Message 346 of 356 (502862) 03-13-2009 6:56 PM

Reply to: Message 343 by alaninnont 03-13-2009 4:34 PM

No, that is not what I am saying. That is why I didn't say anything remotely like that in any way.

I thought that my point was quite simple. The absence of "creator based evolution" from high-school curricula does not make evolution "atheistic" any more than the absence of a "creator based periodic table" from high-school curricula makes chemistry "atheistic".

---

I don't see how the existence of "significant controversy" changes that. If you think it does, here's some questions for you.

If some religious cult were to arise in the future that objected to the periodic table on religious grounds, would it as a consequence become "atheistic"?

Some people still object to Copernicanism on religious grounds. Is that "atheistic"? How about the proposition that the Earth is not flat? There are still some hold-outs, again on religious grounds --- so is it "atheistic"? And if so, will the round Earth stop being an "atheistic" concept with the death of the last Flat-Earther?

If that "controversy" isn't "significant" enough to make the round Earth an "atheistic" concept, then the question arises: how many religious kooks does it take to make a scientific concept "atheistic"?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Message 347 of 356 (502899) 03-13-2009 11:20 PM

Reply to: Message 1 by platypus 12-11-2006 2:41 AM

quote:

---

[renumbered]
1) One Family Tree unites all of life and
2) Species change through time and place

Of these two points of evolution, Dr. Roughgarden makes two claims.

3) These two ideas must be taught in every science curriculum.
4) Neither of these ideas are directly in conflict with the Bible.

I tend to agree with this sentiment. Any objectors?

---

1. God man man in his own image, so man is unique. Point number one undermines this truth from the bible.
2. No species changes outside the genetic and viral programs that God designed. The genetic program is variable by design.
3. We don't want evolutionists dictating to us. That's why we homeschool our kids. We don't want our taxes spent on evolutionary research either. That's just a recipie for enslavement to a totalitarian elite and newspeak. Long live the empire! Learn what you want, teach what you want, but don't involve us or our hard earned money.

4. They most certainly contradict the bible. The bible charges parents with the responsibiltiy of teaching God's commandments to children. That means the Sabbath, which is the sign that God created the world in six days.

5. What ought to be taught is biblical chronology as in "torah" and "times", because the who difference between evolutionists and creations boils down to "time". Biblical chronology stands on its own, without contradiction, and is self verifying (like with prophecies that come true on time). It demonstrates the sheer nonsense of the evolutionary philosophy.

Message 348 of 356 (502903) 03-13-2009 11:56 PM

Reply to: Message 347 by Daniel4140 03-13-2009 11:20 PM

Biggest ego trip. Man made God in his image. The bible is at best alligorical, at worst mythology.

That is what occurred under the Bush Whitehouse, with is faith based inititives and disregard to the Constitution.

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Message 349 of 356 (502970) 03-14-2009 4:04 PM

Reply to: Message 346 by Dr Adequate 03-13-2009 6:56 PM

You missed my point. You are right. Evolution is not atheistic. There are some who believe that evolution happened with the aid of a creator and some who believe that it happened without. As far as I am aware, the evolution that is taught in school is without, atheistic evolution.

Message 350 of 356 (502971) 03-14-2009 4:14 PM

Reply to: Message 349 by alaninnont 03-14-2009 4:04 PM

And there are some who believe that carbon dioxide reacts with water to form carbonic acid without divine intervention. And they are called chemists.

Is this atheistic chemistry?

If it is atheistic to ascribe natural effects to natural causes, then the whole of science is atheistic, by the very nature of the enterprise.

Message 351 of 356 (502981) 03-14-2009 8:59 PM

Reply to: Message 349 by alaninnont 03-14-2009 4:04 PM

You would be wrong. God is never mentioned, nor is God ruled out of the process. As you state, the role or non-role of God in evolution is a belief, not a finding of science.

Message 353 of 356 (502990) 03-15-2009 2:20 AM

Reply to: Message 352 by Daniel4140 03-15-2009 12:34 AM

So which definition is the same as supernatural intervention.

Science
because I think I missed it.

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

Message 354 of 356 (502997) 03-15-2009 6:22 AM

Reply to: Message 352 by Daniel4140 03-15-2009 12:34 AM

An etymology is not a definition, Daniel. "Testify" means to swear an oath upon one's testicles - but they even let women be witnesses in court these days. And besides, for "divine intervention" to exist, the divine would need to exist. I haven't seen it yet.....

Message 355 of 356 (503002) 03-15-2009 8:00 AM

Reply to: Message 352 by Daniel4140 03-15-2009 12:34 AM

And since we don't, it isn't.