|
|
|
|
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3426 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/1/2006 2:37:55 PM | "Which came first the chicken or the egg?"
I'm betting on the rooster..... I've never seen a happy looking hen.
However, this isn't a question of "coming first", as it isn't within the mandate of the science of evolution.
The problem rears its head when a small percentage of religious supporters attempt to frame Creationism as a scientific theory, and argue that it should be taught in a science class room.
The same folks have for years, tried (without success), to have evolution tossed out of public school curricula, claiming that evolution was a religious belief, as with creationism being a science: Both premises have been deemed false, and misleading; by both science and courts of law.
Creationism is not a scientific theory, therefore it should not be taught in a science enviroment. NOW PLEASE NOTE, this does not mean it should not be taught at all...it just does not belong in science.
According to scientific, legal definitions, and logic.
Seriously, science is not interested in proving or disproving God.
Understandable, as even logic can can neither disprove or prove the existence or validity of ANY "Gods/Goddesses".
The science of Evolution would still be viable if God was responsible for everything.
...Within the terms and frame of reference of science, this is true, within the terms and frame of reference of religion, ...anything goes, ....hence the specificity of the question posed by the OP.
Also the scientific fact of evolution and the theory explaining it are different facets of science, another item that's ignored by some. Saying something is "just a theory" says nothing about how certain we are about it -- it just says that the person who said it isn't aware of the scientific definition of "theory". This is a really common misunderstanding, and stems from a difference in the meaning of the word "theory" in American vernacular and scientific terminology. "It's just a theory", is just an argument based on either a deliberate, or deceitful ignorance of the definition of the word in the contexts used.
Why this thread goes on is obvious, while the scientific, legal, and etymological definitions are clear, the same fallacious arguments keep being resurrected and shot down by virtue of being invalid by definition. An overview of this thread would best be defined as two "points of view": One pressing it's view by bending and/or discarding, scientific, legal, etymological definitions to further an argument via logical fallcies, the other pointing out the fact that the "emperor has NO clothes". | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/1/2006 2:37:56 PM |
Sort of like that age-old question.."Which came first the chicken or the egg?" isn't it?
Except the answer to that is obvious. Something-almost-a-chicken laid an egg, from which hatched something-close-enough-to-call-a-chicken.
I mean, all chickens come from eggs. But other birds lay eggs too. Which was the first bird one could call a chicken? If you could roll the film back, then pick a 'First Chicken' then whatever laid the egg it hatched from would be the last pre-Chicken. But the point would likely be somewhat arbitrary.
(The concept of species is complex. It's kind of a sorites paradox.)
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/1/2006 3:28:58 PM |
Sort of like that age-old question.."Which came first the chicken or the egg?" isn't it?
Except the answer to that is obvious. Something-almost-a-chicken laid an egg, from which hatched something-close-enough-to-call-a-chicken.
I mean, all chickens come from eggs. But other birds lay eggs too. Which was the first bird one could call a chicken? If you could roll the film back, then pick a 'First Chicken' then whatever laid the egg it hatched from would be the last pre-Chicken. But the point would likely be somewhat arbitrary.
(The concept of species is complex. It's kind of a sorites paradox.)
--R.
What was first: the chicken or the egg?
There are different types of questions. Some questions seem easily answerable, but, when really thinking about them are not. Some questions seem easy and are so. Some questions seem hard and indeed are hard. And the fourth category are the questions that seem hard but are easy to answer. In this webpage, I'll discuss a question that fits in at least one of these categories; I'll let you judge which one it is.
A question that is simple to state but that seems hard is the following, almost rethorical one:
What was first: the chicken or the egg.
Folklore is that this question has no answer. If one would answers chicken, then the reply is: but what did the chicken came from?. An egg, of course, so but when one answers egg to the question, then the reply is: but who made the egg? Well, a chicken, but then, where did that chicken came from? So, indeed, it seems this question has no answer. So, is this `chicken-or-egg' question really unanswerable - a paradoxal question?
Towards an answer
Well, let me tell you: the question does have an answer. The answer however depends on a few other matters: :
* How the question is precisely interpreted? In particularly, what does the question mean by egg?
* If we follow the interpretation that we mean by egg a chicken-egg, then we may have to tell how we define the notion of chicken-egg...
* But mostly, it depends on our viewpoint on the issue of creation versus evolution.
A little logic plus the answers to the questions above is sufficient to resolve the chicken-or-egg matter.
Creation versus evolution
In other webpages, I discuss on the issue how the different types of animals and plants came into being. I'll distinguish three viewpoints:
* Atheistic evolution theory.
* Theistic evolution theory. This theory accepts most of the mechanics of evolution, but states that God was the guiding force in evolution.
* Creationism.
For more on these, see e.g., Two or three viewpoints on the origin of species.
What kind of egg?
The different viewpoints make for a different answer to the chicken-or-egg question. However, in each of the viewpoints, it seems most probably that there were earlier fish eggs before there were chickens. Evolution theory assumes that some types of fish were on the earth, many years before there were any type of birds. The Bible also describes the creation of the sea animals one sentence before the creation of the birds, so following the Bible, we can assume that there were fish eggs before there were chickens. So, here we have our first answer: the egg was first, if we allow it to be a fish egg.
Of course, after this answer, we want to refine the question:
What was first: the chicken or the chicken-egg?
What is a chicken egg?
As I wrote, it depends on your viewpoint how to answer the `chicken-or-chicken-egg' question. Evolution theoretists should however also define what they mean with a chicken egg. Actually, this definition seems already to answer the question when we follow the evolution theory. I see two definitions:
* A chicken egg is an egg from a chicken.
* A chicken egg is an egg from which a chicken (f/m) is born.
In case of the first definition, the chicken clearly must have been first. How the chicken came into being? The evolution theory gives the answer as follows: some kind of animal that was not a chicken but resembles a chicken quite a lot has an egg with a mutation, and from this egg, the chicken is born.
In case of the second definition, we assume like in the previous case there was some animal, not a chicken, that made an egg from which a chicken was born. By definition, now the egg is a chicken egg, so the egg was first. (This does not take the possibility into consideration that the chicken was born directly from the mother, e.g., from a mammal, but that is not something that evolution theorists would deem probable.)
Theistic evolution
The situation is a little more complicated for followers from theistic evolution. Here, possibly the chicken was formed from another type of bird by a small evolutionary step, and in this case, the answer is as above, depending on the definition of the notion of chicken egg. But also, possibly, the chicken was formed by a bigger jump. Could there be a bird, not a chicken, that made an egg of its own type, from which God let a chicken be born? Could God have transformed a bird, not a chicken, during its life to a chicken? Or was there a bird, not a chicken, that produced an egg that was like a chicken-egg? In this case, we are not free to define the notion of chicken-egg ourselves, and we may just have to say that we do not know exactly how God created the species / chickens.
Creationism
Genesis 1, verses 20 and 21 include the words:
And God said: ... and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky. So God created ... every winged bird according to its kind.
. It seems to me that from this verse one can conclude that the birds were created as animals, not as eggs. So, to creationists, the answer to the chicken-or-chicken-egg question seems easiest: God created the chicken, and the chicken made the first chicken-egg.
Retrospect
To some people, the analysis given above may seem silly. Does it teach us something, except that we can somehow answer the chicken-or-egg question? Well, perhaps we can conclude a few other things. Some questions become easier when we try to analyse them precisely, but then the answer appears to depend on viewpoints on other issues. Even then, the answer given by the analysis may be wrong, when the viewpoint is wrong.
In fact, here is another answer to the question: I believe that God created the animals, plants, and humans. He also created the chickens. But, while I may have some ideas on how he created them (creationist or theistic evolutionist), I cannot know for sure. I do not know with certainty how creation took place: whether eggs were created first, whether God used evolution in His creation process, whether we should take the seven days of creation from the Bible literally or whether these were meant to be a metaphore. But I know for sure that creation was His wish.
Hans Bodlaender, November 2003
(Bible verse from New International Version bible-translation.)
 | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3429 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/1/2006 3:56:28 PM | or....
1. Nothing is better than unconditional love.
2. A ham sandwich is better than nothing.
3. A ham sandwich is better than unconditional love.
I'm going to introduce a bill for the teaching of Zen Creationism in elementary schools.
"Good morning, students. Everything is. Class dismissed to enjoy it."
A paradox is an assertion that is essentially self-contradictory, though based on a valid deduction from acceptable premises. What this means, more or less, is that there is some logical problem going on; either the deduction isn't really valid, or the premises aren't really acceptable. Alternately, the premises and the deduction are fine, and the universe really is self-contradictory.
Types of Paradox
Paradoxes come in different forms. Some are phrased as questions, for example, 'Which came first, the chicken or the egg?'. The answer seems paradoxical; the chicken must exist first to lay the egg, but the egg must exist first to hatch the chicken. Both answers seem to be backed up by solid logic, but only one can be the correct answer. Thus a paradox.
Some paradoxes take the form of proofs. Using apparently sound logic, one can prove that 2+2=5, that all motion is impossible, or that you are not, in fact, the one reading this entry.
Other paradoxes are presented as statements whose truth value is in question, for example, 'this statement is false'. Logic tells us that, if the statement is true, then it must be false. Likewise, if it is false, then it must be true. When logic sends us in circles like this, we have a paradox.
Apparent Paradoxes and Resolutions
It has been said that there are no true paradoxes, only apparent ones. It is certainly the case that many paradoxes come about when language is inappropriately applied to experience. These paradoxes are indications that our language must be looked at more carefully. Finding the 'resolution' of a paradox means finding a way of talking about it according to which its paradoxical nature vanishes.
Examples
The Chicken and the Egg
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? It seems that both answers (or neither) must be correct, for all chickens come from eggs, and all eggs come from chickens.
One resolution can be achieved by saying that it is incorrect to state that all eggs come from chickens. Many other creatures lay eggs, including the ancestor of the chicken. The paradox could however be restated, 'which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?' In this case we can say that the chicken egg came first, and it was the mutant offspring of a not-quite-chicken.
A second answer could be that the boundary between 'chicken' and 'pre-chicken' is a fuzzy one, and so is the boundary between 'chicken egg' and 'pre-chicken egg,' therefore they (the chicken and its egg) emerged gradually and simultaneously, and at some point it became possible to say that both clearly existed. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/1/2006 4:03:42 PM | A second answer could be that the boundary between 'chicken' and 'pre-chicken' is a fuzzy one, and so is the boundary between 'chicken egg' and 'pre-chicken egg,' therefore they (the chicken and its egg) emerged gradually and simultaneously, and at some point it became possible to say that both clearly existed. is this a probablity or is there scienctific proof this protocol is real and true? or is it still one of the missing links? with zillions of chickens being hatch what is the probability for the same changing of the genes exactly the same as the first random change in the first chicken to survive?
| |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3431 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/1/2006 4:15:15 PM | The seemingly tautological question of whether the domestic chicken (Gallus domesticus) or the egg (Gallus prezygoticos) first emerged in evolutionary history has often been visited by many speakers. This enduring debate has manifested itself as a metaphor for a circumstance or a condition in which no clear causal or temporal ordering can be determined. In considering the use of this seemingly flawed metaphor, it is astonishing that such a debate could remain contentious, given the shear weight of scientific and historical evidence. In fact, there really is no support for the continued use of this inaccurate metaphor and to do so may demonstrate a lack of logical sophistication.
The conundrum posed by the inquiry as to “which came first the chicken or the egg?” the perceived paradox is as follows. The chicken could not have come first because it must hatch from an egg. Conversely, the egg could not have come first, as it must have been laid by a chicken. While seemingly contradictory, a brief examination of history, archeological records, and evolutionary theory provides the solution.
Chicken Tick’In: Time and History
According to fossil records, the present-day chicken is believed to be a descendent of Archaeopteryx, a creature with sharp teeth and winged claws, found in the Jurassic period and thought to be more than 150 million years old. According to Augusta (1961), Archaeopteryx is “a true bird, occupying the phylogenetically lowest place in the class of birds (Aves) and is the only member of the ancient group of the Archaeornithes (or Saururae); all other birds, whether extinct or extant, belong to the higher group of Neornithes (or Ornithurae)” (p.56). These upper Jurassic birds were not much larger than a pigeon and, like chickens of today, were not good flyers.
More recent evidence (Chatterjee, 1997) suggests that the Protoavis Texenis from the late Triassic period may actually predate Archaeopteryx by some 75 million years. The evidence, however, requires a much more complex understanding of comparative anatomy, as this discovery did not reveal a feather structure found with later fossils of the Archaeopteryx. Fossil records also demonstrate another bird identified as Confuciusornis (so named as a result of its discovery in Northern China) is similar to Archaeopteryx but lacks teeth. Experts believe that Confuciusornis may have occupied this same historic period.
According to Paul (2002) the evidence that birds evolved from small predatory dinosaurs in Mesozoic times is overwhelming. Paleontologists now agree that birds are the direct descendents of dinosaurs. The many inhabitants of the Jurassic era, including the most commonly identified dinosaurs, were egg layers. Even during the Jurassic period there were chicken-sized, egg-laying predators identified as Compsognathus. The similarities in modes of reproduction between avepod dinosaurs and birds extend to the sharing of a distinctive eggshell microstructure not observed in other amniotes (Paul, 2002). Reproduction by means of external egg laying allows the evolving dinosaurs to produce large numbers of offspring without the additional weight (and associated diminishment of mobility) of an internal gestation process. According to archeological theory, birds evolved from dinosaurs, which, in turn, evolved over millions of years from the primordial goo that produced single-cell organisms. Many forms of birds, including the precursor to the modern chicken, continued to develop through the Cenozoic era and by the Oligocene period, over 35 million years ago, most of the relatives of the birds we know today had appeared. In fact, the dinosaur-to-bird lineage can better be divided according to non-avian dinosaurs and avian dinosaurs.
Consistent with evolutionary theory, Dingus and Rowe (1998) have suggested all living birds belong to either the Neognath lineage, which includes the Gallus gallus (chicken) or the Palaeognath. Further, the Neognath lineage split into two distinct lines during the Cretaceous period. One such split includes the anseriforms plus the galliform birds, such as chickens and turkeys.
Scientists have identified that domesticated chickens (Gallus domesticus) were descendants of the Red Jungle Fowl (Gallus gallus) and appeared as early as 4,000 BC in Southeast Asia. The domesticated chickens were initially used for entertainment in the form of****fighting, rather than food. However, by 1400 BC the domestic chicken was popular throughout Asia and Europe and chicken eggs were hatched in mass incubators.
In sum, birds of today are ancestors of amphibian life that evolved from an aquatic existence to survive on dry land during the warm period of Perm. These predatory creatures, or Reptilia, were generally diminutive and slim with elongated posterior limbs. Reproduction by means of eggs is found in all such reptiles and the trait continued during the evolutionary period in which reptilia variants became warm-blooded, developed feathers, and began to master flying. In short, they became birds; that is, including those that we later identified as chickens.
Chicken Opposition
Chicken Evolution
Consistent with evolutionary change, the genetic mutations resulting in the present-day chicken seems to have occurred over millions of years. On occasion the mistakes, changes, or mutations that occur in the evolutionary process produce a creature that is not the same as the parents and others of its former species. Many times these new creatures may be less well adapted to the environment and not survive. However, with changes in the climate and flora and fauna, the addition of feathers, changes in bone structure, and the ability to take flight allowed the new creatures—avian dinosaurs—to thrive, while the less well-adapted ancestor was lost to extinction
Prior to the arrival of the chicken, a pre-chicken creature that was at least one generation away from our present-day chicken, laid an egg that contained an embryo with DNA consistent with the “new” aviary creature known as chicken. Therefore, the egg that contained the newly evolved chicken preceded its hatching. In other words, prior to the arrival of the first zygotic mix of male and female pre-chicken DNA that combined or mutated to form today’s chicken, there were only non-chickens. The DNA mutations occurred at the cellular level in the zygote developing inside the egg. Therefore, the egg clearly preceded the chicken.
Darwinian Chicken
A further analysis of Darwinian theory finds that all animals were preceded by, and evolved from, ancestors that were not exactly like them. Changes in DNA as a result of the combinations of mutation, mistakes in DNA repair, ecological affects, and other influences allowed for the development of creatures that more harmoniously coexisted with the changing environment. As a result, with each successive evolutionary change, there is necessarily a creature that lacked the characteristics of that which later evolved. In the case of birds, including chickens, the eggs of the pre-evolved creature contained the newly evolved living animal. Specifically, a pre-chicken laid an egg that contained the newly evolved chicken. Thus, from the Darwinian perspective, we clearly find that the egg preceded the newly evolved chicken.
In simplest terms, we may make several assumptions: a) millions of years ago, ancestors of the present day chicken did not contain the exact DNA or other characteristics of today’s chicken—thus, this was not a chicken; b) this pre-chicken was probably the ancestor of several egg-laying avian dinosaurs; c) each successive generation of these ancestral birds resulted in creatures that more closely approximate what we now know as a chicken. In an evolutionary timeline, we can see the result of our assumptions, and the answer to this alleged dilemma becomes clear:
Jurassic Non-Chicken » Egg » Triassic Non-Chicken » Egg » || History Continues || » Great Grandmother of Chicken » Egg à Grandmother of Chicken » Egg » Mother of Chicken » Egg » FIRST CHICKEN » Egg » Another Chicken » Egg-cetera.
With each successive generation, a nonchicken evolved closer to what became the first chicken. That first chicken arrived into this world from the confines of an egg. So, what came first? Clearly the egg preceded the chicken. Further, it does not matter where you draw the line between what you may call a chicken and a nonchicken. If for example, in the above diagram, you decide that the nonchicken identified as “Mother of Chicken” contained enough “essence of chickenness” to be identified as the chicken, then this creature was still preceded by, and came forth from an egg.
Egg-Ponents
A Chicken By Any Other Name
Some have argued that, despite evolutionary history, the mystery to be addressed is to determine precisely when a chicken, as we know it, actually hatched and became a chicken. Further, the diversity of fowl we may classify as a chicken is vast. As a result, these individuals will argue that a chicken only became a chicken once it was so named; therefore, the chicken came first. Once so labeled, all that followed, including eggs, necessarily came after. As interesting as this may seem, this argument is specious, and thus ignores the existence of a creature we later called a chicken until someone so named it. Clearly, such an animal existed before someone identified and called it “chicken.” A chicken is still a chicken whether it was so named or not, regardless.
Chicken Religion
Some theologically minded individuals contend that chickens were created by God and therefore had to precede eggs. As evidence, they may point to the first chapter of Genesis, verse 20, that states: “And God created…every winged fowl...” Theological issues aside, even if a “fowl” was instantly created at some distant period, this does not necessitate the exclusion of the process of evolution. More to the point, there is no specific biblical reference to an animal that we know today as a chicken. Further, Pope John Paul II issued a papal letter (encyclical) to the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church acknowledging the possibility that God used evolution as a part of the creation process. It is, therefore, consistent with both a theological point of view as well as an evolutionary position that the bird we know today as chicken evolved from several genetic mutations over many years. That which created what we today call chicken (Today’s Chicken, or TC), was clearly borne by an ancestor of our present-day chicken (Pre-Chicken, or PC). Necessarily then, an evolved TC was a hatched product of an egg (because chickens do come from eggs), laid by the evolutionary ancestral pre-chicken (PC).
Chicken Precision
Others have argued that chickens obviously came first, as eggs are laid by chickens. They further assert that even if chickens evolved from some non-chicken creature, the first chicken did not come from the egg of a chicken—it had to come from a non-chicken egg. Therefore, the first egg came after the first chicken. This argument fails to attend to the originally posed statement. As presented, the question is “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” It does not say, “Which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?” Rather than engage in a discussion revolving around the evident conclusion that the chicken, once hatched and so designated, came from its formative home—a chicken egg, we will merely dismiss this inaccurate rendering of the original question.
Chicken Existentialism (Or is it Eggs-Istentialism?)
Those who are more philosophically minded may wish to further examine the true meaning of the essence of chickenness. Existentialists might scrutinize the circumstances of the pre-chicken, prior to it becoming fully actualized as a chicken. How did the pre-chickens exist without enough “chicken essence” to be identified as chicken, and what does this mean? Whatever it may mean, the egg contained the essence that eventually became the chicken. The egg was first.
Chicken Diction
Of course one of the weakest arguments offered to support the “chicken-first” movement involves a catalogue contention. These supporters call attention to the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary (2001). Upon careful examination of the entries and accompanying definitions, one can accurately assert that “chicken” is found on page 232, while “egg” is not found until page 398. Therefore, according to this argument, chicken clearly comes before egg. Of course, this ridiculous argument omits all practical evolutionary consideration and would be offered as evidence by only the most feebleminded.
The Only Egg-Ceptable Answer
The question is: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Unmistakably, the egg! Given this discourse, it seems to be the only plausible, accurate, and reasonable conclusion that can be reached. Probably the more troubling question is why this debate seems to interminably continue. The overwhelming and compelling evidence from the historic, archeological, and evolutionary records is clear. Given the sheer weight of the data involved, we as educators should remove this misplaced metaphor from our collective consciousness and vocabulary. Those in positions of leadership and learning must correct those who might wish to continue this mythical paradox. As we enlighten minds and challenge assumptions, we should use the example of this misleading phrase as a rallying cry to correct inaccurate impressions and enhance our instructional precision. Henceforth, we should recognize that those who continue to support, exploit, or utilize this inaccurate and deceptive phrase to be astray of an attempt to unscramble this metaphorical mess. We should egg-spect more from our egg-steemed colleagues to no longer egg-acerbate this problem. The debate on this topic should be concluded. The answer is: The Egg—the whole egg, and nothing but the egg. The conundrum has been resolved, and our educational mission requires our attention in eliminating this fallacious phrase.
- Randy Garner
Sam Houston State University | |
|
Enryk
|
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 3432 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/1/2006 5:30:06 PM | The conundrum has been resolved, and our educational mission requires our attention in eliminating this fallacious phrase.
Amen | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/3/2006 3:49:27 AM | It has been explained over and over and over again why it is necessary to avoid advocating any particular religion in a public school in order to insure that people have the right to worship whatever gods they wish to with out harassment by the state.
It has been explained over and over and over again how Creationism is based on an absolute belief and is therefor not science, and that Evolution is a theory based on scientific observation. The words religion and theory have been defined over and over and over again.
Yet these arguments keep popping up suggesting that the "Evolutionists" are trying to rid the world of religion. People who advocate the theory of Evolution (even if they have religious beliefs) are scientifically indifferent to any conjecture based on faith alone. Indifferent, not hostile.
Also this position that schools ought to be teaching religion because parents aren't doing it is ridiculous. If parents want to teach their children religion, or how to sew, or how to play soccor, or anything else, it is their own responsibility. The school is just there to educate their minds.
The reason church isn't as much a part of childrens lives as it was in the 1950's is that the structure of the family is totally different now. It isn't because the athiests are taking over the schools and corrupting children. Its because of technology, the internet, convenient divorces, television, the media, the economy, massively increasing global population, and numerous other factors are taking their toll on the classic family unit. It takes a lot to keep the family together these days. Brain washing children isn't going to help that. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/3/2006 10:26:30 AM |
Yet these arguments keep popping up suggesting that the "Evolutionists" are trying to rid the world of religion. People who advocate the theory of Evolution (even if they have religious beliefs) are scientifically indifferent to any conjecture based on faith alone. Indifferent, not hostile.
Also this position that schools ought to be teaching religion because parents aren't doing it is ridiculous. If parents want to teach their children religion, or how to sew, or how to play soccor, or anything else, it is their own responsibility. The school is just there to educate their minds.
The reason church isn't as much a part of childrens lives as it was in the 1950's is that the structure of the family is totally different now. It isn't because the athiests are taking over the schools and corrupting children. Its because of technology, the internet, convenient divorces, television, the media, the economy, massively increasing global population, and numerous other factors are taking their toll on the classic family unit. It takes a lot to keep the family together these days. Brain washing children isn't going to help that. amen
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/3/2006 2:39:48 PM | Creationism is Religion and so should be taught in Religious Education class, Evolution is Science and so should be taught in Science class. What is so hard to understand about that? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/3/2006 4:48:18 PM | Creationism is Religion and so should be taught in Religious Education class, Evolution is Science and so should be taught in Science class. What is so hard to understand about that?undefined do you mean both to be taught in public schools?
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/3/2006 5:11:15 PM | Yes pasportcharlie, why not? Creation is a valid part of the most popular religious dogma in the western world, and if you are going to teach about religion at all, then you should at leat teach about the most popular ones so people have some knowledge of them.
Teaching about something and telling people to belive in something, are very difrent. Creation is part of many Christians belifs, so children should be taught in Religious Education classes what Creation is, just as they are taught what Kharma is, or what the Tora is.
Eductaion not Indoctrination! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/3/2006 6:47:42 PM |
Yes pasportcharlie, why not? Creation is a valid part of the most popular religious dogma in the western world, and if you are going to teach about religion at all, then you should at leat teach about the most popular ones so people have some knowledge of them. unfortunately religion in publc schools will never happen. the us constitution forbids it. first article, congress will make no laws in regard to regligion or thoughts there of.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/3/2006 6:54:29 PM | I am resonably certain that the constitution dose not forbid religion from public schools. If memory serves, it states that the state will not PROMOTE religion, NOR will it REPRESS it.
Teaching the belifs of many religions, is not promoting religion. If it is, then almostevery book, play, song and picture must be removed from the school curiculm for its religious content.
Teaching ABOUT something is not the same as PROMOTING it. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/3/2006 7:25:30 PM |
I am resonably certain that the constitution dose not forbid religion from public schools. If memory serves, it states that the state will not PROMOTE religion, NOR will it REPRESS it. it hasnt happen yet and there is too much law against it for ever to happen under the us constition establishment laws.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/7/2006 1:15:52 PM | I am all for teaching our children as much as possible. With the goal being to learn how to Think not just regurgitate what they’ve been fed. Learning how/what others live/believe is a good tool to help one understand their own life.
I only wanted to know what they were going to teach in their ID science course, but we’ve yet to see any science.  | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/7/2006 1:57:05 PM | | Just have some 'faith' I am sure the science part of the theory will show itself when the time is right... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/7/2006 6:21:31 PM | They could also change the definition of Science so that ID falls within it. Kind of like they did with Evolution. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/7/2006 6:39:12 PM | brain
Just have some 'faith' I am sure the science part of the theory will show itself when the time is right..
faith is good. i have faith and my faith say evolution. my faith against id from science has already found it losing in the courts.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/7/2006 6:42:43 PM | I only wanted to know what they were going to teach in their ID science course read the law cases. law has said id is religious. the couts are ruling against ID as a science and as of now it will not be taught in public schools.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/7/2006 7:17:09 PM |
They could also change the definition of Science so that ID falls within it. Kind of like they did with Evolution.
Really? Please define 'science', then show what changes were made to accomodate evolution as science. Shouldn't be hard, eh?
What year did they change the definition anyhow? Maybe just give the before-and-after versions so we can all see how you arrived at that claim?
Someone who knows so much about the subject must have that sort of information at their fingertips...
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/9/2006 7:36:18 PM |
Really? Please define 'science', then show what changes were made to accomodate evolution as science. Shouldn't be hard, eh?
What year did they change the definition anyhow? Maybe just give the before-and-after versions so we can all see how you arrived at that claim?
Someone who knows so much about the subject must have that sort of information at their fingertips...
has nothing to do with this tread, off subject tsur. these hall are pretty hollow rhe several days. i wonder why. actually i really dont care about you science, don't need to define it. you can teach it in schools. hey man you got it made and you won the debate.
God Bless
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/10/2006 6:02:54 AM | The definition of 'science' has nothing to do with the subject "Creation vs Evolution"? Fascinating.
Given that ID is just Creationism renamed, and that various anti-science types are trying to shove it into the public school system as science, you couldn't be more depressingly wrong if you tried.
[Mind you, half the time it's pretty much impossible for people to parse whatever the heck you're saying anyhow. Is there some sort of Charlie-to-English translator site on the web, like Babelfish, that we could use maybe?]
--R. 'call it Babblefish, or Finnegan's Wack' | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/10/2006 8:33:30 AM |
The definition of 'science' has nothing to do with the subject "Creation vs Evolution"? Fascinating.
Given that ID is just Creationism renamed, and that various anti-science types are trying to shove it into the public school system as science, you couldn't be more depressingly wrong if you tried.
[Mind you, half the time it's pretty much impossible for people to parse whatever the heck you're saying anyhow. Is there some sort of Charlie-to-English translator site on the web, like Babelfish, that we could use maybe?]
--R. 'call it Babblefish, or Finnegan's Wack'
my friend you became a bore long time ago. my posts vere very clear about this thread, it was all about law, get it law, not your babble about the definition of science. The tread is about creation and science being taught in public schols. your replies are simply naught, no one needs to reply, but i love to debate. id will never be taught in public shools. law has already may that clear. there will be more cases, but the law will win at the end.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/10/2006 10:43:24 AM | Oddly, this thread isn't all about 'law'. It started with a discussion of Creation and Evolution, and issues of science and pseudo-science. Perhaps you might go back and read page 1 for a refresher?
The issue of Creationist attacks on science is bigger than your simple 'the law' anyhow. It's far more complex. I would have thought that someone who spent so much time and effort in prior posts being unreadably opaque and obscure would see the complexity? What about the damage done to science education by Creationist zealots? The anti-science policies of the Bush adminstration have pervaded their actions to distort or destroy rational approaches to AIDS, family planning, global warming and other topics they dislike.
Let's not even look at the issue of the 'law' as 'never' allowing ID to be taught. Not when you have people like Roberts and Alito being appointed to the USSC, joining Scalia.
And I suppose coherence is indeed boring to the incoherent.
No, "my friend", it isn't all about 'the law'. That's a simplistic, even shallow take on a complex subject. And while you may think it is all about 'the law', you're not the original poster, and you haven't even been a major part of this thread.
--R. | |
|
|
| Page 138 of 156
|
116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156 |
|
Home
login 
