|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/24/2006 10:34:48 AM |
The existence of biological evolution is a scientific fact, the exact mechanisms of the process are where there are different theories. So you are wrong.
Just because evolution could happen does not mean it did, further, if there are various theories regarding the exact mechanisms, then ID is just as legitimate of an option as "survival of the species". Both are intangible mechanisms that are incapable of being falsified by current scientific testing. Both should be presented in a science class as potential options regardless whether your personal opinion favours one over the other. The scientific community and evolutionists in general however seems to be doing its utmost to suppress or censor anything other than what they are willing to consider.
Should be teaching childeren how to think, not what to think. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/24/2006 11:08:51 AM | An intelligent designer is an untestible, unobservable, (dare I say unscientific) problem...
Save it for college level Philosophy of Science 3 credit course.
It's not suppression or censoring to not teach fairy tales or teleological philosophy in a science class for elementary to secondary students...
There is just a limited amount of money and time and they need a basic education in factual reputable science based on the scientific method, peer review, evidence, replicable experimentation, etc.
If you want to run classes in the I Ching, Tarot Reading, Or Comparitive Mythology, we do that at the post secondary level when it is an option and also offer courses in Logic and Introductory Philosophy. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/24/2006 11:25:44 AM |
An intelligent designer is an untestible, unobservable, (dare I say unscientific) problem...
Thanks for the opinion. You have some proof that Natural Selection is testable, observable, etc.? Something that proves NS as being a superior mechanism to ID? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/24/2006 12:34:56 PM | An intelligent designer is an untestible, unobservable, (dare I say unscientific) problem... Thanks for the opinion. You have some proof that Natural Selection is testable, observable, etc.? Something that proves NS as being a superior mechanism to ID?
The first is a simple fact of logic, not an opinion. There is no point in attempting to do what the greatest thinkers of theology and philosophy have been unable to do which is prove the existence of a designing intelligence (the teleological argument for god's existence) which is the "end run" that is being contemplated here. For ample evidence that evolution is a scientific fact see plenty of references above in this thread...late's post for instance. Intelligent design does not even fit the definition of a theory or a model...it is a "notion" at best. You can't "test" for a designer. You cannot observe a designer. You cannot even infer a designer without making unnecessary leaps of logic. EDIT: I borrowed this from Shore66's post...the necessary elements that make up a scientific theory:
The characteristics of a scientific theory as follows:
1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.
2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.
3. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence.")
7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status.
Within these guidelines, there is no possibility that intelligent design can begin to meet the standards required to be a theory. Natural selection is a theory. If and when it is outmoded or proved wrong, it will be discarded...but so far so good. Unlike religion, if a theory breaks down or new evidence is supplied, it is considered a learning experience that adds to the body of knowledge...not a breakdown of the whole system that denies its existence. We don't throw out all of mathematics because of a failed proof. We don't throw out all of our testing procedures because of one abberant result. Science is about the pursuit of knowledge...not the declaration of eternal truth.
You can observe changes in a species over time. In a pluralistic, civil society, if you choose to indoctrinate children with religious notions you have the right to inflict them in the privacy of your own home, but no one religion or any group of religions gets to mandate its theories of creation or backdoor them into the school curriculum...even through such shady tactics as this.
Please observe the 100 yard science and religion restraining order as mandated by the judge on the Simpsons. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/24/2006 12:39:20 PM | Just because evolution could happen does not mean it did, further, if there are various theories regarding the exact mechanisms, then ID is just as legitimate of an option as "survival of the species". Both are intangible mechanisms that are incapable of being falsified by current scientific testing. Both should be presented in a science class as potential options regardless whether your personal opinion favours one over the other. The scientific community and evolutionists in general however seems to be doing its utmost to suppress or censor anything other than what they are willing to consider.
Should be teaching childeren how to think, not what to think. This has to be one of the most irrational statements I have ever read. I do not even know where to begin in explaining that you are wrong. The post you are responding to refutes this entire rebuttal. Its like you didn't comprehend it at all. Truly mortifying.
Evolution is not an intangible mechanism. Period. In the broadest sense aspects of it are difficult to test, but not impossible. In terms of microevolution its definitely tangible. Have you any clue what evolution is at all? Have you read any of this thread at all?
ID is not a scientific theory; its theology. Period. You can't even call it an intangible mechanism because its not even a mechanism; its a theological and absolute belief. At no point is ID open to any type of scientific rigor. Its basis is: a diety with magical powers made the entire world. You think that is a valid scientific position?
If you can't understand that, people should probably just ignore you in this thread because attempting to reason with you is clearly is hopeless. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/24/2006 12:44:10 PM |
Should be teaching childeren how to think, not what to think.
Funny comment. Evolution teaches one event leads to another. Creationism teaches 'this is how it happened.. End of story'.
Which of these two ideas is a better way to teach children how to think?  | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/24/2006 12:46:10 PM | Should be teaching childeren how to think, not what to think. Funny comment. Evolution teaches one event leads to another. Creationism teaches 'this is how it happened.. End of story'. Which of these two ideas is a better way to teach children how to think?
I know, the guy (EK) just contradicted himself and he doesn't even know it. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/24/2006 9:00:19 PM |
I am not advocating that only Creationism should be taught but that we prepare students for the challenges they will face when they get out in the real world by being up front with the questions that are still needing answers and the avenues that are being looked into for those answers.
I have no problem with Creationism taught in schools. I went to Catholic school and was taught Creationism and Evolution. However I learned Creationism in RELIGION class and learned Evolution in SCIENCE class. I was taught that Genesis was a myth to gain a personal truth from, not a factual truth. I was taught Evolution is fact, though the finer details of how we got from single celled organisms to human beings is still being studied and constantly modified as new facts and details emerge. I was also taught this in no way nulifies what we've learned thus far. Evolution is the equation being used to decipher the origins of species.
In the way you have laid it out, neither.
I profoundly disagree. Teaching children that one event leads to another is the best way to exemplify that there are several potential solutions to a given problem. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/24/2006 9:29:27 PM |
The point was whether life was intelligently designed, not whether there is an Intelligent Designer. A subtle but important distinction. The "end run" being contemplated in this particular section of the thread is the potential mechanisms that brought life to its current configurations and whether schools should fairly present the various potential solutions since it has not as yet been firmly determined which is the right mechanism...
Evolution is not the point being discussed but the mechanism of it. Please read the post for what it says not for what you think it says. Difficult to debate if the english language is a challenge for you
Whether it was "intelligently designed?" Frankly that would seem to be the conceit of a hairless ape with a lot of frontal lobe development and a lot of time on its hands...
In all seriousness, it seems to belie a misunderstanding of how natural selection works. Over vast periods of time, species, organisms, organs, mechanisms, might give the "appearance" of being designed or even designed intelligently, because you lack the perspective of time and ability to see the countless variants that did not replicate their DNA in a successful fashion and perpetuate their various mutations and contributions.
Your phraseology is still just another way to worm in a value judgement on something that really doesn't seem to merit it. The ad hominem tossed in at the end is cheeky, but doesn't change the fact that saying "Oh I didn't mean intelligent designer I mean do things look 'designed intelligently'" still begs the question.
I wouldn't teach a student to posit invisible watchmakers in the sky simply because of a lack of other data. Saying "I don't know at this time" is really not that scary...neither is saying "this theory is adequate until more evidence arises." Asking if the whole mechanism of evolution...of life seems "intelligently designed" just begs the question. "WELL IT'S SELF EVIDENT!" doubtless you will scream... yeah well if you jump to conclusions anything could be.
Adding deity to the equation is unscientific bollocks...and frankly just unnecessary. I'm sure He has better things to do.
Consider your question asked and answered...unless you could possibly have some other obscure depth of meaning...I mean we're not mind readers here...not at these prices. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/25/2006 1:22:48 AM | | I absolutely believe in eveolution and eveolution 100% proves that god does exist. I know there are christian fundees out there that believe the earth is 6000 years old but the book of genisis like the book of revelations was never written to be taken literally. One day these fundees will wake up and smell the carbon dating flavor coffee lol and realise this. Every cell in this universe , every particle in this universe has a purpose and direction as if some force is guiding it towards that purpose. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/12/2006 6:09:05 AM | F$%^!!!!!!!!!!!
How can U use reson and rationality to convince someone when their entire argument is based on the incapacity of reason to understand the world we live in.
Reason cannot defeat faith, because faith purposively ignores, negates and excludes reason from its realm
Would god really choose these religious dogmatists to further his/her purpose?
Wow.
Whats worse is deep down inside they know they r perpetrating a great fraud, and its insulting because they actually think they can pull the wool over your eyes... however if this is the smartest con they can conjure, then hell, this is the last response with thich i will grace their pious and all so despicalble vomit.
U bible thumpers need to smoke some good pot and then see yourselves and recognize in yourself the hate U have for this all too short and precious life. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/12/2006 11:59:57 AM | Entitled "The case for Creation"
In 1992, after over ten years research, Richard Milton, a scientific journalist who holds no religious convictions, published a book entitled 'The Facts of Life' in which he wrote,
"...no rational person can visit the Natural History Museum and not be deeply impressed by the evidence that has been painstakingly assembled ... But, frustratingly, even with all this evidence, it is impossible for the genuinely objective person to say. Here is the conclusive scientific proof that I have been looking for' (p.14) ... My doubt about the theory arises from a number of sources. It comes first and most importantly from the inability of darwinists to pass the simple test ... to show to a thinking member of the public conclusive scientific evidence to substantiate the theory..." (p.16)
Although evolution is commonly accepted as proven by the majority of the population, there is no scientific proof for its existence.
In fact, the lack of proof has prompted Dr Hovind to offer (since 1990) $10000, this has recently been increased to $250000, "to anyone who can give empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution."
The definition of 'empirical' is 'relying or based solely on experiment and observation rather than theory.'
"It is my contention that evolutionism is a religious worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense." | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/12/2006 12:07:25 PM | Ah, but the question is:
...........to show to a thinking member of the public conclusive scientific evidence to substantiate the theory.........
of CREATION............
We all know evolution does not answer All the questions, but it does answer some. While the creationist have yet to answer even One that would show to a thinking member of the public conclusive scientific evidence to substantiate the theory. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/12/2006 12:10:15 PM | Ratero-park-man:
Although evolution is commonly accepted as proven by the majority of the population, there is no scientific proof for its existence.
In fact, the lack of proof has prompted Dr Hovind to offer (since 1990) $10000, this has recently been increased to $250000, "to anyone who can give empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution."
Hovind is well known in the scientific community as a quack. He doesn't have $250,000 to begin with.
Evolution is commonly not accepted by the majority of the population, because the majority of the population does not understand what it is (they just believe they understand what it is). At least 40 to 50 percent of Americans believe in the literal historical interpretation of the King James Bible, which negates any confidence in the process of evolution in biology for such persons.
Please read the thread before you post your assertions. Evolution is fact when the term refers to a general biological process and has many different theories that consist of various evolutionary mechanisms of that biological process.
The best thing for you to do would be to visit a respected university and talk, at length, with a biology professor about evolution. I'm sure it would clear up many of your misconceptions. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/21/2006 8:57:19 PM | I believe in creation because there is too much order in the Universe and too much
Chaos in science.
I believe in evolution because things change and from my point of view both ideas
can coexist... God could of created a world where evolution was part of his plan.
The big bang could have happened on God's say so...
I don't have any information on the subject except the monkey to man thing... what
if that is only one part of humanities evolution?
The whole knowledge that we call history... anthropology... archeology... may only percieve on big cycle... big bang to big crunch may yet be another...
I believe that the Bible was written with good intentions and I love the book...
Science can be a tool given to us by God...
I believe that God is too complex for us to understand and that science is a limitless array of possibilities/answers/questions...
I really don't understand why both idea's can't coexist.
Creationism could be thought outside of Sunday school for simple purpous of acquired
knowledge from my point of view... Some people may want their kids to learn that stuff and not have the time or capability to teach it... I would teach evolution's theory in the
same schools... seperatly | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3691 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/22/2006 5:55:06 AM | | Nothing wrong with having a comparative religion class in schools (as long as critical thinking is part of the cirriculum), but, biologists, and judges have made it clear, ...creationism/ID, is NOT science. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/22/2006 11:58:48 AM | Science is a branch that deals with facts as for religion is a science that deals
with faith...
A lot of things include two pols yet have functionality nevertheless.
Not sure if comparative religion means learning about all kinds of religions... sounds
good except it might harden ones path towards faith.
Faith is a real good thing... a friend of mine told me a saying that I haven't forgotten yet... at least, if not more than 10 years later...
I have faith... I have faith in myself... sounds like a really good type of faith to me.
Perhaps religion should be thought as an option in schools.... So that parents may
decide to only have their children learn their religion... Wheter it be in Sunday school or
any other way they choose, according to their beliefs. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/22/2006 6:48:37 PM | religion is a science that deals
with faith...
According to credible scientists, sane and educated people throughout the world, and the dictionary, religion is not a science.
If religion is to be studied in public schools, it should only be studied from a historical perspective on theology.
It is unconstitutional for the government to advocate specific religious teachings. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/22/2006 7:55:29 PM | Horray! He caught me on bad wording...
Religion is a discipline that deals with faith.
Science is a discipline for the unfaithful... we need proof.
Specific religions shouldn't be force-thought in schools because people have different
belief systems and it is unfair... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/23/2006 12:32:32 AM | Okay, folks, here's the score. I've been away (and away) for a while, and I've got to play catchup. Again. But, we're going to try new things! Since I've lost track of me (sadly both easy and common for me to do), I'm going to be responding in reverse! That ought to be fun. The other thing is, I'm going to try to stick to the OP. That ought to be nigh impossible, but if we don't shoot for the impossible, we rarely achieve the improbable.
Specific religions shouldn't be force-thought in schools because people have different
belief systems and it is unfair...
Not sure what is being referenced with the "discipline" gig, but I'll probably find it. Meantime, I think it's interesting that, in the case of those who are pushing for Intelligent Design, particularly of the brand Behe tries to make use of in Darwin's Black Box, there is no specificity to the intelligence postulated. So little, in fact, is ascribed to this intelligence beyond its use as a stopgap at the point where our understandings fail us, that it's curious to note that intelligence is the concept used. At any rate, whether or not this constitutes "force-thinking", for Intelligent Design to be included in public schools, it would probably not violate the "establishment clause", due to the fact that nothing specific (other than an entirely unscientific worldview) is being promoted.
A lot of things include two pols yet have functionality nevertheless.
A good point. However, I have yet to see anything that argues for religion and science as opposite poles of anything. Certainly, they are different, I'll grant. But, of what magnet are they opposite poles? And what, if anything specific, does their generated field comprehensively enclose?
Perhaps religion should be thought as an option in schools.... So that parents may
decide to only have their children learn their religion... Wheter it be in Sunday school or
any other way they choose, according to their beliefs.
Hence, the point of the OP, yes? Parents have this option; it is universal to those that raise their own offspring. Teach them the values and dogma that you espouse, yes? Take them to places where they will learn the worldview you accept. Things of that nature. Religion, outside the possibility of comparative religion and religious history classes, does not belong in the public education system of a pluralistic society.
Nothing wrong with having a comparative religion class in schools (as long as critical thinking is part of the cirriculum), but, biologists, and judges have made it clear, ...creationism/ID, is NOT science.
I agree. Critical thinking is the key, certainly. However, I would wonder if it might be possible to come up with a way to infer, possibly even provide evidence of intelligence in design. It seems to me, at least, that this might be the most likely tack for ID proponents to take in the future.
I believe in creation because there is too much order in the Universe and too much
Chaos in science.
Chakra, could you explain, or at least cite some examples of the "Chaos" in science?
God could of created a world where evolution was part of his plan. ...The big bang could have happened on God's say so... ...big bang to big crunch may yet be another...
I think the key here is that, without experimental testing, or even objective observation, possibility does not equate to evidence.
I really don't understand why both idea's can't coexist.
They can, in the broad sense of being accepted by society. They simply do not share the same terms of reference, and therefore do not apply as coexisting in the sphere of human knowledge.
Creationism could be thought outside of Sunday school for simple purpous of acquired
knowledge from my point of view...
I believe the term is "revealed" knowledge, but regardless, the question remains begged: From whence was this knowledge acquired? Answer that however you may, but it will simply wrap back around to one god or another, one religion or another. To teach any specific creation story as "knowledge", ignoring all creation stories as such, would be to promote the one story and thus the one religion, which is disallowed.
Some people may want their kids to learn that stuff and not have the time or capability to teach it...
In which case, it might behoove such parents to reevaluate their priorities, at least insofar as their children and their beliefs are concerned. I don't even have kids, but I have no trouble making the time to share knowledge that's important to me with people who are important to me.
I would teach evolution's theory in the same schools... seperatly
As would I. Thusly: Evolution theory in science classes. Various creation myths in religious history or comparative religion classes. Makes sense, yes?
In fact, the lack of proof has prompted Dr Hovind to offer (since 1990) $10000, this has recently been increased to $250000, "to anyone who can give empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution."
Best start handing out Mr. Hovind's number. I've seen it done in three lines of text.
"It is my contention that evolutionism is a religious worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense."
Rather contentious, that fellow. My challenge would be for this individual to support, using science or common sense, the idea of Creationism. Yes, I left out Scripture, but since it has no bearing on scientific theories, why should it have one on itself? And, popular opinion is hardly something upon which to pin one's understanding of reality. I for one, don't think Paris Hilton is at all worthwhile, why should my world conform to that of E! entertainment?
Reason cannot defeat faith, because faith purposively ignores, negates and excludes reason from its realm
And, that would be why, in a nation whose public education facilities are (supposed to be) devoted to the development of young minds, revealed knowledge such as the biblical creation myth should not be taught as objective fact.
Would god really choose these religious dogmatists to further his/her purpose?
Some members of the Dover school board and, sadly, plenty of folks taking their cue from them certainly appear to think so.
I absolutely believe in eveolution and eveolution 100% proves that god does exist.
How so?
Every cell in this universe , every particle in this universe has a purpose and direction as if some force is guiding it towards that purpose.
Yeah, we like to call it "determinism".
Just because evolution could happen does not mean it did, further, if there are various theories regarding the exact mechanisms, then ID is just as legitimate of an option as "survival of the species".
Except that, the fact of species' survival is observable. The fact that evolution happens is what means it did. As for ID being at all legitimate, please reference where its proponents are at all reputable.
Scientific theories of our origins were not invented when Darwin came on the scene.
Erasmus Darwin. Wallace. Lamarck. Sorry, I just had to...
Its all about perspective, trying to look at it from the point of view of I,D, I realised that if I forgot what I knew about science, as most people don't know such things, It all became fuzzy, there in lies the rub.
And this is why, as we've discussed before, I for one advocate inclusion of both Creationism and ID in science classes, alongside Lamarckism, as "theories" supplanted by natural selection in explaining many of the questions of evolutionary biology. Maybe a unit on critical thinking and the proper understanding of science could be mandated at the beginning of every year of science classes throughout students' educational careers, what say? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/23/2006 1:01:12 AM | Religion, outside the possibility of comparative religion and religious history classes, does not belong in the public education system of a pluralistic society.
I am all for that, just as long as the kids are not forced to take a “comparative religious history class”. Faith is easily disturbed and there are enough bad influences out there…
Chakra, could you explain, or at least cite some examples of the "Chaos" in science?
Nature is chaos and we are part of nature, science is part of us therefore there is chaos in science… quantum... are starting to accept that… the mere idea that science refuses chaos is chaotic…
Now that I have humored you, explain to me why creationism and evolution cannot both be accepted by the same mind? I accept both with equal denial.
Thread already has a specific topic - specific question, please don't stray from it, it gets messy when that happens. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/23/2006 2:10:19 PM | Well then I've said all's I had to say.....
If I could get an answer in privat it would be great...
To me both evolution and creationism are real....
Religion shouldn't be force-thought in school under any title/form...
No proof, no need for one...
I realy like the concept of too much order....Dna seems to show that it's kind of planed... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/23/2006 8:31:14 PM |
"It is my contention that evolutionism is a religious worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense." Rather contentious, that fellow. My challenge would be for this individual to support, using science or common sense, the idea of Creationism. Yes, I left out Scripture, but since it has no bearing on scientific theories, why should it have one on itself? And, popular opinion is hardly something upon which to pin one's understanding of reality. I for one, don't think Paris Hilton is at all worthwhile, why should my world conform to that of E! entertainment?
Okay, I believe I may have misspoken on this one. I'd also like to enter my own contention that, should one choose (for, quite honestly, it is a choice to make this mistake) to view evolutionary theory as religious, it simply must be equally valid to view religious creation stories through the lens of science, wherein they are not supported by science, Scripture, legitimate popular opinion or common sense.
Religion, outside the possibility of comparative religion and religious history classes, does not belong in the public education system of a pluralistic society. I am all for that, just as long as the kids are not forced to take a “comparative religious history class”. Faith is easily disturbed and there are enough bad influences out there…
I'm afraid I don't follow. If there is a "true faith", and it is properly taught by the children's parents and religious community, surely some understanding of other faiths and the historical place of all religions should not threaten that. Besides, in the minds of some, totally invalid, unscientific religious creation myths ought to be forced upon children who don't already understand the underlying principles of science. Surely, reciprocal action would not be amiss?
Nature is chaos and we are part of nature, science is part of us therefore there is chaos in science… quantum... are starting to accept that… the mere idea that science refuses chaos is chaotic…
Ah, a misunderstanding. Very well. For further reference, the actual setup of science is quite possibly one of the most elegant forms of simplistic order arising from chaos. But, I do understand the confusion here. Yes, what we as finite beings view as chaos does exist, and yes, there is a branch of scientific understanding labelled "Chaos Theory", as well as the presence of a number of other theoretical possibilities (quanta, for instance) that appear "chaotic". These are facts, and they stem from the lack of understanding that we have of the cosmos. Interestingly enough, the science to which you ascribe chaos (I'm assuming in a methodologica sense) is the means by which we discover the inherent order behind such apparent chaos. Lower to mid level science history stuff, there, actually.
Now that I have humored you, explain to me why creationism and evolution cannot both be accepted by the same mind? I accept both with equal denial.
I'm sorry; I don't recall making any assertion contrary to that possibility. In fact, I have a great measure of respect for Francis S. Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project, whose book The Language of God argues quite well for both the inclusion of faith in the lives of rational people and the exclusion of faith from public education.
I realy like the concept of too much order....Dna seems to show that it's kind of planed...
And, there's nothing wrong with that. That someone, already biased toward blind acceptance of faith-based dogma can take the order of something like DNA as "evidence" for their worldview is to be expected. The issue arises when a personal statement of belief such as that is taken as a "cause" to be championed and thereafter forced upon others who don't share it. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/15/2006 7:56:05 PM | Greetings all ....... it's been a while!
Does Chakra understand chaos? The weather is chaotic, yet we can predict it (Lorenz, the originator of the'butterfly' was a weatherman who discovered mathematical chaos while attemting to model weather systems). Scientific chaos is deterministic, not random. The problem with chaotic systems is that, even if we know the mathematical description of the system with 100% certainty, it is still impossible to accurately predict unless we know with 100% accuracy the exact numbers to insert into the mathematical expressions - because of the 'sensitivity to initial conditions' known to evryone with any real knowledge of chaos. For example, Lorenz took the numerical printout of his weather system model and reran his model with intermediate numbers from the printout. He found that the rerun diverged from the original. Wow! - a computer program giving different answers for the same conditions! Not quite! The printed output contained fewer decimal places than the computer actually calculated and the few thousandths of a percentage difference in the values he used as input were sufficient to produce a different set of results.
Maybe creationism and evolution can occasionally be accepted by the same mind, but should they be taught in the same class?
Thre seem to be 2 questions in the OP as Trewq pointed out on the previous page.
!) Where's the proof? (of creationism?). The two mosst common responses seem to be that creationism needs faith, not proof and attempts to discredit evolution with the somewhat dubious assumption that creationism must be the only alternative to replace it.
2) Should creationism be taught in school science classes? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/15/2006 8:14:20 PM |
Should creationism be taught in school science classes?
NO. | |
|
|
| Page 148 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 