figure? the greek name was actually Herekles. but whenever people talk about “hercules” its ancient greece they are referring to.)
teaching ID in school is the same as Falk suggested, teaching science in sunday school. ID is not a theory. its a religious belief. for some, its a political belief. either way, it is not scientific, it has not observation or experimentation, it can not be tested, proved or disproved, and there is no need for it. to the scientific powers that be, evolution is accepted.
the idea that “we should teach children with an open mind, allowing for both evolution and ID or creationism” opens the can of worms like hax said, to teaching all world religions. or like falk said, to teaching science in church. they are supposed to be seperate from each other. if we allow religious groups to force the teaching of ID in school, then scientists should be able to go to sunday school, and teach those kids about evolution. -
Maybe a class period should mention that other theories do exist and very briefly go over why they exist and why there is not enough evidence in comparision to evolution. So the worst that could come out of this idea is forty or fifty minutes might be wasted IMO.
-
Yes, but Janus, what I’m espousing is teaching of only fact. As evolution is not fact (and contrary to your statements, is hardly accepted by the scientific community as a whole the world wide but rather only in certain enclaves of the scientific community) and cannot be proved as fact, we should not teach it.
Should students want to learn about it, they can learn the same way they learn about fixing cars, astro-physics, firearm safety, etc…by reading a book or purchasing a class specifically geared towards the exploration of that specific theory.
It’s also very immoral for a government agency, especially one that should be representative of the people, to tell one group of people they are wrong and the other they are right when they cannot make any proof of their assertations. I’m not saying creation is fact and evolution is fiction and I’m not saying evolution is fact and creation is fiction - I’m just saying that neither can be proved with the information we have today and to assume one is right and the other wrong based soley because it is politically convenient at the moment to do so is ridiculous at best and out right harmful at worst.
Imagine that scientists discovered God one day and God told them that he created the world and proved it to them. Now you’d have to reteach all of mankind that evolution was completely wrong and invented in the minds of people with great imagination. Imagine the issues that might be experienced. You’d have people committing suicide, you’d have others that refuse to believe the new theory, etc.
Much better is it to either represent all the theories with equal plausibility, or to not advocate any theory and allow the individual to decide what s/he believes to be true and false - at least in the absense of any physical evidence.
-
As Jennifer pointed out I’d have to disagree with talk that the scientific community accepts the that evolution is no longer a theory but fact. I’ve read many books on this subject because as I’m sure you all know by now I am a Christian and I want to support what I believe in and there are many scientists that lean now more towards creationism. If you would pick up the book a Case for a Creator or some of the many other Creationism supporting books out there I’m sure you would see my point.
Sure it takes faith for you to believe in Creationism, but on CNN there was a guy who was on the beach when the tsunami hit in Indonesia and there were about 15 kids that he was in charge of watching and he could see that they weren’t gonna make it. So, he raised up his hand and said in Jesus name stop and the water went around all of them. Now people I’m not making this up it was on CNN, there isn’t any way in the world that you can tell me that there wasn’t some kind of power behind that and things like that happen every day. That’s one thing I think people need more now a days is a little more faith.
-
Well, on the flip side, UKcommander, I also don’t advocate the teaching creation in public schools for much of the same reasons - that is, it is (A) not proveable as fact beyond a shadow of a doubt (B) is not held as the only method that could have created by the entire religious community (or all christians for that matter) and © it would denounce the faith others have placed in their own idea of man’s commance into being.
That’s why the entire subject should be left for students to study at their liesure or in college where students can elect to study methods and theories of man’s being.
-
As evolution is not fact (and contrary to your statements, is hardly accepted by the scientific community as a whole the world wide but rather only in certain enclaves of the scientific community) …
What qualifies you to make this statement about the scientific community?
@UKC:
As Jennifer pointed out I’d have to disagree with talk that the scientific community accepts the that evolution is no longer a theory but fact. I’ve read many books on this subject … and there are many scientists that lean now more towards creationism.
“Many” scientists …. how many? Of how many ??
Even less than a permille can be seen as “many” in absolute numbers.The Creation-thing is big only in the USA. It is undisputed were i am. The big press it gets and the repeated but baseless claims that it was “disputed” is a political thing. There are people who want it to be disputed, and best to make it so is to call it so repeatedly over. This seems to be a very common strategy to “prove” unproven things.
@UKC:
I’m not making this up it was on CNN
While any scientist who pushes ID does so free of religious nomination, the political wing who pushes it has a different agenda.
-
While any scientist who pushes ID does so free of religious nomination, the political wing who pushes it has a different agenda.
I’ve given up trying to explain the fine-tuning argument- either you get it or you don’t (you do know you can compare inifinite sets, right?). You seem perfectly willing to believe in non-carbon based life just to avoid the conclusion of the argument. There is no evidence for consciousness arising out of- say - silicon, and plenty of evidence that it can’t (e.g., the fact that all complex life-forms observed so far are all carbon-based). I don’t think you quite realize what a leap of faith your position requires.
That last line in your quote is pretty revealing: Are you saying that any scientist who pushes ID is “free of religious nomination”? Lol. It’s almost as if you believe scientists are these Spockesque masters of rationality. Oh contrare. They’re just like the rest of us and they all have agendas.
-
I’ve given up trying to explain the fine-tuning argument- either you get it or you don’t
I get it and i think it shows nothing. Fine tuning can be explained by the anthropic principle, no creator is needed. To go into probablitities does not matter, as we don’t know how many universes or creators are out there, and thus we have no idea over what our one measurement has to be sampled over.
(you do know you can compare inifinite sets, right?).
Yup.
You seem perfectly willing to believe in non-carbon based life just to avoid the conclusion of the argument.
I have read somewhere that silicon based life could be possible. Well, chemically there is not too much difference between carbon and silicium.
There is no evidence for consciousness arising out of- say - silicon, and plenty of evidence that it can’t (e.g., the fact that all complex life-forms observed so far are all carbon-based).
There is no evidence that it can’t. It just did not happen on this one planet.
And there is as much proof(!) for silicon based life as there is for a creator. Although Si based life has the benefit that evidentally life can come from rather light elements of the chemical group.That last line in your quote is pretty revealing: Are you saying that any scientist who pushes ID is “free of religious nomination”? Lol. It’s almost as if you believe scientists are these Spockesque masters of rationality. Oh contrare. They’re just like the rest of us and they all have agendas.
No, i wanted to say that they don’t mix their religious belief in the argument, not that they are free of any belief.
And do you want to say that ID is just an agenda ;) ? -
Falk:
Quote:
You seem perfectly willing to believe in non-carbon based life just to avoid the conclusion of the argument.I have read somewhere that silicon based life could be possible. Well, chemically there is not too much difference between carbon and silicium.
I read somewhere that it could not be possible - silicone just doesn’t have sufficient flexibility from a chemical standpoint to form RNA or DNA (life as we know it). I guess it might be possible for a lifeform as we do not know, perhaps a different coding technique than DNA/RNA.
But this is really an unimportant point - there is plenty of carbon in the universe.
-
I am LOVING this Francis Collins guy. The director of the Human Genome Project is a Christian, a physician and a researcher. Long before i heard of him, i had been pounding out the same rhythm (people can see my opinions expounded on many previous evolution/creation threads where i verbally battled both young-earth creationists and atheistic evolutionists).
Anyway, here is a quote pulled from him that i like:I wish more people would go back and read St. Augustine from 400 A.D. His view of the first book of the Bible sounds very compatible with what is currently called “theistic evolution,” where God used the process of evolution to create man. Augustine, without the need to be defensive, felt this evolutionary view of how human beings came about is entirely consistent with Genesis 1. The current battle between evolutionism and creationism makes me sad at heart, because it is so unnecessary. It’s hard enough getting through life when you have to deal with the real challenges and the real controversies and the real battles. This polarization of evolution and creation is a battle that we shouldn’t have had to fight, and yet it continues to rage. Serious Christians often think they’re being asked to reject compelling scientific data to prove their religious commitment; serious scientists often think they’re being asked to reject their own faith to prove their intellectual rigor. And none of this is at all necessary. A harmonious synthesis of science and faith is not only possible, it is deeply satisfying. We must work to spread that word.
I believe this with my heart AND my mind.
I also like the approach by biochemist Michael Behe (Darwin’s Black Box). Here he poked several holes in the evolutionary theory forcing scientists to become more scientific in explaining many questions that were heretofore unexplained.
As for teaching evolution in schools - the problem is that simply saying “the world was created this way, and people’s origens were thus” is IMO inappropriate.
It is unscientific for one. We don’t “know” that it happened this way. Furthermore, it is untestable and unfalsifiable. There are still many holes in the theory, and we rely on records generated during uncertain times with many assumptions. Now i’ll agree that it appears to be the most logical (secular) explanation for how we reached where we are. At the same time, to not continue to challenge it is unscientific. If we just say “yes! Evolution happened exactly this way and never question this wisdom!” then we are kowtowing to an agenda that i don’t quite understand. As a scientist and a physician i still need to question much of what i see, read and hear. For me to read a trial on a drug and to ignore important holes, inclusion, exclusion criteria etc. and not to be critical of it would not only be scientific, but could put my patients’ lives in danger. Why then is it appropriate to be unscientific with regards to the evolutionary theory?With regards to ID - i believe in it, but i can see why people do not wish it to be taught alongside of evolution. At the same time, given the massive number of Christians, Jews, and Muslims who believe that God created the heavens and the earth, i really do not see it as being unreasonable for a teacher to admit this. Who knows - it might actually lead to more scientific discussion . . . .
-
I agree with what CC said regarding that faith and science can exist in harmony together.
This is slightly off-topic, but a Physicist has put together a site regarding how science actually supports Christianity:
Interestingly, the site is actually somewhat critical of ID:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2002issue10/index.shtml#more_than_id
This is well worth reading IMO.
-
@221B:
Interestingly, the site is actually somewhat critical of ID:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2002issue10/index.shtml#more_than_id
This is well worth reading IMO.
it’s an interesting article, however i can see a problem - an underlying bias.
My concern is not that he has a problem with evolution guided by ID - that’s fine - but rather that this is not for scientific reasons but that he is worried about effects on people’s spirituality if they buy into this (rather than an atheistic view). This also is not scientific.
He should say “i do not believe in ID because it is contradicted HERE with THIS evidence” - whether Biblical or scientific. It is (IMO) inappropriate to discount a putative mechanism for something because of future implications of this knowledge. -
@F_alk:
The Creation-thing is big only in the USA. It is undisputed were i am. The big press it gets and the repeated but baseless claims that it was “disputed” is a political thing. There are people who want it to be disputed, and best to make it so is to call it so repeatedly over. This seems to be a very common strategy to “prove” unproven things.
And hence it is disputed. :) Perhaps in Germany it is widely accepted as fact, after all, Germany was the first country to discover neanderthalls.
However, many scientific communities DO dispute the validity of the theory - enough so that it has not been made into a Law/Principle/Fact by the community as a whole.
…as we don’t know how many universes or creators are out there, and thus we have no idea over what our one measurement has to be sampled over.
True. So how is it that evolution is the only theory that is propagated by the public education system? Wouldn’t it be better to let scientologists, christians, jews, muslims, buddists, poly-theists, wiccans and scientists all espouse their own theories in public forum and allow the individual to determine what they take as fact - at least until you can prove one theory to be the ONLY method.
For example, it used to be common knowledge that sick people were infested by demons. Now science has proved that they are just infested with living organisms (viruses/bacteria) so all we teach is that illness is caused by viruses and bacteria and not by evil demons.
As for silicon based life, wouldnt a self aware computer be considered silicon based life? It eats electricity, provides waste in the form of heat, and - when they are self aware - would have self determination and I think that meets the criteria set forth for life.
However, who’s to say there isn’t a Neon based life form in the multi-verse? (Assuming there’s more then just our universe - for arguement’s sake.)
Also, who’s to say that the spirit cannot gain enough power to create life themselves one day? (Kinda a take on the scientology thing.)
-
There is no evidence that it can’t. It just did not happen on this one planet.
And there is as much proof(!) for silicon based life as there is for a creator. Although Si based life has the benefit that evidentally life can come from rather light elements of the chemical group.You know Bayes Theorem, right? Every black raven we find is evidence that non-black ravens don’t exist. Every DNA-based complex life-form is evidence that non-DNA based life-forms don’t exist. If you belive in beings made of hydrogen or silicon, just to avoid some conclusion that is unpalatable, why not just believe in souls?
No, i wanted to say that they don’t mix their religious belief in the argument, not that they are free of any belief.
And do you want to say that ID is just an agenda ;) ?Materialism is just as much a religious belief as belief in God. Most atheists I’ve met are much worse than theists when it comes to discussing their beliefs.
-
CC: After re-reading the article, I believe you are correct that there is an underlying bias in the author. I hadn’t noticed that before.
Still, I believe that nobody should be afraid of the truth regarding this topic. The facts (at least as we know them now) do not contradict in a fundamental manner Christianity and probably never will since the Bible is not meant as a science book. They do contradict what some people beleive should be Christianity (such as earth being created in exactly 6 days - which is not quite what the Bible says. I have heard the original Hebrew word for day in Genesis should be translated to “some unspecified period of time”). Nor should the facts regarding problems with evolution (or other science theories) because that is what science does - study the facts. From either position, I see no need to argue about these points. As the saying goes, the truth shall set you free.
-
I think that Evolution is a very appealing idea, simply because it provides a logical way of looking at the origin of man. But aside from talking about anatomical and genetic similarities, I would also like to say that I think Creation as a theory is completely unfounded. It tries to claim that all of a sudden, everything just was. (To all you fundamentalists out there, this is simply my belief.)
Anyway, the reason I’ve decided to point these things out is because while evolution seems more logical to me by far, I also can’t grasp the notion that we evolved from simpler creatures just by random chance. There just has to be someone dictating the evolutionary processes. (God) I mean, you’ve all heard that “The Lord works in mysterious ways.” Maybe He made us evolve to instill some doubt as to his existence. Because if there is actually 0.00% doubt as to the fact that He exists, then faith has absolutely NO purpose.
So yeah; Intelligent Design all the way. :wink:
-
Creation is more logical to me. I can take all the components of a computer and assemble it into a creation.
Evolution does not make much logical sense to me since I cannot take that computer and have it evolve - all on its own - into a super computer.
So yes, it is perfectly reasonable to have an omnipotent being mock up a reality for billions of spirits to live in, AO. Just as reasonable has a few amino acids in a puddle getting hit with just the right amount of electricity in the right atmosphere and becomming life which later, through trial and error, all on it’s own without any design to follow what-so-ever, evolved into mankind. And if mankind is the epitome of life, why do we have monkeys and birds and lions?
Suggested Topics
