Evolution not the only thing to be taught anymore?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

This always rather confuses me. If there is a God, then reality is whatever he made it, and Science is the deeply religious act of appreciating His work.

And as such "Science" would stop being Scientific. If the accepted concept is that "god happens", that things happen, not because of some natural flow of causation, some definable, predictable, testable, unwavering set of laws and processes, but because some old guy in the sky snaps his fingers. Then science woould be like "Art Appeciation". "Oh isn't interaction between that chemical and the body cute this time?" instead of Medical Science finding a cure for a disease.

Why could not God create life through evolution?

Because it would then NOT BE Evolution. It would be interference from an outside agent.

As to whether life is too complex to be developed without a Creator, the jury is out.

Not if you talk to ANY credible peer reviewed scientist that works in a directly related field of research.

 

The only ones that reject a natural Abiogenesis are those locked into antiquated religious superstition.

When we don't know it is perfectly valid to say a thing is an act of God.

A comment which shows complete ignorance of true Science.

 

Anyone with even a shred of basic understanding of Scientific Method would laugh at such a stupid claim. It is NEVER Scientifically acceptable to state "We don't know so we will blindly accept... "

Well, we don't know yet. At any time the mechanism may be worked out, but that won't be an attack on God's existence, or power.

And an unwillingness to accept the specific rejection of religious dogma when it is shown to be wrong by Science has been a corner stone of the intentional enforcement of ignorance over knowledge by religious authority. It is seen at every advancement of Knowledge over religious ignorance. People were killed by religious authorities for claiming the earth is not flat, circles the sun, ... by this same mindset. Hypatia, Giordano Bruno, ...

 

The US is falling behind the rest of the world in Science and it is directly related to Fundies trying to stop true Science from being taught in our schools.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Stargazer

That's something that is confusing as far as the behaviour of creationists. They think that creationism is supported by evidence, that it's a theory just like evolution or big bang. They seem to be completely blind to the fact that they are completely wrong, and that the theory of evolution is one of our most successful ones.

Religious authorities understand that people do tend to use some level of reasoning to make decisions. Thus they attempt to package their antiquated superstisions in psuedo-science to make it more acceptable to "modern" society. They will twist and distort Science and it's knowledge base in an effort to provide straws for the desperately addicted believers to grab at. And the religious, scientifically ignorant masses will accept these distortions, just as we have seen on this thread.

 

And when these distortions and lies are exposed, the ultimate fall back is obfuscation and appeals to faith. As we see perfectly in:

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Science is the deeply religious act of appreciating His work. Why could not God create life through evolution?

...

When we don't know it is perfectly valid to say a thing is an act of God.

...

At any time the mechanism may be worked out, but that won't be an attack on God's existence, or power.

...

Science can have dogmas too.

Complete distortions of what true Science is and how it works.

When students that are brainwashed with religion comes to a college and gets in touch with real science (assuming that they are going to a real university), they will have a disadvantage. If this happens to a lot of people, then America will fall behind.

WILL fall behind? Sorry, we have ALREADY fallen behind and are slipping fast.

These people are willing to destroy the education for entire generations.

One of Hitler's first efforts was to defund Public Schools and promote Christian schools. He stated that his (Christian) efforts were best acheived by a believing public.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tormod

I thought the US had a separation between the state and the church. Why can't Americans teach their religion at home, and science in school?

Christians have no intention of allowing the Constitutional protection to stand. And they have cheated the US in another election to keep their standard bearer in place.

 

It is a Wedge Strategy and is published in books exactly that way. To destroy the wall brick by brick, Truth by truth. Fact by Fact.

 

As during the Dark Ages (the last time Christianity ruled the world) they are in a desperate struggle to destroy any factual information that does not conform to their antiquated superstitions and hateful dogma. They are well organized, well funded and will stop at nothing. Lying, cheating, stealing, killing are well established tools of thier trade. And they do not hesitate to use any and all of them.

[lindagarrette]

One method teachers cn use, and if they are scientists at all, they are aware of the principle of falsifiability For an assertion to be falsifiable, in principle it must be possible to make an observation or do a physical experiment that would show the assertion to be false. For example, the assertion "All crows are black" could be falsified by observing one red crow. Any thinking person can relate to this. Try to falsify one of the ID assertions.

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

From Skeptical Inquirer, Nov-Dec, 2001 by Randy Moore

 

* In Oklahoma, 33 percent of high school biology teachers place little or no emphasis on evolution. In Kentucky, Indiana, and Tennessee, 23 percent of high school biology teachers have the same view (Weld and McNew 1999).

 

* In Louisiana, 24 percent of high school teachers believe that creationism is scientifically valid, and another 17 percent are not sure. Even more (29 percent) believe that creationism should be included in high school biology classes. More than one-third of the high school biology teachers in Louisiana's public schools allocate time to creationism (Moore 1999c).

 

* In Minnesota, 40 percent of biology teachers spend little or no time teaching evolution (Hessler 2000).

 

* In Pennsylvania, one-third of high school biology teachers do not believe that evolution is central to biology (Weld and McNew 1999).

 

* In Indiana, 33 percent of high school biology teachers reject or are undecided about whether evolution is a scientifically valid explanation of the state of living organisms of the past and present (Rutledge and Mitchell 2002).

 

In my kids' Middle School the Biology teacher tells me he does not ahve time to teach Evolution, just "Change over time". Want to guess what his personal POV is?

Ok that's just depressing. One would think that teachers, who are educated in the field they are to teach in, would know better than that. How is it even possible that those who are trained in the field of biology doesn't know one of the most important parts of it? Or did they just disregard it as soon as they got their degree and then they just throw away everything that goes against their own beliefs? But why would they do that? Who would intentionally throw away scientific knowledge in favour of some old myths? Is reality really that insufficient to them? Ok this is just driving me mad. How frustrating.

 

Religious authorities understand that people do tend to use some level of reasoning to make decisions. Thus they attempt to package their antiquated superstisions in psuedo-science to make it more acceptable to "modern" society. They will twist and distort Science and it's knowledge base in an effort to provide straws for the desperately addicted believers to grab at. And the religious, scientifically ignorant masses will accept these distortions, just as we have seen on this thread.

 

And when these distortions and lies are exposed, the ultimate fall back is obfuscation and appeals to faith.

The creationists (Genesis version) live on ignorance. Maybe the leaders in the creationist movement know full well that they are spreading rubbish, but the sad part is they are using the ignorant people. A majority of the people have been told to believe in the god of the Bible, and then they continue to do so without questioning it. I think it's unfair to do that to those who don't know enough to defend themselves.

 

Also, when their tactics to turn religion into science fails (as it will), they will fall back on things like morals and ethics. They will claim that the theory of evolution is immoral and leads to a wide range of things from communism and abortion to pornography. They also say that if the theory of evolution is true, then that means there are no objective morals. Eh? So does that mean that if evolution is falsified, then there will be objective moral values, and as long as it's not falsified, there are no such values? How bizarre is that?

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Why could not God create life through evolution?

Depends on what god you're talking about. Clearly not the god of the Bible.

 

As to whether life is too complex to be developed without a Creator, the jury is out. Life evolved, but we don't know how it started. The jump from chemicals to life puzzles us all. Can it happen by chance alone.

Oh good. I was wondering when the word "chance" would come up. Well, there it is. No debate concerning creationism vs. science is complete without it. Creationists often say that life could never have come about by pure chance, or chance alone or similar. Therefor, god exists. Why are the two only options a creator or chance? Because we all know it wasn't because of "chance alone" so therefor it had to be a creator. Of course not. What is often forgotten is chemistry and the different behaviours in different elements and how they react with each other. If they did so by chance alone, we wouldn't be here thinking about it.

 

How easy is it? We just don't know. When we don't know it is perfectly valid to say a thing is an act of God.

Which one? Why is the god of the gaps more valid than any other? It's just filling material.

 

Finally a warning. Evolution is clearly substantially correct, but it might not be the whole story. Science can have dogmas too.

The wonderful thing about science is that it changes as more information comes in. This is why the theory of evolution is not "complete" and probably never will be. The fact that it happened is indisputable, what the discussion is about is how it happened and how the species are related etc.

[BlameTheEx]

Stargazer

 

You say:

_____________________________________________________________

Depends on what god you're talking about. Clearly not the god of the Bible.

_____________________________________________________________

 

I can't pretend to be an expert on religion, being as I am an atheist. However what I have read of the Bible makes me believe that you can make it say just about anything you want it to. I would have to answer "The bible according to who?". Are you sure there are no genuine Christians, or for that matter Jews who believe in Evolution?

 

Regarding your next bit:

_________________________________________________________________

Oh good. I was wondering when the word "chance" would come up. Well, there it is. No debate concerning creationism vs. science is complete without it. Creationists often say that life could never have come about by pure chance, or chance alone or similar. Therefor, god exists. Why are the two only options a creator or chance? Because we all know it wasn't because of "chance alone" so therefor it had to be a creator. Of course not. What is often forgotten is chemistry and the different behaviours in different elements and how they react with each other. If they did so by chance alone, we wouldn't be here thinking about it.

___________________________________________________________________________

 

This rather confuses me. I was not attempting to be cynical or sarcastic, although if I have it right, that is what you are attempting. I said the Jury is out and I meant it. Still I could be wrong. Do you have evidence for a firm conclusion in ether direction?

 

then there was:

__________________________________________________________________________

Which one? Why is the god of the gaps more valid than any other? It's just filling material.

__________________________________________________________________________

 

Sorry and all that, but now I am completely lost. Care to put it into words that simple bloke like me can understand?

[Tim_Lou]

if god made science, he would want us to know about it. : )

 

if god and science could coexist, science would still be the winner!

[creationist]

#1 i think no theory on the existance of man should b taught in a public school although they say it is merely a theory of intelligence they do indeed force there beliefs on students and thats not the states job #2 i dont beleive creationistic ideas should b taught in a public school either beliefs, theorys and ideas shouldnt b taught....i happen 2 b a creationist i find evolution 2 b foolish and incompitent for 1 the man who came up with the theory actually completly denied it before he died...talk about a good start of a theory ehh next i will challenge the belief of human beings evolving froma lesser species...the anotomy of humans and the even more complicated anatomy of a single molecule is so intricate and complex that 2 think it happened by chance is pure insanity! and u speak of scentific evidence showing evolutionism to be correct! does ne1 know wat science is??? the real meaning? it is a procedure or idea that can b recreated or retested infinately and still result with the same conclusion ...evolution has never been retesed and never been seen its only a guess now the belief in god u could say is also a guess but its more of faith if u think of the fact that we all evolved from other primative beings wat is the reason for our existence ?? pleasure?? and if so then how did we evolve into pleasure craving beings did we just decide we wanted sex 2 feel good did we just decide we wanted 2 b amused did we just

grow a sense of humor??? the human brain cant even be completly figured out and we just decided to "through time" grow 1....now thats educated thinking....now adaption which i do believe in is a completly different story sometimes considered micro evolution ...its macro evoltion i find 2 b so inadequate the truth about evoltion is that its a scape goat....it needs no faith no work its just and excuse to do watever u want whenever you please and have no worries about wat will happen...we will see who was right when judgement day comes

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: creationist

#1 i think no theory on the existance of man should b taught in a public school although they say it is merely a theory of intelligence they do indeed force there beliefs on students and thats not the states job

Nor should they teach math. Forget all that stuff we can prove and have facts behind. Forget all that stuff dealing with accurately dealing with our existence. Math is just another Atheistic attempt to force belief in numbers rather than god!

#2 i dont beleive creationistic ideas should b taught in a public school either beliefs, theorys and ideas shouldnt b taught

Ya all them nasty "theory" things! Like the Theory of Gravity. Bad stuff. Makes you do immoral things! You couldn't drop your pants if it wasn't for gravity!

 

Or that horrible Theory about how we see things because "particles" we call photons! If god didn't want us to see something no pile of photons could help!

....i happen 2 b a creationist

Woulda never guessed!

i find evolution 2 b foolish and incompitent

And makes spellen dificult also too!

for 1 the man who came up with the theory actually completly denied it before he died...

Ya, I got a mp3 of that somewhere around here. They were able to record his dying words. Would you like to hear it?

we will see who was right when judgement day comes

That's right, when all them heathens get to burn in hell for eternity by our loving god! Nothen like suffering for ever to make you change your mind!

 

And you had not even think of questioning it, cause that might be the instant that god brings you home and that one thought could cause you to fry like a burger on the 4th for the rest of your immortal life!

 

Amen brother!

 

Ignernt Evolushunists

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Stargazer

 

You say:

_____________________________________________________________

Depends on what god you're talking about. Clearly not the god of the Bible.

_____________________________________________________________

 

I can't pretend to be an expert on religion, being as I am an atheist. However what I have read of the Bible makes me believe that you can make it say just about anything you want it to. I would have to answer "The bible according to who?". Are you sure there are no genuine Christians, or for that matter Jews who believe in Evolution?

I must be pretty dense if I didn't see from your last post that you're an atheist. I was sure of the opposite actually. Anyway, in the Genesis, god creates the universe as one big ocean, apparently. Or maybe it's just our planet that's created as a waterworld, but I doubt it. Then he creates day and night although there are no planets and no stars around. The heavens is created as a firmament, whatever that means. It's not really that firm. Webster.com tells me "firmament" is "the vault or arch of the sky : HEAVENS" or "obsolete : BASIS." This seems to suggest that the heavens is like a firm arch or dome. The water is then gathered to one place, which seems odd because there's water in many places on this planet. Then fruits and herbs were created. And then, even though god created light almost first of all, he now decides to create light, one big light to rule the day and a small one to rule the night, and then the other stars. This is weird, since he already created light and day and night a few days before. And so on and so forth. If we read it the way it's written, it makes no sense at all. This is not surprising.

 

Regarding your next bit:

_________________________________________________________________

Oh good. I was wondering when the word "chance" would come up. Well, there it is. No debate concerning creationism vs. science is complete without it. Creationists often say that life could never have come about by pure chance, or chance alone or similar. Therefor, god exists. Why are the two only options a creator or chance? Because we all know it wasn't because of "chance alone" so therefor it had to be a creator. Of course not. What is often forgotten is chemistry and the different behaviours in different elements and how they react with each other. If they did so by chance alone, we wouldn't be here thinking about it.

___________________________________________________________________________

 

This rather confuses me. I was not attempting to be cynical or sarcastic, although if I have it right, that is what you are attempting. I said the Jury is out and I meant it. Still I could be wrong. Do you have evidence for a firm conclusion in ether direction?

What? You brought up the subject as most creationists I've seen would have done, by asking if god did it or if it was chance alone. Why is a creator even an option to some people? Where did that idea come from? What is it based upon? It seems like it's a possible option to you, but I could be wrong.

 

then there was:

__________________________________________________________________________

Which one? Why is the god of the gaps more valid than any other? It's just filling material.

__________________________________________________________________________

 

Sorry and all that, but now I am completely lost. Care to put it into words that simple bloke like me can understand?

As you might remember, you said "How easy is it? We just don't know. When we don't know it is perfectly valid to say a thing is an act of God."

That is what god of the gaps is. When you don't have an answer, you think god is a valid answer. I thought you said you were an atheist though? Or maybe not, it's not that obvious.

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by: creationist

#1 i think no theory on the existance of man should b taught in a public school although they say it is merely a theory of intelligence they do indeed force there beliefs on students and thats not the states job

Yes, let's do away with theories you don't like. Those crazy scientists, always trying to find real answers when my fairytales are perfectly valid.

 

#2 i dont beleive creationistic ideas should b taught in a public school either beliefs, theorys and ideas shouldnt b taught....

So you want to get rid of science completely. Why? Because your old myths are so fragile they would fall apart at the slightest investigation?

 

i happen 2 b a creationist i find evolution 2 b foolish and incompitent for 1 the man who came up with the theory actually completly denied it before he died...

No he didn't. Even the nuts over at Answers in Genesis have admitted that this is a bad argument. The theory has support from all over the world, for 150 years it's only been enjoying more support in the form of evidence. Apparently this is something you choose to ignore. But why?

 

talk about a good start of a theory ehh next i will challenge the belief of human beings evolving froma lesser species...the anotomy of humans and the even more complicated anatomy of a single molecule is so intricate and complex that 2 think it happened by chance is pure insanity!

Please, could we leave out that argument just once? Why do creationists have to say that either god did it or it was pure chance? Don't you know that the elements have different chemical properties and react with each other in different ways? Do you think that maybe that could have anything to do with it?

 

and u speak of scentific evidence showing evolutionism to be correct! does ne1 know wat science is??? the real meaning? it is a procedure or idea that can b recreated or retested infinately and still result with the same conclusion ...evolution has never been retesed and never been seen its only a guess

Yes, it has been seen and still is.

 

now the belief in god u could say is also a guess but its more of faith if u think of the fact that we all evolved from other primative beings wat is the reason for our existence ??

Who said there has to be a reason?

 

pleasure?? and if so then how did we evolve into pleasure craving beings did we just decide we wanted sex 2 feel good did we just decide we wanted 2 b amused did we just

grow a sense of humor???

Why in the world would it happen that way?

 

the human brain cant even be completly figured out and we just decided to "through time" grow 1....now thats educated thinking....now adaption which i do believe in is a completly different story sometimes considered micro evolution ...its macro evoltion i find 2 b so inadequate

What do you suppose happens if you let this "micro evolution" run for a very long time?

 

the truth about evoltion is that its a scape goat....it needs no faith no work its just and excuse to do watever u want whenever you please and have no worries about wat will happen...

The truth about general relativity is that it's a scape goat. It need no faith, no work. It's an excuse to do whatever you want whenever you please and have no worries about what will happen.

 

No, wait, that's not true.

 

The theory of evolution is not a scape goat for bad behaviour. Perhaps you could think about how people behaved before that theory, or how people behaved in the name of god?

 

we will see who was right when judgement day comes

Is that the same as the rapture

[BlameTheEx]

Stargazer.

 

Yep, I am an atheist.

 

It is very simple. There is the known, and the unknown. When the evidence is in I will stand by it. Outside what I know, or can deduce is the Unknown.

 

I will not be so foolish (and nether should you) as to make any conclusions at all as to the Unknown. For all I, or you, know God may be there. Indeed God IS there. Ether he is real or he isn't. If he is real then he exists everywhere. If he doesn't then he exists in imagination and belief, and that is all that counts when dealing with the unknown.

 

Nor can we deny that there was a creator. There is a reality, so it must have been created. Whether the creation was the act of will or intelligence can be debated, but I would point out that it is human nature to personify natural forces. Defining whatever created the universe as "God" is valid.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Stargazer

The heavens is created as a firmament, whatever that means.

Firmament is the English word chosen to represent the Hebrew word used which indicates something "beaten out" like a metal bowl. It's context is a metal bowl placed over the FLAT surface of water to divide the water into above and below it. It then had holes drilled into it for the stars!

And so on and so forth. If we read it the way it's written, it makes no sense at all. This is not surprising.

Another way in which Genesis makes no sense is that Gen 1 and Gen 2 have conflicting orders of Creation.

 

Well along with claim that the Moon is a SOURCE of light.

 

Oh ya actually lots of things.... :-)

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

There is a reality, so it must have been created.

 

This brings us down to pure semantics. By using the term "create" we need to consider how this word is defined:

 

Different definitions found on Google[/b]

make or cause to be or to become

bring into existence

pursue a creative activity

to produce through artistic or imaginative effort

to cause to come into existance; bring into being; make; originate

 

Try this search for more:

http://www.google.no/search?hl=no&q=define%3A+create&meta=

 

(We could also look into words like "reality" and "must"...I think we have had a few of those discussions in the past.)

 

I'd say that by using terms like "create" or "creation" a conscious act is implied. A more appropriate term might be "originate" or "come into existence". Even the term "the birth of our universe" is a bit difficult to accept for me because it implies a mother (although I find myself using it when explaining the Big Bang to kids).

 

I do agree that we know diddly squat about the origins of the universe. We only know what happened right after the Big Bang. I also agree that it is valid to believe in a god. However, I don't think it is necessary to accept that because there is a *possibility* for a god then there has to be one (or several, depending on religion).

[GT(N)T]

Creationist, I wish you wouldn't use numerals for words, it gives me a headache.

 

Your reference to Darwin's recanting of evolutionary theory is an interesting one. It was dealt with in the 1985 book The Survival of Charles Darwin: a Biography of a Man and an Idea" by Ronald W. Clark.

 

 

"Shortly after his death, Lady Hope addressed a gathering of young men and women at the educational establishment founded by the evangelist Dwight Lyman Moody at Northfield, Massachusetts. She had, she maintained, visited Darwin on his deathbed. He had been reading the Epistle to the Hebrews, had asked for the local Sunday school to sing in a summerhouse on the grounds, and had confessed: "How I wish I had not expressed my theory of evolution as I have done." He went on, she said, to say that he would like her to gather a congregation since he "would like to speak to them of Christ Jesus and His salvation, being in a state where he was eagerly savouring the heavenly anticipation of bliss."

 

"With Moody's encouragement, Lady Hope's story was printed in the Boston _Watchman Examiner_. The story spread, and the claims were republished as late as October 1955 in the _Reformation Review_ and in the _Monthly Record of the Free Church of Scotland_ in February 1957. These attempts to fudge Darwin's story had already been exposed for what they were, first by his daughter Henrietta after they had been revived in 1922. "I was present at his deathbed," she wrote in the _Christian_ for February 23, 1922. "Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. . . . The whole story has no foundation whatever.""

 

This is one of the first, but certainly not the last, instances of the willingness of creationists to out-right lie to further their agenda.

[Tormod]

GT(N)T, welcome to our forums!

 

Your post is right on the spot. The Darwin "refutation" has been touched upon briefly here before but your account of it is very good.

 

Tormod