NationStates Jolt Archive

Is the question of where we came from really all that consequential or relevant to the future?

I only care because of the recent proliferation of people who want to teach Creationism in the science classroom of publicly funded schools.

Otherwise, I wouldn't give a rat's ass.

Is the question of where we came from really all that consequential or relevant to the future?
Most Americans don't really care. A loud-mouthed, well-funded minority of idiots cares, makes a stink, and consequently is screwing up an already screwed educational system--and so some of us fight back. Thus the ruckus.

Is the question of where we came from really all that consequential or relevant to the future?
The issue is that a bunch of fundamentalists want to force their religion to be taught in public schools.

Is the question of where we came from really all that consequential or relevant to the future?
Nope. But it's pretty damn important that students grasp what biology is all about in todays world. So fucking that up naturally po's a lot of people.

Is the question of where we came from really all that consequential or relevant to the future?

it reveals our purpose. if we are created, we're special, if we evolved, not special...

Is the question of where we came from really all that consequential or relevant to the future?
No, it's not that. There are a number of people here in the US who think that evolution has to be "evil" because it seems to contradict Genesis. My personal take on that is that if your faith is so shallow as to depend on everything in the Bible being literally true, then you need to re-examine your faith. :p

I only care because of the recent proliferation of people who want to teach Creationism in the science classroom of publicly funded schools.
Otherwise, I wouldn't give a rat's ass.
Most Americans don't really care. A loud-mouthed, well-funded minority of idiots cares, makes a stink, and consequently is screwing up an already screwed educational system--and so some of us fight back. Thus the ruckus.
Neither of you are answering the question. What does it matter if they're teaching Creationism?

it reveals our purpose. if we are created, we're special, if we evolved, not special...

Why does it matter whether we're special or not?

Neither of you are answering the question. What does it matter if they're teaching Creationism?
I already answered you, but here goes:
[...] it's pretty damn important that students grasp what biology is all about in todays world. So fucking that up naturally po's a lot of people.

Neither of you are answering the question. What does it matter if they're teaching Creationism?

2 reasons:

1] Science is an essential tool for learning about the Universe. Creationism is not science and has no place in a science classroom.

2] Many major universities have stated that they will not admit students who come from school districts that teach Creationism in the science classroom, thus teaching Creationism limits the future educational opportunities of those students and that's not fair.

[QUOTE=Eruantalon]Originally Posted by Keruvalia
I only care because of the recent proliferation of people who want to teach Creationism in the science classroom of publicly funded schools.
Otherwise, I wouldn't give a rat's ass.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Nazz
Most Americans don't really care. A loud-mouthed, well-funded minority of idiots cares, makes a stink, and consequently is screwing up an already screwed educational system--and so some of us fight back. Thus the ruckus.

Neither of you are answering the question. What does it matter if they're teaching Creationism?QUOTE]
I think you are missing the point of both the previous responses. The teaching of evolution is based on properly conducted scientific evaluation, whereas the teaching of creationism is based on supersticious beliefs that have no place in an educational establishment.

Neither of you are answering the question. What does it matter if they're teaching Creationism?

Creationism in a religious classroom ? Doesn't matter at all.
INtelligent design in a science classsroom ? Matters a lot. The way of thinking ID advertises is contrary to that of good science. And one does not want that the future generation of scientists is incapable of doing scientific research...

Neither of you are answering the question. What does it matter if they're teaching Creationism?
You needed to make that more clear in your original question, or I would have answered it.

It's important because most of scientific discovery in the biological sciences is directly related to what we've learned about evolution, and if we want our next generation to understand and advance biological science, we can't be teaching them that some invisible force just said "abracadabra" and made it all pop into existence.

Neither of you are answering the question. What does it matter if they're teaching Creationism?

Separation of church and State.
Separation of church and State.
Separation of church and State.
Separation of church and State.
Separation of church and State.
Separation of church and State.
Separation of church and State.
Separation of church and State.
Separation of church and State.
Separation of church and State.

I really don't care about this, as long as this does not take my life without notifying me. However, I'm no american (thanks god- no just kidding :D)

Why does it matter whether we're special or not?

because some people want to know (or at least beleive) that thier existance has a purpose...

The discussion is important because of what it represents. The battle over Intelligent Design is a battle over standards. The question is simple: will we lower standards so that religious assertions are granted the same deference as empirical knowledge? It is an assault on reason, on science, an erosion of the basic underpinnings of rational thought. Creationists want the same weight to be given to base belief that is given to evidence. Honestly, I couldn't care less if we came from apes or a man in the sky, but I do care that children are being taught that empirical evidence is no more or less worthy than simple assertion.

If someone wants to learn about creationism they should go to church or read the friggin bible. Creationism has no place in the public school system.

it reveals our purpose. if we are created, we're special, if we evolved, not special...

Eeehm.. surely evolving to homo sapiens through a long chain of events, being the current most developed form of life with the possibility that our descendants will achieve even greater heights is more special than just being something someone put together ?

Creationism has no place in the public school system.

Sure it does. In some form of humanities class like a religious studies class. Denying students the right to learn about the arts and religions is just as harmful to education as teaching ID in the science classroom.

Eeehm.. surely evolving to homo sapiens through a long chain of events, being the current most developed form of life with the possibility that our descendants will achieve even greater heights is more special than just being something someone put together ?

you really think chance evolution is 'more special' than god creating humans? its natural verse the supernatural

You needed to make that more clear in your original question, or I would have answered it.

It's important because most of scientific discovery in the biological sciences is directly related to what we've learned about evolution, and if we want our next generation to understand and advance biological science, we can't be teaching them that some invisible force just said "abracadabra" and made it all pop into existence.
Hell, evolution is used outside of biology. Odds are that the chips in your computer were made via the application of evolutionary principles.

Sure it does. In some form of humanities class like a religious studies class. Denying students the right to learn about the arts and religions is just as harmful to education as teaching ID in the science classroom.

That's what church, bible study and private schools are for. I do not want my taxes used to teach students creationism or anything regarding religion.

the debate essentially comes down to two sides:

Those who would use the Gov't to push their religious beliefs and ideals upon everyone else

and

Those who want to be able to live their lives according to their own beliefs and morals

That's what church, bible study and private schools are for. I do not want my taxes used to teach students creationism or anything regarding religion.

There's a difference between studying humanities and different cultures and religions and 'a bible study.'

It's important in today's global marketplace for people to have a base understanding of the differences in cultures around the world - and most of those difference are a direct result of the prevailing religious beliefs of the respective cultures.

Why do you think the US is hated in so many places around the world? It's a lack of cultural sensitivity.

you really think chance evolution is 'more special' than god creating humans?

Naturally. And keep in mind: if God created us to perform some function, we have a pre-set purpose. We would in essence be tools, nothing more.
If nature created us, we are free to make our own destiny.

I *vastly* prefer the second version. But that is straying from the topic.

It's important because we want kids to be learning science in science class, not religion.

Neither of you are answering the question. What does it matter if they're teaching Creationism?
Maybe it's some sort of decadant liberal European thing, but I find the notion of teaching fundamentalist christianity in science classes a bit dubious.

That's what church, bible study and private schools are for. I do not want my taxes used to teach students creationism or anything regarding religion.

The same could be argued for the study of music in public schools.

If someone wants to learn about creationism they should go to church or read the friggin bible. Creationism has no place in the public school system.

So you wern't a fan of Religous Studies then?

Naturally. And keep in mind: if God created us to perform some function, we have a pre-set purpose. We would in essence be tools, nothing more.
If nature created us, we are free to make our own destiny.

I *vastly* prefer the second version. But that is straying from the topic.

i see your point

Naturally. And keep in mind: if God created us to perform some function, we have a pre-set purpose. We would in essence be tools, nothing more.
If nature created us, we are free to make our own destiny.

I *vastly* prefer the second version. But that is straying from the topic.

Ahhh, but remember...Christians believe in 'Free Will'...even though their belief in an omniscient and omnipotent being make free will an impossibility...


Gotta love the contradictions...

No, it's not that. There are a number of people here in the US who think that evolution has to be "evil" because it seems to contradict Genesis. My personal take on that is that if your faith is so shallow as to depend on everything in the Bible being literally true, then you need to re-examine your faith. :p

I may be your opponent usually, Eutrusca, but I respect you more whenever I see this kind of remark.

If someone wants to learn about creationism they should go to church or read the friggin bible. Creationism has no place in the public school system.
AGREED!

Eeehm.. surely evolving to homo sapiens through a long chain of events, being the current most developed form of life with the possibility that our descendants will achieve even greater heights is more special than just being something someone put together ?
... out of dust, no less! Groan!

AGREED!

Ahh, but then you're disallowing the study of religions around the world, and thus disallowing the study of cultures around the world - why should kids not be allowed to study cultures that interest them? Are we so naive and full of ourselves as US citizens that we believe our culture to be so much vastly superior to all others that we need not be sensitive to other cultures?

Sounds a lot like Imperial Britain...

So the understanding and accepting of the religous beliefs of others should not be taught in schools at all?

Ahh, but then you're disallowing the study of religions around the world, and thus disallowing the study of cultures around the world - why should kids not be allowed to study cultures that interest them? Are we so naive and full of ourselves as US citizens that we believe our culture to be so much vastly superior to all others that we need not be sensitive to other cultures?

Sounds a lot like Imperial Britain...

Sounds a lot like a dosen other countries

I may be your opponent usually, Eutrusca, but I respect you more whenever I see this kind of remark.
Heh! Now why would you want to be my "opponent," pray tell? After all, I'm a pretty decent guy. I love little children. I take care of my family. I support good causes. Just because I'm also a cantankerous, old Vietnam veteran doesn't make me a bad person. :D

... out of dust, no less! Groan!
Well, if your gonna say that.
They keep on telling me that humans evolved...from some sort of soup. Groan!

Well, if your gonna say that.
They keep on telling me that humans evolved...from some sort of soup. Groan!

I dunno bout you, but I'd rather have soup than dust...

Sounds a lot like Imperial Britain...

More like Saudi Arabia.

Ahh, but then you're disallowing the study of religions around the world, and thus disallowing the study of cultures around the world - why should kids not be allowed to study cultures that interest them? Are we so naive and full of ourselves as US citizens that we believe our culture to be so much vastly superior to all others that we need not be sensitive to other cultures?

Sounds a lot like Imperial Britain...
How on earth did you get that from what I said or what the poster to whom I was responding said? The topic was creationism, which is a load of horse-hocky if ever there was one! If people want to know about a load of horse-hocky, they can visit a horse stable. If they want to know about a religious delusion, they can visit a church which teaches it. Neither horse-hocky nor creationism should be supported by tax dollars. Simple.

More like Saudi Arabia.
Heh! :D

How on earth did you get that from what I said or what the poster to whom I was responding said? The topic was creationism, which is a load of horse-hocky if ever there was one! If people want to know about a load of horse-hocky, they can visit a horse stable. If they want to know about a religious delusion, they can visit a church which teaches it. Neither horse-hocky nor creationism should be supported by tax dollars. Simple.

You agreed that religion should not be studied in public schools. Thus, I responded that religion has a need to be taught in public schools as every culture in the world is based on religion of some kind.

To argue that we'll teach everything about this religion - except what we dont believe - is the same as the fundies wanting to edit out of science classes the concepts they dont believe in.

Ahh, but then you're disallowing the study of religions around the world, and thus disallowing the study of cultures around the world - why should kids not be allowed to study cultures that interest them? Are we so naive and full of ourselves as US citizens that we believe our culture to be so much vastly superior to all others that we need not be sensitive to other cultures?

Sounds a lot like Imperial Britain...

There is nothing wrong with the study of other cultures. Teach students about other cutures, tell them what religion that culture practices and nothing more than what religion they practice.

How on earth did you get that from what I said or what the poster to whom I was responding said? The topic was creationism, which is a load of horse-hocky if ever there was one! If people want to know about a load of horse-hocky, they can visit a horse stable. If they want to know about a religious delusion, they can visit a church which teaches it. Neither horse-hocky nor creationism should be supported by tax dollars. Simple.


Once again, the same can be argued for the teaching of music in public schools. Are you opposed to music being taught on your tax dollars?

Ahh, but then you're disallowing the study of religions around the world, and thus disallowing the study of cultures around the world - why should kids not be allowed to study cultures that interest them? Are we so naive and full of ourselves as US citizens that we believe our culture to be so much vastly superior to all others that we need not be sensitive to other cultures?

Sounds a lot like Imperial Britain...


...Biology class isn't for studying other cultures or religions. It is for studying the one thing that is universal to all human beings regardless of race, color, or creed. Injecting the primitive speculations of men 5000 years dead into the discussion, spinning it to fit a western religious view, is about the most destructive thing you can do.

There is nothing wrong with the study of other cultures. Teach students about other cutures, tell them what religion that culture practices and nothing more than what religion they practice.

So, we're just going to tell people that Iraqis are predominantly muslim, but not explain what that has to do with their culture? How are you going to explain anything about their culture since their culture is based on their religion?

So you wern't a fan of Religous Studies then?
there wasnt any religious studies in my highschool. nor in my son's.

with all the important stuff they have had to eliminate, i dont see any point in teaching religion.

Once again, the same can be argued for the teaching of music in public schools. Are you opposed to music being taught on your tax dollars?
Hmmmmmm. Is music religious?
Didn't think so.

You agreed that religion should not be studied in public schools. Thus, I responded that religion has a need to be taught in public schools as every culture in the world is based on religion of some kind.

To argue that we'll teach everything about this religion - except what we dont believe - is the same as the fundies wanting to edit out of science classes the concepts they dont believe in.
Agreed. Fortunately every public education system in the western hemisphere that I've ever heard of, agrees as well.

It seems that when push comes to shove, even the anti-religious can see why it's useful for everyone to at least know what the major religions are all about & the cultural influnces they represent.

...Biology class isn't for studying other cultures or religions. It is for studying the one thing that is universal to all human beings regardless of race, color, or creed. Injecting the primitive speculations of men 5000 years dead into the discussion, spinning it to fit a western religious view, is about the most destructive thing you can do.

Read all my posts...I'm arguing that while it doesnt belong in biology class, there should be a cultural / religious studies class

So, we're just going to tell people that Iraqis are predominantly muslim, but not explain what that has to do with their culture? How are you going to explain anything about their culture since their culture is based on their religion?
That is when they use the internet or find another source to learn about it if they so wish.

Neither of you are answering the question. What does it matter if they're teaching Creationism?
Because they want to teach it in a science classroom, where it doesn't belong.

Once again, the same can be argued for the teaching of music in public schools. Are you opposed to music being taught on your tax dollars?
Music is tangible.

...Biology class isn't for studying other cultures or religions. It is for studying the one thing that is universal to all human beings regardless of race, color, or creed. Injecting the primitive speculations of men 5000 years dead into the discussion, spinning it to fit a western religious view, is about the most destructive thing you can do.

Emphasise these remarks and send them to school boards.

Creationism might be mentioned in a school's religious education/moral/citizen development classes as an aside - what parables religions use, the stories about mankind's origin they use to put forward their points of view. But to teach it as a serious explanation akin to evolution... useless at best, realistically actively harmful.

So, we're just going to tell people that Iraqis are predominantly muslim, but not explain what that has to do with their culture? How are you going to explain anything about their culture since their culture is based on their religion?


There is a huge difference between an academic study of religion and "teaching religion." I graduated from the largest Catholic university in the United States with a minor in religious studies and I was never "taught religion" I was taught historical, cultural, and factual information. If I wanted to learn religion, I could have minored in Theology.

Creationism in the classroom is theology, not an academic study of religion. When learning about the shape of the earth, do we stop for a second and explain what flat-earthers believe and then say that it is an equally valid view? No. Why should creationism be any different?

Hmmmmmm. Is music religious?
Didn't think so.

Bach wrote 99% of his music to glorify God. When we study Western music theory, we study the methods of Bach.

The first examples of Western music we have was written by monks.

Rock and Roll was born of Robert Johnson's deal with the Devil.

The Methodists say, "He who sings prays twice."

Everything from Handel's Messiah to the be-bop musings of Charlie Parker have been written in praise of the magic fairy in the sky.

All those wonderful old slave spirituals.

John Sousa believed he heard the voice of God in his marches.

Music and religion are so intertwined they are practically the same thing.

I am a music teacher and I know this to be true and I teach it. In a public school.

Here is what should be taught about creationism.
You tell the students that there are nutbags that think that we were created by a all powerfull all seeing perfect imaginary supernatural being.

There is a huge difference between an academic study of religion and "teaching religion." I graduated from the largest Catholic university in the United States with a minor in religious studies and I was never "taught religion" I was taught historical, cultural, and factual information. If I wanted to learn religion, I could have minored in Theology.

Creationism in the classroom is theology, not an academic study of religion. When learning about the shape of the earth, do we stop for a second and explain what flat-earthers believe and then say that it is an equally valid view? No. Why should creationism be any different?


Go back and read all my posts...Maybe then you'll understand that WE'RE ON THE SAME F'N PAGE...Jeezus...

That is when they use the internet or find another source to learn about it if they so wish.

Not everyone can afford a computer or the internet and not everyone has access to a library.

Read all my posts...I'm arguing that while it doesnt belong in biology class, there should be a cultural / religious studies class

Heh, yeah, that'll work. Schools have few enough dollars to begin with. Teaching a class as expansive as "cultural/religious studies" would be either prohibitively expensive or woefully inadequate. The level of understanding and sophistication that is required to really understand religious expression is simply absent in pre-highschool children. Beyond that, a cursory glance of the major world religions (and the cultures associated with them) would likely require a semester each, putting the overall length of a class like the one you describe in the years. There is a reason that academic study of religion is generally reserved for university students.

Bach wrote 99% of his music to glorify God. When we study Western music theory, we study the methods of Bach.

The first examples of Western music we have was written by monks.

Rock and Roll was born of Robert Johnson's deal with the Devil.

The Methodists say, "He who sings prays twice."

Everything from Handel's Messiah to the be-bop musings of Charlie Parker have been written in praise of the magic fairy in the sky.

All those wonderful old slave spirituals.

John Sousa believed he heard the voice of God in his marches.

Music and religion are so intertwined they are practically the same thing.

I am a music teacher and I know this to be true and I teach it. In a public school.

I took music classes in middle and high school and I was never, not once pelted with religious garbage. No, music and religion are not practicaly the same thing.

Bach wrote 99% of his music to glorify God. When we study Western music theory, we study the methods of Bach.

The first examples of Western music we have was written by monks.

Rock and Roll was born of Robert Johnson's deal with the Devil.

The Methodists say, "He who sings prays twice."

Everything from Handel's Messiah to the be-bop musings of Charlie Parker have been written in praise of the magic fairy in the sky.

All those wonderful old slave spirituals.

John Sousa believed he heard the voice of God in his marches.

Music and religion are so intertwined they are practically the same thing.

I am a music teacher and I know this to be true and I teach it. In a public school.
Are you teaching that music cannot be written without divine intervention? Then we have a problem...
Simply saying that Bach wrote music to glorify HIS God, isn't really all that controversial.

I blame Protestantism and its notion of revealed truth available to all. If you start with that frame of mind, how can you reconcile yourself with the nonbeliever? Plus, all Protestants (except Anglicans, Episcopalians and perhaps Methodists) believe that all truth is visible in the Bible (and imperative): good luck with proving that, Americans!

I took music classes in middle and high school and I was never, not once pelted with religious garbage. No, music and religion are not practicaly the same thing.

Then you never really studied music. Music *is* a religion.

I have no problem with intelligent design being taught. Alot of Christians believe in that. There is evidence in the Bible supporting that. For instance:

"In the beginning God Created the Heavens and the Earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, adn the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters" Genesis 1:1,2

This would imply that there was a "soup" going on. Water, an important ingrediant to life, is mentioned. It does not say how many millions of years the earth remained in this state.

I am a Christian, and believe whole heartedly in ID. Nothing in my faith allows me to disbelieve evidence that is right in front of me. Dinosaurs, cool. Neandertal man, great. Who's to say that God didn't do a little experimenting in the process.

I believe creation as defined by the bible took much longer than six days. I think that this could be taught in schools without to much uproar except for that loud minority. It's not enough for them that 95% of Americans identify themselves as Christian. That would imply that most people far right or far left are basically on the same page when it comes to spirituality.

Then you never really studied music. Music *is* a religion.
Faith isn't required.

Heh, yeah, that'll work. Schools have few enough dollars to begin with. Teaching a class as expansive as "cultural/religious studies" would be either prohibitively expensive or woefully inadequate. The level of understanding and sophistication that is required to really understand religious expression is simply absent in pre-highschool children. Beyond that, a cursory glance of the major world religions (and the cultures associated with them) would likely require a semester each, putting the overall length of a class like the one you describe in the years. There is a reason that academic study of religion is generally reserved for university students.

But don't you see? Funding for science, math and english could be cut to teach a religious studies class. Oh, and teachers can take a pay cut as well.

Are you teaching that music cannot be written without divine intervention? Then we have a problem...

Nope. But all music has its basis in religion and epiphany. History should not be ignored.

Simply saying that Bach wrote music to glorify HIS God, isn't really all that controversial.

Exactly. Neither is mentioning in a humanities class that there are people who believe the universe was created in 6 days by a magical sky fairy.

My argument is simple: Creationism has a place in public schools alongside any art or humanities study. Creationism has no place in the science classroom.

Then you never really studied music. Music *is* a religion.

While I agree that religion and music are intertwined, that music is a direct path to whatever God you worship, and that music and religious experiance are one in the same, it is not the case for everyone. There are those who understand, and those who do not. Not everyone is touched by sound in the same way. Ultimately, it is not something that can be explained.

Nope. But all music has its basis in religion and epiphany. History should not be ignored.



Exactly. Neither is mentioning in a humanities class that there are people who believe the universe was created in 6 days by a magical sky fairy.

My argument is simple: Creationism has a place in public schools alongside any art or humanities study. Creationism has no place in the science classroom.
Oh... ok. Yes. Good show. Carry on. Pip! Pip!

Faith isn't required.

Actually it is ... but I don't think this is the thread for that.

There are those who understand, and those who do not. Not everyone is touched by sound in the same way. Ultimately, it is not something that can be explained.

Exactly why a certain amount of faith is needed. :)

Actually it is ... but I don't think this is the thread for that.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on it.

You agreed that religion should not be studied in public schools. Thus, I responded that religion has a need to be taught in public schools as every culture in the world is based on religion of some kind.

To argue that we'll teach everything about this religion - except what we dont believe - is the same as the fundies wanting to edit out of science classes the concepts they dont believe in.
I have no objection whatsoever to a comparative relgions class in public school, but mixing science and psuedo-science is verboten ... period!

Nope. But all music has its basis in religion and epiphany. History should not be ignored.



Exactly. Neither is mentioning in a humanities class that there are people who believe the universe was created in 6 days by a magical sky fairy.

My argument is simple: Creationism has a place in public schools alongside any art or humanities study. Creationism has no place in the science classroom.

Here is a perfect class for creationism, fairytales and mothergoose 101.

Bach wrote 99% of his music to glorify God. When we study Western music theory, we study the methods of Bach.

The first examples of Western music we have was written by monks.

Rock and Roll was born of Robert Johnson's deal with the Devil.

The Methodists say, "He who sings prays twice."

Everything from Handel's Messiah to the be-bop musings of Charlie Parker have been written in praise of the magic fairy in the sky.

All those wonderful old slave spirituals.

John Sousa believed he heard the voice of God in his marches.

Music and religion are so intertwined they are practically the same thing.

I am a music teacher and I know this to be true and I teach it. In a public school.
Well, I call Serway (my first year physics text) my bible, but that doesn't make physics a religious subject.
Music may have been written to glorify god, but it has also been used to glorify loved ones, express emotion in such a way that words fail to express, music is greater than religion, greater than the gods that create it. Music is an expression of the human condition that stretches far beyond any artificial boundaries and categories we make for each other. Words simply do not do justice to what music is, and to say it is the same as religion simply does not do it justice either.

Music is a far greater thing than religion can ever hope to be.

Once again, the same can be argued for the teaching of music in public schools. Are you opposed to music being taught on your tax dollars?
No. :p

I took music classes in middle and high school and I was never, not once pelted with religious garbage. No, music and religion are not practicaly the same thing.
Well, I can't say I have ever had a choir director try and convert me or anything, but at least 3 out of every 4 songs we sang were religous.

Separation of church and State.
Separation of church and State.
Separation of church and State.
Separation of church and State.
Separation of church and State.
Separation of church and State.
Separation of church and State.
Separation of church and State.
Separation of church and State.
Separation of church and State.

we should so get one of those here:headbang:

I have no problem with intelligent design being taught. Alot of Christians believe in that. There is evidence in the Bible supporting that. For instance:



This would imply that there was a "soup" going on. Water, an important ingrediant to life, is mentioned. It does not say how many millions of years the earth remained in this state.

I am a Christian, and believe whole heartedly in ID. Nothing in my faith allows me to disbelieve evidence that is right in front of me. Dinosaurs, cool. Neandertal man, great. Who's to say that God didn't do a little experimenting in the process.

I believe creation as defined by the bible took much longer than six days. I think that this could be taught in schools without to much uproar except for that loud minority. It's not enough for them that 95% of Americans identify themselves as Christian. That would imply that most people far right or far left are basically on the same page when it comes to spirituality.


Why should schools bend over backwards to include your reaching views? Let me be more clear. Why, in the absence of independent evidence, should Intelligent Design be taught? ALL evidence for intelligent design is either purely religious (Bible says it, I believe it, QED, bitch!) or purely negative (look! a hole in evolutionary theory, that must mean my blind assertion is right!). When there is any evidence in support of intelligent design (i.e. evidence that supports intelligent design instead of evidence that simply call evolution into question) then we can discuss teaching it. Until then, speculation about a guiding hand belongs in the home. Unless, of course, you want your children exposed to the creation myths of other cultures, explained in such a way as to be shoehorned into the existing facts. There are some wonderful native american creation myths involving masturbating and menstruating Gods and Goddesses I could come and explain to your 12 year old.

there wasnt any religious studies in my highschool. nor in my son's.

with all the important stuff they have had to eliminate, i dont see any point in teaching religion.
I tend to agree, although if it can be fitted into the curriculum I see no reason why a course in comparative religions would be inappropriate. What's inapproprite is taking one particular religion and teaching that, or teaching a thinly disguised version of it masquerading as science.

Creationism being taught as science in schools - bah, get away.

But of course it ought to be mentioned in humanities classes… and yes, you DO need humanities classes. To be brutally honest, the US has a reputation for cultural arrogance.

I don't particularly like fascism. Still a good idea to learn about it in History.

Then you never really studied music. Music *is* a religion.

Many scientific minds were very religious people who used religion and science together, for example Newton, but science is not religion.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on it.

I wrote a paper on it some years back. I'll see if I can dig it up and post it.

Many scientific minds were very religious people who used religion and science together, for example Newton, but science is not religion.

Music is not science.

Music is not science.
And music is not religion.

I wrote a paper on it some years back. I'll see if I can dig it up and post it.
:rolleyes:

you really think chance evolution is 'more special' than god creating humans? its natural verse the supernatural

Does the Grand Canyon depend on a creator to make it special? Are we not special for the simple fact that it took us billions of years to develop by means of complex natural forces?

The problem Christians have with Evolution is the same problem they had with Gallileo. Suddenly science has shown that WE are not the center of the universe.

Look, I don't need a god to tell me we're special and unique. My own eyes and mind tell me this.

Don't blame science if you need outside affirmation as to the point of your existence.

Oh, and Evolution is NOT just chance. Only the ignorant say that. If you believe evolution is just willy nilly chance, you need to re-educate yourself, because you just don't get it. Not at all.

:rolleyes:

What ... I went to college ... in college you write papers.

I see not point in debating this any further. I have said what I wanted to say.

And music is not religion.

Not today, but traditionally, all music had a religious component. Music accomanpied ritual, music primed people for experiance, music provided the means to an altered state of consciousness. For some, music was not only the means, but the end. Speak to a musician who has entered the zone, and tell me that where they went is any different than a persian dervish.

Music and religion are so intertwined they are practically the same thing.

I am a music teacher and I know this to be true and I teach it. In a public school.

really? my parents teach it in a private school in a country with no seperation of church and state and I've always been taught that music is just another medium used by the religious.

Just because religion used to have a chokehold on all aspects of life (including all mediums such as music and literature) does not mean that they are the same thing.:headbang:

What ... I went to college ... in college you write papers.
I went to college too, but that doesn't mean I'm going to post the frakking papers I wrote there on the NS General forum, for crying out loud. :p

I am a Christian, and believe whole heartedly in ID.

Which has nothing to do with the question if it is science or not.
Science works by disproving explanations that are wrong.
ID works by attempting to prove the ID explanation right.

Two very different strategies.

What ... I went to college ... in college you write papers.
I'm still interested.

I tend to agree, although if it can be fitted into the curriculum I see no reason why a course in comparative religions would be inappropriate. What's inapproprite is taking one particular religion and teaching that, or teaching a thinly disguised version of it masquerading as science.
i agree

when a school has the extra time and money, enough students interested in taking the class as an elective and a teacher who is really qualified to teach comparative religion, its as good a class as any. certainly equal to "death and dying"

to put one religions viewpoint into a science class is both wrong on a scientific level and a religious freedom level.

Which has nothing to do with the question if it is science or not.
Science works by disproving explanations that are wrong.
ID works by attempting to prove the ID explanation right.

Two very different strategies.
I think Canned Logic is being satirical... I hope...

Is the question of where we came from really all that consequential or relevant to the future?
Well duh! you want to go heaven don't you?!:headbang:

i agree

when a school has the extra time and money, enough students interested in taking the class as an elective and a teacher who is really qualified to teach comparative religion, its as good a class as any. certainly equal to "death and dying"

to put one religions viewpoint into a science class is both wrong on a scientific level and a religious freedom level.
Perzactly! :)

Well duh! you want to go heaven don't you?!:headbang:
They don't let old soldiers in, so meh! :p

And music is not religion.
Music and science are my religions. ;)

But seriously, teaching music in school is a lot different from teaching religion in schools. Children who follow through in the arts throughout school do better in other subject areas, for instance, my piano playing is probably what made me so good at math, it taught me dedication and discipline and once I got a lot of the technical ability down, I realized I can make beautiful music, which is quite a rush to accomplish, when you see a classical musician swaying as they play, they are feeling the music, it's quite the feeling, really. When I have kids, they're going to be learning at least one instrument and at least one sport.

Is the question of where we came from really all that consequential or relevant to the future?

my teacher wasn't 'allowed' to teach the theory of evolution. it pissed me off.. i felt like my education was going down the tubes.. and i wasn't wrong. everything i've learned i've learned through reading outside of school on my own. much of what i learned in the american school system was either wrong, skewed, outdated, biased, or blatantly PC and/or propaganda.

to answer the question: no, it doesn't matter if we came from amoebas or chimps. either way, humans are stupid assholes. :p

Why do Americans care so much about Evolution vs. Creationism?

Because they are fucking insane! Hahaha! :D

Naturally. And keep in mind: if God created us to perform some function, we have a pre-set purpose. We would in essence be tools, nothing more.
If nature created us, we are free to make our own destiny.

I *vastly* prefer the second version. But that is straying from the topic.


Actually, if we're purely natural processes, then we're no more free than if a God is a puppet-master for our lives. Think about it, if I hit a cue ball with my pool stick (NOTE: Not a euphemism) does it have a choice about which direction it will go? No, it'll respond to the laws of physics. If we are purely natural processes, then all we can do is respond to the laws of physics. Granted, when you factor in all the trillions of cells, each performing its own chemical reactions, the process is really beyond our current state of knowledge to calculate, and may always remain so due to the uncertainty found in quantum mechanics, but ultimately things have to obey physical laws, people no less than a rock.

Do you prefer your life predetermined by a God who intends to do good things for you (at least in the end) or your life predetermined by physical laws? Assuming people don't have free will if a God exists, then those are the only two possibilities. Free will is only an illusion.

This is where I have to digress back onto the original topic: why I care about Evolution v. Creation: because it shapes the entire outlook on life. If natural selection is the only guiding force in the universe, then there really is no hindrance to me going out and doing whatever I want to provide for my needs and pass along my genetic code, aside from others doing the same thing. The business tycoons of the 1800's applied Darwinism to allow them to do as they pleased with their business, screw the worker! If I can do it, and it helps me, there is no reason not to. To borrow from philosophers throughout history, "what ever is, is right." Granted, a social system can hinder the outright violence and harm that I can cause, but there is no basis for that social system to say "X is right. Since you did Y, what you did is wrong." Whatever society says is OK, whether is it amassing incredible amounts of money through "immoral" means, redistributing the wealth of those people later, executing a certain group as enemies of the people, whatever. Anything is right.

If someone can give me a reason based on the principle of "survival of the fittest" that would prevent a person from doing whatever they wanted, provided it didn't harm them directly, please do. I have a tendency to miss the obvious. :)

In a Creationist system, there is some sort of divine being. Now, if you believe in creationism (and if you're going to believe in it at all, you may as well go all the way) then that being created the universe with some sort of purpose in mind, not just for the heck of it. Now, if a being capable of violating basic laws of physics wants to do something, that by itself tends to be able to settle what ought to be. But typically, religions that believe the universe was created tend to include something like "God created the HEAVENS and the Earth," which means an after life. Now, if there is a certain behavior that will get you into the happy place instead of the painful place for eternity, then that tends to make that behavior the right decision, purely from a self-interest standpoint. No matter how much pain you get for it on earth, even a little bit of pleasure in eternity makes up for it. Think about it 1 pleasure unit*an infinite amount of time>9^999^999 pain units*a finite amount of time, though admittedly your finite time would pretty greatly suck. This leaves out most of the other basis for good v. evil such as the nature of God being good (since in a LOT of religions there are bad gods as well.)




Sum up for the ADD crowd: Evolution doesn't give any real basis for an orderly and fair society, while Creationism does, at least in general.

while Creationism does, at least in general.

As do most fairy tales...

Back to the original question of why the teaching Evolution vs. Creationism is so important, and why Americans should care about it.

Darwin's theory of Evolution is a necessary precursor to understanding and explaining the discoveries of geneticists like Watson or Venter. In the same way that Newton's theory of Gravitation was a necessary precursor to the formulation of the Theory of Relativity by Einstein.

Not because everything Einstein postulated confirmed everything Newton postulated. On the contrary, several things had to be re-evaluated and re-defined. But the intellectual space for an Einstein, the foundation on which he based his further explanations of physics would not have existed without a thorough understanding of the theories of Newton. Without Newton defining an "intertial frame of reference", Einstein would not have been able to begin saying "all inertial frames of reference are relative to one another".

In the same way, understanding and thinking what Darwin was talking about provides necessary intellectual foundation to the science of genetics today. I can say this with some authority, being an MS in molecular biology myself. If Darwin's essential concepts (or Mendel's for that matter) were not taught to future scientists, it would completely negate the possibility of advancing our scientific understanding of biology.

Unfortunately, the "Christians" who want to thwart our future generations' understanding of Darwin's theory of evolution, do not take it upon themselves to challenge Newton's theory of gravitation. A nice jump off a very high cliff would do it.

Now here's why this is important to America at large, rather than just a few scientists.

Pioneering work in information technology by American scientists and engineers through the late '80s and early-through-mid '90s, was responsible for the personal computer revolution followed by the advent of the internet. America was so far ahead of everyone else in this field that, during the '90s, our supremacy in this crucially important technological area created an unprecedented economic boom.

However, it was not to last. Other nations caught up with our mastery of information technology, and a lot of work in that sphere ended up being outsourced to such countries as India. The same thing had previously happened with Japan and then China in the field of manufacturing.

Worse still, America completely missed out on the next big thing in the mid-through-late '90s: telecommunications. Other nations leapfrogged over our discoveries and forged ahead of us. While US companies like Iridium struggled to produce bulky phones that weighed a ton and nobody bought, European and Asian companies like Nokia and Samsung took the technology to the next level, producing the cell phones and wireless networks we use today.

Why did we lose ground when we were ahead? Lots of reasons. Certainly, the educational systems of other countries graduating far more scientists and engineers a year than ours, was a major one.

It was American scientists and engineers that created the information technology boom, and the lack of them that contributed to our losing out on the telecom boom.

The next major technological field of economic impact, is sure to be genetics, biotechnology and molecular biology.

Our universities are still the best in the world for teaching that stuff... but have you had a look at the student bodies of these graduate departments? In the best schools, 80% of the grad students in biology labs are foreign.

We need, at the very least, to match foreign scientists' numbers with equally well-qualified American scientists. But how easy is that going to be, in the field of genetics and biotech, when our kids' educational foundation in these sciences is being threatened by a bunch of bible-thumping nitwits?

If the "Christians" win, America will lose another opportunity for scientific and economic advancement. Another step back towards the dark ages where that type of "Christian" was certainly in his element.

The problem Christians have with Evolution is the same problem they had with Galileo. Suddenly science has shown that WE are not the center of the universe.

I hate to butt in just to argue a minor point, but Christianity wasn't saying we're the center of the universe back then becase we're special and the middle is a good place to be. Actually, the center of the universe was viewed as the residing place of evil. Because we're so crappy we had to be this close to the center. Read Dante for a viewpoint of this. The exact center of the universe is Satan's bellybutton.

Also, there are a couple of things going in favor of the church in the whole Galileo thing.

1. Galileo was an ass. He basicly tried to piss off the Pope through a book called "Dialogue Concerning the Two Principal Systems of the World" he wrote where he included an idiot named Simplicio, essentially a caricature of the Pope. Not only that, but he wrote it in the time period where he was on trial (IIRC.)

2. If the accepted wisdom of the entire scientific community states something for many thousands of years, you don't change the whole kit and kaboodle overnight. For instance, if I came up with an observation that it is possible to build a perpetual motion machine, in fact, a perpetual motion machine that actually generates energy, you'd laugh me off and rightly so. All the observations of science for the last 200-300 years would say that what I did was impossible. I must have done something wrong. The same thing happened with Galileo. The same thing also happened with Spontanious Generation, Germ Theory and Atomic theory. Heck, the WORD "atomic" means unsplittable, that's how sure scientists were about that, and they were wrong.

3. Most of the Catholic intellectuals were on Galileo's side, including the Pope at one point in time. According to the book "The Crime of Galileo" by Giorgio de Santillana "the major part of the Church intellectuals were on the side of Galileo...while the clearest opposition to him came from secular ideas." If the church had any problem at all, it wasn't because Galileo disagreed with Christian doctring, but rather because he disagreed with Aristotelian doctrine, including the belief that things have a natural place toward which they strive, rather than being goverened by mechanical laws as Galileo said.

4. Rather than being a closet athiest, as some suspected, Galileo believed in Christianity personally. He only wanted to correct the scientific errors of the church, not bring down the whole edifice.

5. Finally, he suffered from a really, really bad case of bad timing. Right as he released his book challenging Aristotle, the Catholic Church had reaffirmed much of Aristotle's teaching as a counter to the Protestantism flourishing up north, in Germany. That, combined with point 1 shows that Galileo was either absent minded, or really looking for trouble. :)



Naturally, none of this has anything to do with your other points, but I wanted to deal with the "Christianity ALWAYS has harmed science, look at Galileo!" assertion.

As do most fairy tales...

Good tabloid thinking! Ignore the entire point of the post, as well as my question about evolution pointing to right and wrong. Just call it a fairy tale and be done with it.

Exceptionally convincing argument, my good chap.

Back to the original question of why the teaching Evolution vs. Creationism is so important, and why Americans should care about it.

Darwin's theory of Evolution is a necessary precursor to understanding and explaining the discoveries of geneticists like Watson or Venter. In the same way that Newton's theory of Gravitation was a necessary precursor to the formulation of the Theory of Relativity by Einstein.

I'm curious, but how so? IIRC, Darwin believed that features were inherited much like what happens when you mix paint. It is essentially averaged out, and that product is the next generation. Now, I see the idea that he created the basic frame of reference, but wasn't Mendel (as you refered to earlier) the one who actually came closer to the truth? They were near-contemporaries as well. Darwin even had a set of Mendel's papers on his shelf, but didn't actually read them.

In the same way, understanding and thinking what Darwin was talking about provides necessary intellectual foundation to the science of genetics today. I can say this with some authority, being an MS in molecular biology myself. If Darwin's essential concepts (or Mendel's for that matter) were not taught to future scientists, it would completely negate the possibility of advancing our scientific understanding of biology.

Essential concepts? Would this be natural selection and mutation? While natural selection does exist (only an idiot can argue against microevolution), it tends to reduce genetic information, not aid in creating it. Mutations also seem to be either harmful or neutral in all cases. Sickle Cell seems to be cited a lot as an example of evolution, but it's quite harmful except in one specific environment and it eliminates the information needed to go back to full and normal red blood cells. I've heard something about a mutation that gives immunity to AIDS, but I've yet to confirm it and it probably comes with a downside as well.

Unfortunately, the "Christians" who want to thwart our future generations' understanding of Darwin's theory of evolution, do not take it upon themselves to challenge Newton's theory of gravitation. A nice jump off a very high cliff would do it.

Oooo nice. Ranks right up there with saying "I wish Margret Sanger's mother had exercised her right to choose." :)

Now here's why this is important to America at large, rather than just a few scientists.
*SNIP*

How does saying the umpteen thousand books worth of information in the genetic code was created intelligently make the kids who are seeking to edit this genetic code intelligently (at least, hopefully so :D) so much stupider than saying it was purely the product of chance? I don't see how saying "you can use viruses, nanomachines, or what have you to take out this block of code and replace it with this other block" is that badly influenced by believing the genetic code was arranged according to a plan.

Unfortunately, the "Christians" who want to thwart our future generations' understanding of Darwin's theory of evolution, do not take it upon themselves to challenge Newton's theory of gravitation. A nice jump off a very high cliff would do it.



Gravity is only a theory (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm). :D

Is the question of where we came from really all that consequential or relevant to the future?
No.

*SNIP*

Ok how do you test for existence or non-existence of God? What about his envolvment?

You can't. So Creationsim belongs in the Religous studies or philosophy course.....

Is the question of where we came from really all that consequential or relevant to the future?
Perhaps.

Ok how do you test for existence or non-existence of God? What about his envolvment?

You can't. So Creationsim belongs in the Religous studies or philosophy course.....

Neither can you test to see whether nothing actually went bang and became something (yes, I know that's incorrect, it makes a good point) since the Bing Bang isn't exactly observable and repeatable, which really puts it outside the realm of science. Maybe we should put Naturalism into the Religious studies class as well.

We can't actually observe the beginnings of the universe or the evolution of a creature. Despite what X-Men seems to show, any evolution is going to happen over a very, very long period of time, so we can't possibly watch it happen. All we can do is draw conclusions from what evidence we have. Evolutionists look at the expansion of the universe and think it began in the big bang. Creationists tend to go "Y'know that whole entropy thing? While Earth may have over come it to evolve stuff, since it's an open systen, the Universe wouldn't have, so all the planets like Earth couldn't form."

It all depends on the evidence that we see now, since we CAN'T PROVE either way. Again, no direct observation occured, unless you count God and the Bible, in which case I win anyhow. :)

Evolution has a large amount of evidence behind it. I keep asking people, but no one wants to show me any evidence for Creationism. Maybe you can.

Actually, if we're purely natural processes, then we're no more free than if a God is a puppet-master for our lives. Think about it, if I hit a cue ball with my pool stick (NOTE: Not a euphemism) does it have a choice about which direction it will go? No, it'll respond to the laws of physics. If we are purely natural processes, then all we can do is respond to the laws of physics. Granted, when you factor in all the trillions of cells, each performing its own chemical reactions, the process is really beyond our current state of knowledge to calculate, and may always remain so due to the uncertainty found in quantum mechanics, but ultimately things have to obey physical laws, people no less than a rock.
Yes, let's invoke physics in a discussion of biology. :rolleyes: As though the discussion on so called intelligent design doesn't have enough intrusion from non-biologists, we have to add people butchering physics into the mix. For one thing, even if physical processes are predeterimened, we have no way of knowing that, and we have no way of predicting what we will do. For another, our biology has bestowed us with intellect and using this intellect, we do not always do as the instinctive chemical processes demand we do, we make decisions based off our life experiences and what we feel will work. Even if this is all predetermined, it doesn't matter for the choice we make is still our choice, we still have made it. Physics doesn't dictate what we do.

Do you prefer your life predetermined by a God who intends to do good things for you (at least in the end) or your life predetermined by physical laws? Assuming people don't have free will if a God exists, then those are the only two possibilities.
lol. So now it's based on personal prefrence and beliefs. How does this belong in a science classroom, exactly? Or a discussion on scientific theory or science education? Furthermore, why assume this god intends for good things? How do we know this isn't a malevolent creator?

This is where I have to digress back onto the original topic: why I care about Evolution v. Creation: because it shapes the entire outlook on life. If natural selection is the only guiding force in the universe, then there really is no hindrance to me going out and doing whatever I want to provide for my needs and pass along my genetic code, aside from others doing the same thing. *snip*
If someone can give me a reason based on the principle of "survival of the fittest" that would prevent a person from doing whatever they wanted, provided it didn't harm them directly, please do. I have a tendency to miss the obvious. :)
Because of a little thing called a conscience and another thing called personal rights. You do not have the right to violate the rights of another person, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose starts, your right to spread your seed ends where a woman's right to determine who fathers her children start. Living in a society forces you to obey these sorts of rights or face the consequences.
You are building up a strawman of the amoral atheist here and it's really sad that you think without a god guiding your life you would go forth and rape and pillage and be generally a terrible person with no ambition. Those who need to fear punishment in hell and await great rewards in heaven in order to be moral are most contemptible.

Sum up for the ADD crowd: Evolution doesn't give any real basis for an orderly and fair society, while Creationism does, at least in general.
So the fact that societies develop different ideas of orderly and fair means nothing? The fact that societies of primates and many other mammals are orderly and have guarantees for fair treatment despite the fact that christians teach that only man was given these morals by god means nothing? Seriously, they've done studies. If one chimp is rewarded for a task and another chimp gets nothing, other chimps will refuse future rewards because they deem them unfair. In many societies of monkeys if one attacks another without just cause, they will be ostracized by the other monkeys. These animals share a common ancestor with us, they are moral beings, why wouldn't we be likewise?

Evolution has a large amount of evidence behind it. I keep asking people, but no one wants to show me any evidence for Creationism. Maybe you can.

Which has nothing to do with the question if it is science or not.
Science works by disproving explanations that are wrong.
ID works by attempting to prove the ID explanation right.

Two very different strategies.


Question: Liskeinland, would you prefer me to try and dig up evidence to support Creationism/ID, or would you prefer me to try and follow Squeaky Rat's definition of Science and disprove Evolution as an explanation? I'm willing to try either, but since the second one is easier, and I'm naturally lazy, I'd rather do that. ;)

Neither can you test to see whether nothing actually went bang and became something (yes, I know that's incorrect, it makes a good point) since the Bing Bang isn't exactly observable and repeatable, which really puts it outside the realm of science.
For one thing, that is a terrible description of the big bang as well as a terrible grasp of what is tested in the big bang theory. It is the predictions of the big bang theory that are tested. Scientists say "If this theory is true, we should see this and this and this... let's look for these things in nature." If the predictions are false, the theory is altered or abandoned, if the predictions prove correct, the theory is strengthened.

Maybe we should put Naturalism into the Religious studies class as well.
Maybe you should try learning some actual science instead of this pseudo-science creationist bullshit so you can tell the difference between real science and religion dressed in a lab coat.

We can't actually observe the beginnings of the universe or the evolution of a creature. Despite what X-Men seems to show, any evolution is going to happen over a very, very long period of time, so we can't possibly watch it happen.
Actually no, there is punctuated equilibrium for one thing and for antother, macroevolution (the evolution of new species) has been observed in our lifetimes. Look at the nylon bug. It is a bug that can only eat nylon. Nylon is a synthetic fibre and did not exist until 40-50 years ago. A bug evolved in those 40-50 years to the point where it survives exclusively on nylon. Evolution takes generations yes, but generations don't always take millenia...

Evolutionists look at the expansion of the universe and think it began in the big bang.
The big bang has nothing to do with evolution.

Creationists tend to go "Y'know that whole entropy thing? While Earth may have over come it to evolve stuff, since it's an open systen, the Universe wouldn't have, so all the planets like Earth couldn't form."
You don't know anything about entropy, do you? The thing is that a uniform mass of protons and neutrons has much less entropy than a solar system does. You just hear "order to chaos" but don't stop to think about what the actual science behind it means.

It all depends on the evidence that we see now, since we CAN'T PROVE either way. Again, no direct observation occured, unless you count God and the Bible, in which case I win anyhow. :)
You only "win" because you fail to understand the theories properly, which in my books makes you a huge loser.

Question: Liskeinland, would you prefer me to try and dig up evidence to support Creationism/ID, or would you prefer me to try and follow Squeaky Rat's definition of Science and disprove Evolution as an explanation? I'm willing to try either, but since the second one is easier, and I'm naturally lazy, I'd rather do that. ;)
Disproving evolution would not make creationism "proven"
Furthermore, at this point it's impossible to disprove evolution, it did happen and it continues to happen. Unless you find the remains of a human being dated well before remains of dinosaurs or something... and prove that you didn't make it up.

There are a few main reasons for keeping creationism out of schools. First and foremost would be lack of proof. As someone said, once they have some of their own proof instead of acting like little kids and saying "My isn't lame, YOURS is lame! Meanie!" creationists can start trying to get into our schools. Until then they should bug off.

The other being, while you can try to argue against this, that Creationism is quite biased towards Christianity. Really, they can make excuses, but when it really comes down to it, can you honestly say that creationism isn't ignoring other religions? What about those religions that aren't speaking of a single being? They are going to have to go into specifics of religion in these classes otherwise all they'd be teaching could be summed up in two sentences:
"And before the big bang happened, there was something in the nothingness and thats what made it explode. Then the something(s) played around before evolution happened a bit too." Even that is pushing it. How can you teach your subject that the universe was created by 'an intelligent being' without completely ignoring the religious minority? As far as I see it, their religions are just as important as yours, may as well make room for them on the bandwagon.

Incredibly, during my time in grade school, biology classes neglected to teach much about evolution or any other theories at all. The issue was merely skirted. So could someone inform me of how evolution explains the beginnings of life, and of the universe (big bang i guess)?

Pardon my ignorance :p

While natural selection does exist (only an idiot can argue against microevolution), it tends to reduce genetic information, not aid in creating it.
That's bullshit if ever I saw it. Prove your statement.

Mutations also seem to be either harmful or neutral in all cases.
Actually, mutations are as likely to be beneficial as they are to be harmful. More often than not, they're neutral.

Sickle Cell seems to be cited a lot as an example of evolution, but it's quite harmful except in one specific environment and it eliminates the information needed to go back to full and normal red blood cells.
Actually, it's the heterozygous sickle cell anemia that's beneficial, and in that case, there is still a gene for normal red blood cells. It protects from malaria, which is prevalent in tropical areas.

I've heard something about a mutation that gives immunity to AIDS, but I've yet to confirm it and it probably comes with a downside as well.
It's thought that people of european descent might have a bit of an immunity to AIDS, having dealt with the black death before. Although the immunity developing in Africa seems to be a good thing... many chimps are immune to their version of AIDS too, it provides no ill effects, by the way.

How does saying the umpteen thousand books worth of information in the genetic code was created intelligently make the kids who are seeking to edit this genetic code intelligently (at least, hopefully so :D) so much stupider than saying it was purely the product of chance? I don't see how saying "you can use viruses, nanomachines, or what have you to take out this block of code and replace it with this other block" is that badly influenced by believing the genetic code was arranged according to a plan.
I don't even understand what the hell you're saying here. But saying that it was all arranged according to the plan of some unseen creator is not science.

Incredibly, during my time in grade school, biology classes neglected to teach much about evolution or any other theories at all. The issue was merely skirted. So could someone inform me of how evolution explains the beginnings of life, and of the universe (big bang i guess)?

Pardon my ignorance :p

Well, that's easy: it doesn't.

Abiogenesis tries to explain the beginning of life and the Big Bang theory tries to describe, well, the Big Bang. Both have nothing to do with evolution.

Only the elite few want to impose their religious beliefs on the masses. We(as in the logical and reasonable people) are fighting back.

Incredibly, during my time in grade school, biology classes neglected to teach much about evolution or any other theories at all. The issue was merely skirted. So could someone inform me of how evolution explains the beginnings of life, and of the universe (big bang i guess)?

Pardon my ignorance :p
It doesn't.

Evolution deals with the development and change of life on earth after it had already begun.

Abiogenesis deals with the initial formation of life and the Big Bang theory (which is in a completely different branch of science alltogether) deals with the formation of the universe.

Yes, let's invoke physics in a discussion of biology. :rolleyes: As though the discussion on so called intelligent design doesn't have enough intrusion from non-biologists, we have to add people butchering physics into the mix. For one thing, even if physical processes are predeterimened, we have no way of knowing that, and we have no way of predicting what we will do. For another, our biology has bestowed us with intellect and using this intellect, we do not always do as the instinctive chemical processes demand we do, we make decisions based off our life experiences and what we feel will work. Even if this is all predetermined, it doesn't matter for the choice we make is still our choice, we still have made it. Physics doesn't dictate what we do. [quote]

Ultimately, everything reacts on an atomic basis, correct? Foods are broken down by enzymes until the various elements are useable to us, at which point they are used by our bodies in their many roles. Biology is an incredibly simpler way of explaining the whole thing but, coming from a purely natural viewpoint, physics should be able to do the same thing in a far more roundabout and complicated way.

How is intellect seperated from chemical processes? If the brain is yet more cells firing off electromagnetic impulses to control things, then we're merely in another branch of science, not exercising some more-than-purely-physical function. If it is all predetermined, then our choices don't matter. We don't have a choice, as we must do what we eventually do.

[quote]lol. So now it's based on personal prefrence and beliefs. How does this belong in a science classroom, exactly? Or a discussion on scientific theory or science education? Furthermore, why assume this god intends for good things? How do we know this isn't a malevolent creator?

If you read what I was quoting, I'm responding to someone who stated that they VASTLY preferred the belief that they supposedly have free will, rather than some god controling them. I didn't bring belief and personal preference into this, another non-creationist did.

Because of a little thing called a conscience and another thing called personal rights. You do not have the right to violate the rights of another person, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose starts, your right to spread your seed ends where a woman's right to determine who fathers her children start. Living in a society forces you to obey these sorts of rights or face the consequences.

That is exactly my point. Society is the only thing that states what is good or bad, lacking the supernatural. Way back when, daughters had no say in who they married, their fathers wedded them to their husbands. That was the society of the time. Since then, Society has changed, but who's to say that our society is better than theirs? There are no impartial observers around, as we all live in our society. Also, where do personal rights or a conscience come from? I suppose that a conscience could theoretically have been a mutation, but overwhelming belief that you shouldn't do something that's good for you seems like something that would be selected out quickly.

You are building up a strawman of the amoral atheist here and it's really sad that you think without a god guiding your life you would go forth and rape and pillage and be generally a terrible person with no ambition. Those who need to fear punishment in hell and await great rewards in heaven in order to be moral are most contemptible.

I'm not saying that anyone would actually do that. I personally believe God has given everyone their conscience, which restrains them from performing the logical consequence of their actions. Other than those such as the Marque de Sade(sp?) I know of no one who actually believes that whatever is, is right. I'm just pointing out what I think the logical consequence of a life without a firm moral basis would be, and pointing out SOME of the possibilities for what could give a person that moral basis.

So the fact that societies develop different ideas of orderly and fair means nothing? The fact that societies of primates and many other mammals are orderly and have guarantees for fair treatment despite the fact that christians teach that only man was given these morals by god means nothing? Seriously, they've done studies. If one chimp is rewarded for a task and another chimp gets nothing, other chimps will refuse future rewards because they deem them unfair. In many societies of monkeys if one attacks another without just cause, they will be ostracized by the other monkeys. These animals share a common ancestor with us, they are moral beings, why wouldn't we be likewise?

If societies were to develop differently due to purely natural forces, that would reinforce my point that there is no objective good and evil. In my worldview, that simply means that various societies often don't have the truth of scripture, and even if they do, mankind is imperfect and screws it up anyhow.

Were a monkey to attack another it would seem quite natural for that monkey to be chunked out, out of pure self preservation. I've never heard of the monkey reward study before, so I can't really comment on that.

Just because a monkey demonstrates what seems to be moral behavior doesn't prove that there is any actual moral, or more that chemical, basis for that behavior.

God is dead.


Remember that you herding cattle some people call Christians.


God is dead.

There's nothing wrong with intelligent design as a belief, IMO. But it's not science; it's a religious belief. And it has absolutely no place whatsoever in government-funded public schools.

Teach what happens in a science class. Teach the reasons behind what happens at church.

I think a number of people are going off on unneccessary tangents that will probably lead to ... terse words, shall we say.

Personally I am what some would call a pseudo-Christian. I believe in God, but I don't believe in strict adherance to the word of the bible (yea... I'm also gay, go figure on that one). I'm also a biology and chemistry major and I must say that Creationism does have a place in school, but it had better be on the opposite end of the building from the science classes. People who argue that "Evolution is a theory, so why can't we teach Creationism as a theory?" need to think about it empirically... You can provide evidence for evolution (it simply cannot be brushed off as nonsensical scientific jargon... it is real); you can't provide evidence for a religious belief, and therefore, you can not teach it in a science class. As for a humanities class, by all means. I opted to take AP European History as an elective my senior year in high school full well-knowing that it had a tremendous focus on world religions and how they've shaped Europe in particular. Going back in time to the 14th Century I've found that the vast majority of wars up through the 18th C. were religion-centered. I have no problem with religion being taught in history or humanities courses or even in English (Becket, Murder in the Cathedral, etc.), but the last place I should hear "Created by the hand of God" is in fucking Biology. That's that.

For one thing, that is a terrible description of the big bang as well as a terrible grasp of what is tested in the big bang theory. It is the predictions of the big bang theory that are tested. Scientists say "If this theory is true, we should see this and this and this... let's look for these things in nature." If the predictions are false, the theory is altered or abandoned, if the predictions prove correct, the theory is strengthened.

I KNOW. That's why I put "I KNOW THIS IS INCORRECT." What you just said was my point with that post. You can't observe the beginning (however it happened) so you have to look for the effects, whether that is background radiation and redshift for the big bang, or symbiotic relationships and the complexity of DNA for Creationism.


Maybe you should try learning some actual science instead of this pseudo-science creationist bullshit so you can tell the difference between real science and religion dressed in a lab coat.

Maybe you should quit flaming and actually learn how to read my posts.


Actually no, there is punctuated equilibrium for one thing and for antother, macroevolution (the evolution of new species) has been observed in our lifetimes. Look at the nylon bug. It is a bug that can only eat nylon. Nylon is a synthetic fibre and did not exist until 40-50 years ago. A bug evolved in those 40-50 years to the point where it survives exclusively on nylon. Evolution takes generations yes, but generations don't always take millenia...

Punctuated equilibrium is a short way of saying "we have no idea how this could have happened gradually part by part, so let's say it happened all at once." It ranks about on par with the "giraffes stretched their necks so their kids had longer necks" theory of evolution. I've argued for it before, OK? It's basically a naturalistic miracle.

Nylon bug:
1. Not an insect bug, a bacteria. Big difference in complexity.



The big bang has nothing to do with evolution.


Something had to begin the universe. In a natural system, no divine intervention, it must have been something like the big bang. If a God was involved, then it kinda defeats the whole point of attacking ID.

You don't know anything about entropy, do you? The thing is that a uniform mass of protons and neutrons has much less entropy than a solar system does. You just hear "order to chaos" but don't stop to think about what the actual science behind it means.

However, as the Protons and Neutrons begin to bind together, the entropy would increase. As far as I know, we aren't still living in a uniform mass, so at some point we had to move towards the solar system point. Well before we got there, Entropy would have taken hold.

It all depends on the evidence that we see now, since we CAN'T PROVE either way. Again, no direct observation occured, unless you count God and the Bible, in which case I win anyhow. :)

Sigh. Please tell me you see the flaw in your logic. No, no one can conclusively prove evolution correct right now and no one can conclusively prove intelligent design correct now either. That doesn't mean they are equal theories. Evolution has lots of evidence in favor of it and some evidence against it. Intelligent design has no evidence in favor of it except evidence against evolution. I have yet to see ANY evidence used to support intelligent design that showed evidence of actual intelligent design. EVERY single piece of evidence I have seen trotted out to support intelligent design has been done in an attempt to disprove evolution. Do you see the problem there? If I bring in a study that says smoking might not cause cancer, does that then mean that cigarettes will cure my asthma?

The same could be argued for the study of music in public schools.


no.....it definately cant....

There is no God. Believing is the suicide of logic and reason.

Thank you Nietzsche for turning me away from the herd.

Ultimately, everything reacts on an atomic basis, correct? Foods are broken down by enzymes until the various elements are useable to us, at which point they are used by our bodies in their many roles. Biology is an incredibly simpler way of explaining the whole thing but, coming from a purely natural viewpoint, physics should be able to do the same thing in a far more roundabout and complicated way.

How is intellect seperated from chemical processes? If the brain is yet more cells firing off electromagnetic impulses to control things, then we're merely in another branch of science, not exercising some more-than-purely-physical function. If it is all predetermined, then our choices don't matter. We don't have a choice, as we must do what we eventually do.
You'll have to ask a psychologist the intricacies of human thought. I'm not an expert on human behaviour, including the biology of the brain and the ability of human beings to reason. I'm a student of physics and as much as I'd like to claim dominion in psychology and biology, I can't. There is much more to the functioning of an organ like the brain than physics.

If you read what I was quoting, I'm responding to someone who stated that they VASTLY preferred the belief that they supposedly have free will, rather than some god controling them. I didn't bring belief and personal preference into this, another non-creationist did.
I read it, it doesn't change the fact that your response relies on personal prefrence and belief. Two wrongs don't make it right.

That is exactly my point. Society is the only thing that states what is good or bad, lacking the supernatural. Way back when, daughters had no say in who they married, their fathers wedded them to their husbands. That was the society of the time. Since then, Society has changed, but who's to say that our society is better than theirs? There are no impartial observers around, as we all live in our society.
Yes, and I'll never be one to argue for a set of things that are universally right or wrong. There is no way to say which society is "better" than any other.

Also, where do personal rights or a conscience come from? I suppose that a conscience could theoretically have been a mutation, but overwhelming belief that you shouldn't do something that's good for you seems like something that would be selected out quickly.
A conscience seems to be biological as well as developped through social interaction. And as I said, if you're a social creature, anti-social habits get selected out rather quickly.

I'm not saying that anyone would actually do that. I personally believe God has given everyone their conscience, which restrains them from performing the logical consequence of their actions. Other than those such as the Marque de Sade(sp?) I know of no one who actually believes that whatever is, is right. I'm just pointing out what I think the logical consequence of a life without a firm moral basis would be, and pointing out SOME of the possibilities for what could give a person that moral basis.
You're saying that without god people have no conscience and would do whatever they want to get ahead.

If societies were to develop differently due to purely natural forces, that would reinforce my point that there is no objective good and evil. In my worldview, that simply means that various societies often don't have the truth of scripture, and even if they do, mankind is imperfect and screws it up anyhow.
I see, so you're right and they're all wrong.

Were a monkey to attack another it would seem quite natural for that monkey to be chunked out, out of pure self preservation. I've never heard of the monkey reward study before, so I can't really comment on that.

Just because a monkey demonstrates what seems to be moral behavior doesn't prove that there is any actual moral, or more that chemical, basis for that behavior.
No, just that since we share ancestors with them and their societies function in such and such a way, it is likely that our ancestoral societies developped in a similar fashion. It isn't necessarily morals. It's evolution, baby.

If the universe had a beginning, wouldn't a god had to have caused it?

How could a big bang just occur?

:confused:

If the universe had a beginning, wouldn't a god had to have caused it?

How could a big bang just occur?

:confused:
Well let me turn your logic against you. If God created everything, where did God come from? Was he just there? If you say yes then you being hypocritical and it doesn't work.


Exactly.

If the universe had a beginning, wouldn't a god had to have caused it?

How could a big bang just occur?

:confused:

Not trying to be mean, but this kind of reasoning is why religion will always have a market.

I KNOW. That's why I put "I KNOW THIS IS INCORRECT." What you just said was my point with that post. You can't observe the beginning (however it happened) so you have to look for the effects, whether that is background radiation and redshift for the big bang, or symbiotic relationships and the complexity of DNA for Creationism.
The answers don't necessarily lie in creationism and invoking a deity for answers is at best pseudoscience and at worst lazy.

Maybe you should quit flaming and actually learn how to read my posts.
I have been reading your posts. You have demonstrated an incredible lack of understanding of science.

Punctuated equilibrium is a short way of saying "we have no idea how this could have happened gradually part by part, so let's say it happened all at once." It ranks about on par with the "giraffes stretched their necks so their kids had longer necks" theory of evolution. I've argued for it before, OK? It's basically a naturalistic miracle.
Actually, it's a way of explaining how a lot of evolution happens in a geologically short time frame. Usually these leaps in evolution happen after large natural disasters. (Which would be where X-Men got it wrong, although it's not meant to be science fiction so far as I know, it's more social commentary)

Nylon bug:
1. Not an insect bug, a bacteria. Big difference in complexity.
It's still a new species. Which makes it macroevolution.

Something had to begin the universe. In a natural system, no divine intervention, it must have been something like the big bang. If a God was involved, then it kinda defeats the whole point of attacking ID.
...It doesn't make ID a legitimate science. Nor does it make the big bang part of evolution. Furthermore, if this god started the universe, there's no saying it stuck around and designed life on a puny insignificant planet. Just because you believe there's a god doesn't make it true and it doesn't mean that if there is one, it would be intricately involved or even give a flying fuck about what happens to us, or for that matter even be aware of our existence.

However, as the Protons and Neutrons begin to bind together, the entropy would increase. As far as I know, we aren't still living in a uniform mass, so at some point we had to move towards the solar system point. Well before we got there, Entropy would have taken hold.
.... what?
Do you know what entropy is? Your phrasing and use of the word makes me feel as though you don't.

I consider creationism to be blasphemy! The Flying Spaghetti Monster is responsible for the creation of the world, not God. Think about it, can you see God? No, you can't, therefore he does not exist. This implies that only the Flying Spaghetti Monster can explain the origin of the universe.

If the universe had a beginning, wouldn't a god had to have caused it?

How could a big bang just occur?

:confused:
There are a number of hypoteheses. There aren't any theories as there really can't be any theories... you can't make observations outside the visible universe and observing what caused the beginning would involve doing so...
But yeah, the ones I find most interesting are the multiverse ones, most recently I heard about a false vacuum which simply expands and as it does there are small universe-bubbles formed in it that then exapand with the false vacuum and do their thing... There's the vacuum fluctuation producing a singularity thing, there's the hypothesis that the expansion of other universes caused a compression that produced a singluarity causing the birth of our universe et c.

If the universe had a beginning, wouldn't a god had to have caused it?

How could a big bang just occur?

:confused:
The answer is sprockets. Spacely sprockets.

People don't assume the universe has always existed.

God is believed to have always existed.

The idea that everything began with an explosion that created the universe and matter is like saying something came from nothing. This was disproved by pasteur's experiment discrediting spontaneous generation.

.... what?
Do you know what entropy is? Your phrasing and use of the word makes me feel as though you don't.

He doesn't. Anybody with a rudimentary understanding of entropy, enthalpy, and Gibbs free energy would understand that highly ordered systems can and do develop naturally as long as they have a massive source of continuous energy.

I'm not saying a religious person can't understand thermodynamics, but one who did would be presenting a much more cogent argument.

(Note: I don't think this is a double post, but my comp has been messing up recently)

That's bullshit if ever I saw it. Prove your statement.

OK, According to Evolutionary Theory random mutations are what should cause advancements in organisms. If a harmful mutation occurs, natural selection should weed it out. Information is destroyed.

Actually, mutations are as likely to be beneficial as they are to be harmful. More often than not, they're neutral.

While most of the time mutations are neutral, only rarely can they do ANYTHING good. It's comparable to changing a random letter and expecting it to improve the sentence. For example, and refering to your assertion:

That's bullsmit if ever I saw it. Prove your statement.

Actually, it's the heterozygous sickle cell anemia that's beneficial, and in that case, there is still a gene for normal red blood cells. It protects from malaria, which is prevalent in tropical areas.

Yes. And thus it follows Mendel's genetics in it's basic form, the whole 2x2 square of decendents. However, even the heterozygous form it's not the best thing for a person. If malaria was removed from the environment, natural selection would fairly quickly remove most of the gene from the populace. This would be a removal of genetic information, not an increase in it.


I don't even understand what the hell you're saying here. But saying that it was all arranged according to the plan of some unseen creator is not science.

I was asking how saying the genetic code was created intelligently instantly makes biochem students idiots, whereas saying it's created by a random mutation process then refined by natural selection makes them capable of incredible new feats of mental muscle.

The idea that everything began with an explosion that created the universe and matter is like saying something came from nothing. This was disproved by pasteur's experiment discrediting spontaneous generation.

Pasteur's experiment addressed the premise of living matter developing spontaneously from non-living matter, not any matter from nothing. Please research your terms.

People don't assume the universe has always existed.

God is believed to have always existed.

The idea that everything began with an explosion that created the universe and matter is like saying something came from nothing. This was disproved by pasteur's experiment discrediting spontaneous generation.
The thing is that, well first of all, before the universe existed, the laws of physics didn't exist (hell, as far as we know, there was no "before" the universe... so technically I could argue that for as long as time has existed, so has the universe) and secondly Pasteur's argument was against maggots developping spontaneously from meat. It has nothing to do with the big bang or for that matter, abiogenesis.

The thing is that, well first of all, before the universe existed, the laws of physics didn't exist (hell, as far as we know, there was no "before" the universe... so technically I could argue that for as long as time has existed, so has the universe) and secondly Pasteur's argument was against maggots developping spontaneously from meat. It has nothing to do with the big bang or for that matter, abiogenesis.

...But then you get the silly theoretical physicists that say this could be the 405493402393410th universe (the theory of the Universe expanding to a finite limit, then equally collapsing to cause another big bang; interesting theory IMO).

You'll have to ask a psychologist the intricacies of human thought. I'm not an expert on human behaviour, including the biology of the brain and the ability of human beings to reason. I'm a student of physics and as much as I'd like to claim dominion in psychology and biology, I can't. There is much more to the functioning of an organ like the brain than physics.

OK. Personally, I think that if there's nothing supernatural going on, then physics will eventually take hold, but I think we can pretty much agree and drop this subject.


I read it, it doesn't change the fact that your response relies on personal prefrence and belief. Two wrongs don't make it right.

I was pointing out that his personal preferences and beliefs relied upon not entirely accurate (in my opinion) facts. I was rephrasing it and pointing out his personal beliefs as they actually would have stood.

Yes, and I'll never be one to argue for a set of things that are universally right or wrong. There is no way to say which society is "better" than any other.

OK then, since you've admitted a universal standard of morals either doesn't or can't exist, let's leave that subject too. We have to many going on.

A conscience seems to be biological as well as developped through social interaction. And as I said, if you're a social creature, anti-social habits get selected out rather quickly.

Yes, but how do you get to be a social creature? Granted, anti-social habits would be a bad thing for a person to have in society, but before society forms they are the best thing for genetic proliferation. Whatever is best for that individual would be done.

You're saying that without god people have no conscience and would do whatever they want to get ahead.

Mmmm...yep. Pretty much. That seems to be what the whole Survival of the Fittest thing (as well as how Darwinism has been philosophically applied throughout history) says.

I see, so you're right and they're all wrong.

Oh heck no. I'm wrong in a bunch of areas, it's just due to what I know being limited. As far as I know, however, I'm correct. If a person can't believe that they're right on something they're in a sad state.

No, just that since we share ancestors with them and their societies function in such and such a way, it is likely that our ancestoral societies developped in a similar fashion. It isn't necessarily morals. It's evolution, baby.

Yeah, but I still don't know how societies would develop considering one monkey working to help the others, all of whom would only help themselves, would die off at a much faster rate.

OK, According to Evolutionary Theory random mutations are what should cause advancements in organisms. If a harmful mutation occurs, natural selection should weed it out. Information is destroyed.
That's not even the theory of evolution... random mutations can do absolutely nothing to an organism and these random mutations would persist. Yes, if a harmful mutation develops, it will go away, but that's not even what you were talking about in the part of your post I responded to.

While most of the time mutations are neutral, only rarely can they do ANYTHING good. It's comparable to changing a random letter and expecting it to improve the sentence.
Yes, because sentences are comparable to living organisms... Furthermore, if you alter my sentence one letter at a time over a number of such sequences then it is possible to get something else contstuctive out of it.

Furthermore, you still haven't proven yourself, you've just made more unbacked assertions. At any rate, I will leave this portion of the discussion to a biologist to deal with properly, I'm not an expert on evolutionary biology.

Yes. And thus it follows Mendel's genetics in it's basic form, the whole 2x2 square of decendents. However, even the heterozygous form it's not the best thing for a person. If malaria was removed from the environment, natural selection would fairly quickly remove most of the gene from the populace. This would be a removal of genetic information, not an increase in it.
Actually, even in areas where there isn't malaria, there is a small portion of the population with the heterozygous alleles for sickle cell anemia. Furthermore, the homozygous people die rather quickly... heterozygous is key for survival.

I was asking how saying the genetic code was created intelligently instantly makes biochem students idiots, whereas saying it's created by a random mutation process then refined by natural selection makes them capable of incredible new feats of mental muscle.
Saying it's intelligently designed makes it not scientific. It doesn't necessarily make them idiots and so long as they hold it as their personal beliefs rather than try to incporporate it into theory, they're not idiots. Once they pretend it's science, then they're idiots.

[QUOTE=Nowhereinpaticular]


Mmmm...yep. Pretty much. That seems to be what the whole Survival of the Fittest thing (as well as how Darwinism has been philosophically applied throughout history) says.

QUOTE]

Oh dear dear dear.. that's where the tenets of altruism and reciprocal altruism come into play. An organism will act to better its SOCIETY because that will generally benefit that ORGANISM in the final outcome. It isn't "every organism for himself; screw everyone else" as you seem to be oversimplifying.

...But then you get the silly theoretical physicists that say this could be the 405493402393410th universe (the theory of the Universe expanding to a finite limit, then equally collapsing to cause another big bang; interesting theory IMO).
You'll be hard-pressed to find such theoretical physicists now. It's considered very unlikely that the universe will crunch. It's now thought that it will either accelerate its expansion or just continue indefinitely. It's a shame 'cause I liked that idea too.

You'll be hard-pressed to find suck theoretical physicists now. It's considered very unlikely that the universe will crunch. It's now thought that it will either accelerate its expansion or just continue indefinitely. It's a shame 'cause I liked that idea too.

*Sighs*... that's what the Discovery Science Channel is for!! :)

Well I don't think I could ever believe in evolution because:
1. No one was around when the "big bang" supposedly happened, so it's just all theories.
2. We have yet to see an organism evolve.
3. No one can explain the evolution of the eye.
4. There are no fossil records of any animals in the middle of their evolutionary cycle.
5. Finally, first law of thermodynamics people. Energy CANNOT be created or destroyed. Something cannot come from nothing. Plus, the possibility of everything in the universe working out perfectly the way it did is like 100 trillion to one. If the earth was just 1000 miles closer to the sun it would be all desert. 1000 miles farther away and it would be like Antartica everywhere. I'm sorry but I cannot put my faith into the complete random chance that everything in the universe just fell together randomly.

Yeah, but I still don't know how societies would develop considering one monkey working to help the others, all of whom would only help themselves, would die off at a much faster rate.

No offense, but what you're saying conflicts heavily with a huge body of research on social animals and the development of cooperative hiearchy in primates (and non-primates, such as canines, horses, even some kinds of birds, and so on).

Do you really feel its impossible to develop and practice a reasonable collective ethic without supernatural influence?

OK. Personally, I think that if there's nothing supernatural going on, then physics will eventually take hold, but I think
And I'm a physics student telling you that physics isn't the be-all and end all of everything.

I was pointing out that his personal preferences and beliefs relied upon not entirely accurate (in my opinion) facts. I was rephrasing it and pointing out his personal beliefs as they actually would have stood.
I see. So you weren't actually trying to make an argument at all?

OK then, since you've admitted a universal standard of morals either doesn't or can't exist, let's leave that subject too. We have to many going on.
Agreed.

Yes, but how do you get to be a social creature? Granted, anti-social habits would be a bad thing for a person to have in society, but before society forms they are the best thing for genetic proliferation. Whatever is best for that individual would be done.
A social creature is a creature that exists in a society. Primates fit into this category, dogs fit into this category, most cats don't... generally there's some sort of deal where this organism won't generally survive too well on its own and needs others to survive to some extent. I'm not an anthropologist though, so my definition is probably terrible.

Oh heck no. I'm wrong in a bunch of areas, it's just due to what I know being limited. As far as I know, however, I'm correct. If a person can't believe that they're right on something they're in a sad state.
Alright then.

Yeah, but I still don't know how societies would develop considering one monkey working to help the others, all of whom would only help themselves, would die off at a much faster rate.
But with all the monkeys working to help themselves and not helping others at all, all the monkeys die off. If they work together and help each other, then their survival rate increases. So if one monkey tries to help only themselves, they end up getting no help from the rest of the monkeys and that monkey ends up dying off.

Yes, but how do you get to be a social creature? Granted, anti-social habits would be a bad thing for a person to have in society, but before society forms they are the best thing for genetic proliferation. Whatever is best for that individual would be done.



Mmmm...yep. Pretty much. That seems to be what the whole Survival of the Fittest thing (as well as how Darwinism has been philosophically applied throughout history) says.


Yeah, but I still don't know how societies would develop considering one monkey working to help the others, all of whom would only help themselves, would die off at a much faster rate.


I think you're misinformed as to what 'survival' means :) Most modern evolutionary thinking centres on the gene, not the individual. It's our genes that we what to preserve - i.e. pass on to the next generation. That's why parents are so protective of their kids. Interestingly, it would also explain why we look after our close family, espeially nieces/nephews/brothers/cousins etc. - they carry a significant proportion of our genes, so we're motivated to protect them.

And there you have the basis for thinking about the evolution of altruism, helping others to survive even at your own expense.

This altruism, this helping others, would help one of your 'small groups of monkeys' over another that didn't exhibit this behaviour.

Additionally, moral behaviour can be regulated by the simple means of cheat-detection! How often do you think 'that's such a fake smile...' or work out when someone's lying to you? Just 2 easy examples, there's loads of others. Our social behaviour, including our cheating strategies, are regulated and coutered by others cheat detection. A monkey who works out when other monkeys are trying to cheat is at a significant advantage, and so this advantage is likely to be selected for evolutionarily, isn't it?

Viola, an evolutionary basis for simple morality!

The discussion is important because of what it represents. The battle over Intelligent Design is a battle over standards. The question is simple: will we lower standards so that religious assertions are granted the same deference as empirical knowledge? It is an assault on reason, on science, an erosion of the basic underpinnings of rational thought. Creationists want the same weight to be given to base belief that is given to evidence. Honestly, I couldn't care less if we came from apes or a man in the sky, but I do care that children are being taught that empirical evidence is no more or less worthy than simple assertion.

I notice how there seems to be a big science vs religion debate in schools but none of the middle ground: Philosophy. Philosophy in my opinion is just as valuable as science and religion. Philosophy teaches use of good language, rational thought and generally thinking outside the box, it questions what knowledge truley is. Everyone these days tends to assume that empiricle knowledge is right, however anyone who has studied even the slightest philosophy will know direct realism just has too many holes.

Why not introduce Philosophy into an education system? It encourages rational thinking and creativity with ideas, even if you think philosophy is a load of bull then there's still the benefits of the skills in language it requires and encourages.

I know i'm winding off topic here...

The answers don't necessarily lie in creationism and invoking a deity for answers is at best pseudoscience and at worst lazy.

Yes, but refusing to acknowledge that there are some things natural processes can't do is at best myopic and at worst intellectually dishonest.


Actually, it's a way of explaining how a lot of evolution happens in a geologically short time frame. Usually these leaps in evolution happen after large natural disasters. (Which would be where X-Men got it wrong, although it's not meant to be science fiction so far as I know, it's more social commentary)

Right, but in doing so it's effectively evolution's "god in the gaps." Christians want to put ID where gradual evolution won't go, naturalists want to put PE where it won't go.


It's still a new species. Which makes it macroevolution.

From what I've been able to discern from some creationist sources, it appears to have combined some pre-existing genes to get this new ability, rather than have whole new ones appear. If the same genetic information is used, it's not evolution.

...It doesn't make ID a legitimate science. Nor does it make the big bang part of evolution. Furthermore, if this god started the universe, there's no saying it stuck around and designed life on a puny insignificant planet. Just because you believe there's a god doesn't make it true and it doesn't mean that if there is one, it would be intricately involved or even give a flying fuck about what happens to us, or for that matter even be aware of our existence.

ID isn't a whole new kind of science. It's a way of explaining the facts we have. It's a hypothesis that says "since these facts don't fit into this paradigm, we need to come up with something else that does fit these facts."

Evolution requires a natural explanation for things, or else it wouldn't fit the definition of science that is predominantly found in the academic community.

The reasons for ID don't rest on the big bang along. A lot of it rests on the irreducable complexity and genetic complexity, about which I don't know as much as I ought.

.... what?
Do you know what entropy is? Your phrasing and use of the word makes me feel as though you don't.

Erm, sorry. I was unclear there. I meant more that as we move from the subatomic scale, fully elastic collisions, that kind of thing, "the tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity" would carry more and more force. I was kinda using entropy both in its proper definition and as its effects. Before we would have approached the solar system stage, there would be enough other stuff going on to reduce the likelyhood of the hydrogen screaming across the universe to pull together into orderly forms to a point where it's effectively impossible. Is that a little better? I'm tired...

Well I don't think I could ever believe in evolution because:
1. No one was around when the "big bang" supposedly happened, so it's just all theories.
2. We have yet to see an organism evolve.
3. No one can explain the evolution of the eye.
4. There are no fossil records of any animals in the middle of their evolutionary cycle.
5. Finally, first law of thermodynamics people. Energy CANNOT be created or destroyed. Something cannot come from nothing. Plus, the possibility of everything in the universe working out perfectly the way it did is like 100 trillion to one. If the earth was just 1000 miles closer to the sun it would be all desert. 1000 miles farther away and it would be like Antartica everywhere. I'm sorry but I cannot put my faith into the complete random chance that everything in the universe just fell together randomly.

Well...
1. No one was around when God created the earth in 6/7 days, so it's all just theories.
2. We have strong evidence that several eastern insects (I'll have to get the specific info from my Bio teacher who mentioned it) have evolved within our lifetimes (and genetic evolution in humans is apparent; we no longer use our appendix which was once used to filter out harmful bacteria--go Pastuerization).
3. ... elaboration reqiured.
4. I guess Austrolopithicus (oh man I butchered that spelling) was made up? The 4.3 million year old semi-human must be a whole new organism we've yet to see many copies of...
5. By your own logic, God went against the First Law of Thermodynamics. It's called "Creationism" for a reason--everything was CREATED, not made from previous components.

Well I don't think I could ever believe in evolution because:
1. No one was around when the "big bang" supposedly happened, so it's just all theories.
2. We have yet to see an organism evolve.
3. No one can explain the evolution of the eye.
4. There are no fossil records of any animals in the middle of their evolutionary cycle.
5. Finally, first law of thermodynamics people. Energy CANNOT be created or destroyed. Something cannot come from nothing. Plus, the possibility of everything in the universe working out perfectly the way it did is like 100 trillion to one. If the earth was just 1000 miles closer to the sun it would be all desert. 1000 miles farther away and it would be like Antartica everywhere. I'm sorry but I cannot put my faith into the complete random chance that everything in the universe just fell together randomly.
1. Gravity is just a theory. Science doesn't make laws anymore.
2. Yes, we have.
3. Yes, it's been explained for the past 50 years, it's not our fault you refuse to look it up.
4. There is no "middle of the evolutionary cycle" evolution doesn't have a direction or a destination, furthermore, there are many transitional fossils. Would you like to see the transition from land mammal to whale? Small dog like animal to horse? They exist...
5. You don't udnerstand the second law of thermodynamics if you're saying this. Nor do you understand the sheer quanity of planets, stars, galaxies and possibly universes there are, furthermore, you fail to understand statistics and probability evidently.

I notice how there seems to be a big science vs religion debate in schools but none of the middle ground: Philosophy. Philosophy in my opinion is just as valuable as science and religion. Philosophy teaches use of good language, rational thought and generally thinking outside the box, it questions what knowledge truley is. Everyone these days tends to assume that empiricle knowledge is right, however anyone who has studied even the slightest philosophy will know direct realism just has too many holes.

Why not introduce Philosophy into an education system? It encourages rational thinking and creativity with ideas, even if you think philosophy is a load of bull then there's still the benefits of the skills in language it requires and encourages.

I know i'm winding off topic here...

I'd agree.. but for the practicalities :( Limited resources in schools. I'd make a year of philosophy a mandatory class in college/uni courses, though!

He doesn't. Anybody with a rudimentary understanding of entropy, enthalpy, and Gibbs free energy would understand that highly ordered systems can and do develop naturally as long as they have a massive source of continuous energy.

I'm not saying a religious person can't understand thermodynamics, but one who did would be presenting a much more cogent argument.

It's not so much that I'm a religious person, but that I'm not a College Physics Major. Actually, I'm not a college anything major yet.

While I suppose the "big bang" might be able to provided a massive source of energy, AFAIK it shouldn't be able to keep it up for, say, 10 billion years until our solar system formed.

Yes, but refusing to acknowledge that there are some things natural processes can't do is at best myopic and at worst intellectually dishonest.
And it's the job of scientists to search for natural explanations for phenomena.

Right, but in doing so it's effectively evolution's "god in the gaps." Christians want to put ID where gradual evolution won't go, naturalists want to put PE where it won't go.
No, it really isn't, it is consistent with the other geological evidence at the time.

From what I've been able to discern from some creationist sources, it appears to have combined some pre-existing genes to get this new ability, rather than have whole new ones appear. If the same genetic information is used, it's not evolution.
From creationist sources... what did you expect? Try a scientific source if you want to talk about science. That's also not what macroevolution is, by the way. Macroevolution is the development of a new species. That's what this is. If your creationist sources don't know what macroevolution is and inadvertantly admit that it's happened, that's not my problem.

ID isn't a whole new kind of science. It's a way of explaining the facts we have. It's a hypothesis that says "since these facts don't fit into this paradigm, we need to come up with something else that does fit these facts."
It's not a scientific method of explaining the facts we have.

Evolution requires a natural explanation for things, or else it wouldn't fit the definition of science that is predominantly found in the academic community.
Because that's part of the definition of science. It's the explanation of natural phenomena using natural methods. Religion and god have no place in scientific theorem.

The reasons for ID don't rest on the big bang along. A lot of it rests on the irreducable complexity and genetic complexity, about which I don't know as much as I ought.
Irreducible complexity is a pile of shit quite honestly. For one thing, they got a number of their facts wrong (like the bit about the evolution of the eye for one) and for another all it does is say "I don't see how this could have happened on its own, therefore god must have done it."

Erm, sorry. I was unclear there. I meant more that as we move from the subatomic scale, fully elastic collisions, that kind of thing, "the tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity" would carry more and more force. I was kinda using entropy both in its proper definition and as its effects. Before we would have approached the solar system stage, there would be enough other stuff going on to reduce the likelyhood of the hydrogen screaming across the universe to pull together into orderly forms to a point where it's effectively impossible. Is that a little better? I'm tired...
No, it's really not better. It completely ignores gravity for one thing. Gravity is what brought stars, solar systems, galaxies et c together in the first place. Entropy isn't everything and as I said, a soup of hydrogen atoms has less entropy than a solar system does anyways so entropy does increase in stellar formation.

I really don't to be honest, as number 1, the theory of creationism was developed before science was around to tell people that diseases aren't caused by witches and maggots don't spontaneously generate from rotting meat and number 2, if god is all powerful, then why the hell couldn't he have created everything indirectly? he has enough time to fail a few trillion times on his hands. Not all of us americans are religious lunatics, contrary to what Bush acts like.

While I suppose the "big bang" might be able to provided a massive source of energy, AFAIK it shouldn't be able to keep it up for, say, 10 billion years until our solar system formed.
AFAIK? What does that mean...

Furthermore, do you have any idea how much energy was involved in the big bang? Are you also aware that the first stars were converting mass to energy relatively shortly after the big bang occured and that our sun is a third generation star?


I don't even understand where you're trying to go with this.

AFAIK? What does that mean...

Furthermore, do you have any idea how much energy was involved in the big bang? Are you also aware that the first stars were converting mass to energy relatively shortly after the big bang occured and that our sun is a third generation star?


I don't even understand where you're trying to go with this.

Here's an idea of how much energy.... have our Sun go supernova 300 billion times... and then some.

Obviously it was beyond the comprehension of just about anyone on here.. It's propelling inconceivable amounts of matter outwards at the speed of light. That's pretty... FREAKIN AWESOME. Wow I'm a nerd.

I notice how there seems to be a big science vs religion debate in schools but none of the middle ground: Philosophy. Philosophy in my opinion is just as valuable as science and religion. Philosophy teaches use of good language, rational thought and generally thinking outside the box, it questions what knowledge truley is. Everyone these days tends to assume that empiricle knowledge is right, however anyone who has studied even the slightest philosophy will know direct realism just has too many holes.

Why not introduce Philosophy into an education system? It encourages rational thinking and creativity with ideas, even if you think philosophy is a load of bull then there's still the benefits of the skills in language it requires and encourages.

I know i'm winding off topic here...
You know, philosophers of science have more or less concluded that general relativity nicely does away with the arguments for idealism... I'm not sure what their arguments were, exactly, but like most philosophical debates it's probably something that will go back and forth forever.

Furthermore, as much as I appreciate philosophy (it is my minor) I don't see that it has a place in the highschool level science curriculum. It should be offered to highschool students, however.

Well I don't think I could ever believe in evolution because:
1. No one was around when the "big bang" supposedly happened, so it's just all theories.
2. We have yet to see an organism evolve.
3. No one can explain the evolution of the eye.
4. There are no fossil records of any animals in the middle of their evolutionary cycle.
5. Finally, first law of thermodynamics people. Energy CANNOT be created or destroyed. Something cannot come from nothing. Plus, the possibility of everything in the universe working out perfectly the way it did is like 100 trillion to one. If the earth was just 1000 miles closer to the sun it would be all desert. 1000 miles farther away and it would be like Antartica everywhere. I'm sorry but I cannot put my faith into the complete random chance that everything in the universe just fell together randomly.

1. No one was around for Genesis
2. Yes...We have.
3. Have you ever asked anyone to? Most likely not because Creationist think that evolution states "Randomly, an organism was born with an eye."
4. There is no "middle".
5. And creating the heavens and earth doesn't violate that law? You seem to have no idea of the magnitude of the universe, If the chances are 100 trillion to one, the number of cases were a planet could form is unfahomably greater than 100 trillion, if only one of each 100 trillion fromed an earth like planet, there's probably a "100 trillion" Earth like planets in the vastness of a small fraction of the universe.

AFAIK? What does that mean...

Furthermore, do you have any idea how much energy was involved in the big bang? Are you also aware that the first stars were converting mass to energy relatively shortly after the big bang occured and that our sun is a third generation star?


I don't even understand where you're trying to go with this.

Regardless, the amount of energy necessary to allow for highly ordered systems, such as Earth's biosphere, is easily provided by a single star, so if we allow for the existence of a star (pretty easy to test, if you own a window), can't we agree that entropy as a concept doesn't preclude the possibility for naturally occuring life? (basically, I feel Nowhere's use of entropy in this context may be fallacious)

And I'm a physics student telling you that physics isn't the be-all and end all of everything.

Ok, fine then.


I see. So you weren't actually trying to make an argument at all?

I wasn't trying to argue personal belief v. physics, I was trying to argue why his personal belief was wrong, as according to my personal belief.


A social creature is a creature that exists in a society. Primates fit into this category, dogs fit into this category, most cats don't... generally there's some sort of deal where this organism won't generally survive too well on its own and needs others to survive to some extent. I'm not an anthropologist though, so my definition is probably terrible.

Right, but that doesn't explain how the society occurs.


But with all the monkeys working to help themselves and not helping others at all, all the monkeys die off. If they work together and help each other, then their survival rate increases. So if one monkey tries to help only themselves, they end up getting no help from the rest of the monkeys and that monkey ends up dying off.

This is basically the prisoner's dilemma. If I help another, but he helps himself, I'm badly screwed. If I help myself, and he helps himself, then we're both somewhat badly screwed. If we each help each other, then we're best off. However, since the monkey who helps the other without recieving help will come before the whole swarm of monkeys who help each other, the first monkey with the genetic code to help others probably won't live to pass it along.


BTW, I'm going to drop out now. I think you probably have an edge on the pure science points, which I will blame totally on your higher level of education, (:D) but since the whole point of my argument (initially at least) was that evolution alone can't produce a universal system of morals, and you agreed, I suppose I shall take a moral victory (pun intended) and attempt to dig up a creationist scientist who can argue with you on your technical level. In any case, I'm leaving. Fun arguing with you.

Here's an idea of how much energy.... have our Sun go supernova 300 billion times... and then some.

Obviously it was beyond the comprehension of just about anyone on here.. It's propelling inconceivable amounts of matter outwards at the speed of light. That's pretty... FREAKIN AWESOME. Wow I'm a nerd.
Our sun won't go nova though.

And I know there was a lot of energy involved in the big bang, it's how massive particles came about and look at how many massive particles there are... when you think that the mass/energy conversion goes E=mc^2, that's a hell of a lot of energy needed to even make me, let alone all the hydrogen of the sun, which is itself a fairly mediocre star...

And there's nothing wrong with being a nerd.

And there's nothing wrong with being a nerd.

:) :) :) Good for me.

Right, but that doesn't explain how the society occurs.
That one wasn't an attempt to do so, that was an attempt to define a social creature.

This is basically the prisoner's dilemma. If I help another, but he helps himself, I'm badly screwed. If I help myself, and he helps himself, then we're both somewhat badly screwed. If we each help each other, then we're best off. However, since the monkey who helps the other without recieving help will come before the whole swarm of monkeys who help each other, the first monkey with the genetic code to help others probably won't live to pass it along.
Who says it's entirely genetic? Or for that matter that the monkeys started off as everyone for themselves? Early primates might not have evolved in the best of places or the most comfortable of niches, it might have been necessary for them to not screw each other over and work together (say with hunting) in order to survive as individuals and the anomolies are those who wanted to help themselves exclusively.

BTW, I'm going to drop out now. I think you probably have an edge on the pure science points, which I will blame totally on your higher level of education, (:D) but since the whole point of my argument (initially at least) was that evolution alone can't produce a universal system of morals, and you agreed, I suppose I shall take a moral victory (pun intended) and attempt to dig up a creationist scientist who can argue with you on your technical level. In any case, I'm leaving. Fun arguing with you.
Alright, but to be fair, "creation scientist" is an oxymoron. You can believe that god created the world and be a scientist, but the minute you try to make god creating the world into a scientific theory is the minute you stop being a scientist.

I went to college too, but that doesn't mean I'm going to post the frakking papers I wrote there on the NS General forum, for crying out loud. :p

You would if it was pertinent to the topic at hand or someone expressed an interest in the subject matter. So there. :p

You would if it was pertinent to the topic at hand or someone expressed an interest in the subject matter. So there. :p
Oh yeah? Well ... well ... your momma dressed you funny! Take THAT! :D

Oh yeah? Well ... well ... your momma dressed you funny! Take THAT! :D

I'm deeply offended by that.

My mother only dresses me because my wife finds it distasteful.

I'm deeply offended by that.

My mother only dresses me because my wife finds it distasteful.
LOL! Um ... that's just ... strange! :p

LOL! Um ... that's just ... strange! :p

Welcome to NS General.....:rolleyes:

Neither of you are answering the question. What does it matter if they're teaching Creationism?

Asides from the fact that religion isn't supposed to be taught in a public school?

That isn't the only God based theory out there, if they will go into one, and not touch on the others, they're just trying to force one religion down other people's throats.

Parents want to teach their kids that sort of thing as fact, send them to church studies, or a catholic school. In my classes where the teachers and professors said they had to go into creationism as a theory, it was laughed at and ridiculed by the students. (We were all science majors)

At least in churches and catholic schools it would be taught by people who actually respect it.

Don't believe in it myself...

There's a myth that people believed that a spider-god named Areop-Enap (Now people know where I got my name from) crawled out of the sea and created the world and the stars. How would the people fighting for creationism feel if that was being taught in the class rooms as a theory? Many of them would say it's different, but to many other people, they're pretty much the same thing.

Or if the Hollow World society got their theories into the class rooms, or the scientologists... where would it end?

And evolution is taught as a theory, not as fact- though it's widly accepted, it's still just a theory.

because some people want to know (or at least beleive) that thier existance has a purpose...

Well, that is an issue for religion and philosophy.

Science is about telling us HOW we got here, WHY we got here is a job for people in religion and philosophy to sit around and pontificate about.

Asides from the fact that religion isn't supposed to be taught in a public school?

That isn't the only God based theory out there, if they will go into one, and not touch on the others, they're just trying to force one religion down other people's throats.
Excellent point. I've never seen anyone touch this issue before.
Listen up, Creationists! If you want to prove what you want to do is "open people's minds", then let's go: tomorrow, yours will be taught together with the churning of the Milk Ocean by Vishnu and the demons, the cow story in the Edda, the emanation of the 365 orders of spirits by Abraxas, the creation through malevolent angels in Basilides' account, the trial-and-error process of Gucumatz and Tepeu in the Mayan myth, the world created by the evil Jehovah and redeemed by the God of Light Jesus in Manichean and Cathar gnosis etc.

Excellent point. I've never seen anyone touch this issue before.
That must have been one massive rock you've been sleeping under for the last few years.

Well I don't think I could ever believe in evolution because:
1. No one was around when the "big bang" supposedly happened, so it's just all theories.
2. We have yet to see an organism evolve.
3. No one can explain the evolution of the eye.
4. There are no fossil records of any animals in the middle of their evolutionary cycle.
5. Finally, first law of thermodynamics people. Energy CANNOT be created or destroyed. Something cannot come from nothing. Plus, the possibility of everything in the universe working out perfectly the way it did is like 100 trillion to one. If the earth was just 1000 miles closer to the sun it would be all desert. 1000 miles farther away and it would be like Antartica everywhere. I'm sorry but I cannot put my faith into the complete random chance that everything in the universe just fell together randomly.

Good grief, can't people even come up with creative nonsensical objections to evolutionary theory? *sigh*

Good grief, can't people even come up with creative nonsensical objections to evolutionary theory? *sigh*

1. Evolutionary Theory violates the mathematical principal of induction, whereby, if it is proven that a statement is true for all numbers n, it must also be true that Noah got into slapfights with velociraptors.

2. Evolution fails to account for the fossil record, my mother's vinyl copy of "A Carpenters Christmas".

3. Evolution is utterly disproven by the fact that I cannot pick my nose with my coccyx. Talk about a wasted weekend...

4. Most reputable scientists agree that if humans shared a common ancestor with other primates, Mathew, Mark, Luke, and/or John would have told us about it.

5. Evolution is studied by biologists, who use works like "eukaryote" and "conjugation pili". Do you really believe people who just make up words?

6. Evolution includes the premise that humans are naturally occurring, without any supernatural action, particularly action that would make us the center of universal attention and well-beloved by some great, omnipotent dad-figure, so we could feel very important and forgiven. So, if you want to feel guilty and insignificant, by all means, evolve. Heathens.

7. Evolution rhymes with pollution. Give a hoot, believe in Jesus.

Well I don't think I could ever believe in evolution because:
1. No one was around when the "big bang" supposedly happened, so it's just all theories.Noone were around when God supposedly created everything, so it's all just guesswork. Incidentially, noone's ever denied that theories about the big bang & such are, in fact, 'just' theories. Scientific theories though, which means they have staggering amounts of evidence suggesting they're correct - whereas the Bible's only backing is the Bible.
2. We have yet to see an organism evolve.Sorry, but that's 100% wrong. We've seen plenty of it. In fact, we see it all the time.
3. No one can explain the evolution of the eye.Noone can explain stupidity either. By the way, what's your point? That humans aren't omniscient?4. There are no fossil records of any animals in the middle of their evolutionary cycle.ALL lifeforms are 'in the middle' of evolving. Thus ALL fossils, yourself included, are records of just that.
5. Finally, first law of thermodynamics people. Energy CANNOT be created or destroyed. Something cannot come from nothing. Noone claims everything came from nothing. Probably - though it's just educated guesswork - the natural laws as we know them, are properties tied to the present state of cosmos. If that's the case, you're arguing a simple misunderstanding, based on you being unable to wrap your mind around cosmos being in a state without time.Plus, the possibility of everything in the universe working out perfectly the way it did is like 100 trillion to one.The probability of something that HAS already happened is ALWAYS 100%. Otherwise it wouldn't have happened. Before you roll a die, you have a 1/6 chance of getting any particular outcome. After you've rolled it, the chance of you getting the outcome you got is 100%. Simple, eh?
Probability is completely irellevant when considering stuff that HAS already happened. If the earth was just 1000 miles closer to the sun it would be all desert. 1000 miles farther away and it would be like Antartica everywhere. Likewise, if Alpha Centauri had a planet identical to earth, it would have a planet identical to earth. Or if shit was worth it's weight in gold, poor people would be born without arseholes. Or if pigs could fly, a great old saying would never have existed... Or if Mars had no freezable gasses, it wouldn't have polar caps... Or if you had an education, you wouldn't sound so damn silly.I'm sorry but I cannot put my faith into the complete random chance that everything in the universe just fell together randomly.Faith isn't a requirement. It's like gravity. Just because someone is too dense to realize there's a force pulling on him, doesn't mean he'll suddenly float off into space.

Edit: Aww damn Saint Curie! Yours was so much better :(

1. Evolutionary Theory violates the mathematical principal of induction, whereby, if it is proven that a statement is true for all numbers n, it must also be true that Noah got into slapfights with velociraptors.

2. Evolution fails to account for the fossil record, my mother's vinyl copy of "A Carpenters Christmas".

3. Evolution is utterly disproven by the fact that I cannot pick my nose with my coccyx. Talk about a wasted weekend...

4. Most reputable scientists agree that if humans shared a common ancestor with other primates, Mathew, Mark, Luke, and/or John would have told us about it.

5. Evolution is studied by biologists, who use works like "eukaryote" and "conjugation pili". Do you really believe people who just make up words?

6. Evolution includes the premise that humans are naturally occurring, without any supernatural action, particularly action that would make us the center of universal attention and well-beloved by some great, omnipotent dad-figure, so we could feel very important and forgiven. So, if you want to feel guilty and insignificant, by all means, evolve. Heathens.

7. Evolution rhymes with pollution. Give a hoot, believe in Jesus.

Much better! :)

Much better! :)

Thank you. I wanted to throw in a grotesquely misinformed observation about the laws of thermodynamics and entropy, but, as I've said again and again, I'm pretty sure that highly ordered systems, such as earth's biosphere, can easily develop without any transgression against entropy so long as they can take energy into the system. From, say, a nearby star.

Thank you. I wanted to throw in a grotesquely misinformed observation about the laws of thermodynamics and entropy, but, as I've said again and again, I'm pretty sure that highly ordered systems, such as earth's biosphere, can easily develop without any transgression against entropy so long as they can take energy into the system. From, say, a nearby star.
Nonsense. Everyone knows that if you keep heating a thermos, not only will the water boil (and thus be highly disordered & break down), but the thermos will eventually explode.

Lying heathen scientists who aren't affiliated with the oil industry, claims that we're trapping increasing amounts of heat on Earth, so:
1. Why isn't evolution boiling?
2. Why haven't the planet exploded yet? I like fireworks.. Or earthworks or whatever, and it's not fair to keep me waiting.

It's all lies I say! Lies!

Nonsense. Everyone knows that if you keep heating a thermos, not only will the water boil (and thus be highly disordered & break down), but the thermos will eventually explode.

Lying heathen scientists who aren't affiliated with the oil industry, claims that we're trapping increasing amounts of heat on Earth, so:
1. Why isn't evolution boiling?
2. Why haven't the planet exploded yet? I like fireworks.. Or earthworks or whatever, and it's not fair to keep me waiting.

It's all lies I say! Lies!

You are clearly enlightened. Let us meet at a local Denny's and trade Chick pamphlets while evangelizing to the waitress.

Thank you. I wanted to throw in a grotesquely misinformed observation about the laws of thermodynamics and entropy, but, as I've said again and again, I'm pretty sure that highly ordered systems, such as earth's biosphere, can easily develop without any transgression against entropy so long as they can take energy into the system. From, say, a nearby star.

Psssh. That's far too logical. Next you'll be claiming that there isn't a massive annual party for paleontologists where all the "fossils" that will be discovered that year are constructed out of paper-mache while everyone stands around cheering and saying, "Hey! I know! Let's put some feathers on this one!"

Psssh. That's far too logical. Next you'll be claiming that there isn't a massive annual party for paleontologists where all the "fossils" that will be discovered that year are constructed out of paper-mache while everyone stands around cheering and saying, "Hey! I know! Let's put some feathers on this one!"

Yeah, I heard they were doing it in Toronto next year, but I still say Vegas is better. Hotel rates are a bit high, and the strippers aren't as good, but airfare is cheaper.

I got one for you Intelligent Creation proponetists! Yeah! Explain predation! Ha! How does that fit into your decription of an all-loving, all-powerful god, eh!? God created his creations to eat each other! The big, sick, meany! Your God isn't benevolent! He's the kid who sets up train crashes on his model railway!


Gravity is only a theory (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm). :D

How exactly did this article get on a catholic web site? It's a complete pisstake!

Is the question of where we came from really all that consequential or relevant to the future?


Hmmm.... Is there nothing that you care about? If so, then this or anything else shouldn't bother you one bit. Making this question invalid and irrelevent! If not, then you are contradicting yourself and being hypocritical for caring about anything at all. Especially, when in regards to questioning others cares, when you yourself have some. So which is it?

Well, that is an issue for religion and philosophy.

Science is about telling us HOW we got here, WHY we got here is a job for people in religion and philosophy to sit around and pontificate about.


So HOW did you get here? According to Evolutionists it would never be the same way I, as a Creationist got here, I assure you. Any so called proof that you have, I will immediately dismiss and debunk as mere theory, personal opinion, uncredible sources, fallacies, fantasies, wishful thinking, delusional reasoning, lack of common sense, illogical assumptions, etc. As you can say the same for those of us on the other side of the fence.

So HOW did you get here? According to Evolutionists it would never be the same way I, as a Creationist got here, I assure you. Any so called proof that you have, I will immediately dismiss and debunk as mere theory, personal opinion, uncredible sources, fallacies, fantasies, wishful thinking, delusional reasoning, lack of common sense, illogical assumptions, etc. As you can say the same for those of us on the other side of the fence.
As it should be. The people who finds evolution credible have always & still do just that. If a theory can't stand up to scutiny, then it's not a scientific theory.

If you intend to use the scientific method, then you have to put aside your personal preferences. There's no dismissing things out of hand just because they make you feel bad. If you cannot disprove something, then you have to accept that it is likely to be a viable approximation or perhaps even the complete truth.

The same cannot be said about unfalsifiable claims. You can't examine those, at most you can hope they're correct, but you'll never know whether it's just wishful thinking on your part.

Well I don't think I could ever believe in evolution because:
1. No one was around when the "big bang" supposedly happened, so it's just all theories.
2. We have yet to see an organism evolve.
3. No one can explain the evolution of the eye.
4. There are no fossil records of any animals in the middle of their evolutionary cycle.
5. Finally, first law of thermodynamics people. Energy CANNOT be created or destroyed. Something cannot come from nothing. Plus, the possibility of everything in the universe working out perfectly the way it did is like 100 trillion to one. If the earth was just 1000 miles closer to the sun it would be all desert. 1000 miles farther away and it would be like Antartica everywhere. I'm sorry but I cannot put my faith into the complete random chance that everything in the universe just fell together randomly.

1) You confuse the difference of what theory means for science and everyday use.
In everyday use it's a (wild) guess on how something happened.
In science use it's here you have stacks of evidence supporting the theory, ways in which you can try and invalidate this theory, predictions that have been made & confirmed and predictions of what will be found later on. Oh and to date all attempts at invalidating the theory have failed.

2) You didn't bother to read this thread. It mentioned the nylon eating bug. It's a new species.

3) Old ID argument. I really wish people would read up the relevant section of Darwins work and read beyond this much abused quote where he already pointed out a possible pathway of the creation of the eye. Even better it seems that (according to an earlier poster) that the evolution of the eye has been explained.

4) You know that this is a nonsense argument. There is no middle of evolution. Even now everything is evolving which would mean that every fossil found is in the middle of evolution. Do you perhaps mean transitional fossils from things like lizard->bird? These types of fossils are found and people are finding more and more of these every year.

5) What has the first law to do with what you are writing next? You mean the big bang thingie? Go read up on how much energy people expect there to be in that.
Impressive that you can with a sample size of one make a prediction about how likely it is for a universe to be capable of supporting life (note: life not life as we know it). The thing is that the chance for life to happen under the circumstances as we know it is 1. The chance for the right circumstances to happen is 1.

If you were right with the 1000 miles deviation of earth from its perfect orbit there would be nothing alive today. This is due to the earth basically oscilating between an orbit that resembles a circle (currently it's an ellips with only about 3 million miles between closest & furthest from the sun), to something that is an ellips with 9 million miles (or more) between closest and furthest distances. You might want to look up Milankovitch Cycles or eccentricity (related to orbits not behaviour) for this.
Then you have the problem of the earth moving away from the sun due to the pressure of sunlight. And the increase in distance due to tidal interaction between earth and sun (in the same way as the moon uses this to move away from the earth).

I'm still interested.
Me too.

Why not introduce Philosophy into an education system? It encourages rational thinking and creativity with ideas, even if you think philosophy is a load of bull then there's still the benefits of the skills in language it requires and encourages.

Interesting idea, but what philosophers will be taught? Do you expect gradeschoolers to be able to grasp Heidegger? Alot of university students struggle with it. How many parents would freak if their children were being taught Nietzsche or Machiavelli? Are we to teach Marx or Locke? How about Guenon? Nozick? Can you figure out a way to teach any western philosophy produced in the middle ages without religion?

The problem with philosophy is that it is often so intertwined with religion that you cannot teach one without the other. Beyond that, very little philosophy has been written for anyone other than the well educated. There aren't many 12 year olds up to Plato, hell, there are alot of 20 year olds who are lost.

Yes, but how do you get to be a social creature? Granted, anti-social habits would be a bad thing for a person to have in society, but before society forms they are the best thing for genetic proliferation. Whatever is best for that individual would be done.

Yeah, but I still don't know how societies would develop considering one monkey working to help the others, all of whom would only help themselves, would die off at a much faster rate.

Well the first "social" structure could be based on family units. Chances for food, etc., greatly increases when you work together. Primates have a complex social structure. Take a look at Chimps, Rhesus Maques and Bonobos. (A great book would be Chimpanzee Politics by Franz De Waal).

To the second part, yes they work for themselves but they also work together. Forming an alliance helps get you to and hold on to the alpha position. Look at Chimps for this. (same book and Dr. Goodalls books talk about it as well).

Guess what I study? ;)

it's still just a theory.

Well you shouldn't say it like that as it shows your lack of understanding. Theories are very powerful.

So HOW did you get here? According to Evolutionists it would never be the same way I, as a Creationist got here, I assure you. Any so called proof that you have, I will immediately dismiss and debunk as mere theory, personal opinion, uncredible sources, fallacies, fantasies, wishful thinking, delusional reasoning, lack of common sense, illogical assumptions, etc. As you can say the same for those of us on the other side of the fence.

So to sum it up; you put your fingers in your ears and sing "la la la la la la...."

Who cares? As long as I can masturbate/have sex and eat good food, I couldn't really give less of a shit.

So to sum it up; you put your fingers in your ears and sing "la la la la la la...."
Precisely. This is why rationalists have a problem with Creationists inventing a spurious "scientific" rationale for the truth of the old testament and insisting that this be taught instead of the theory of evolution. People who don't appear to have any understanding of how the scientific method is supposed to work don't have any business claiming that the crap they spout is a science.

Interesting idea, but what philosophers will be taught? Do you expect gradeschoolers to be able to grasp Heidegger? Alot of university students struggle with it. How many parents would freak if their children were being taught Nietzsche or Machiavelli? Are we to teach Marx or Locke? How about Guenon? Nozick? Can you figure out a way to teach any western philosophy produced in the middle ages without religion?

The problem with philosophy is that it is often so intertwined with religion that you cannot teach one without the other. Beyond that, very little philosophy has been written for anyone other than the well educated. There aren't many 12 year olds up to Plato, hell, there are alot of 20 year olds who are lost.

Personally I'd vote for John Duns Scotus being taught - considering that this theologian and philospher stated some 700 YEARS AGO that Theology is not a science because it relies on faith, not evidence - whereas science relies on evidence, not faith... kinda interesting that he was responding to folks way back in the early 1300s that were interpreting the Bible as a literal text.