|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/4/2005 8:05:33 PM | Late says: " Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance."
Comment: natural selection has no force over the role that probability plays in the construction of a biological form. Natural selection is of the mind, which can choose "what works", id est what has already been constructed by chance, or by creation. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/4/2005 9:02:23 PM | | I don't think I'm reading that right. Are you suggesting that "natural selection" is conscious (of the mind)? I'll admit I'm not entirely certain exactly where chance enters into the mutation and development process, but it's pretty well apparent that natural selection is based on the organism's viability to survive and spread its genetic material. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/4/2005 9:32:03 PM | Well, teaching creationism in public schools would certainly be a step towards bridging seperation of church and state, which was one of the primary reasons the U.S. was formed to begin with. Which particular viewpoint would we teach? Everyone has a slightly differant take on the bible. Would it be the literal, word for word as truth version. I think science generally clashes with that on almost every level. Perhaps it should be the particular instuctors interpretations? Then we would have 1000,s of slighlty differant viewpoints being taught as facts. As stated above by many, their are too many unprovable( by modern sciences anyhow) assertions in the bible. How could any science class teach these using scientific methods? There is however, factual evidence that evolution does and has occured. To not teach these facts to our children is to cripple them. Let's teach our kids what Biology, Astronomy, Archeology, Physics, Geology etc. DOES have to offer, and leave the unprovable to faith based venues. If we teach creationism in public schools, must we then include references to all paranormal, astrological, demonic and angelical phenomenons? Many of these science cannot totally disprove either, so therfore..... Well you get the point.
These beliefs, and creationism, are just that BELIEFS. We cannot mandate our beliefs on others, just because they are not disprovable. Many facts about the origin of mankind, animal life, the world we live in, and the space outside our earth are provable scientificly, and must be included in our education systems. For all else contact your local church, and I'm sure they'd jump for joy to fill you in on their OPINIONS.
Many nice intelligent posts here btw. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/4/2005 11:27:32 PM | Well, teaching creationism in public schools would certainly be a step towards bridging seperation of church and state
You need to read the First Ammendment to the Bill of Rights again. It is not the US government's position to endorse or regulate religion. What you are talking about would be doing precisely that. What you are saying is almost analogous to "running with scissors would certainly be a step toward avoiding accidental lacerations".
As far as science not being able to totally disprove supernatural belief systems, so what. There is no rational way to prove that there are not invisible intagible pink elephants or magical fairies dancing around the heads of pins. Some things are too absurd to even waste time guessing about. I am not saying that religion isn't important as a component of society that offers moral guidance, I'm saying it has nothing to do with science.
Religion is allowed in the United States of America. If people want to practice it the only limitation they have is not being able to force others to worship the way they see fit (or even at all), or using the government as an instrument for doing the same thing.
| |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 2705 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/5/2005 12:46:31 AM |
Are you suggesting that "natural selection" is conscious (of the mind)?
Like Banquo's ghost, Lamark makes a guest appearance. That is just sooo... two centuries ago.
I'm saying it has nothing to do with science.
......by it's own definition.
If people want to practice it the only limitation they have is not being able to force others to worship the way they see fit (or even at all), or using the government as an instrument for doing the same thing.
Some wish to change this. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/5/2005 6:07:34 AM | memo to a couple of posters:
RE: Teaching "Religious Studies" vs Preaching in school.
I am still adamant that Religious Studies should not be taught through the department of sciences, but through social studies.
What you teach is not IAmBaptist101 or IAmCatholic101.
What you teach is the very fact that there ARE differences in the way people view religion.
Some wear a robe, some baptise at birth. What do they have in common? Touch on the highlights of religion, history of (including Creation), Etc...
You don't preach; you teach. You explain a basic concept and if the student wants more information they can search it out.
Example: In a history class you don't teach a schematic of war (that would be War101), you simply discuss the position of each party in the war, various reasons a war was won or lost, the war effect on the peoples, etc. If war is a necessity that people don't like or don't believe (in) is necessary, that concept too can be discussed;
but not resolved in a classroom.
And I still think a thing must be created before it can evolve. 
Someone who can create life, is a mighter guy than I.  | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 2707 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/5/2005 6:14:26 AM |
Someone who can create life
Been there, done that, delivered the baby too.
I have no problems with Theology being taught in schools, as long as ALL religions are discussed as equals. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/5/2005 6:19:25 AM | Morning Late,
a bit early for the God complex, eh? Haven't had my hot tea yet....
With you on the equality 
(PS: delivered mine in the backseat) HA! | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 2709 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/5/2005 6:41:20 AM |
God complex
Nope, I got swimmers.
With you on the equality
I knew you would agree on that.
I really don't have a problem with religion being a subject in school, just not in science class. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/5/2005 6:57:43 PM | I really don't have a problem with religion being a subject in school, just not in science class.
I volunteer to teach the section on Tolkien's pantheon. Or maybe on the Norse gods.
Obviously we're not limiting it to Christianity, right? I'll could get some Wiccans I know, maybe even a Druid or something. And then there'll be the week on Satanism! Who wants to be the ritual human Aztec sacrifice to make sure the sun rises?
Woot! Isn't 'equal time' fun!
(Oddly, the thread showed CR posting after the prior post, but there's no post there?)
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/5/2005 8:09:07 PM | Hey MLR here is another of those situations where I'm afraid text just doesn't convey the desired intent.
"Well, teaching creationism in public schools would certainly be a step towards bridging seperation of church and state" (insert sarcastic genuflection). LOL love the scissor anaolgy.
"As far as science not being able to totally disprove supernatural belief systems, so what. There is no rational way to prove that there are not invisible intagible pink elephants or magical fairies dancing around the heads of pins."
Yeah! pretty much what I was getting at, as well.?!?
Why do you suppose that almost every major elected official in the U.S. seems to claim biblical belief systems (insert cold shivers up spine), but our laws forbid this same teaching in our schools? It's not just because it isn't scientific. Art, music, and social studies aren't either, but are generally required to some lesser degree in schools. Seems like I learned something of the generalities of other previous religions when I attended school so many years ago. Greek, roman and aztec mythologies were at least given cursory mention at some point.
Maybe at some point in the far distant future, we will be teaching the tales of Jonah, David, Jesus, or Moses in the same venue we now teach about Zues, Ra, Thor, or Hercules? That seems harmless enough, and there are definetly some benefits in studying past cultures and their belief systems. You guys seen HBO's Rome? Kewl stuff!! | |
|
Rake
|
Joined: 3/12/2005
Msg: 2712 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/8/2005 9:05:53 PM | Why do you suppose that almost every major elected official in the U.S. seems to claim biblical belief systems
if that is indeed the case they are more than likely reflecting the religious beliefs of the majority within their respective constituent base. If that base becomes more and more multicultural it stands to reason that the political representatives of that region adopt a more publicly neutral stance with respect to their religious beliefs...I suspect that calling a christmas tree a holiday tree is an example of this.
Imo it has more to do with politics and public opinion than it has to do with either science or religion. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/9/2005 9:03:44 AM | more food for thought from ...
mitpress.mit.edu/book-home.tcl?isbn=026216180X
Tower of Babel
The Evidence against the New Creationism
Robert T. Pennock
Creationism is no longer the simple notion it once was taken to be. Its new advocates have become more sophisticated in how they present their views, speaking of "intelligent design" rather than "creation science" and aiming their arguments against the naturalistic philosophical method that underlies science, proposing to replace it with a "theistic science." The creationism controversy is not just about the status of Darwinian evolution--it is a clash of religious and philosophical worldviews, for a common underlying fear among Creationists is that evolution undermines both the basis of morality as they understand it and the possibility of purpose in life.
In Tower of Babel, philosopher Robert T. Pennock compares the views of the new creationists with those of the old and reveals the insubstantiality of their arguments. One of Pennock's major innovations is to turn from biological evolution to the less charged subject of linguistic evolution, which has strong theoretical parallels with biological evolution, both in content and in the sort of evidence scientists use to draw conclusions about origins. Of course, an evolutionary view of language does conflict with the Bible, which says that God created the variety of languages at one time as punishment for the Tower of Babel.
Several chapters deal with the work of Phillip Johnson, a highly influential leader of the new Creationists. Against his and other views, Pennock explains how science uses naturalism and discusses the relationship between factual and moral issues in the creationism-evolution controversy. The book also includes a discussion of Darwin's own shift from creationist to evolutionist and an extended argument for keeping private religious beliefs separate from public scientific knowledge.
Robert T. Pennock is Associate Professor at the Lyman Briggs School and in the Department of Philosophy at Michigan State University.
Of Related Interest:
Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics
Robert T. Pennock (Ed.)
Paper / December 2001
Linguistic Inquiry
Quarterly (Winter, Spring, Summer, Fall)
See Other Titles In: (aside - THE FOLLOWING ARE ALL LINKS ON THE ORIGINAL SITE)
> Bioethics
- Biological Ethics
- Philosophy
> Biology and Medicine
- Bioethics
- Evolutionary Biology
> Cognition, Brain & Behavior
- Philosophy of Language
> Humanities
- History, Philosophy and Sociology of Science
- Philosophy
> Linguistics
- Philosophy of Language
> Philosophy
- Bioethics
- General
- Philosophy of Language
> Science, Technology & Society | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/10/2005 7:48:28 PM | I've met Philip Johnson - I even got him to autograph my copy of 'Darwin on Trial'. He's a nice guy.
I disagree with his arguments, of course.
--R.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/13/2005 10:01:43 PM | I am here to report on matter of evolution. The sand, stone, wood on the field has gradually began to look like a house. Each day it is looking good. In a couple of million years it would be a house. courtesy of evolution. Maybe even a mound, still courtesy of evolution.
The small car I am driving will be a big big big ship and it would be on water. Be patient , still courtesy of evolution. This little banglow house would become a skyscraper in a couple of millions years. Still courtesy of evolution. He ....he.....he.....he.... | |
|
j-roc
|
Joined: 5/24/2005
Msg: 2716 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/13/2005 10:02:52 PM | Zstar,
What you are stating is along the lines of creationism, not evolution. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/13/2005 10:14:55 PM | | I'm an evolutionsits and i think that some of you guys should read the Was Darwin Wrogn article from national geographic it was awesome. | |
|
j-roc
|
Joined: 5/24/2005
Msg: 2718 | |
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/13/2005 10:19:55 PM | Evolution and Religion co-existing article:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html
Was Darwin Wrong? article
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/fulltext.html | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/14/2005 9:22:31 AM | Thanks Duckie, Nice piece.
Why are there so many antievolutionists? Scriptural literalism can only be part of the answer. The American public certainly includes a large segment of scriptural literalists—but not that large, not 44 percent. Creationist proselytizers and political activists, working hard to interfere with the teaching of evolutionary biology in public schools, are another part. Honest confusion and ignorance, among millions of adult Americans, must be still another. Many people have never taken a biology course that dealt with evolution nor read a book in which the theory was lucidly explained. Sure, we've all heard of Charles Darwin, and of a vague, somber notion about struggle and survival that sometimes goes by the catchall label "Darwinism." But the main sources of information from which most Americans have drawn their awareness of this subject, it seems, are haphazard ones at best: cultural osmosis, newspaper and magazine references, half-baked nature documentaries on the tube, and hearsay.
Evolution is both a beautiful concept and an important one, more crucial nowadays to human welfare, to medical science, and to our understanding of the world than ever before. It's also deeply persuasive—a theory you can take to the bank. The essential points are slightly more complicated than most people assume, but not so complicated that they can't be comprehended by any attentive person. Furthermore, the supporting evidence is abundant, various, ever increasing, solidly interconnected, and easily available in museums, popular books, textbooks, and a mountainous accumulation of peer-reviewed scientific studies. No one needs to, and no one should, accept evolution merely as a matter of faith.
Re-inforces what we've seen on these pages, most people just do not understand the topic.
(And Roc, I like the Pic, or I hate it, not sure) | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/14/2005 9:33:20 AM | | You're welcome I love national geographic so much good stuff to chose from. I'm personnally an evoltuionist because it can satisfy more of my questions then the bible which i believe to be just stories. Sure there may be a higher power but i don't think one should put faith in somethign that may be theer but may not. I put faith in everyone around me to give me my strength and my wisdom... not a book. That and i love the man from monkeys theories and if i could spend my life looking for the missing link i would. God doesn't play a role in my life in anyways i don't attend church i do nto follow a religion and sure i get a marxist view on religion but i youw ant to have religion whatever i'm nto going to try and change your mind and push my beliefs n you so give me the ame courtsey. That is why i keep this debate out of polite conversation with friends and fmily. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/14/2005 6:53:32 PM | Marxist view of religion eh?
"I wouldnt want to be a member of a club that would have me as a member." 
Oh and humans from apes, not monkeys. And transitional forms,not missing links. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/14/2005 6:57:04 PM | | Actually there is a missing link from between 5 and 8 million years ago. And if we want to be technical it's name from chimpanzees. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/14/2005 7:13:08 PM | "Actualy" there is no missing link, this is a comon term and not scientific. There are NO missing links. There are gaps in the evelutionary tree where we are looking for Transitional Forms. But missing link is not a term you will find in any peer review work or academic journal.
Missing link is a layterm, mistakenly ussed by the public due to a poor education of evolutionary theory. Missing is not ussed as it suggests that there sould be something there, when there dose not have to be anything, and link is a term that is not ussed because it implies a chain of evolution which is not the corect view of events.
Humans did not evolve from living chimpanzees, we evolved from the same ancestor as chimps, one of the african great apes, but not the same ancestor as gorilas. This is not the same thing. This common ancestor is thought to have existed in the Pliocene between 5 and 8 million years ago, based on the estimated rates of genetic change.
Page 111 of 110
Hmmmmm, there seems to be something wrong here! I think we broke the laws of reality on this thread, logic is becoming disturbed! :roll: | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/14/2005 7:41:28 PM | | which is where the missing link resides in the rock starta which can not be found in any area on earth that is easliy accessible to people. missing refers to not being found yet not that it is actually missing. at least thats what i lanrt in my archaeology and anthropology courses but i guess going by your logic all my my professors are stupid and wrong and you are the almighty guru. should we bow down to you and your ability to copy and paste from resources from the internet. and it's "ActuaLLy not actualy". And actually i used peer reviewed journals for ym research paper on the ancestors of humans and they used the term missing link so perhaps you should do better with your copy and paste methods you use in every post you have performed and form a thought of your own. what an idea. who would have thought of that. and did i say anywhere in my post we evolved from living chimpanzees???? no i didn't think so perhaps you should do better to read the posts or just avoid them altogether. Since usually your posts are full of hogwash and fiddle sticks anyways. I mean form a coherant decent post and then come back i mean it may take a coupe of years but try it anyways. | |
|
|
| Page 109 of 156
|
95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135 |
|
Home
login 
