Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I believe if you talk about evolution you should talk about the flip side as well. Not getting into specifics as far as all the different religions, but just an overview.
But even Darwin had problems with his own theory:
Quote:
Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." [1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
and.....
Quote:
Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
So you should have no problem explaining the mechanism and methodology under which spontaneous creation events happen without invoking magic man, right? You can also provide a rigorous and sound structure of robust methodology and empirical tests explaining these creation events backed by a host and plethora of other sciences as well...
Furthermore, it would be interesting for you to explain to me why in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School Board Trial, the defense was only able to provide three of the twelve requested "Intelligent Design Theorists." It would also be interesting for you to answer why out of those three individuals, one of them was scolded by an ultra-conservative Supreme Court Justice nominated by the most religious President in memory for almost perjuring himself to "Lie For Jesus" if he was backed by such intense scientific findings. As well, you should probably explain The Wedge Document which proved the inextricable link between Literal Biblical Creationism and "Intelligent Design" at the trial.
Finally, I would love for you to provide me with one... JUST ONE... empirical test or experiment that would give us requisite pause for thought and insight as to how complexity of such magnitude can be explained using spontaneous, magical "poofing."
Wasn't the Wedge document called the "missing link" between Creationism and ID?
I alwasy wander what scienece really fears in teaching both and letting the students decide. Must be something
It's not fear, it's evidence.
1. No creationist hypothesis has ever withstood scientific scrutiny.
2. Which creation myth do you postulate we teach to let students decide? Ojibwa? Hindu? Cherokee? Mayan? ancient Greek? Why in the world would anyone assume the Christian myth should be the one to be taught?
I learned these myths in school - usually in history classes.
and in reference to BigThirsty....
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law." - Thomas Jefferson.
Not much clearer than that. Jefferson wrote that in a letter expressing his exasperation at having to fight so hard to keep the religious zealots of his day from commandeering the government for their own interests.
Bluefly: What is observed is not, in fact, evolution. What is observed is like begetting like. What is observed is completeness and complexity and not gradual changes from simple to complex.
There is not ample evidence that the evolutionary process happens and it is not true that there is no debate about the process of evolution happening! The debate by reputable scientists who debunk the "fact" of the evolutionary process is ignored or stifled by the powers that be. The ample evidence actually supports design and not the evolutionary process.
Evolutionists like to point to small changes within a species as proof of the evolutionary process. The fact remains that the changes do not lead to a change of one species to another species.
Creation by God or a Big Bang? Neither was observed; neither can be proven. All we have is what we see, and what we see, supports the teachings of Genesis 1--everything producing after its own kind! The discovery of DNA which causes everything to produce after its own kind further supports the teachings of Genesis 1.
From our studies of the complexities of DNA, we can scientifically and rightfully assume that such blueprints for life always existed. We OBSERVE all around us that like begets like. Cows do not mate with horses and produce offspring! Humans cannot procreate with apes no matter how close of an evolutionary connection we supposedly have with them!
What we OBSERVE is that all life forms are distinct and continue to be distinct. From this OBSERVATION we can justifiably and with strong certainty affirm that it has always been that way! Small, random, rare and usually harmful mutations within a species give little if any support to the false notion that everything has a common ancestor and that "given enough time" one species can evolve into another species.
The evolutionist showers and feeds his intelligently designed, complex, and awesomely formed body, jumps into his intelligently designed, complex, and awesomely manufactured car, drives to his laboratory by using every one of his intelligently designed senses, and there hunts for the obscure and the unusual in a futile attempt to disprove the validity of the intelligent design of all of the things he just observed and experienced on his way to work!
Furthermore, ALL facts are always open to further evaluation and testing. It matters not to me that a group of evolution scientists agrees among themselves that something constitutes a fact. It was once a recognized "fact" among scientists that the earth is flat. OBSERVATION relegated that "fact" to the scrap heap of failed "theories." The evolution model should be tossed there as well, but for many die-hard scientists, such an act is impossible because the thought of accepting the alternative makes their intelligently designed blood coagulate!
Preterist
I agree that there are fundamentalist scientists who have created a dogma out of Darwin and completely closed the book on questioning it. I agree that all options should be on the table and any scientist / academic interested in pursuing questions of this nature should be free to do so without risking their careers (many have lost their careers for even hinting at it).
However, the problem remains that there is absolutely no evidence that has passed scientific scrutiny. There is ample evidence that life moves from simple to complex. While it is slightly different, just look at forest succession after a volcano or something of that nature. It begins with the most basic forms of life that can survive those conditions and expands.
Even on a consciousness level, our "spirituality" evolves. You can track a society moving from an adherence to the physical to an awareness of the metaphysical right before our eyes.
And to suggest that anything observable supports Genesis - meaning one man and one woman were simply placed on the planet - is beyond the pale of reason or anything we could deduce reasonably. Now, if you're open to considering we were "created" by an alien drop from another species, then maybe it might make sense. For some reason, I'm yet to find any fundamentalist Christian open to the possibility that we're not alone in the universe.
Obviously (to me at least), there are many forces beyond evolution at work in our world (forces we would call spiritual), but they do not supplant the OBSERVABLE evidence of evolution just as the observable evidence of evolution does not supplant the possibility that some sentient force acts as a "designer" of sorts.
They are not mutually exclusive.
Obviously you haven't gotten the newsflash yet -- science is dirty and evil and anathema to fundianity.
I believe if you talk about evolution you should talk about the flip side as well. Not getting into specifics as far as all the different religions, but just an overview.
There are enough failed scientific theories in the history of biology to use as a comparison against the modern theory of evolution. No need to bring in failed religious beliefs about origins as well. The latter isn't even an attempt at real science, so there's not much to be gained from studying them when better examples of legitimate science that just turned out to be wrong.
AllAboutGOD.com
PO Box 49625
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80949
719-884-2246
AllAboutGOD.com has the typical fundamentalist boogie-men - homosexuality, homeschooling, pretending intelligent design is science, atheists are everywhere, end times and new world order hysteria, and so on. As usual, the objections to teaching science in a science class come from Christian dominionists pretending to be impartial observers.
Quote:
Of course evolution occurs but to be the start of all life on earth seems impossible to prove as fact.
This shows a misunderstand of the process of science. It doesn't "prove" "facts". It observes facts and produces theories to explain those facts. Proof is for systems which use deductive logic (math, for example) while science uses induction to come to conclusions.
There are enough failed scientific theories in the history of biology to use as a comparison against the modern theory of evolution. No need to bring in failed religious beliefs about origins as well. The latter isn't even an attempt at real science, so there's not much to be gained from studying them when better examples of legitimate science that just turned out to be wrong.
AllAboutGOD.com has the typical fundamentalist boogie-men - homosexuality, homeschooling, pretending intelligent design is science, atheists are everywhere, end times and new world order hysteria, and so on. As usual, the objections to teaching science in a science class come from Christian dominionists pretending to be impartial observers.
This shows a misunderstand of the process of science. It doesn't "prove" "facts". It observes facts and produces theories to explain those facts. Proof is for systems which use deductive logic (math, for example) while science uses induction to come to conclusions.
So you comment on everything except Darwin's own words? I would like to hear what you think about his actual quotes.
So you comment on everything except Darwin's own words? I would like to hear what you think about his actual quotes.
They're pretty common creationist quote mining - selective editing to make the quotes say the opposite of what the author intended. It takes about 2 seconds with Google to expose the truth behind them, but if you'd rather I do it...
Quote:
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a slow gradual process. Darwin wrote, "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." [1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [2] Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system". An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral.[3] Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece.
The text following the quotes from Darwin isn't a logical conclusion from those quotes. "Small gradual changes" has nothing to do with "all parts are necessary". Small gradual changes could easily result in a system where there are unneeded parts. Or a small change eliminating one redundant part of a system could result in one which then has no unnecessary parts. There's just no relationship between the two.
The author is mixing the traditional creationist approach of out-of-context quoting of Darwin with asserting previously falsified creationist ideas, and doing a rather clumsy job of it.
Quote:
The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called "the hammer," a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex. [4]
... unless attach the spring directly to the floor and put the bait on the floor as well, then it's suddenly 40% of your parts are redundant See A reducibly complex mousetrap for a more complete exploration of this idea.
Quote:
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6]
From the next sentence in Darwin's work :
Quote:
Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real"
This is a nice contrast. Creationism uses out of context and selectively edited quotes to attempt to disprove evolution, hoping that they'll then win by default. Scientists, on the other hand, publish peer reviewed papers filled with positive evidence supporting their claims. I think it's obvious which one should be taught in schools.
Last edited by KCfromNC; 05-06-2009 at 08:09 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
