Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism

[wolf]

In one or more of these evolution debates I've declared myself amongs the intelligent designers ... I don't see why the scientific and the religious views can't co-exist. it's only when one requires the exclusion of the other that we get into these pages-long debates that go nowhere.

Actually, they aren't debates, since rarely does anyone make a change of opinion based upon the information presented. It's opinion-spouting, sometimes backed by facts, sometimes by sheer passion.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by wolf

In one or more of these evolution debates I've declared myself amongs the intelligent designers ... I don't see why the scientific and the religious views can't co-exist. it's only when one requires the exclusion of the other that we get into these pages-long debates that go nowhere.

Actually, they aren't debates, since rarely does anyone make a change of opinion based upon the information presented. It's opinion-spouting, sometimes backed by facts, sometimes by sheer passion.

It has never been my assertion that creationism is wrong, only that it isn't science. The only real debate as to creationism is which creationism is the right one?

It's hard to prove something has no evidence indicating which deity is responsible...

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by wolf

I don't see why the scientific and the religious views can't co-exist. it's only when one requires the exclusion of the other that we get into these pages-long debates that go nowhere.

I only require the exclusion of magic from science classes. And I fully expect that many Sunday School classes will exclude science. And I have no problem with that. You don't go to a science class to learn about magic, and you don't go to Mass to learn about science. It's real easy.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I only require the exclusion of magic from science classes. And I fully expect that many Sunday School classes will exclude science. And I have no problem with that. You don't go to a science class to learn about magic, and you don't go to Mass to learn about science. It's real easy.

It's easy for me and it's easy for you but it's not going to be easy for the kids that are going to have the fundie adgenda shoved down their throats. Especially the non-christian kids.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I only require the exclusion of magic from science classes. And I fully expect that many Sunday School classes will exclude science. And I have no problem with that. You don't go to a science class to learn about magic, and you don't go to Mass to learn about science. It's real easy.

Monkey, it comes down to this:

You can postulate that God (et al) made it like the bible says he did. You have no proof of that.

and

You can postulate that by happy random chance, non-life spontaneously erupted into primitive life, and from that life, all different life forms mutated and speciated and added a bunch of genetic information and split and over billions of years, the human race, as we know it, evolved. You have no proof of that either.



So why teach either in public school? Leave it out and teach SCIENCE.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

You can postulate that by happy random chance, non-life spontaneously erupted into primitive life, and from that life, all different life forms mutated and speciated and added a bunch of genetic information and split and over billions of years, the human race, as we know it, evolved. You have no proof of that either.

There is no proof of any theory.

Your refusal to understand the evidence supporting evolution doesn't negate it. Just as my refusal to accept Biblical literalism doesn't lead me to ask that it be removed from Sunday School classes.

[elSicomoro]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

There is no proof of any theory.

As there is no proof in science.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

There is no proof of any theory.

Your refusal to understand the evidence supporting evolution doesn't negate it. Just as my refusal to accept Biblical literalism doesn't lead me to ask that it be removed from Sunday School classes.

The difference here Monkey is that if you don't want your child taught Creationism, don't send your child to Sunday School.

All children are taught an equally non-provable theory in public school, whether I like it or not. How is that equal?

[Clodfobble]

And there are indeed lots of Christians who take an ever-so-slightly less literal interpretation of Genesis. They might even be considered to be an (even more) silent majority of the silent majority.

[elf]

(maybe I'm being thickheaded)

D'you mean that an easily recognizeable weakness in a thoery disproves it?

While your example is obviously true, I'm not grasping your reasoning because I'm sure that there's going to be discoveries in the future that would be just ridiculous to think of now, i.e.: you couldn't convince people a few centuries ago that the world was round because they walk on the flat thing all the time.

You know what I'm getting at?

Like I said, perhaps I'm just being dunderheaded.
-and I gotta leave work soon, won't have internet connection till monday. El Sucketh. But I'll catch up with this then.

[Fudge Armadillo]

Originally Posted by elf

(maybe I'm being thickheaded)

No, not at all. I’m just not explaining it very well. The root of the issue is what is appropriate to be taught in school. In the U.S., it is generally accepted that religious ideals are not to be taught in public schools. Most would group creationism into this category. What I have tried to show is that the argument that most people use to keep such theories out of public classrooms is not valid; such theories are not un-testable… they are just very simplistic.

I was also attempting to show that there is no difference in believing in creationism on religious grounds and believing in evolution because it is accepted; the two paths are the same. For most people, creationism is easy to reject as a plausible theory of human existence; evolution is much more difficult to reject, perhaps because it is more complicated, or possibly, because it is a better description of reality.

When we dismiss ideas out of hand without attempting to validate them, we are engaging in the exact same behavior that religious fundamentalists do. I do not see the harm in teaching creationism. If a student cannot reject it on his or her own, how does not teaching it improve the situation?

[elf]

Originally Posted by Fudge Armadillo

If a student cannot reject it on his or her own, how does not teaching it improve the situation?

Basically what I mean is this:

Evolutionism=question, study, theorize, test.

Creationism= here it is. That's it, move along.

To pseudo-paraphrase Happy Monkey, with creationism, you can fill in gaps just by saying "that's the way God made it!"

<b>That</b> is where the harm in it starts.

[Undertoad]

IOW, until you have personal understanding and proof of the nature of the last billion years, you'll believe that all this was set up by an invisible man.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

IOW, until you have personal understanding and proof of the nature of the last billion years, you'll believe that all this was set up by an invisible man.

No, I'll believe that an Omnipotent Creator God that believes that Free Will and Personal Responsiblity are the keys to returning to a perfect world one day made the heavens and the earth in 6 sets of 24-hour periods called days.

I believe that there is an opposing force to this Creator God, a Destroying force, and that he is a liar and a cheat and well, a destroyer. He tricks people into turning away from the Creator God, and he's using this made up bogus fake theory that all humans simply spontaneously generated from a non-living soup of acid, and that we're all just animals, and that one "race" of humans are more evolved than another, and that there is no Creator God at all, and everything is random chance, there's no after life, you're just here for a miserable so many years, and then you're gone.

Well I don't believe the Liar, and I think that all the science that some people use to "prove" millions of years can be reinterpreted to "prove" a young earth of about 6000 years or so.

And I believe that no one has to agree with me or my interpretation of my beliefs.

I believe that my children should NOT have to listen to some schmuck with a 4 year teaching degree (in some cases less) tell them that they came from acidic muck billions of years ago when NO ONE can prove that ANY MORE than they can prove my Creator God exists.

[Undertoad]

OK, not one invisible man but two, which makes for a better narrative.