Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Key points of Evolution
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 121 of 356 (464989)
05-01-2008 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Wumpini
05-01-2008 6:06 PM


Re: Theistic Evolution vs Intelligent Design
Through my research in the past few days, I have noticed there is a difference between theistic evolution and intelligent design. I wonder if the scientists that were polled that believed in intelligent design would be classified with the 5% that believe in a young earth, or would some of them have been mixed in with the 40% that believe in the God guided process for evolution?
Intelligent Design is an interesting movement - what it really boils down to is "Creationism in disguise."
Theistic Evolutionists tend to simply attribute all of the workings of Evolution to a deity. The theory remains intact, they simply personally believe their deity is the cause, though they agree that thie deity does not belong in the actual model (again, this is a description for most of the Theistic Evolutionists I've spoken with - as always, they're a varied lot).
Intelligent Design takes a few specific steps to attempt to sound scientific without actually doing anything related to science. The purpose is to create a "wedge" where religious principles are given a toehold in public science classrooms, and then utilize that "wedge" to further drive religion into the public education system. This has been shown even through memos written by the ID movement's leaders.
ID uses terms like "irreducible complexity" to claim that the complexity of life on Earth could only have resulted from a specific design by an intelligent Creator. They very carefully leave the identity of the designer up to the individual, claiming it could just as easily be space aliens as the Christian god (this is their way to get into schools, where endorsing a specific religion is illegal).
But from my understanding, very few of the ID proponents believe in a young Earth; they are typically Old Earth Creationists, who simply beleive that the 6 "days" of Genesis were not literal 24-hour periods, but were rather thousands or millions of years long each. They typically refer to a passage in the Bible that says something along the lines of "a thousand years are but a day to the LORD."
As you can see, there are a very wide variety of beliefs. When picking and choosing what is and is not literal, multiple interpretations are inevitable. Some of these are compatible with current theory, others are not, and some are somewhere in the middle agreeing with an old Earth and disagreeing (in whole or part) with evolution.
We have several threads on Intelligent Design, if you'd like to give them a quick look.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Wumpini, posted 05-01-2008 6:06 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Wumpini, posted 05-02-2008 1:44 AM Rahvin has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 356 (464991)
05-01-2008 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Wumpini
05-01-2008 5:43 PM


Re: I agree - Yes they are divided, and No they are not divided!
Acutally, the scientists are divided on whether they believe God exists. They could also be divided on what role they believe that God has played in the past in this creation where we live.
I believe God exists. I don't know what role he has played in the past in this creation where we live. I don't believe the Bible is literal and inerrant in what it says on what role that God has played in the past in this creation where we live. The Theory of Evolution doesn't say anything about what role that God has played in the past in this creation where we live.
It is hard to tell from the statement they selected in the poll.
It was a shitty poll.
There's gotta be a better way to phrase that...
Based upon your opinion and others, I would agree that they are not divided upon the sufficiency of the Theory of Evolution.
It is a solid theory.
That does not mean they are right (or that they are wrong). I have not reached that conclusion yet. Though, I am working in that direction.
Take it from me, they're right.
So, yes they are divided, but no they are not divided! I agree totally.
There is a line, though.
If the Bible is literal and inerrant, then the ToE is wrong. The ToE is not wrong, therefore the Bible is not literal and inerrant.
It seems 5%, IIRC from the shitty poll, think the ToE is wrong presumably because they believe the Bible is literal and inerrant (assuming they're the YEC scientists that the poll seems to be targeting).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Wumpini, posted 05-01-2008 5:43 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Wumpini, posted 05-02-2008 3:06 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 123 of 356 (464992)
05-01-2008 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Wumpini
05-01-2008 5:28 PM


Re: I appreciate your opinion
Polls would divide scientists as dog-cat owners too. An equally unimportant divide. The 5% divide is not unimportant, but that 5% has yet to put up any reasonable objection to evolution.
The “scientists are divide” junk (vaulted was a typo of vaunted: a bit of hyperbole on my part) is an oft used bit of Creationist propaganda. One of the oldest from what I’ve read. Your posts display several bits of Creationist propaganda. If they were self developed questions coming out of your own studies then they’d be good and interesting points. But as they’ve been asked and answered a thousand times and only kept alive through disingenuous Creos relying upon the innocence of the uninitiated these questions are a disservice to honest students of any ilk.
You seem an honest student, examine the questions feed you as well as the answers.
God has most clearly not presented himself for examination. He, I assume, would know what would be required by a legitimate examination. And, as it could only come about as his own volition, he would make sure we couldn’t mistake such a presentation for the background noise of primitive superstitions.
If I boosted to you that I am the world’s strongest man would you be satisfied that I was if the only proof I offered to support my claim was to show you my autobiography?
If God does exist he doesn’t want us to know.

Kindly
Ta-da ≠ QED

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Wumpini, posted 05-01-2008 5:28 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Wumpini, posted 05-02-2008 6:04 AM lyx2no has replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 124 of 356 (465027)
05-02-2008 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Rahvin
05-01-2008 6:33 PM


Makes it kind of like Walmart
Thanks for the definitions. It seems like it makes the choice kind of like Walmart. You can pick and choose exactly what fits your price range and needs. Old earth, Young earth, ID, Creation, Evolution, God guided, No God, Abiogenesis, Biogenesis, Big Bang, etc, etc. You can mix and match and come up with exactly what fits your beliefs and knowledge. Actually, I am the type of person that would rather run in and grab the only coffee pot on the shelves rather than try to choose between a 100 different coffee makers.
My choice is very simple. I know that I agree with God, and if anything or anyone disagrees with God then I disagree with them. That may not seem very scientific but it is reality. People on this forum keep comparing the law of gravity and subatomic principles to evolution and origin of the universe theories. Well obviously from my standpoint (and much of the population of the earth's standpoint), it is like comparing apples and bowling balls.
From a scientific standpoint, I really should know more about this stuff. I have studied different theories about the age of the earth, and creation but I really have not spent much time to figure out what scientists believe. That does not mean that I agree with you. It means I am not sure how much that I disagree.
It really is not my entire fault (Maybe it is, but I will blame others anyway. You know it is the American way. Like when you spill hot coffee on yourself at McDonalds). I went to high school in the state of Arkansas and evolution was not mentioned, and when I attended the University of Arkansas almost thirty years ago the extent of my science classes were basic chemistry and geology. Even up until now most science teachers in schools (not colleges) in Arkansas do not teach evolution. You may think, "They can't do that because it is a scientific theory so they must teach it in biology class." Actually no! Here is a quote from an article dated in January of this year that has something to say about that subject:
quote:
Science educators in certain U.S. states operate a bit like dissidents in the old Soviet bloc. ... Only about a fifth of the science teachers in Arkansas taught evolution, though it was part of the school science education guidelines.
Here is a link if you want to read the entire article:
http://washingtonindependent.com/view/arkansas-teachers
This is fact because I have personally spoken with Arkansas high school students within the past few years. I live in Africa, but I have a house in Arkansas. Most of my time is spent in West Africa. In the town in Arkansas where I live they do teach an old earth, however they leave the subject of origins up to the student. Really this leaves the student with a very mixed up view.
Here is a recent conversation I had with a student who had graduated from high school. I asked what he believed about creation. He said, "God created the world." I asked, "When?" "About 6,000 years ago." I asked what they taught about creation in high school. He said, "They did not mention it. They leave it up to us to decide." I asked, "What about dinosaurs? Do they teach you about dinosaurs?" He said, "Sure!" I asked, "When did they live?" He said, "Millions of years ago." I said, "Don't you see a contradiction there! If the earth is only a few thousand years old, how did dinosaurs live millions of years ago?" He said, "Oh!"
This thread was intended to address what is taught regarding the theory of evolution to young people in schools. Some have the impression that I was attempting to create a division among scientists related to what they believe regarding the origins of man. I was not trying to create a division! I was trying to show there is a division in what scientists believe. It seems that most scientists believe that evolution is a sufficient theory to explain the diversity in the world today, but at least in Arkansas, they are not teaching that theory as fact. And, the majority of the people where I live in Arkansas do not believe the theory of evolution explains the origin of man. I can assure you that almost all of the people where I live in Africa believe in creation!
This is my opinion. It seems that by keeping alternative theories of the origin of man out of the elementary, middle, and high schools, that we are keeping science out of the science classes, and graduating students who are very confused. The problem, in my opinion, is this movement that attempts to divide church and state. A movement that attempts to keep religion, not out of science classes, but out of schools, and out of America. So those who believe in God, and want their children exposed to supernatural theories of creation must attempt to turn religious theories of origin (which are supernatural) into science (which studies the natural world). The end result is a lot of confusion.
In Ghana, where I live, it is required in the curriculum for all students to take Religious and Moral Education at school. Not for only one year, but for numerous years. The area where I live is almost completely Islamic. However, Muslim children are taught about Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Traditional Religion, and other World Religions in public school. Even private schools are required to teach these classes. The science classes can teach science. The religious and moral education class teaches religion and moral education. However, the students don't seem to be confused. They know what Muslims believe, they know what Christians believe, and they know what those in Traditional Religion believe (Actually, most of the people here have a difficult time understanding the concept of being an Atheist.) And, they seem to know what scientists believe.
I think I will try to spend some time attempting to understand what the scientific world has concluded based upon their observations of living things, and their observations of the earth and the universe. This will give me a better idea of where I stand in relation to those theories. As of now, I would place myself in a category of a creationist who takes a literal interpretation of the Bible. But as I said before, if I become convinced that I am wrong, then I will change what I believe. As long as it does not contradict God!
Rahvin says:
I don't think you know what a logical fallacy is.
Your right, but I kind of liked the word. It made me feel smart.
Actually, I took a one hour course in logic back a long time ago when I was in college. So, I have vague memories of terms like inductive and deductive reasoning, premises, arguments, and fallacies. I looked up the word, and I can see that I used it incorrectly. The basis for the statement was that I am arguing that one of your premises is wrong. That premise was that God equals zero for those who believe in Theistic Evolution. If it is true that the premise was incorrect, then your conclusion was incorrect.
I do not believe that God equals zero. Even if evolution is a theory that is sufficient to explain the diversity in the world today, and I come to agree with that conclusion then God still does not equal zero. He has played a part in the process. He is responsible for the universe that exists, and for the existence of all human life. Science can choose to ignore God because they cannot observe and measure His impact. But, that does not eliminate His contribution, and if a person says they believe in Theistic Evolution then scientifically God's contribution is being included in the term evolution.
For ID and Theistic Evolution the argument is:
God > 0
Evolution > 0
Time > 0
Therefore Observed diversity = life forms + God + Evolution + Time
I know you say this is only the ID argument. I propose that it is also the Theistic Evolution argument based upon the fact that you are combining God's effect into your calculation of the term Evolution.
In other words.
Evolution + God = Evolution + God
Evolution (including the effect of God) = Evolution + God
Then you hide the parenthetical notation.
Evolution = Evolution + God
So based upon this clarification of your premise (I don't know if I am using that term correctly but once again it makes me feel smart even though I may look dumb), I would agree with your argument that the formula for Theistic Evolution is:
God = 0 (Only because you are including His effect in Evolution)
Evolution > 0
Time > 0
Therefore Observed diversity = Life forms + Evolution (including God) + Time
Have a good day.
In Dagbani I would say:
"Nawuni sang Tuma" - "May God help you with your work."
Almost all parting comments between people in the area of Africa where I live include God. It is interesting how in some parts of the world He is barely mentioned.

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Rahvin, posted 05-01-2008 6:33 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Rahvin, posted 05-02-2008 6:16 AM Wumpini has replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 125 of 356 (465030)
05-02-2008 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by New Cat's Eye
05-01-2008 7:10 PM


With God all things are possible
CS say:
If the Bible is literal and inerrant, then the ToE is wrong.
With God all things are possible.
Maybe it is possible that the Bible can be literal and inerrant, and the ToE is valid also.
All it would take would be a little supernatural intervention.

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-01-2008 7:10 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-02-2008 9:52 AM Wumpini has replied
 Message 133 by teen4christ, posted 05-02-2008 4:08 PM Wumpini has replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 126 of 356 (465037)
05-02-2008 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by lyx2no
05-01-2008 7:18 PM


Creationist propaganda
lyx2no says:
Your posts display several bits of Creationist propaganda.
Maybe that is because I believe in God and creation. Therefore, it is completely possible that my posts have a creationist slant.
It seems that some of the posts that I read from others have an atheistic slant. I would not say that what is being written is Atheistic propaganda, if there is such a thing.
The “scientists are divide” junk is an oft used bit of Creationist propaganda.
I have read some of the "Creationist propaganda" but I don't recall any scientists are divided arguments. This whole discussion started because someone said evolution should be taught in schools because it was a theory accepted by the scientific community as scientific fact. I only attempted to research and discuss this assertion.
The reason that I made the arguments that I made related to the poll was because it was poorly worded. If you believed in creation, and someone tells you that 40% of scientists believe that God guided the process (of man's development), including man's creation, "What would you think?" I think you would believe exactly what I did. That the scientists were of the opinion that God was actively involved in the development of man. This is not the theory of evolution that is being taught in schools, and not what others on this board have indicated that these scientists believe.
I am only concerned with the truth. If scientists are divided about their personal beliefs related to God, that is the truth. If this could have some bearing on how I view the evidence related to evolution vs creation, then it is important to me. Creation deals with God, so God is relevant. A person's beliefs, even if they do not affect his scientific method, and the theory that he promotes, should not be disregarded in my opinion when they relate to the subject matter at hand.
Polls would divide scientists as dog-cat owners too. An equally unimportant divide.
I don't think the pet ownership of scientists would be important to me whatsoever.
The 5% divide is not unimportant, but that 5% has yet to put up any reasonable objection to evolution.
And, I am not sure that they will. I would think that even those 5% believe in the principles of evolution. It is being observed so it exists. What I believe they would propose is that God has the power to intervene in the process in such a way that could change what you think you are seeing in the past. I do not believe it would change what you presently are observing as taking place now. Almost anyone that believes in God would accept the fact that God has that power.
Is it possible God could have intervened in such a way that would change your conclusions? Or is that an intellectual dead-end as I have been told over and over again?
Another interesting fact is the statistic (1991 Gallup Poll) for all Americans is 47% that believe in creation within the last 10,000 years (compared to 5% for scientists). Only 9% believe as you do; that man evolved and God played no part in the process.
You can interpolate this to a worldwide view where 54% of the world's population professes to be either Christian or Muslim and believes in the monotheistic God of the Bible. Only a small percentage of the people in the world are atheists, or profess to have no religion, probably less than 8%.
Here is a link if your interested:
Homepage - adherents
God has most clearly not presented himself for examination
How can God clearly not present himself?
God has given each of us free will. He has supplied the evidence, and made Himself known through His own creation. He wants each of us to examine the evidence and choose whether to love Him and follow Him. Therefore, He is not going to come down here and interfere with your free will. If you want to start another thread to discuss the different evidences that God has provided for his existence, I will be happy to participate.
If God does exist he doesn’t want us to know.
I assure you that God wants you to know Him. He doesn't just want you to acknowledge His existence. He wants you to come to an understanding of Him. He has provided what is necessary for you to come to that understanding.
My primary objective on this forum is to come to a better understanding of what the theory of evolution means, and whether it is possible to reconcile what you believe to the Bible and my faith. If as a result of that endeavor, you or someone else comes to the realization that it would be a good time in your life to honestly examine the possibility that God exists, then that would be a bonus in my opinion.

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by lyx2no, posted 05-01-2008 7:18 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by lyx2no, posted 05-02-2008 8:04 AM Wumpini has not replied
 Message 129 by lyx2no, posted 05-02-2008 8:12 AM Wumpini has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 127 of 356 (465039)
05-02-2008 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Wumpini
05-02-2008 1:44 AM


Re: Makes it kind of like Walmart
Thanks for the definitions. It seems like it makes the choice kind of like Walmart. You can pick and choose exactly what fits your price range and needs. Old earth, Young earth, ID, Creation, Evolution, God guided, No God, Abiogenesis, Biogenesis, Big Bang, etc, etc. You can mix and match and come up with exactly what fits your beliefs and knowledge. Actually, I am the type of person that would rather run in and grab the only coffee pot on the shelves rather than try to choose between a 100 different coffee makers.
My choice is very simple. I know that I agree with God, and if anything or anyone disagrees with God then I disagree with them. That may not seem very scientific but it is reality.
It sounds like you would prefer to simply be told what you beleive, and not have to do any thinking for yourself. This is disappointing. There is literally nothing worse intellectually than those bumper stickers that say "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it." It involves a total shutdown of all rational thought processes. You're making it sound like you're an example of one of these folks.
People on this forum keep comparing the law of gravity and subatomic principles to evolution and origin of the universe theories. Well obviously from my standpoint (and much of the population of the earth's standpoint), it is like comparing apples and bowling balls.
You're clearly still not understanding the whole point of those simple logical expressions, and I'm running out of ways to explain it more obviously.
From a scientific standpoint, I really should know more about this stuff. I have studied different theories about the age of the earth, and creation but I really have not spent much time to figure out what scientists believe. That does not mean that I agree with you. It means I am not sure how much that I disagree.
Then by all means start up a thread asking questions. The scientific models can be explained to you, and you can decide for yourself what you believe at that point. But really, it sounds to me like objective evidence, direct observation, and rational thought are going to be overridden by your pre-existing faith - which makes the whole point moot.
It really is not my entire fault (Maybe it is, but I will blame others anyway. You know it is the American way. Like when you spill hot coffee on yourself at McDonalds). I went to high school in the state of Arkansas and evolution was not mentioned, and when I attended the University of Arkansas almost thirty years ago the extent of my science classes were basic chemistry and geology. Even up until now most science teachers in schools (not colleges) in Arkansas do not teach evolution. You may think, "They can't do that because it is a scientific theory so they must teach it in biology class." Actually no! Here is a quote from an article dated in January of this year that has something to say about that subject:
quote:
Science educators in certain U.S. states operate a bit like dissidents in the old Soviet bloc. ... Only about a fifth of the science teachers in Arkansas taught evolution, though it was part of the school science education guidelines.
Here is a link if you want to read the entire article:
http://washingtonindependent.com/view/arkansas-teachers
This is fact because I have personally spoken with Arkansas high school students within the past few years. I live in Africa, but I have a house in Arkansas. Most of my time is spent in West Africa. In the town in Arkansas where I live they do teach an old earth, however they leave the subject of origins up to the student. Really this leaves the student with a very mixed up view.
Here is a recent conversation I had with a student who had graduated from high school. I asked what he believed about creation. He said, "God created the world." I asked, "When?" "About 6,000 years ago." I asked what they taught about creation in high school. He said, "They did not mention it. They leave it up to us to decide." I asked, "What about dinosaurs? Do they teach you about dinosaurs?" He said, "Sure!" I asked, "When did they live?" He said, "Millions of years ago." I said, "Don't you see a contradiction there! If the earth is only a few thousand years old, how did dinosaurs live millions of years ago?" He said, "Oh!"
I had a similar experience. They did briefly go over evolution in my High School, but my religious upbringing and education had created two seperate ideas in my head: 6-day Creationism and the scientific model. When I finally allowed myself to think critically on the matter, I determined that the Bible could not be literally true, and so I took it as allegory and methaphor. Thinking back, it seems very odd to have had two completely incompatible beliefs at the same time...but I was a kid, and simply didn't think about it.
This thread was intended to address what is taught regarding the theory of evolution to young people in schools. Some have the impression that I was attempting to create a division among scientists related to what they believe regarding the origins of man. I was not trying to create a division! I was trying to show there is a division in what scientists believe. It seems that most scientists believe that evolution is a sufficient theory to explain the diversity in the world today, but at least in Arkansas, they are not teaching that theory as fact. And, the majority of the people where I live in Arkansas do not believe the theory of evolution explains the origin of man. I can assure you that almost all of the people where I live in Africa believe in creation!
Locations with the worst education statistics tend to have the highest incidence of Creationism. It's really unsurprising that Creationism of various flavors is incredibly common in 3rd world countries and in the American South, particularly a state that not too long ago was 50th in the country for education...dead last.
This is my opinion. It seems that by keeping alternative theories of the origin of man out of the elementary, middle, and high schools, that we are keeping science out of the science classes, and graduating students who are very confused. The problem, in my opinion, is this movement that attempts to divide church and state. A movement that attempts to keep religion, not out of science classes, but out of schools, and out of America. So those who believe in God, and want their children exposed to supernatural theories of creation must attempt to turn religious theories of origin (which are supernatural) into science (which studies the natural world). The end result is a lot of confusion.
The "movement dividing church and state" is the US Constitution. That's a pretty big deal, you know.
There are no "alternative theories" that have any semblance to science. Religion is not based on objective evidence. it doesn't belong anywhere near a science classroom.
At which point would we stop, if we took your suggestion? There are thousands of religions. Should we teach all of their "alternative theories?"
The point of the seperation of church and state is that in order to protect all beliefs, the government must remain strictly neutral with regards to religion. Endorsing Christian Creationism by allowing it in science classrooms would rightly offend non-Creationist Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, and anybody else. The only rational solution is to keep religious instruction in the home and at church, where individuals and families can make their own choices.
Note that this does not involve "keeping religion out of America." It involves not forcing particular religions down someone's throat. The only conflict arises when scientific models conflict with religions...which is irrelevant to the accuracy of the scientific models.
In Ghana, where I live, it is required in the curriculum for all students to take Religious and Moral Education at school. Not for only one year, but for numerous years. The area where I live is almost completely Islamic. However, Muslim children are taught about Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Traditional Religion, and other World Religions in public school. Even private schools are required to teach these classes. The science classes can teach science. The religious and moral education class teaches religion and moral education. However, the students don't seem to be confused. They know what Muslims believe, they know what Christians believe, and they know what those in Traditional Religion believe (Actually, most of the people here have a difficult time understanding the concept of being an Atheist.) And, they seem to know what scientists believe.
Comparative Religions classes and the like are relatively common here in the US, as well you know. It's just not taught in science class.
As for having difficulty comprehending Atheism, they certainly aren't alone - that's common here in America, too. Rarely are people asked "are you religious?" They are instead asked "which religion are you?" This often even boils down to "which flavor of Christian are you?"
I think I will try to spend some time attempting to understand what the scientific world has concluded based upon their observations of living things, and their observations of the earth and the universe. This will give me a better idea of where I stand in relation to those theories. As of now, I would place myself in a category of a creationist who takes a literal interpretation of the Bible. But as I said before, if I become convinced that I am wrong, then I will change what I believe. As long as it does not contradict God!
If you believe that the Bible is the inspired work of God and is literally true, then you may as well stop here - no amount of discussing science will have any effect if you start from such a perspective. You really are one of the "God said it, I beleive it, and that settles it" people, and that's highly disappointing.
quote:
Rahvin says:
I don't think you know what a logical fallacy is.
Your right, but I kind of liked the word. It made me feel smart.
Actually, I took a one hour course in logic back a long time ago when I was in college. So, I have vague memories of terms like inductive and deductive reasoning, premises, arguments, and fallacies. I looked up the word, and I can see that I used it incorrectly. The basis for the statement was that I am arguing that one of your premises is wrong. That premise was that God equals zero for those who believe in Theistic Evolution. If it is true that the premise was incorrect, then your conclusion was incorrect.
Looks like you need a refresher. The ("god") = 0 part was not a premise - it was the conclusion. That's why it was at the end, in the THEN portion.
I had two premeses:
Premise 1:
(the observed diversity of life on Earth) = (original living organism(s)) + (evolution) + (time)
Premise 2:
(the observed diversity of life on Earth) = (original living organism(s)) + (evolution) + (time) + ("god")
The expression boils down to "IF (Premise 1) AND (Premise 2), THEN ("god") is an extraneous term.
The conclusion is a direct logical result of the two premeses being true. The conclusion is not another premise.
You were right to attack a premise, as this is the only way to argue with such a logical statement. If both premeses are true, then the conclusion has to follow; there is no option. That's basically the way logic works.
If (Premise 1) were not true, but (premise 2) was true, then my conclusion would not follow.
But ((the observed diversity of life on Earth) = (original living organism(s)) + (evolution) + (time)) is true. Becasue this is sufficient to explain the diversity of life on Earth, including the ("god") term is extraneous; it doesn't matter. Future evidence could require the addition of the ("god") term and invalidate (Premise 1), thus invalidating my conclusion...but so far no objective evidence requiring ("god") has been proposed. Ever. The closest we have are generic Arguments from Personal Incredulity ("Wow, this is really complex and cool, God MUST exist!"). That's another logical fallacy, by the way.
It would be wise to try to use the terms correctly rather than just throwing them around. We have posters here who do that with scientific terms, as well, and they are highly annoying. Please don't become another one of them.
I do not believe that God equals zero. Even if evolution is a theory that is sufficient to explain the diversity in the world today, and I come to agree with that conclusion then God still does not equal zero. He has played a part in the process. He is responsible for the universe that exists, and for the existence of all human life. Science can choose to ignore God because they cannot observe and measure His impact. But, that does not eliminate His contribution, and if a person says they believe in Theistic Evolution then scientifically God's contribution is being included in the term evolution.
No. You don't seem to understand the scientific method, even in the slightest bit. Personal belief is irrelevant to science - it's only relevant to individuals. ("god") is not being "scientifically included" in anything, even by Theistic Evolutionists. You're confusing personal beleifs and scientific models, and the difference couldn't be larger.
For ID and Theistic Evolution the argument is:
God > 0
Evolution > 0
Time > 0
Therefore Observed diversity = life forms + God + Evolution + Time
I know you say this is only the ID argument. I propose that it is also the Theistic Evolution argument based upon the fact that you are combining God's effect into your calculation of the term Evolution.
In other words.
Evolution + God = Evolution + God
Evolution (including the effect of God) = Evolution + God
Then you hide the parenthetical notation.
Evolution = Evolution + God
So based upon this clarification of your premise (I don't know if I am using that term correctly but once again it makes me feel smart even though I may look dumb), I would agree with your argument that the formula for Theistic Evolution is:
God = 0 (Only because you are including His effect in Evolution)
Evolution > 0
Time > 0
Therefore Observed diversity = Life forms + Evolution (including God) + Time
All completely irrelevant to what I was talking about. Again, you're taking personal beliefs as if they have some sort of objective relevance, and they do not. The fact that a person, or even a majority of people believes something to be true has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether that belief is objectively accurate. For a very long time the vast majority of people believed the Earth was flat, and every last one of them was wrong.
You also seem to be making the mistake of assuming that my logical expressions are somehow indicative of either a person's beliefs or of actual reality - this is true only indirectly. The expressions were intended to show that, all things being equal, there is no reason to include a deity in the scientific model, and to educate you in the meaning of parsimony. This has no bearing on a person's beliefs, and it could be proven wrong with additional objective evidence that requires a deity. You don't seem to have caught on, and I don't know of a way to make it more plain to you - you've confused a conclusion with a premise, and I really don't know how to proceed from such a basic level.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Wumpini, posted 05-02-2008 1:44 AM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Wumpini, posted 05-02-2008 9:34 AM Rahvin has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 128 of 356 (465041)
05-02-2008 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Wumpini
05-02-2008 6:04 AM


Re: Creationist propaganda
What am I doing?
Edited by lyx2no, : Another double post.

Kindly
Ta-da ≠ QED

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Wumpini, posted 05-02-2008 6:04 AM Wumpini has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 129 of 356 (465042)
05-02-2008 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Wumpini
05-02-2008 6:04 AM


Atheist Propaganda
Though not nearly so pernicious as Creationist propaganda, there is, for a fact, atheist propaganda, but all propaganda is to be disparaged. You’ll sooner or later or even right now run into the acronym “PRATT” : Points Refuted A Thousand Times. Once a week a Creationist having just fed his brain on a Creo propaganda site, thinks it to be devastating argument and he shows up over here to jack us up for God. If he lasts a few days before being jacked himself it is only because he’s exceptionally obstinate. A real shame, but more often than not it’s the last we see of him. Click on “Members” at the top of this page and look at the number of members having two or three years seniority and six posts.
The point being that the Creo sites know they are repeating junk arguments but don’t care.
Arguments for creationism are a whole ”nother matter. They fall into the same category as any other philosophical argument. However, none of the Creationist arguments are also scientific arguments and have a place in a science class.
I’m glad you’re not here to jack us up, and hope you stick around.
Way off topic so I'll say no more.

Kindly
Ta-da ≠ QED

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Wumpini, posted 05-02-2008 6:04 AM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Wumpini, posted 05-02-2008 5:10 PM lyx2no has not replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 130 of 356 (465045)
05-02-2008 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Rahvin
05-02-2008 6:16 AM


Where there is time, there is always hope
Rahvin says:
There is literally nothing worse intellectually than those bumper stickers that say "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it."
I kind of like those bumper stickers myself.
You're clearly still not understanding the whole point of those simple logical expressions
Your obviously not understanding my point either. It is good we don't have to put up with each other all the time. It could become very annoying.
My point is that this is a creation vs evolution website. So I see scientific theories related to subjects such as evolution, abiogenesis, big bang theory, age of the earth, etc. as more relevant than theories about gravity and subatomic principles.
Then by all means start up a thread asking questions. The scientific models can be explained to you, and you can decide for yourself what you believe at that point. But really, it sounds to me like objective evidence, direct observation, and rational thought are going to be overridden by your pre-existing faith - which makes the whole point moot.
I got throught the Arkansas school system and learned to read and write English, so I am sure I can understand a few simple concepts like natural selection, genetic mutation, and how populations are affected by their environment through time.
Locations with the worst education statistics tend to have the highest incidence of Creationism. It's really unsurprising that Creationism of various flavors is incredibly common in 3rd world countries and in the American South, particularly a state that not too long ago was 50th in the country for education...dead last.
Too bad everyone can't have the opportunity to grow up and live in a place where it is easier to obtain faith, and come to an understanding of the Truth (i.e. Jesus is the the Truth - John 14:6). I truly feel blessed.
Religion is not based on objective evidence. it doesn't belong anywhere near a science classroom.
I never said to put it in the science classroom! Regardless of what scientists believe, almost all of the people on this earth believe in the supernatural. There is no reason to try to annoy most of the people on the earth by denying its existence.
It would be wise to try to use the terms correctly rather than just throwing them around. We have posters here who do that with scientific terms, as well, and they are highly annoying. Please don't become another one of them.
I really should have looked up a couple of definitions before I began using those logical terms. Next time I will either try to be logical without the terms or look up the definitions.
No. You don't seem to understand the scientific method, even in the slightest bit. Personal belief is irrelevant to science - it's only relevant to individuals. ("god") is not being "scientifically included" in anything, even by Theistic Evolutionists. You're confusing personal beleifs and scientific models, and the difference couldn't be larger.
I believe in God, and it is sort of difficult to leave Him out. Especially when I believe He is the creator of the universe and mankind, and this is a creation vs evolution website.
Therefore, for now I am going to say that God > 0, at least for me. I know you don't think this is scientific but it makes me feel better if I give Him the credit. I will try not to annoy you by putting God into any of your arguments.
I am sure it cannot be as hopeless as you seem to think it is. I think I am making progress, slowly. My brain is kind of old, so give it some time.
You don't seem to have caught on, and I don't know of a way to make it more plain to you - you've confused a conclusion with a premise, and I really don't know how to proceed from such a basic level.
Okay I get it. If the premises are correct, and the argument is sound, then the conclusion must be correct. Like I said it is coming back to me slowly.
Have a good day!

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Rahvin, posted 05-02-2008 6:16 AM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Rahvin, posted 05-02-2008 12:43 PM Wumpini has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 356 (465046)
05-02-2008 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Wumpini
05-02-2008 3:06 AM


Re: With God all things are possible
If the Bible is literal and inerrant, then the ToE is wrong.
With God all things are possible.
That's called 'hand waving'.
Maybe it is possible that the Bible can be literal and inerrant, and the ToE is valid also.
Not with the way they are written this day.
All it would take would be a little supernatural intervention.
Like what? The only thing I can think of is to change the Bible or change the evidence that the ToE relies on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Wumpini, posted 05-02-2008 3:06 AM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Wumpini, posted 05-02-2008 6:26 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 132 of 356 (465052)
05-02-2008 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Wumpini
05-02-2008 9:34 AM


Re: Where there is time, there is always hope
First, I'd like to apologize to you, Wumpini. My last post to you was written at 2am in a bout of insomnia, and I wrote with a cranky tone usually reserved for only the most frustrating members. It was undeserved, and so I apologize.
quote:
Rahvin says:
There is literally nothing worse intellectually than those bumper stickers that say "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it."
I kind of like those bumper stickers myself.
And yet that simple phrase means "I don't need to think critically. I don't need to examine evidence. I already have all of the answers that matter. If I hear anything that contradicts the Bible, I'll go with the Bible, regardless of the evidence stacked against it."
It's an intellectual dead-end. It's quite literally a promotion of ignorance, and a suggestion that matters of faith should get a "free pass" where rational thought is not required. No advancement of knowledge of the world around us can ever be made from such a perspective.
quote:
You're clearly still not understanding the whole point of those simple logical expressions
Your obviously not understanding my point either. It is good we don't have to put up with each other all the time. It could become very annoying.
My point is that this is a creation vs evolution website. So I see scientific theories related to subjects such as evolution, abiogenesis, big bang theory, age of the earth, etc. as more relevant than theories about gravity and subatomic principles.
1) That's part of the problem - they're all interconnected. Subatomic particles relates to radiology which is one method of dating both the Earth and fossils. The same scientific method used for the Theory of Gravity is used for the Theory of Evolution.
2) My inclusion of gravity in my logical expressions was simply yet another attempt to illustrate that aditional terms are irrelevent and need not be included, whether they actually exist or not. My car certainly exists, but it's not required for describing the process that resulted in the variety of life on Earth. It would be an irrelevant, extraneous term in the expression, and so it has no place in the scientific model. ("god") is the same way - he may exist, and he may even be responsible, but there's no evidence requiring him to be included in the model, and so he is not mentioned until such time as objective evidence does make him necessary.
quote:
Then by all means start up a thread asking questions. The scientific models can be explained to you, and you can decide for yourself what you believe at that point. But really, it sounds to me like objective evidence, direct observation, and rational thought are going to be overridden by your pre-existing faith - which makes the whole point moot.
I got throught the Arkansas school system and learned to read and write English, so I am sure I can understand a few simple concepts like natural selection, genetic mutation, and how populations are affected by their environment through time.
Forgive me - this was one of those "cranky" moments. I'm swearing off 2am posts unless I;ve had plenty of caffeine. I did not mean to insinuate that all or even most Arkansas students are idiots. My statement was meant to convey that, in areas where science in general and evolution in particular are not taught strongly (ie, areas with low education rankings), religious origin stories and literal interpretations of religious teachings tend to be far more common.
It's a rather serious frustration. You may or may not have heard of such evangelists as Ray Comfort, who paint a strawman version of evolution far removed from the actual theory so that they can attack their strawman with incredulity and promote their cause. He suggests that evolution predicts we should find such things as a Bull-Frog: a frog with the head of a bull. He suggests this seriously, not just humorously. In places where people don't know enough about evolution to be able to say "you're wrong, evolution doesn't say that," he can win several converts (or at least preach to the choir and get some applause).
quote:
Locations with the worst education statistics tend to have the highest incidence of Creationism. It's really unsurprising that Creationism of various flavors is incredibly common in 3rd world countries and in the American South, particularly a state that not too long ago was 50th in the country for education...dead last.
Too bad everyone can't have the opportunity to grow up and live in a place where it is easier to obtain faith, and come to an understanding of the Truth (i.e. Jesus is the the Truth - John 14:6). I truly feel blessed.
Having grown up in an extremely Christian home, I feel the exact opposite way. I feel like I was brainwashed and specifically taught never to think critically for my entire childhood - quite far from finding any "truth."
But then, that's part of the reason we call personal beliefs "subjective." They don't work for everyone.
quote:
Religion is not based on objective evidence. it doesn't belong anywhere near a science classroom.
I never said to put it in the science classroom! Regardless of what scientists believe, almost all of the people on this earth believe in the supernatural. There is no reason to try to annoy most of the people on the earth by denying its existence.
I'm confused. In one sentence you say you don't want religion in the science classroom, and in the very next sentence you say that scientists shouldn't "annoy" everyone by denying the existence of the supernatural. Which is it? Is the supernatural to be included in science, or not?
Aside from that, science does not deny the existence of the supernatural. Science is very specifically mute on the subject, becasue science is concerned only with that which is observable and supported by objective evidence. There is no evidence proving a deity does not exist. There is no evidence proving a deity does exist. Science can take no position at all in a complete absence of evidence.
Don't make the common Creationist mistake of assuming that, becasue ("god") is not mentioned in scientific models or textbooks that science specifically denies the existence of ("god").
quote:
It would be wise to try to use the terms correctly rather than just throwing them around. We have posters here who do that with scientific terms, as well, and they are highly annoying. Please don't become another one of them.
I really should have looked up a couple of definitions before I began using those logical terms. Next time I will either try to be logical without the terms or look up the definitions.
While the spirit of my statement here was intact, I apologize for the insulting and snarky tone. I can hardly expect you to be as on-top of logic and debate terms as when you took the class 30 years ago, and you do seem to be making a good-faith effort.
quote:
No. You don't seem to understand the scientific method, even in the slightest bit. Personal belief is irrelevant to science - it's only relevant to individuals. ("god") is not being "scientifically included" in anything, even by Theistic Evolutionists. You're confusing personal beleifs and scientific models, and the difference couldn't be larger.
I believe in God, and it is sort of difficult to leave Him out. Especially when I believe He is the creator of the universe and mankind, and this is a creation vs evolution website.
The topic of this website does not mean that religion gets a free pass into science. Nobody is asking you to give up your personal beliefs, and I'm not trying to tell you that your god does not exist (I don't beleive in him, but I don't insist he doesn't exist either). I have been trying to explain to you why there is no reference to any deity in scientific models. Again, subjective personal beliefs are fine, but science is based entirely on objective evidence, and thre's a very large difference. Science is unable to give a deity "credit" without objective evidence supporting the hypothesis that a deity is responsible.
You may notice that this site has a few different sections, including a Faith and Belief secsion, and a Science section. Threads in Science topics are required to focus on evidence and logical reasoning, and the Bible is not acceptable as evidence of its own validity. In the Faith sections, Biblical interpretation is relevant, and subjective beliefs can be debated more effectively.
This thread is in the Science section, and so there is a greater focus on objective evidence. Religious perspectives like Creationism tend to do poorly here, becasue they lack supporting evidence outside of religious texts.
Therefore, for now I am going to say that God > 0, at least for me. I know you don't think this is scientific but it makes me feel better if I give Him the credit.
And that's fine. Your personal beleifs are not my concern. It would seem there is some sort of miscommunication hapening here, likely made worse by my earlier crankiness. I don't care if you beleive in god. You're welcome to beleive whatever you would like. My only concern is that religion has no place in a science clasroom, and no place in scientific models because religion is based on subjective faith rather than objective evidence. All of my posts have been made with the intention of communicating the reasons for this to you, but it seems that you are interpreting them to mean that I am telling you your god does not exist. That's not the case.
I will try not to annoy you by putting God into any of your arguments.
You're welcome to put god into whatever argument you'd like - but as this is a debate forum, expect any arguments containing logical fallacies or false premeses to be knocked down in short order. If you bring up god in one of the science sections, expect posters to demand that you provide objective evidence in favor of your position. If you bring up god in the faith sections, expect a hearty theological debate with our other religious members.
I am sure it cannot be as hopeless as you seem to think it is. I think I am making progress, slowly. My brain is kind of old, so give it some time.
Again, I'm sorry for my overly insulting and condescending tone....
quote:
You don't seem to have caught on, and I don't know of a way to make it more plain to you - you've confused a conclusion with a premise, and I really don't know how to proceed from such a basic level.
...and I apologize for it here, too. I have a talent for being overly condescending when I don't want to be, and I apologize.
Okay I get it. If the premises are correct, and the argument is sound, then the conclusion must be correct. Like I said it is coming back to me slowly.
Basically. The conclusion is at least consistent with the rest of the logical statement. Remember that future evidence can always falsify one or both of the premeses. If someone eventually provides objective evidence showing that ("god") is involved in the diversity of living things, as opposed to subjective personal beliefs that this is the case, then (Premise 1) wil be falisfied, and the statement becomes worthless. Likewise, if (Premise 2) is falsified by objective evidence showing ("god") does not exist (highly unlikely, consdering the unfalsifiable nature of the supernatural), the expression also loses validity.
Just to sum up and hopefully clear up all of the miscommunication going on, here are my positions:
God is not included in scientific models because his inclusion violates parsimony for the reasons already explained.
The fact that god is not included in scientific models does not mean that science denies god's existence or even involvement. It means only that science has insufficient data surrounding the supernatural to make any sort of statement whatsoever, and so it makes no statement.
Only science belongs in science classrooms. Since there are no "alternative theories" that have any scientific validity at the moment, "teaching the controversy" is simply another way for religion to try to wedge into science class, where it plainly does not belong.
I'm not sure to what degree we disagree on any of these points any longer. We both disagree with our personal beliefs surrounding the existence of god, but that's a topic for a different thread.
Have a good day!
You too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Wumpini, posted 05-02-2008 9:34 AM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Wumpini, posted 05-02-2008 7:29 PM Rahvin has not replied

teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5799 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 133 of 356 (465067)
05-02-2008 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Wumpini
05-02-2008 3:06 AM


Re: With God all things are possible
Wumpini writes
quote:
All it would take would be a little supernatural intervention.
Here is my problem with what you are proposing. I believe that God is the ultimate engineer. I believe that He is the ultimate clock maker. What you are proposing is that He is not the ultimate engineer and that he has to get involved and use His magic wand to correct some things every once in a while.
If God created the universe and all the laws of nature that govern the behavior of everything, and if He is the ultimate engineer of all these things, then everything that he created should be sufficient to explain everything that we observe.
On the other hand, if God has to get involved and use His supernatural powers to fix up some things or influence our lives, then He is not perfect.
This is the reason why Kepler pursued to come up with a better model for planetary motion. He reasoned that the church's model made God out to be too much of an impotent god because He had to constantly get involved in order to keep his creation going. Kepler believed that since God was the creator of all things and that what He created should be perfect then there should be some laws or behaviors that everything should follow and that no supernatural intervention should ever be needed.
Wumpini, your image of God is extremely limited. You imagine God to be this incompetent engineer that has to constantly jury rig His creation to keep things running. Do you not see how some of us might have a problem with your limited view of God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Wumpini, posted 05-02-2008 3:06 AM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Wumpini, posted 05-02-2008 5:58 PM teen4christ has not replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 134 of 356 (465072)
05-02-2008 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by lyx2no
05-02-2008 8:12 AM


Propaganda and Evolution in Schools
lyx2no says:
Way off topic so I'll say no more.
Actually, I don't believe that you are way off topic. The topic is teaching evolution in schools. We have to realize that it is a very emotional issue for both sides. In the last week that I have been on this site, I have at least learned that. (I think some others hope I have learned more than that!) That is where all of the propaganda comes into the picture. Both sides want to gain supporters for their position. It is like a war.
Correct me if I am wrong, but scientists do not like anyone messing with their theories or the scientific method especially in the science classroom. The same is true of creationists. They do not want anyone messing with their religious beliefs (and especially those of their children). And, they feel that is happening in the science classroom. This war is not taking place on this forum. It is taking place in science classrooms of our public schools across the nation.
That is what is causing this entire problem in my opinion. It is not that scientists hate God. If they don’t believe in Him he is non-existent. How can you hate something that doesn’t exist? And creationists do not hate science. They appreciate the fact that the law of gravity keeps them attached to the earth, and that all those neutrons, electrons, and protons are keeping their bodies from falling apart.
In my opinion, since most of the people in America believe in God, there is no easy answer to this problem. A 1991 Gallup Poll of Americans showed - 47% believe in creation in the last 10,000 years, and only 9% believe in evolution without God. That is 91% of respondents that believe in God. Without some kind of solution, there will continue to be a migration of students from the public schools to private schools and home schooling.
It is possible that those on this forum could help to come up with a solution.
This thread was started with a suggestion of how evolution could be taught in a Theistic (originally it was Christian - I changed the word) friendly manner. It is my opinion that without any theism in the science classroom, it is not possible. (Please don't attack me for saying that. It is not a solution, only an opinion.)
Does anyone have any suggestions as to how evolution could be taught in our public schools in a manner that does not offend almost half of the population that believes in literal creation, and over 90% of the population that believes in God?

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by lyx2no, posted 05-02-2008 8:12 AM lyx2no has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Blue Jay, posted 05-02-2008 5:40 PM Wumpini has not replied
 Message 136 by Rahvin, posted 05-02-2008 5:56 PM Wumpini has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 135 of 356 (465074)
05-02-2008 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Wumpini
05-02-2008 5:10 PM


Re: Propaganda and Evolution in Schools
Wumpini writes:
...scientists do not like anyone messing with their theories or the scientific method especially in the science classroom.
Well, if you want to be technical, the entire idea of science is to "mess with" current theories: we keep testing, validating, rejecting, etc. current theories in various ways, even after we're certain that they're right. We're not against new ideas: we're only against new ideas that aren't useful or supportable.
One other thing I've noticed (although you might think it's nit-picking) is that you refer to scientists and science teachers as the same. This isn't strictly accurate: highschool science teachers generally do not have post-graduate education or much experience in research. In fact, until recently, the requirements for teaching at the primary and secondary levels were rather low. In Tennessee, for instance, where I went to middle school and highschool, several of my teachers didn't even have a B.S. (fortunately my science teachers did). As a side note, I can second virtually everything that has been said about Arkansas schools, because Tennessee schools were #49 when I moved there in eighth grade. We Southerners stick together, you know.
Wumpini writes:
A 1991 Gallup Poll of Americans showed - 47% believe in creation in the last 10,000 years, and only 9% believe in evolution without God.
More nit-picking, perhaps, but the numbers have changed since then. According to the 2007 Gallup Poll, atheistic evolutionists are up to 14%. In fact, 9% is the low point over the past decade.
Wumpini writes:
Does anyone have any suggestions as to how evolution could be taught in our public schools in a manner that does not offend almost half of the population that believes in literal creation, and over 90% of the population that believes in God?
I suggest a statement on the first day of class:
"You don't have to take this stuff as an affront to your religion."
And, I suggest that the rising generation of parents say the same thing to their children, instead of "you must believe in the literal word of the Bible, or you're a sinner and you'll go to Hell" (which is the line I was taught as a kid).
I would actually favor setting aside one day in science class where highschool teachers would compare the two theories (as long as the teacher is objective--which is almost never the case in Arkansas, Tennessee or Utah ).
Alternately, we could back off and let science handle things it's usual way: i.e. without political appeals, public rallies or fundraisers, or protests and court cases, but with evidence, logic and debate. That ought to settle it the old Navy way: "First guy to die, loses."

I'm Thylacosmilus.
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Wumpini, posted 05-02-2008 5:10 PM Wumpini has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Deftil, posted 05-03-2008 1:28 AM Blue Jay has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024