NationStates Jolt Archive

~

I feel rather sorry for Charles Darwin. If he had known that his book would have been perverted into an excuse to kick God out of school institutions, he probably wouldn't have written it in the first place.

I also feel sorry for people that feel driven to overanalyze everything, to question everything and search for ways out of acknowledging that God might possibly be somehow involved with any part of this wretched little world. Just because God doesn't make Himself blatantly apparent, some people are convinced he can't possibly exist. I can't see the wind; does that mean that it doesn't exist? Granted, I can see the effects of the wind, but what if it's actually something else entirely? Could there be some other scientific explanation? Maybe someone should come up with a theory that disproves wind, one as crazy and as stupid as the theory of evolution was considered to be in Darwin's time--and then write a book about it. I'm sure there's a nutjob scientist out there that will immediately claim it as the truth.

If you choose to be blind, that is your choice to make. But don't think for one minute that it gives you the right to stand on a soap box and declare to the world that there is nothing to see.

~

And I disagree with the Christian Right on this. If, as you suggested, religion and science were taught as equally valid explanations regarding the origin of life and world history, I wouldn't have a problem. But it isn't done that way and you know it.

Please note, I state that scientist's had the atheist bias, not science. Of course, the result would be similar, either way the bias is introduce into the conclusions made by scientists.

As for the flood related things you said, give me the kind of budget and man power to research the potiential for that alternate explanation of the current data as has been invested in evolutionary theory and I bet we get a result equally a plausable. Not that it makes much difference... it is the whole issue of "seeking after a sign" demanding proof that is, as expected, the result of a faithless generation.

But, you haven't been arguing for equality between religion and science... you have been arguing for equaility between ONE religion and science, and that is where the contention must lie.

Also, of course... whether or not you teach Creationism, it will never have any place in a science classroom... because it is not science.

'Scientists' do not have an Atheistic bias, either.... the religious-nature of the scientific community is pretty much in-step with the religious-nature of the ENTIRE community... thus, in the US.... the 'bias' of science would be Christian, if anything.

Do you not also see irony in your statement: "give me the kind of budget and man power to research the potiential for that alternate explanation of the current data as has been invested in evolutionary theory and I bet we get a result equally a plausable"?

The story has been being told, almost unchanged (apart from translation errors) for 3 or more thousand years. The science pertaining to evolution is in it's infancy in comparison.

And what evidence has religion managed for Creationism, and the Flood - in multiple thousands of years? The phrase "nothing" springs instantly to mind.

In contrast, the much, much younger theory of science has decades of material support, on top of millions of years of fossil evidence.

Money and Manpower will never yeild the dividends you would like to see... since the evidence all points AWAY from the kind of 'evidence' that Creationism would NEED.

If you choose to be blind, that is your choice to make. But don't think for one minute that it gives you the right to stand on a soap box and declare to the world that there is nothing to see.

Read this very same comment, but imagine the earlier part of this post had been about the hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence supporting evolution, over Creationism.

Let's do this one Old School!

I feel rather sorry for Charles Darwin. If he had known that his book would have been perverted into a excuse to kick The Invisible Pink Unicorn out of school institutions, he probably wouldn't have written it in the first place.

I also feel sorry for people that feel driven to overanalyze everything, to question everything and search for ways out of acknowledging that The Invisible Pink Unicorn might possibly be somehow involved with any part of this wretched little world. Just because The Invisible Pink Unicron doesn't make Herself blatantly apparent, some people are convinced She can't possibly exist. I can't see the wind; does that mean that it doesn't exist? Granted, I can see the effects of the wind, but what if it's actually something else entirely? Could there be some other scientific explanation? Maybe someone should come up with a theory that disproves wind, one as crazy and as stupid as the theory of evolution was considered to be in Darwin's time--and then write a book about it. I'm sure there's a nutjob scientist out there that will immediately claim it as the truth.

If you choose to be blind, that is your choice to make. But don't think for one minute that it gives you the right to stand on a soap box and declare to the world that there is nothing to see.

LOL :) Now your just poking fun at me GI. You know we will just have to agree to disagree about whether or not the Bible contridicts the Bible because you will point out things you believe to be conridictory and I will have to respond that it only appears that way because we don't understand it accurately rather than there being an actual contridiction.

But textiles sounds good to me. :p ;)

Light-hearted... but not exactly 'poking fun'.

Many Christians believe the scripture to be... contentious... but the important thought is... pretty much ANYTHING (even other bible verses) can be 'contradicted' within scripture.

In the end, you have to admit, you'd be able to teach almost nothing.

Oh - and of course, textiles would only be safe, AS LONG as they taught not to mix fabrics...

Actually, a lot of the evidence for evolution has been questionable, circumstancial, or purely speculative. Take humans and apes, for example. There are many missing links that scientists have never found, despite how desperate they've been to prove that humans evolved from monkeys.

There is, believe it or not, a great deal of evidence supporting creationism and the events detailed in the Bible. Scientists are discovering this more all the time. In fact, the more they look for answers to support the theory of evolution, the more they see indications that things could not have possibly developed that way. Cosmologists have discovered that the designation of particulate matter at the supposed "big bang" was specifically designed to generate life; it couldn't have happened purely by chance.

That's why they're coming up with all these outrageous theories about bubble universes and quantum physics.

Actually, a lot of the evidence for evolution has been questionable, circumstancial, or purely speculative. Of course it's questionable! That's the whole point of science! To question and draw conclusions. As for circumstancial and purely speculative, that is bull. Biological Science has been hard at work trying to find flaws in the evidence that has been provided thusfar, yet nothing has been found that seriously contradicts Evolution.Take humans and apes, for example. There are many missing links that scientists have never found, despite how desperate they've been to prove that humans evolved from monkeys. Geez, we can't find every single fossil that shows a direct line of evolution? What a surprise! It's not like fossils like those are incredibley rare or anything. :rolleyes:

Actually screw explaining this, I'm referring you to this thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418178
Reformantia explains it better than I would anyway.

There is, believe it or not, a great deal of evidence supporting creationism and the events detailed in the Bible. Scientists are discovering this more all the time. Credible Source please.

In fact, the more they look for answers to support the theory of evolution, the more they see indications that things could not have possibly developed that way. What are you talking about? Scientists don't seek answers to 'support' evolution, they assess and gather data, forming conclusions from these experiments. It just so happens that Evolution makes sense in light of all the data which has thusfar been uncovered by science.

Also, care to source? Somthing unbiased would be nice.

Cosmologists have discovered that the designation of particulate matter at the supposed "big bang" was specifically designed to generate life; it couldn't have happened purely by chance. Interesting. Care to elaborate or back that up with any real evidence?

That's why they're coming up with all these outrageous theories about bubble universes and quantum physics. Uh-huh. Utterly outrageous. Do you think the idea of some omnipresent dude who made us out of clay and created the entire universe in six days with magic powers is more logical? (Other Christians please note, I am not mocking your faith, merely the ridiculous assertion that genesis should be taken as literal fact.)

Actually, a lot of the evidence for evolution has been questionable, circumstancial, or purely speculative. Take humans and apes, for example. There are many missing links that scientists have never found, despite how desperate they've been to prove that humans evolved from monkeys.


Science SHOULD question... it should raise questions... that doesn't make the practise, itself, 'questionable'.

By the way - science has never said that man evolved from monkeys...

More, that we are branches of similar trees.


There is, believe it or not, a great deal of evidence supporting creationism and the events detailed in the Bible.


No, there isn't.

How about providing a (preferably peer-reviewed) source to back-up this outlandish claim?


Scientists are discovering this more all the time. In fact, the more they look for answers to support the theory of evolution, the more they see indications that things could not have possibly developed that way.


Science doesn't 'look for' evidence to support evolution. Science observes and records phenomena... it just seems to happen that all the observed data seems to support evolution.

Again - if you believe you have evidence that 'evolution couldn't have happened', you should really link us to a source, or something.


Cosmologists have discovered that the designation of particulate matter at the supposed "big bang" was specifically designed to generate life; it couldn't have happened purely by chance.


This, I believe, is absolutely untrue... and, without evidence, not even worth debating.

So, your real issues then is with parental rights? I'll grant you that they are hard to address from a Constitutional perspective unless it is doen within the framework of other rights.

No, I admit that you have a legal right to indoctrinate your children.

My problem is that it is immoral to do so.

My religion says that I should "Train up a child in the way he should go..." part of which is training him/her to believe that God created the world and man, not that he is a derivative of the evolutionary process. As a result, to freely exersize my religion, I have to have the freedom to ensure that he/she is not taught something else while my charge.

What you fail to realize is that, by keeping any dissenting views out, you are in fact ensuring that your children do not have faith in your religion at all. One cannot have faith without questioning and challenging their ideas. One cannot have faith if all they do is adopt completely what someone else tells them. As I said before, you are going to be doing exactly the opposite of what you say you wish to do. You will be ensuring completely that your children do not have faith in God, but instead have faith in you.

You did say that I was dogmatised.

No, I didn't.

I said that you obviously (as per your own words) plan to indoctrinate your children. Statistically, indoctrination does lead to bigotry and fundamentalism. Fundamentalism involves only people who do not truly understand the background and beliefs of the religion that they claim to espouse.

Please note, I state that scientist's had the atheist bias, not science. Of course, the result would be similar, either way the bias is introduce into the conclusions made by scientists.

I'm sure you are aware that the percentage of atheists among scientists is no larger than that among the general population? This, of course, does away completely with your claim that scientists have an atheist bias, as only a very select few actually would.

As for the flood related things you said, give me the kind of budget and man power to research the potiential for that alternate explanation of the current data as has been invested in evolutionary theory and I bet we get a result equally a plausable.

Not really. Any conclusions you came to would be clouded by your obvious bias, as you would be setting out to prove something, rather than to investigate it.

Not that it makes much difference... it is the whole issue of "seeking after a sign" demanding proof that is, as expected, the result of a faithless generation.

So you agree that Creationism is useless and should not be taught in schools, as it teaches faithlessness?

I don't see how attending a class that teaches Evolution infringes upon anyone's freedom to practise relgious belief?

Unless, you believe that learning is a handicap to the practise of religion?
Lol I might have to use this one as a new sig

Yes, I'm going to say it, I disagree with a Supreme Court ruling, which I believe to be unconstitutional. oooooo :eek: They were on the right track up to the point where they failed to recognize that the teaching of evolution is teaching a belief structure that favors the belief in non-religion thereby violating the 1st ammendment.

You really are being silly now. As has been pointed out numerous times, evolutionary theory in no way precludes belief in a God. You would be hard-pressed to find many atheist biologists.

Once upon a time, people thought that lightning was God expressing his anger. That was it. Eventually, we have found out that it is caused by electromagnetic fields and the buildup of energy. This does not, of course, preclude the idea that it means God is angry or that God is controlling it. It just says how it is done.

Now, kindly drop the strawman on the ground and step away from it.

Well everyone, its been fun, but its time for me to head home to my lovely wife. I accept that many of you disagree with me. I just wish you were willing to afford me the same freedoms you demand for yourselves. I recognize that this will not likely ever happen and am okay living under those circumstances.

Yes, Mr. Martyr. Of course, we already afford you the exact same freedoms we demand for ourselves. No one has yet argued that any freedoms be removed from you.

When did I say anything about "proving" something?
And I certainly have no problem with scientific lines of reasoning being taught in public schools, certainly not evolution.

So we should teach the scientific method and that is it? We can't teach the actual theories developed out of it in order to give examples? Interesting viewpoint, that.

Though her 'religion' doesn't match 'mine' - I don't think that is MY choice. I think MY responsibility is to give her as MUCH information as I can... and let her make her own decisions.

Ah, a responsible parent, much like the one that I aspire to be. =)

I feel rather sorry for Charles Darwin. If he had known that his book would have been perverted into an excuse to kick God out of school institutions, he probably wouldn't have written it in the first place.

Who said anything about "kicking God out of school institutions"? That was decided long before this debate, by the Constitution. Religion can be taught, but in a historical and comparative sense. Or would you prefer that we teach, say, Islam as fact in the schools?

I also feel sorry for people that feel driven to overanalyze everything, to question everything and search for ways out of acknowledging that God might possibly be somehow involved with any part of this wretched little world. Just because God doesn't make Himself blatantly apparent, some people are convinced he can't possibly exist. I can't see the wind; does that mean that it doesn't exist? Granted, I can see the effects of the wind, but what if it's actually something else entirely? Could there be some other scientific explanation? Maybe someone should come up with a theory that disproves wind, one as crazy and as stupid as the theory of evolution was considered to be in Darwin's time--and then write a book about it. I'm sure there's a nutjob scientist out there that will immediately claim it as the truth.

What does this have to do with the discussion at hand? Evolutionary theory in no way suggests that there is no God, or that such a God may not be behind the mechanism.

What we need to do is ship everyone out of the united states who is not the same religion of the president. Also midgets have got to go. There just too liberal. Liberal Liberal Liberal. Everyone who believes in evolution has got a serious problem. A serious problem. A serious spiritual problem if you will. Let me break it down for you. If you dont know who Jesus is then your not allowed to be in club and I have the best club. The only time evolution should be allowed to even be said is when talking about the movie evolution because its very funny. ALL HAIL BUSHANOMICS ALL HAIL!!!

~

I feel rather sorry for Charles Darwin. If he had known that his book would have been perverted into an excuse to kick God out of school institutions, he probably wouldn't have written it in the first place.

I also feel sorry for people that feel driven to overanalyze everything, to question everything and search for ways out of acknowledging that God might possibly be somehow involved with any part of this wretched little world. Just because God doesn't make Himself blatantly apparent, some people are convinced he can't possibly exist. I can't see the wind; does that mean that it doesn't exist? Granted, I can see the effects of the wind, but what if it's actually something else entirely? Could there be some other scientific explanation? Maybe someone should come up with a theory that disproves wind, one as crazy and as stupid as the theory of evolution was considered to be in Darwin's time--and then write a book about it. I'm sure there's a nutjob scientist out there that will immediately claim it as the truth.

If you choose to be blind, that is your choice to make. But don't think for one minute that it gives you the right to stand on a soap box and declare to the world that there is nothing to see.

~

Similar to the response above, other than the first paragraph, this has nothing to do with the teaching of evolution, and the lack of teaching creationism.

The first (relevant) paragraph has already been covered multiple times in this thread, but I have a feeling you didn't read it because you already felt you were right and we were all wrong.


As to the other two paragraphs, though irrelevant to the discussion at hand, I will repeat what I have said many times:

Religious Dogma: Finding evidence to support a theory
Scientific Teaching: Changing a theory to fit the evidence.

In other words, if someone came up with a better explanation (a new theory) to describe the wind, it would only be scientific if it made more sense based on the evidence. Since evidence suggests that the movement of air causes wind, that is the theory that is accepted. And, there is plenty of evidence to back this up (wind being faster between areas of opposing pressure, wind travelling from cold air to warm air, etc.)

Evolution isn't crazy and stupid--people just feel that it threatens their religion. Of course, these people don't take the time to learn evolution, so they don't understand it.

The difference between the teaching of evolution and creationism in the science class is that evolution is scientific teaching, and creationism is religious dogma (see definitions above).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eclairia
There is, believe it or not, a great deal of evidence supporting creationism and the events detailed in the Bible.




No, there isn't.

How about providing a (preferably peer-reviewed) source to back-up this outlandish claim?


Oh, but there IS! Perhaps if you had been keeping up with recent scientific discoveries then you would know that evidence is mounting in support of the Intelligent Design theory. I have several books about it myself. I'll allow the person who made the statement to provide the evidence though;-)

Oh, but there IS! Perhaps if you had been keeping up with recent scientific discoveries then you would know that evidence is mounting in support of the Intelligent Design theory.

If you had any understanding of science, you would know that this is not actually true. ID is not and never has been a scientific theory.

I have several books about it myself.

I've read books that told me that crystals would heal me, so I shouldn't go to the doctor. Of course, the book was not a peer-reviewed scientific article, so I didn't call it science.

I'll allow the person who made the statement to provide the evidence though;-)

You mean since you don't have any?

Oh, but there IS! Perhaps if you had been keeping up with recent scientific discoveries then you would know that evidence is mounting in support of the Intelligent Design theory. I have several books about it myself. I'll allow the person who made the statement to provide the evidence though;-)
Source please?

Would you care to tell us which books tell us that? I'm interested.

Well, one book would be "The Case for a Creator", which discusses the flaws in many opposing theories (materialism and Darwinism being the foremost)...also, to those denying the very existence of the theory, just do a google or altavista search for it :)

Well, one book would be "The Case for a Creator",

I see, so you don't have a peer-reviewed article written by a biologist?

which discusses the flaws in many opposing theories (materialism and Darwinism being the foremost)

(a) Darwinism and materialism are not scientific theories.

(b) Evolutionary theory, which I am sure is what you meant by "Darwinism", is in no way an opposition to the idea that there was a creator. Of course, it is not in support of that idea either.

(c) There are flaws in all scientific theories. We are well aware of it, and are working to fix them. Of course, the "flaws" that most point out are not even actual parts of evolutionary theory. They are strawman arguments.

...also, to those denying the very existence of the theory,

I'm confused. Are we using theory in the scientific sense, in which case ID would not qualify? Or are we using it in the layman's sense, which implies any old idea anybody might come up with and leads to me saying something like "I have this theory that my imaginary friend, Fred, who you cannot see because he is invisible to everyone but me, ate all the soup."

Main Entry: Dar·win·ism
Pronunciation: 'där-w&-"niz-&m
Function: noun
: a theory of the origin and perpetuation of new species of animals and plants that offspring of a given organism vary, that natural selection favors the survival of some of these variations over others, that new species have arisen and may continue to arise by these processes, and that widely divergent groups of plants and animals have arisen from the same ancestors; broadly : a theory of biological evolution —Dar·win·ist /-w&-n&st/ noun or adjective



Also, the book itself cites many articles, although I can't find it *cry* so I can't list any of them. You'll just have to choose to believe me or ignore me until I can find it:-(

Well, one book would be "The Case for a Creator", which discusses the flaws in many opposing theories (materialism and Darwinism being the foremost)...also, to those denying the very existence of the theory, just do a google or altavista search for it :)
So what this book is, basically; is an attack on the current theory and lets you "default" to Creationism.

That's the biggest logical fallacy I've seen from Creationism proponent. Just because one theory is invalidated, it doesn't mean that the other theory is automatically true.

It also shows how evidence supports the Intelligent Design theory.

Main Entry: Dar·win·ism
Pronunciation: 'där-w&-"niz-&m
Function: noun
: a theory of the origin and perpetuation of new species of animals and plants that offspring of a given organism vary, that natural selection favors the survival of some of these variations over others, that new species have arisen and may continue to arise by these processes, and that widely divergent groups of plants and animals have arisen from the same ancestors; broadly : a theory of biological evolution —Dar·win·ist /-w&-n&st/ noun or adjective

...which does not demonstrate that "Darwinism" is a scientific theory. It states that Darwinism is "a theory of biological evolution," not the currently accepted evolutionary theory. Thank you for proving my point.

Also, the book itself cites many articles, although I can't find it *cry* so I can't list any of them. You'll just have to choose to believe me or ignore me until I can find it:-(

Actually, according to Amazon, it cites 97 books, none of which appear to be peer-reviewed, most of which are books on theology, rather than science, and several of which are his own work. Thanks again for proving my point.

It also shows how evidence supports the Intelligent Design theory.
Such as?

On another note, I am glad that it does. Now let's see his so-called "evidence"

Such as?

On another note, I am glad that it does. Now let's see his so-called "evidence"

Of course, to be an accepted scientific theory, *all* available evidence would have to support it, and the idea would have to have a possibility of being disproven.

*shrug* You can find evidence for anything, if that's what you're looking for. I've got evidence that dogs have little chick babies. Wanna hear it?

I'd say evolutionary theory is in the middle of this controversy. It directly contridicts the Biblical teaching that God created the Heavens and the Earth, the Sea and all that in them is in six days.

Funny, I do not see how the creation account contradicts evolutionary theory.

Of course, I am a theistic evolutionist. Science does not pose a threat to the idea of God creating the universe and everything in it.... I see it as a perfect metaphor of what happened over those countless eons.

I see, so you don't have a peer-reviewed article written by a biologist?


In one of William A. Dembski's books, he aptly captures the situation as follows: "In the current intellectual climate it is impossible to get a paper published in the peer-reviewed biological literature that explicitly affirms intelligent design or explicity denies Darwinian and other forums of naturalistic evolution. Doubting Darwinian orthodoxy is comparable to opposing the party line of a Stalinist regime. What would you do if you were in Stalin's Russia and wanted to argue that Lysenko was wrong? You might point to paradoxes or tensions in Lysenko's theory of genetics, but you could not say that Lysenko was fundamentally wrong or offer an alternative that clearly contradicted Lysenko. That's the situation we're in. To get published in the peer-reviewed literature, design theorists have to tread cautiously and can't be too up front about where their work is leading. Indeed, that's why I was able to get The Design Inference published with Cambridge University Press but not No Free Lunch, which was much more explicit in its biological implications."

In one of William A. Dembski's books, he aptly captures the situation as follows: "In the current intellectual climate it is impossible to get a paper published in the peer-reviewed biological literature that explicitly affirms intelligent design or explicity denies Darwinian and other forums of naturalistic evolution. Doubting Darwinian orthodoxy is comparable to opposing the party line of a Stalinist regime. What would you do if you were in Stalin's Russia and wanted to argue that Lysenko was wrong? You might point to paradoxes or tensions in Lysenko's theory of genetics, but you could not say that Lysenko was fundamentally wrong or offer an alternative that clearly contradicted Lysenko. That's the situation we're in. To get published in the peer-reviewed literature, design theorists have to tread cautiously and can't be too up front about where their work is leading. Indeed, that's why I was able to get The Design Inference published with Cambridge University Press but not No Free Lunch, which was much more explicit in its biological implications."


I believe what you meant to say was... "In one of William A. Dembski's books, he incorrectly captures the situation as follows:"

If a person gives a reasonable alternative to the evolution theory, there is absolutely no problem with publishing a peer-reviewed article regarding it. However, if a non-scientific theory such as ID is presented, why should it be published as a scientific theory?

I will once again reiterate my point.

Religious Dogma (ID, for example): Evidence is molded to more accurately fit the theory.
Scientific Teaching (evolution, for example): Theories are changed to more accurately fit the evidence.

Lol I might have to use this one as a new sig

Always glad to be of sevice. :)

Glad you liked it. :fluffle:

In one of William A. Dembski's books, he incorrectly describes the situation. The correct description is as follows: "In the current intellectual climate it is impossible to get a paper published in the peer-reviewed biological literature that explicitly affirms intelligent design or explicity denies Evolutionary theory. Doubting evolutionary theory is comparable to douting the theory of gravity. It is accepted, but only with adequate support. To get published in the peer-reviewed literature, design theorists will have to tread cautiously and can't be too up front about where their work is leading. This is because they don't follow the scientific method and propose untestable ideas. If they had an actual scientific viewpoint that appeared to contradict evolution, it would be much more likely to get published. Indeed, that's why I was able to get The Design Inference published with Cambridge University Press but not No Free Lunch, which was much more explicit in its biological implications. After all, in one of them I was sneaky, and in the other I showed everyone that I wasn't actually following the scientific method."

Corrections in bold.

Totally unrelated, i've been confronted with yet another evidence for evolution today... however, considering our dogmatic friends in the Creationist camp are inaccessable anyways, i don't need to go into detail here... [/self-cynism]

:D

Ah, a responsible parent, much like the one that I aspire to be. =)

That's the plan. :)

But, also - I would hate to lie to the child I love.... and, I would hate for my child to come back to me in the future, telling me I'd lied.

So - I give her ALL the information I can... and let her decide for herself.

Aside from a Maths class that teached 2+2=5, there isn't anything more fundamentally wrong that you could teach them.


Actually, 2+2 can = 5. And a*b=-b*a is possible too.

Actually, 2+2 can = 5. And a*b=-b*a is possible too.
If you divide by zero lots of things are possible, doesn't make them correct.

If you divide by zero lots of things are possible, doesn't make them correct.

What exactly do you mean by 'correct'? My second example described Grassman numbers, a perfectly valid form of mathematics .