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.
Was there a movement to remove evolution being taught in school that I'm unaware of? I dont believe so.
There have been some, yes.
"The Kansas Board of Education rejected evolution as a scientific principle today, dealing a victory to religious conservatives who are increasingly challenging science education in U.S. schools.
The 10-member board, ignoring pleas by educators and established scientists, voted 6 to 4 to embrace new standards for science curricula that eliminate evolution as an underlying principle of biology and other sciences."
"Kansas is the latest state to face a battle over evolution and creationism in recent years. Alabama, New Mexico and Nebraska have made changes that to varying degrees challenge the pre-eminence of evolution in the scientific curriculum, generally labeling it as a theory that is merely one possible explanation. Others, like Texas, Ohio, Washington, New Hampshire and Tennessee, have considered, but ultimately defeated, similar bills, including some that would have required those who teach evolution also to present evidence contradicting it. At the local level, dozens of school boards are trying to make similar changes."
Circular logic is defined as an argument that hinges on the assumption that it is correct.
Actually...that's the definition for "begging the question". A circular argument would be presenting an answer as evidence for itself.
Quote:
The fact that you say causation is accepted thus god is the cause so creationism should be accepted (paraphrased of course).... is circular logic because it hinges on the assumption of God being the cause rather than proving he is.
Causation is generally accepted. It is an evidence for a creator--specifically God.
It's not "circular". I'm not basing the argument on God's existence, nor am I begging the question". There is a first cause. We call that cause "God".
Quote:
You can prove Causation, that is to say there is a cause.... but you make an assertion as to what that cause is and by definition such assertions are fallacious and thus not logical arguments because an Assertion is a presentation of something as fact without supporting it as such.
You really need to study some logic. That really doesn't make a lot of sense. But by your own logic here evolution would be completely falsified, as would the big bang, etc.
Still find it interesting that some equate believing in scence as fact (evolution bing one branch) as not believing in a creator. Nothing can be further from the truth and comes across as under-estimating HIS ability IMHO.
Casper
Exactly.
Fascinating to me how so many so-called believers actually give Him so little credit.
Actually...that's the definition for "begging the question". A circular argument would be presenting an answer as evidence for itself.
Causation is generally accepted. It is an evidence for a creator--specifically God.
It's not "circular". I'm not basing the argument on God's existence, nor am I begging the question". There is a first cause. We call that cause "God".
You really need to study some logic. That really doesn't make a lot of sense. But by your own logic here evolution would be completely falsified, as would the big bang, etc.
Here is your logic:
Everything that exists has to have a beginning
|
v
The universe is everything that exists
|
v
The universe has to have a beginning
|
v
An eternal creator must have created the universe at its beginning
|
This is where the argument splits into either circular or false logic:
False:
|
v
Since the creator is eternal, he doesn't have a beginning.
|
v
The creator does not exist
|
v
Something that does not exist created everything that exists
Circular:
|
v
The eternal creator exists
|
v
Something that exists created everything that exists before everything existed because everything that exists has to have a beginning
A circular argument would be presenting an answer as evidence for itself.
You mean like the assertion that because a cause must exist God is the cause, thus God is proven... using your answer as proof of your claim.... that is the entire point of what people are saying.
You are making the assertion as to what the cause is, you are not presenting evidence beyond your claim of the answer... that is circular.
Quote:
Causation is generally accepted. It is an evidence for a creator--specifically God.
That would be Assertion again. Causation is evidence of a Cause, you are attempting to dictate that cause rather than prove the cause.
Quote:
It's not "circular". I'm not basing the argument on God's existence, nor am I begging the question". There is a first cause. We call that cause "God".
If you claim the cause is "God" then use that cause as justification in your explanation... your justification hinges on "God" which you never proved to be the cause. It is circular because rather than prove cause you resort to Assertion Fallacy.
Quote:
You really need to study some logic. That really doesn't make a lot of sense. But by your own logic here evolution would be completely falsified, as would the big bang, etc.
Then we add Red Herring.... Logic requires supporting evidence or explination, your assertions do not illustrate that. Big Bang is a thoery regarding a possible cause that is supported by mathmatics and physics which is why it is accepted. Evolution likewise is supported by differing species within a Genus adapting based on external stimuli such as predators and environment, again this means there is supporting evidence to move into the realm of theory. Neither theory with supporting arugment or evidence is relevant to the fact that you have provided only Assertion and Circular Logic... distractions will not further your argument.
The difference here being is while you can prove via causation that there is a cause... you rely on Assertion to claim that clause is "God"... and Assertion is by definition not a logical argument.
In short.... you can prove a cause... you can not however prove that cause is "God" simply by assertion which is what you attempt to do.
This means you are using correlation regaurding causality as it regards to your presented argument without ever proving causation then claiming it is logical.... but that would be Hasty Generalization Fallacy, Causation dictating a cause does not the same as Creationism dictating a God because Causality is not the same thing as Creationism. One says there is a cause, the other dictates what that cause is... ignoring that difference is a generalization hinging on the assumption that "God" is the correct cause without proving that as true.
In short... you are proving Causality as true... but you are not proving your claim as to what the Cause in that relationship is, instead you are simply making an assertion to the end you wish to be true.
I don't see much of an issue with her opinion or even teach evolution in schools, for that matter. Those who don't believe in evolution certainly don't have to agree with it, and I don't think science knows squat, anyway. One side of the theory can "go out the other ear" just as easy as the other side. I had a biology teacher that briefed over Darwinism ~ this was long ago ~ and I viewed it as something HE felt he had to do. Didn't affect my own beliefs.
I can't. Some human ignorance is just beyond explanation.
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.
