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.
Evolution by natural selection has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. You can believe that your Sky Wizard of Choice created the universe and also believe that species change over time. Don't create a dichotomy where none exists.
The controversy here is whether humans and other living things are created by Sky Wizard of Choice or were created through the process of evolution by natural selection. Evolution only deals with LIVING THINGS not the whole entire universe.
I never said that both can't co-exist. I personally am of the belief that science is a way of proving creation. I believe evolution is real, but to what extent, I don't know. No one does. Let's face facts, they call it a missing link for a reason. What I said was that when we accept that the universe had a beginning we either have to ask ourselves if it was created or that it just happened?
As far as creating a dichotomy talk to the OP, not me, look back at our options in this poll. Do you believe IT should be taught along with evolution, instead of evolution, or not at all. You'll forgive me for giving my opinion on the direct question that was asked and not taking the typical CD route of going off on a tangent that has nothing to do with the topic, I hope.
I never said that. I said my kids were not taught about evolution in science class.
And of course you can teach biology without talking about humans. How do you think catholic schools teach biology which I am a product of.
I am almost 100% certain they were taught about evolution in K-12.
You can teach biology without talking about humans, but that's not what I was implying. You can't teach biology without talking about evolution.
I never said that both can't co-exist. I personally am of the belief that science is a way of proving creation. I believe evolution is real, but to what extent, I don't know. No one does. Let's face facts, they call it a missing link for a reason. What I said was that when we accept that the universe had a beginning we either have to ask ourselves if it was created or that it just happened?
As far as creating a dichotomy talk to the OP, not me, look back at our options in this poll. Do you believe IT should be taught along with evolution, instead of evolution, or not at all. You'll forgive me for giving my opinion on the direct question that was asked and not taking the typical CD route of going off on a tangent that has nothing to do with the topic, I hope.
The beginning of the universe has nothing to do with evolution. ID has the creation of the universe as part of its schtick, but evolution does not.
When we talk about ID vs. evolution, we're talking about the creation of living things. Like, stuff with cells that change over time. How did your dog get here? How did your cousin get here?
I might start hitting my head against the wall in a second.
The beginning of the universe has nothing to do with evolution. ID has the creation of the universe as part of its schtick, but evolution does not.
When we talk about ID vs. evolution, we're talking about the creation of living things. Like, stuff with cells that change over time. How did your dog get here? How did your cousin get here?
I might start hitting my head against the wall in a second.
Well you need to calm down then.
Again, I was answering the poll question. Please read those. The basis of topic for this conversation that we are having was "Would you teach ID & Evolution, Just Evolution, or just ID" That's the question I was answering in the post you quoted.
Both intelligent design and evolution are theories but intelligent design is a religious theory while evolution is a scientific theory. Since we don't teach religion in public schools, intelligent design has to be left to the Sunday school teacher.
This is obviously the consensus opinion .... but you know that old saying ... if everyone is thinking the same thing, somebody isn't thinking?
The reality is, intelligent design and creationism are two distinctly separate theories, with the latter being purely religion based, while the former, not so much. True, there is a certain common thread in that creation does necessarily insinuate intelligent design, unless one believes the creator is an idiot. But intelligent design does not require a deity/creator in the sense of a God or all powerful being as that designer, even though there is an obvious overlap from the creationist side.
That said, I would directly challenge your claim about evolution being science based, and I'd allow you 15 minutes to draw a crowd to witness my thorough dismantling of your argument. Contrary to the nonstop propaganda promoted and regurgitated for decades which insists that Darwinian theory is scientifically proven and beyond debate, the truth is, the deal breaking problems with Darwinian Evolution are too numerous to adequately discuss in brief passages, and decade to decade, those problems have not diminished, but have collected into a pile the size of My Everest, growing larger as time passes. And truthfully, I think Darwin himself would have to concede the points of fact that really render his theories false. That the evolution fraudsters have altered the theory many times in response to difficult challenges rather than provide evidence that defeats those challenges is very telling.
Here, we have page after page of people laughing out loud ... such a silly thing to even question Evolution ... this is the common theme among a majority who have been so indoctrinated with Darwinian nonsense, that the lie told often enough has become the undebatable truth. And the belief has become so ingrained and dogmatic, I see little distinction between Fundamental Darwinists and Fundamental Islamists. Darwinian theory has literally become a religion unto itself, and it's followers no less aghast at the blasphemy in questioning Darwin's theory, than a Muslim is should someone blaspheme Allah.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
Personally, the more I study science the more I see the fingerprint of something beyond this universe but that is not science and should not be taught as science. Science is testable. Religion is not. Personally, I consider the study of science to be the study of the laws God laid down on the day this universe was created and used to create everything here. I suspect that if God were to break the laws of this universe, it would cease to exist. So I expect that there should be a scientific explanation for everything. However, I do not teach this. I teach science. Period. Concepts like intelligent design should be taught in church. I'm not sure it's intelligent design so much as the natural outcome of the laws unleashed however long ago. For some reason, this universe is predisposed to life yet the existence of life really makes no sense.
If you are committed to teaching science, and to you, the only science that is real science is provable and testable, you'd be eliminating about 80% of modern scientific theory that exists today, and you'd most certainly have to include Darwinian theory in the jettisoned 80%, because Darwinian Evolution is not provable and has certainly not been tested .... it is pure speculation, and nothing more. When I go into the elements that are so problematic about Darwinian theory, I am immediately confronted with "you do not understand the theory". How convenient ... I don't understand ... I'm just confused. No, I am not at all confused about Darwin's theory, as I have a decent enough grasp of the English language to read his writings and that is where my understanding of the theory comes from .. not from the reformed and tweaked versions of the original which are also too numerous to list. The fact is, even evolutionists cannot agree on evolution theory because of this constant "evolution" (pun intended) of the theory first outlined by Darwin. And the major problem with Darwin's theory is the complete absence of even a tiny shred of evidence supporting speciation, which is absolutely, positively the central core of Darwinian Evolution theory. What we have today is is a version of Darwinian Theory that wants to claim that adaptation and variation, which are both very observable and provable somehow automatically proves speciation and therefore serves as evidence of speciation, when nothing could be further from the truth. Truth is, the entire common ancestor for all species really requires one to ignore their rational and logical mind to accept such nonsense for a nanosecond.
What Darwin was not privy to due to the lack of technology of the time, we modern folks are not so hampered. We now know of the existence and complexity of DNA, and the structured and highly sophisticated nature of the genetic code, as well as the mind boggling complexity of an organic. self replicating cell for which this complex DNA storage device contains all of the instructions for that cell to function and replicate. Since Darwin's theory relies on genetic mutation and natural selection as it's primary mechanism of action, one must first have a replicating cell and the genes to mutate to provide for that selection process. So ... where did this complex organic data storage device called DNA originate, and perhaps even a better question is, how did this complex code originate? Since the code represents the instructions for the construction of the cell, it seems logical that the instructions must have come first. There are only two choices ... either this DNA and complex code sprung into existence by accident, in a very purposeless random mixing of inert elements ... or, as the complexity of the structure and code insists ... it was designed for the very purpose it serves. That it displays all of the characteristics of design with purpose, renders the idea that it sprang into existence by random accident not only extremely unscientific, but outright preposterous. To believe such a thing is akin to believing that Mt Rushmore is a product of natural rock erosion, rather than the work of a sculptor. It's really that outlandish. Now I have no idea how DNA came to be, or who or what might have created-designed it ... but I'm pretty darned certain it wasn't created by random mixing of elements for eons. To believe that, one would similarly have to believe that if you left enough 3 year olds banging away on computer keyboards, they would eventually type out the entire Microsoft operating system and Microsoft's entire line of office products .. all by random accident. That is hardly scientific.
Science is based on observation, first and foremost, which then goes on to attempt to define and explain the observation ... rationally and according to our most current scientific understandings. One of the most basic elements of scientific observation is to first determine whether a thing is natural or artificial .... looking for certain familiar characteristics which tells us whether this thing displays the characteristics of design with purpose, i.e. man made, or constructed by other creatures not human, such as a bird's nest, or a Beaver's dam, or a Bee's hive. It would of course be grossly idiotic to look upon a bird's nest, and insist it to be a natural tangle of sticks and leaves which were woven together by wind. Yet, that is precisely the contention of evolutionists, even though the living cell and DNA are infinitely more complex than a freaking bird's nest or even a Rolex Watch, which no one should be ignorant enough to believe was a natural formation of metals pressed together under high pressure. Yet, this is the "science" you are teaching your students when you push this absurdity called Darwinian Evolution and his book, "Origin of the Species". It has nothing remotely to do with science, and is pure hogwash, not unlike teaching them about that grandfatherly figure with the flowing white beard who floats atop the clouds with a quiver of lightening bolts ready to deliver to anyone behaving badly. At least in the latter event, we know there exists clouds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
The universe doesn't need life. It doesn't need anything. Yet, here we are. It's as if this universe exists for life even though the period of time when life can exist is fleeting.
Funny .. that's not far from what genetic scientists have claimed about the majority (about 90%) of DNA not being needed and labeled "junk DNA" simply because they didn't understand what it was there for, or what purpose it served. I've always found that to be typical of the general arrogance of modern material science, and why mainstream science is more apt to be the destroyer of knowledge as it is the discoverer of new knowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
You can get into some heady conversations here that's for sure. Sometimes I wish they were allowed with my religious students who shut out science because it doesn't fit their religion. It makes me sad when students walk away from science because it challenges their religion and I wish I could help them see that they are separate things and don't need to agree.
You seem like a genuine, thoughtful person, and so I want to make clear that I'm being antagonistic to the theory of evolution and not to you personally. That said, I think I can explain this recoil from science by these religious students, as they probably disagree with the science of evolution largely along the same lines that I have illustrated. But given the vitriolic attack on religion by the majority of evolutionists, it shouldn't be a mystery as to why they would reject such "science". Really ... you can set your watch to it ... the moment anyone challenges a single element of evolution theory, or dares even question one point, the evolutionist seems compelled to respond with juvenile attacks and insults, often consisting of a lot of hot air bout sky gods and fantasy an mythology, rather than actually addressing the point raised in a calm and logical manner. That's not science either ... that is dogma wrapped in hostility.
And to be clear, I don't think you are stupid .... you seem very intelligent to me. But very intelligent people can be convinced to believe some pretty idiotic things. It's a mystery of the mind, and the way the conscious and subconscious processes work .... the subconscious mind does not evaluate and measure and judge information like the conscious mind does, which is why hypnotists can implant such thoughts that his subject is a chicken, in which the subject will proceed to waddle around the room, bobbing his head and flapping his arms and clucking. This is the mechanism of "accepted beliefs" which need not be truthful or even rational for the human mind to accept as fact, and act accordingly. This is the only explanation possible for why otherwise intelligent , rational people would believe Darwinian Evolution had anything to do with science, and how such outlandish ideas as postulated by Darwin ever gained traction, let alone become this universal lie believed by most. Darwinian Evolution could very well be the most irrational and idiotic idea ever accepted by the human mind as truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
The question answered by science is "What?", while the question answered by religion is "Why?". They don't have to agree because they are not answering the same question. I find the fact we are beings capable of this conversation just fascinating. For me, science strengthens religious belief because I learned long ago they are not answering the same questions. Knowing what happened to get from the big bang to me typing at this keyboard doesn't help me understand why I exists at all. It doesn't tell me the meaning of life. This fleeting thing that serves no purpose in this universe yet the universe cradles it. This is cool stuff.
You are among the the extreme minority in this accommodation of religion and evolution, while the majority of evolutionists reject any thought that there is more than the eyes can see, even though science has indeed proven many times that we humans are capable of detecting with our senses only a fraction of what is really there.
Of course you can. I went to catholic schools and biology had nothing to do with evolution.
Catholic schools do teach evolution. Evolution is well accepted within the Catholic church.
If you mention taxonomy in biology class, if you even imply that some species are more related than others, you're teaching evolution. If you mention that dogs came from wolves, you've "taught" evolution.
I never said that both can't co-exist. I personally am of the belief that science is a way of proving creation. I believe evolution is real, but to what extent, I don't know. No one does. Let's face facts, they call it a missing link for a reason.
They don't call anything a missing link, for any reason. That's a pop culture thing. I don't know what fact it is you want everyone to face.
Quote:
What I said was that when we accept that the universe had a beginning we either have to ask ourselves if it was created or that it just happened?
Irrelevant, really. That's cosmology. ID allegedly concerns itself with biology, but its zingers don't zing. It has no scientific value. It's a belief based in religion that tries to couch itself in scientific terms, but it doesn't explain what evolutionary theory explains, it doesn't answer any questions evolutionary theory leaves unanswered, and the evidence it claims shows the flaws in evolution doesn't. When it comes to explaining the observed evidence, evolutionary theory doesn't just trump ID, it beats ID up and takes its lunch money.
In the post above Ivorytickler made a good point, and I'm sure it's been stated a lot on these 46 pages, but Evolution is science. We teach science. Creationism is religion and we don't teach religion in school.
Now first, I do have a small issue with creation being considered religion, I don't consider myself to be a very religious guy, I don't buy into a lot of that, but I am a spiritual and faith having person, but again, we don't teach those things in school. And for that I am grateful. We should NOT teach religion in school, plain and simple. Atheists & agnostics should not have to worry about their kids going to school and being taught something that they totally oppose.
Then you have all of the different religions, if we are teaching religion is it Muslim, Judaism, Christianity? And if it's Christianity, which form of that are we teaching, Catholicism? Baptist? Mormonism? etc?
So I do take back my own answer, while I think that my first post that's been quoted a few times has a good point and I don't think it's a bad thing at all to teach children, religion and faith are not public school issues. Hell, I'm a person with faith and I don't want an underpaid, underappreciated teacher teaching my kids their views and beliefs.
I never said that. I said my kids were not taught about evolution in science class. And of course you can teach biology without talking about humans. How do you think catholic schools teach biology which I am a product of.
I was taught about evolution in junior high school science classes and just took it for granted that it was still part of the curriculum, but after reading your post, I did a bit of research and found this...
Quote:
Evolution Vs. Creationism: Study Reveals Public School Science Lagging
The majority of public school biology teachers across the country shy away from teaching evolution, keeping instruction to a few short hours, a study has shown.
Research from two Penn State professors reveals American students may be lagging behind in their knowledge of evolution because teachers are unprepared or unwilling to teach it. Some teachers advocate creationism, while others are afraid to address the topic for fear of controversy.
The findings come at a time when reports that less than half of American students are proficient in science has focused a national spotlight on the inadequacies of science education in the nation's public schools.
Evidently, you were not mistaken about your kid's science classes and it was not up to you, but I am really surprised that it has gotten to this level.
So yes, there is a dumbing down and I think it is shameful that the people that choose for their children to remain ignorant in the sciences are a drag on the rest of the population. I absolutely would advocate for parents to make certain that their kids get the education in evolution science thru books, videos, online classes, etc. if their schools have been intimidated into not providing the lessons.
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.
Contrary to the nonstop propaganda promoted and regurgitated for decades which insists that Darwinian theory is scientifically proven and beyond debate, the truth is, the deal breaking problems with Darwinian Evolution are too numerous to adequately discuss in brief passages, and decade to decade, those problems have not diminished, but have collected into a pile the size of My Everest, growing larger as time passes. And truthfully, I think Darwin himself would have to concede the points of fact that really render his theories false. That the evolution fraudsters have altered the theory many times in response to difficult challenges rather than provide evidence that defeats those challenges is very telling. 
No, I am not at all confused about Darwin's theory, as I have a decent enough grasp of the English language to read his writings and that is where my understanding of the theory comes from .. not from the reformed and tweaked versions of the original which are also too numerous to list. The fact is, even evolutionists cannot agree on evolution theory because of this constant "evolution" (pun intended) of the theory first outlined by Darwin. And the major problem with Darwin's theory is the complete absence of even a tiny shred of evidence supporting speciation, which is absolutely, positively the central core of Darwinian Evolution theory. What we have today is is a version of Darwinian Theory that wants to claim that adaptation and variation, which are both very observable and provable somehow automatically proves speciation and therefore serves as evidence of speciation, when nothing could be further from the truth. Truth is, the entire common ancestor for all species really requires one to ignore their rational and logical mind to accept such nonsense for a nanosecond.
