I can't make this stuff up

Of course when one district in one minor state goes against the norm, the liberal media (in this case CNN) gets ahold of it and blows it out of porportion to the point you think it's being mandated by the national government. Calm down, it's not the end of the world.

Edit: And besides, aren't you liberals the ones who think you should view it from everyone's point of view? Oh yes, that's only when you're talking about others looking at yours.
 
Old beliefs cannot be expected to disappear overnight. There was a time when no logical explanations were available for the great mysteries...
 
[quote name='gamefreak']Of course when one district in one minor state goes against the norm, the liberal media (in this case CNN) gets ahold of it and blows it out of porportion to the point you think it's being mandated by the national government. Calm down, it's not the end of the world.

Edit: And besides, aren't you liberals the ones who think you should view it from everyone's point of view? Oh yes, that's only when you're talking about others looking at yours.[/quote]

From the article:

"The state education board in Kansas was heavily criticized in 1999 when it deleted most references to evolution. The decision was reversed in 2001.

In March, the Ohio Board of Education narrowly approved a lesson plan that some critics contended opens the door to teaching creationism."

This isn't an isolated incident, it's a concerted effort by a sizable group to push judeo-christian beliefs into the school system, and the shocking thing is that their efforts are getting some traction.

Of course, you'd have to read all the way to the very end of the article to see that. And then think about it. OK, I'm not surprised that you missed it.
 
[quote name='Pylis']Wow, an insulting snide comment at the end of the post. What a shock.[/quote]

Wow, ignoring a good point. What a shock.
 
[quote name='camoor']We're already fighting a crusade, and now religious beliefs are again being taught as science:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/11/06/evolution.schools.ap/index.html

All we need is an Inquisition, and we'll have the Dark Ages trifecta!

PS I know there may be some on this board that say it will never happen, but no one expects the Spanish Inquisition![/quote]

I don't see the problem with teaching various points of view on things. Evolution isn't a proven fact but a mere theory. I think many points of view should be explained and then let people make their own choice as to what to believe or question or whatever. Care to explain what's wrong with that?

I do, however, think that the Kansas case with the forbidding teaching of evolution is just wrong. That's a reasonable viewpoint that people should learn about, just like creationism.
 
Evolution isn't a proven fact but a mere theory.
Click to expand...
Sorry, you're wrong.

Evolution is very much like Gravity. Both are known, established facts. We can demonstrate them both. But they are both theories, because we don't know all of the exact mechanisms of either.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm

And why do the creationists (sorry, "intelligent design-ists") insist that only God could design things? Why couldn't it have been space aliens?
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='camoor']We're already fighting a crusade, and now religious beliefs are again being taught as science:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/11/06/evolution.schools.ap/index.html

All we need is an Inquisition, and we'll have the Dark Ages trifecta!

PS I know there may be some on this board that say it will never happen, but no one expects the Spanish Inquisition![/quote]

I don't see the problem with teaching various points of view on things. Evolution isn't a proven fact but a mere theory. I think many points of view should be explained and then let people make their own choice as to what to believe or question or whatever. Care to explain what's wrong with that?

I do, however, think that the Kansas case with the forbidding teaching of evolution is just wrong. That's a reasonable viewpoint that people should learn about, just like creationism.[/quote]

No problem at all. I am a Hellenic neopagan. Let's teach about the Titans, how they represent the various powers of nature, and how Zeus and Co. tamed the Titans and brought us art, literature, philosophy, and war.

Let's not leave the Wiccans out either. They worship the mother goddess, so we should explain how she fertilized the earth by picking a male consort and then discarding him, only to ressurrect him each Spring.

And let's be sure to have the viewpoints of Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Shintoists, Jews, Scientologists, and all of the other religions presented to children when evolution is taught. They all have some merit and should be compared to the viewpoint of science.
 
Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
Click to expand...
- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434

The "theory" is the mechanism of evolution. Evolution has taken place, does take place, and will take place, thats a fact. Just like how Gravity is a fact, but the "theory" of Gravity is about how the mechanisms of Gravity work.
 
BTW, you know that both the pope and the catholic church acknowledge evolution as being fact right? Their spin on it is of course, that it was influenced by God and such...but they do recognize it as being scientifically proven.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']
Evolution isn't a proven fact but a mere theory.
Click to expand...
Sorry, you're wrong.

Evolution is very much like Gravity. Both are known, established facts. We can demonstrate them both. But they are both theories, because we don't know all of the exact mechanisms of either.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm

And why do the creationists (sorry, "intelligent design-ists") insist that only God could design things? Why couldn't it have been space aliens?[/quote]

I'm not saying it's one way or another, because honestly I don't know. But the Theory of Evolution is far from fact. Natural selection, yes, that has been reasonably proven in many studies. However, there are still plenty of questions about the Theory of Evolution, even if you feel they are minor or of little consequence or even able to be outright ignored.

EDIT: Seeing many posts here and noting the viciousness that anything with a hint of religious belief inspires in this forum, I would note that I don't really want an argument, just to state an alternate opinion. Therefore, don't bother typing out long-winded responses because I'm not going to follow up.
 
That's a reasonable viewpoint that people should learn about, just like creationism.
Click to expand...
How is creationism a reasonable viewpoint? It has no basis in fact. There is no evidence to support it. Just because the Bible says so, does not make it true.

Darwin considered evolution to be proof of god's existance and considered it to be his divine plan. Thats his opinion. Some people consider atoms and molecules to be part of god's divine plan, thats another opinion. No one is saying that either of these things is true or false, but they are opinions and beliefs. It would not be unreasonable for you to believe that god created evolution, gravity, molecules, atoms, etc. But it is not reasonable for that to be taught in a school. Religious ideologies and beliefs are best left in Churches.

I'm not saying it's one way or another, because honestly I don't know. But the Theory of Evolution is far from fact. Natural selection, yes, that has been reasonably proven in many studies. However, there are still plenty of questions about the Theory of Evolution, even if you feel they are minor or of little consequence or even able to be outright ignored.
Click to expand...
There are two parts to evolution. One is production and redistribution of genetic variation (i.e. a flock of red butterflies lives in a forest. Due do a genetic mutation, one is born green. The green one is more likely to survive and reproduce, has mostly green offspring, which in turn are more likely to survive and reproduce, and eventually there are more green ones than red.) The second part is natural selection. Which part do you disagree with? Genetics?

Therefore, don't bother typing out long-winded responses because I'm not going to follow up.
Click to expand...
You just don't want to argue the point because you're wrong and you can't win. If you didn't want a discussion, why bother talking about it in the first place?

I have not been vicious. I have not called you names, or used personal attacks. I simply disagree and used evidence to support my argument.
 
Better teach the top 10, just to be safe. O:)

Christianity: 2 billion

Islam: 1.3 billion

Hinduism: 900 million

Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 850 million

Buddhism: 360 million

Chinese traditional religion: 225 million

primal-indigenous: 150 million

African Traditional & Diasporic: 95 million

Sikhism: 23 million

Juche: 19 million

Spiritism: 14 million

Judaism: 14 million

Baha'i: 6 million

Jainism: 4 million

Shinto: 4 million

Cao Dai: 3 million

Tenrikyo: 2.4 million

Neo-Paganism: 1 million

Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand

Rastafarianism: 700 thousand

Scientology: 600 thousand

Zoroastrianism: 150 thousand
 
[quote name='elprincipe']
I'm not saying it's one way or another, because honestly I don't know. But the Theory of Evolution is far from fact. Natural selection, yes, that has been reasonably proven in many studies. However, there are still plenty of questions about the Theory of Evolution, even if you feel they are minor or of little consequence or even able to be outright ignored.

EDIT: Seeing many posts here and noting the viciousness that anything with a hint of religious belief inspires in this forum, I would note that I don't really want an argument, just to state an alternate opinion. Therefore, don't bother typing out long-winded responses because I'm not going to follow up.[/quote]

The theory of evolution isn't far from fact. It's quite proven. The only reason it's called a theory at this point is because the time scale needed to observe the evolution of one species to another hasn't yet really taken place, and there are arguments about the execution of some of the mechanics of the process. However, natural selection as a mechanism has been proven, and that, in and of itself, is essentially confirmation that evolution actually happens.

You can't argue it anymore. Proponents of ID and creationism often cite arguments between various evolutionary biologists as evidence that the theory isn't yet proven, but if you have any understanding of science, peer review, alternate theories, and disagreement are the basis of the scientific process. Whether you're a gradualist, or believe in punctuated equilibrium, the point is that the fundamental mechanics of evolution have been absolutely proven.

"The other side," or the creationists, and believers in ID shouldn't be considered equal, because they're not. They don't have proof of a mecahanism in place, their theories don't predict behaviour, and don't have a single shred of proof beyond anecdotal nonsense. To say that that compares with the *overwhelming* evidence in favor of evolution, and thus they should be taught on equal footing isn't simply naive, it's *stupid*. And yes, gamefreak, I'm talking to you.

Fundamentally, science is a process. It involves the proposition of a hypothesis, examination, revision, refinement, and review. Evolution has withstood some of the harshest scrutiny since the theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Religious institutions with tremendous power and money behind them have been trying as hard as they can to disprove evolution ever since Darwin first wrote about it. And to this day, not a single one has come up with a legitimate criticism of the theory. The scientific community, on the other hand, has refined, reviewed, and revised the theory to the point where it is really a theory in name only. But the scientifically ignorant continue to yammer on about "theory," because they simply don't understand the scientific definition of the word.

I would suggest, if you have questions about evolution, to get the latest National Geographic. The cover has a pretty bold headline: "Was Darwin Wrong?"

When you turn to the first page of the article, it's pretty hard to miss the half page "NO." that leads into the article. Which is titled something to the effect of "The Evidence for Evolution is Overwhelming."

seppo
 
You all make good points. Maybe we should burn the churches down too because they have little factual basis?

Hmmm... that sounds nastier than I meant it to be...
 
It always irritates me to hear science so misrepresented to argue politics. Evolution is a widely accepted theory, but still just a theory. There's no way to "prove" any theory, only support them with findings. So please don't jabber about evolution being a fact. It's not and will never be and to say it IS makes you sound exactly like the side you're railing against. The thing it has going for it over the equally theoretic creationism is that it's based in science. If you absolutly have to argue with the people who defend creationism it's as easy as asking for the empirical evidence behind the theory of creationism. In fact there is none and that's the real reason it shouldn't be covered in any class.
 
[quote name='jmcc']It always irritates me to hear science so misrepresented to argue politics. Evolution is a widely accepted theory, but still just a theory. There's no way to "prove" any theory, only support them with findings. So please don't jabber about evolution being a fact. It's not and will never be and to say it IS makes you sound exactly like the side you're railing against. The thing it has going for it over the equally theoretic creationism is that it's based in science. If you absolutly have to argue with the people who defend creationism it's as easy as asking for the empirical evidence behind the theory of creationism. In fact there is none and that's the real reason it shouldn't be covered in any class.[/quote]

People who argue creationism argue that evolution happened super fast, in seven days, but that it left all those crazy fossils behind. ](*,)

Religion looks at the world from a distinctly human perspective.

Science forces it's practitioners to take a wholly objective viewpoint.

There are spiritual truths covered by religion that science cannot currently (maybe will never) explain, and there are scientific theories that can be used to factually disprove some of the myths that are exclusive to one religion or another.
 
[quote name='gamefreak']You all make good points. Maybe we should burn the churches down too because they have little factual basis?

Hmmm... that sounds nastier than I meant it to be...[/quote]

Remember the Simpsons episode where the town gets religion:

They go on a rampage against science, raiding the Natural History Museum:
Moe is clubbing a mammoth. The tusk falls off, landing on top of him.
"Oh, I'm paralyzed, I just hope medical science can cure me!"
 
[quote name='gamefreak']You all make good points. Maybe we should burn the churches down too because they have little factual basis?[/quote]

I'm all for that.
 
"There's no way to "prove" any theory, only support them with findings."

'course there is. That's how science is done. You propose a theory, then prove it. There *is* a point when theories become laws, or accepted facts. Does that mean they're infallible? Of course not. But what you said is patently untrue.

seppo
 
[quote name='helava']"There's no way to "prove" any theory, only support them with findings."

'course there is. That's how science is done. You propose a theory, then prove it. There *is* a point when theories become laws, or accepted facts. Does that mean they're infallible? Of course not. But what you said is patently untrue.

seppo[/quote]

No, that isn't how science is done and anyone who speaks in absolutes and still claims to be a scientist is a fraud. Nothing can be proven because there's no way to say for sure that the proof doesn't break at some point. You pointed it out yourself. If a proof is fallible how can it be proof? All of science is based on theories that have just worked out so far. They can be shown to be wrong at any point, but science's strength is that it can change as new findings are made.
 
[quote name='evilmax17'][quote name='Pylis']Wow, an insulting snide comment at the end of the post. What a shock.[/quote]

Wow, ignoring a good point. What a shock.[/quote]

I think you missed my point. I never mentioned the argument itself. I was only posting in regard to the verbal attack at the end. It seems that whenever somebody tries to make a point on this forum, they have to somehow "validate" it by adding in a stupid little insult at the end, as though calling the other guy stupid automatically makes them right.
 
[quote name='Pylis'][quote name='evilmax17'][quote name='Pylis']Wow, an insulting snide comment at the end of the post. What a shock.[/quote]

Wow, ignoring a good point. What a shock.[/quote]

I think you missed my point. I never mentioned the argument itself. I was only posting in regard to the verbal attack at the end. It seems that whenever somebody tries to make a point on this forum, they have to somehow "validate" it by adding in a stupid little insult at the end, as though calling the other guy stupid automatically makes them right.[/quote]

Ironically, you missed mine as well. It seems that whenever somebody makes a good point on this board (containing a snide comment or not), it seems that the point itself never gets addressed. Instead of replying to the "meat" of the post, most often somebody will focus in on one small insignificant part of the post and mock it.

How does that make you any better than him? Sure, he ended his post with a sarcastic comment, but there was some good stuff before that. Instead of replying to that, you called him on the most unimportant part of his post. If anything, it just makes it look like you completely concede to his arguement, instead of voicing your opinion whatever he was trying to say.

People using snide comments don't automatically think they're right by using them. The comments are usually just an accent to the post, but not the center of it. Try to focus on the "meat and potatoes" of what somebody has to say next time, instead of individual sentences.
 
[quote name='jmcc'][quote name='helava']"There's no way to "prove" any theory, only support them with findings."

'course there is. That's how science is done. You propose a theory, then prove it. There *is* a point when theories become laws, or accepted facts. Does that mean they're infallible? Of course not. But what you said is patently untrue.

seppo[/quote]

No, that isn't how science is done and anyone who speaks in absolutes and still claims to be a scientist is a fraud. Nothing can be proven because there's no way to say for sure that the proof doesn't break at some point. You pointed it out yourself. If a proof is fallible how can it be proof? All of science is based on theories that have just worked out so far. They can be shown to be wrong at any point, but science's strength is that it can change as new findings are made.[/quote]
You are correct in saying that our overall concept of evolution is a theory, because we don't know all aspects and mechanisms yet. But the existance of evolution is a provable fact. Like I said earlier, its like gravity. We can prove that gravity exists, but we don't yet know everything about it, so its a fact that gravity exists but our concept of gravity is a theory. First we had Newton's theory of gravity, then as science progressed, we went to Einstein's theory of gravity. Our overall concept of how it works can change based on the evidence, but it doesn't change the fact of its existance.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']You are correct in saying that our overall concept of evolution is a theory, because we don't know all aspects and mechanisms yet. But the existance of evolution is a provable fact. Like I said earlier, its like gravity. We can prove that gravity exists, but we don't yet know everything about it, so its a fact that gravity exists but our concept of gravity is a theory. First we had Newton's theory of gravity, then as science progressed, we went to Einstein's theory of gravity. Our overall concept of how it works can change based on the evidence, but it doesn't change the fact of its existance.[/quote]

We haven't proven that gravity exists, though. We've just found that our theory of gravity works, so often, in fact, that we've begun to take it as a constant instead of a variable; But that's not to say that something can't happen that can render everything we know about gravity incorrect, therefore, gravity is not and cannot be proven. The same can be said of any scientific conclusion we can come to, so there can be no proof, only well supported theories.
 
[quote name='jmcc'][quote name='dafoomie']You are correct in saying that our overall concept of evolution is a theory, because we don't know all aspects and mechanisms yet. But the existance of evolution is a provable fact. Like I said earlier, its like gravity. We can prove that gravity exists, but we don't yet know everything about it, so its a fact that gravity exists but our concept of gravity is a theory. First we had Newton's theory of gravity, then as science progressed, we went to Einstein's theory of gravity. Our overall concept of how it works can change based on the evidence, but it doesn't change the fact of its existance.[/quote]

We haven't proven that gravity exists, though. We've just found that our theory of gravity works, so often, in fact, that we've begun to take it as a constant instead of a variable; But that's not to say that something can't happen that can render everything we know about gravity incorrect, therefore, gravity is not and cannot be proven. The same can be said of any scientific conclusion we can come to, so there can be no proof, only well supported theories.[/quote]
You misunderstand. Everything we ever knew about either can be completely wrong. But gravity happens, and evolution happens, and both can be demonstrated and proven to happen. We could very well be wrong, and if gravity is caused by little spirits in everything, then fine, but it still happens (not to belittle you, just using an extreme example).
 
[quote name='jmcc']It always irritates me to hear science so misrepresented to argue politics. Evolution is a widely accepted theory, but still just a theory. There's no way to "prove" any theory, only support them with findings. So please don't jabber about evolution being a fact. It's not and will never be and to say it IS makes you sound exactly like the side you're railing against. The thing it has going for it over the equally theoretic creationism is that it's based in science. If you absolutly have to argue with the people who defend creationism it's as easy as asking for the empirical evidence behind the theory of creationism. In fact there is none and that's the real reason it shouldn't be covered in any class.[/quote]

Exactly, I couldn't agree with you more on the Evolution comment about it being based on Science rather than Religion. This is why I'd rather have my kid(if I ever have one) taught Evolution then have some Judeo-Christian idea shoved down his throat. Honestly if Creationism is taught it should be taught with the other religions "Big Bang" theories with students to philosophize about it or whatever. HOWEVER putting it in the same category or directly relating it or rather equating said idea anywhere NEAR Evolution is just plain insulting.
 
[quote name='dafoomie'][quote name='jmcc'][quote name='dafoomie']You are correct in saying that our overall concept of evolution is a theory, because we don't know all aspects and mechanisms yet. But the existance of evolution is a provable fact. Like I said earlier, its like gravity. We can prove that gravity exists, but we don't yet know everything about it, so its a fact that gravity exists but our concept of gravity is a theory. First we had Newton's theory of gravity, then as science progressed, we went to Einstein's theory of gravity. Our overall concept of how it works can change based on the evidence, but it doesn't change the fact of its existance.[/quote]

We haven't proven that gravity exists, though. We've just found that our theory of gravity works, so often, in fact, that we've begun to take it as a constant instead of a variable; But that's not to say that something can't happen that can render everything we know about gravity incorrect, therefore, gravity is not and cannot be proven. The same can be said of any scientific conclusion we can come to, so there can be no proof, only well supported theories.[/quote]

You misunderstand. Everything we ever knew about either can be completely wrong. But gravity happens, and evolution happens, and both can be demonstrated and proven to happen. We could very well be wrong, and if gravity is caused by little spirits in everything, then fine, but it still happens (not to belittle you, just using an extreme example).[/quote]

So if it can be wrong, then how can it be proof?

Maybe we're using the word in two different senses here. I mean proof to be the idea that there can be an absolute explanation for something, so that the theory can be discarded and people can say "yep, that's exactly what's going on." I don't believe in such a thing and I don't accept that anyone who claims to follow science does either. There are simply too many variables we don't know of or don't know how to measure/observe to say anything in such an absolute sense. I can accept that what I know of gravity is pulling me down right now, because the theory of gravity not only passes Ocham's Razor, but I'm observing the evidence of it right now. However, if someone could present to me compelling evidence that it wasn't gravity that was keeping me on the ground and was instead spirits like you mentioned I'd have to re-evaluate my theory. Therefore, I have no proof that gravity exists, only a theory and my own experience.

edit: a particularly apt quote, I think, on the subject: "Because every scientific statement is falsifiable, we must be forever open to the possibility (however remote) that some new observation or experiment will prove it wrong. The "falliblist" says, in effect, that "while I have strong beliefs, I am forever prepared to change these beliefs if confronted with compelling evidence to the contrary.""
 
Just want to point out the fact that we now have to justify teaching science as opposed to Christian fundamentalism in the (supposedly secular) school system.

Every technological marvel that y'all take for granted in your life right now, from cars to microwaves to the internets, were created by good ol' empirical science. Religion makes alot of people feel better, treat their fellow man with more compassion, and maybe gain some enlightenment, but it will not help you to build a better mousetrap.

You'd never be able to come up with the concept of DNA if people still believed that all the variants of life were a mystery cooked up by God in 7 days. Things like parachutes and airplanes and bullet trains are only successful because we have a pretty good scientific theory of how gravity works.

If you teach fundamentalism in the schools, you're going to have a bunch of people trying to excorcise the demonic viruses from their computers, and praying over cars that don't start. Seriously though, it's really starting to go from scary to sad in this country.
 
[quote name='evilmax17'][quote name='Pylis'][quote name='evilmax17'][quote name='Pylis']Wow, an insulting snide comment at the end of the post. What a shock.[/quote]

Wow, ignoring a good point. What a shock.[/quote]

I think you missed my point. I never mentioned the argument itself. I was only posting in regard to the verbal attack at the end. It seems that whenever somebody tries to make a point on this forum, they have to somehow "validate" it by adding in a stupid little insult at the end, as though calling the other guy stupid automatically makes them right.[/quote]

Ironically, you missed mine as well. It seems that whenever somebody makes a good point on this board (containing a snide comment or not), it seems that the point itself never gets addressed. Instead of replying to the "meat" of the post, most often somebody will focus in on one small insignificant part of the post and mock it.

How does that make you any better than him? Sure, he ended his post with a sarcastic comment, but there was some good stuff before that. Instead of replying to that, you called him on the most unimportant part of his post. If anything, it just makes it look like you completely concede to his arguement, instead of voicing your opinion whatever he was trying to say.

People using snide comments don't automatically think they're right by using them. The comments are usually just an accent to the post, but not the center of it. Try to focus on the "meat and potatoes" of what somebody has to say next time, instead of individual sentences.[/quote]

See, the ending of your post came across as condescending. This is what I'm talking about--this "accent" makes people less likely to take posts seriously and ultimately ignore them. Now, I did read the original post, and though it was well backed up I felt it was a bit far-fetched, personally. But again, it was a well-stated opinion. I addressed the "least important" part of his post because it was that part of the post that I objected to.

As for the isolation of one minute section of a post so that it can be mocked, well, I agree with you completely. This is something that happens on both sides frequently and needs to stop. And so that I don't sound too hypocritical, allow me to differentiate my comment by at least claiming that I never meant to mock his whole post and I certainly didn't mean to give that impression. I merely addressed the insult at the end because I disagree with the practice; I didn't mean to try to condemn or lessen the rest of his argument. If you feel that this is what I did, I apologize, as it was not my intention.
 
[quote name='camoor']Just want to point out the fact that we now have to justify teaching science as opposed to Christian fundamentalism in the (supposedly secular) school system.

Every technological marvel that y'all take for granted in your life right now, from cars to microwaves to the internets, were created by good ol' empirical science. Religion makes alot of people feel better, treat their fellow man with more compassion, and maybe gain some enlightenment, but it will not help you to build a better mousetrap.

You'd never be able to come up with the concept of DNA if people still believed that all the variants of life were a mystery cooked up by God in 7 days. Things like parachutes and airplanes and bullet trains are only successful because we have a pretty good scientific theory of how gravity works.

If you teach fundamentalism in the schools, you're going to have a bunch of people trying to excorcise the demonic viruses from their computers, and praying over cars that don't start. Seriously though, it's really starting to go from scary to sad in this country.[/quote]

I'll restate my point: if creationism can be run through scientific method I'd have no problem at all with it being discussed in a class. But it can't, so it shouldn't be taught in a class for that reason alone, nevermind separation of church and state.
 
For evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

And for the various kinds of creationism: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html

When I was in high school (about ten years ago) we had to dedicate a couple of lectures to Progressive Creationism which basically says that God creates a series of organisms, lets them roam about for a while (I think it was usually a few thousand years), ends their existance, and then starts over. The fossils that we uncover are the remains of organisms from previous cycles. I never exactly understood what the evidence behind this 'theory' was since it didn't involve any explanation other than 'there's big dead crap in the ground that isn't mentioned in the Bible, so God made it, got rid of it, and made all modern animals'.

Some of the more recent versions of Creationism, like Theistic Evolution, don't really argue the science of evolution but rather states that evolution is God's tool for creating and refining all living things. I have no issue with people wanting to apply a religious context to various evidence uncovered to explain where we came from. In fact, I think it can be healthy; you're reaffirming your personal faith by applying it in the context of an ever changing and ever learning world. Church officials can discuss it with their members in Sunday school sessions or during congregation. Those are private institutions with people who choose to be of that faith (occasionally rebelious children notwithstanding ;) )

But while Creationism theories may use scientfic observations to various degrees, the core reason for the existance of Creationism births from faith, not science. And for that reason, I think Creationism theory does not belong in a public school where the people attending are not all going to come from the same faith, or even have a faith. When you introduce any theory into a public curriculum that says "God did it like this," you're at least implying (if not outright stating) that our thoughts on our existence should be stated in the context of a specific deity that has no scientific evidence for or against its existance. And that goes against the idea of keeping the Church and State apart.

It took me a while to write out this response, and it looks like there were some new posts since I started, so I apologize if I've repeated a bunch of newly stated arguments.
 
[quote name='jmcc'][quote name='dafoomie'][quote name='jmcc'][quote name='dafoomie']You are correct in saying that our overall concept of evolution is a theory, because we don't know all aspects and mechanisms yet. But the existance of evolution is a provable fact. Like I said earlier, its like gravity. We can prove that gravity exists, but we don't yet know everything about it, so its a fact that gravity exists but our concept of gravity is a theory. First we had Newton's theory of gravity, then as science progressed, we went to Einstein's theory of gravity. Our overall concept of how it works can change based on the evidence, but it doesn't change the fact of its existance.[/quote]

We haven't proven that gravity exists, though. We've just found that our theory of gravity works, so often, in fact, that we've begun to take it as a constant instead of a variable; But that's not to say that something can't happen that can render everything we know about gravity incorrect, therefore, gravity is not and cannot be proven. The same can be said of any scientific conclusion we can come to, so there can be no proof, only well supported theories.[/quote]

You misunderstand. Everything we ever knew about either can be completely wrong. But gravity happens, and evolution happens, and both can be demonstrated and proven to happen. We could very well be wrong, and if gravity is caused by little spirits in everything, then fine, but it still happens (not to belittle you, just using an extreme example).[/quote]

So if it can be wrong, then how can it be proof?

Maybe we're using the word in two different senses here. I mean proof to be the idea that there can be an absolute explanation for something, so that the theory can be discarded and people can say "yep, that's exactly what's going on." I don't believe in such a thing and I don't accept that anyone who claims to follow science does either. There are simply too many variables we don't know of or don't know how to measure/observe to say anything in such an absolute sense. I can accept that what I know of gravity is pulling me down right now, because the theory of gravity not only passes Ocham's Razor, but I'm observing the evidence of it right now. However, if someone could present to me compelling evidence that it wasn't gravity that was keeping me on the ground and was instead spirits like you mentioned I'd have to re-evaluate my theory. Therefore, I have no proof that gravity exists, only a theory and my own experience.

edit: a particularly apt quote, I think, on the subject: "Because every scientific statement is falsifiable, we must be forever open to the possibility (however remote) that some new observation or experiment will prove it wrong. The "falliblist" says, in effect, that "while I have strong beliefs, I am forever prepared to change these beliefs if confronted with compelling evidence to the contrary.""[/quote]
You are not understanding me at all.
I'm not in the mood to explain it to you. Just know that you completely missed what I was trying to say.
 
Evolution is a well documented and tested theory that is almost a law.

Creation is a "because I said so" thing, no documentation except for a vague reference in a book with no named author, and there is no way to test it.

There are no shades of grey here.
 
I'll try again JMCC. I'm not really disagreeing with your statement.

There are behaviors that happen in the world which are proven facts. If you drop something, it will fall. If you drop something heavy and something light, they will fall at the same speed. There is genetic mutation which is sometimes advantageous. Species more suited to live in their environment, and better able to reproduce more offspring, will live and reproduce more of themselves better than others. These are proven facts. These facts make up the basis of our theories. Genetic mutation and natural selection occur in nature, thats a proven fact. Therefore, evolution occurs in nature. Now, our concept of evolution, and what we think are the mechanisms of evolution, is a theory. It tries to explain why it happens and predict what will happen. But it is proven that it takes place.

Now, the Creationists are not disputing what we think is true, they are disputing the facts that have been proven time and again. My point is not that all of what we know of Evolution is a fact. My point is that they are disputing the things which are facts. Lets say that the sky is blue, and our hypothesis is that it is caused by the ocean reflecting light. They are not saying that its not the ocean or the sun, they are arguing that the sky is not blue.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']I'll try again JMCC. I'm not really disagreeing with your statement.

There are behaviors that happen in the world which are proven facts. If you drop something, it will fall. If you drop something heavy and something light, they will fall at the same speed. There is genetic mutation which is sometimes advantageous. Species more suited to live in their environment, and better able to reproduce more offspring, will live and reproduce more of themselves better than others. These are proven facts. These facts make up the basis of our theories. Genetic mutation and natural selection occur in nature, thats a proven fact. Therefore, evolution occurs in nature. Now, our concept of evolution, and what we think are the mechanisms of evolution, is a theory. It tries to explain why it happens and predict what will happen. But it is proven that it takes place.

Now, the Creationists are not disputing what we think is true, they are disputing the facts that have been proven time and again. My point is not that all of what we know of Evolution is a fact. My point is that they are disputing the things which are facts. Lets say that the sky is blue, and our hypothesis is that it is caused by the ocean reflecting light. They are not saying that its not the ocean or the sun, they are arguing that the sky is not blue.[/quote]

I guess we can't totally agree on this, though it's not the end of the world, since we agree on the points on evolution and creationism. The only difference here is your willingness to call [what I think of as] widely accepted scientific theory one name and my reluctence to do so. Maybe it's moving into the realm of philosophy at this point, though.
 
[quote name='jmcc'][quote name='dafoomie']I'll try again JMCC. I'm not really disagreeing with your statement.

There are behaviors that happen in the world which are proven facts. If you drop something, it will fall. If you drop something heavy and something light, they will fall at the same speed. There is genetic mutation which is sometimes advantageous. Species more suited to live in their environment, and better able to reproduce more offspring, will live and reproduce more of themselves better than others. These are proven facts. These facts make up the basis of our theories. Genetic mutation and natural selection occur in nature, thats a proven fact. Therefore, evolution occurs in nature. Now, our concept of evolution, and what we think are the mechanisms of evolution, is a theory. It tries to explain why it happens and predict what will happen. But it is proven that it takes place.

Now, the Creationists are not disputing what we think is true, they are disputing the facts that have been proven time and again. My point is not that all of what we know of Evolution is a fact. My point is that they are disputing the things which are facts. Lets say that the sky is blue, and our hypothesis is that it is caused by the ocean reflecting light. They are not saying that its not the ocean or the sun, they are arguing that the sky is not blue.[/quote]

I guess we can't totally agree on this, though it's not the end of the world, since we agree on the points on evolution and creationism. The only difference here is your willingness to call [what I think of as] widely accepted scientific theory one name and my reluctence to do so. Maybe it's moving into the realm of philosophy at this point, though.[/quote]
We're kinda nitpicking, yeah. I should be more specific, evolution is a theory, but many of the various elements that comprise evolution are facts, such as natural selection.
 
It's not theory so much as definition. We have proved that gravity exists, from a scientific perspective. This is literally a semantic argument. We have also proven the *mechanism* of evolution exists.

When I say "theory" I'm not talking about the general definition of the word theory, I'm talking about the scientific definition of the word. If I'm talking about "proof" the same distinction applies. Any legitimate scientifically minded person understands that these things are open to revision. The point is, in current practical application, and observation, natural selection has been proven to occur. The specifics of the actual application of natural selection are still open to some debate - punctuated equilibrium? Gradualism? The point is that in so far as it can be proved, it has been proved from a scientific perspective.

If the scientific method showed evidence that this was all wrong, then whatever hypothesis is formed by that observation would have to be tested. That's the way the review system works.

But the point still stands, that as much as any scientific principle can be "proved," NS has been proved to exist.

seppo
 
Here is the way the scientific method works:

First, there are several hypothesis that need to be proven/disproven. All of them may be disproven, but it is only possible for one to be proven correct. Once a hypothesis is proven correct, it is upgraded in status to a theory. In science, a theory is a proven fact. Thus, we have the Theory of Gravity, the Theory of Evolution, the Atomic Theory, the Theory of Relativity, etc. Theories are incomplete, however. There are certain aspects that need further refinement or revision. Once everything possible is known to form a complete understanding of a theory, it is again upgraded in status to a law. Thus we have the Law of Conservation of Energy, the Law of Conservation of Mass, etc. Due to the definitions above, the "theory" of intelligent design is not a theory, it is actually a hypothesis, one that was disproven long ago. People who insist it should be taught side by side with evolution were obviously "left behind" in science class, as they have little understanding of the mechanisms behind science.
 
You are all so wrong. the univers was created by my genitals...by shooting my magic wad into the only star (at the time) i created eveything!!!! and as soon as i can get this taught in schools (hopefully starting at the preschool level) you will all see its many good and factuall points
 
Well most evangelicals (the people that put Bush in the white house) don't believe in any type of science.

Every step of the way (except in making weapons) scientific progress has been hindered by radical Christians.
 
Which, I think, is pretty weird given that science makes modern life possible. I'd love to see people who don't believe in science renounce its benefits, to be perfectly honest. Oh, the things they would have to forsake. It would be really damn fun to watch.

seppo
 
[quote name='helava']Which, I think, is pretty weird given that science makes modern life possible. I'd love to see people who don't believe in science renounce its benefits, to be perfectly honest. Oh, the things they would have to forsake. It would be really damn fun to watch.

seppo[/quote]

Yeah, our entire society would be Amish.
 
[quote name='coffman'][quote name='helava']Which, I think, is pretty weird given that science makes modern life possible. I'd love to see people who don't believe in science renounce its benefits, to be perfectly honest. Oh, the things they would have to forsake. It would be really damn fun to watch.

seppo[/quote]

Yeah, our entire society would be Amish.[/quote]

Funny you bring that up...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/05/amish.vote.ap/
 
And now Bush has appointed Hager, a super-fundamentalist Christian, as head of the FDA's Reproductive Health
Drugs Advisory Committee. I am scared for the women in this country.


President Bush has selected Dr. W. David Hager to
head up the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Reproductive Health
Drugs Advisory Committee. The committee has not met for more than two
years, during which time its charter lapsed. As a result, the Bush
Administration is tasked with filling all eleven positions with new
members. This position does not require Congressional approval.

The FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee makes crucial
decisions on matters relating to drugs used in the practice of
obstetrics, gynecology and related specialties, including hormone
therapy, contraception, treatment for infertility, and medical
alternatives to surgical procedures for sterilization and pregnancy
termination.

Dr. Hager, the author of "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women
Then and Now." The book blends biblical accounts of Christ healing
Women with case studies from Hager's practice. His views of
reproductive health care are far outside the mainstream for
reproductive technology. Dr. Hager is a practicing OB/GYN who
describes himself as "pro-life" and refuses to prescribe
contraceptives to unmarried women.

In the book Dr. Hager wrote with his wife, entitled "Stress and the
Woman's Body," he suggests that women who suffer from premenstrual
syndrome should seek help from reading the bible and praying. As an
editor and contributing author of "The Reproduction Revolution: A
Christian Appraisal of Sexuality Reproductive Technologies and the
Family," Dr. Hager appears to have endorsed the medically inaccurate
assertion that the common birth control pill is an abortifacient.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top