|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
1 -- he can still read as a lurker.
2 -- the answers are for all lurkers and followers, not just the poster. 3 -- many suspensions have been lifted. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rodnas writes:
But nobody has ever been able to demonstrate that that is true.
Chemistry does nor require a code but biochemistry does, that's is the fundamental difference and a code requires a programmer. Rodnas writes:
Of course you don't. Nobody does. I have no idea how anything was programmed; But that's the whole point, isn't it? If you knew how it was programmed, it would be science and not religion. If you knew how it was programmed, it could be taught in school. But since neither you nor anybody else knows how it was programmed, it should only be taught in church.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5951 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
DWise1 writes:
On Facebook, Ed Babinski has posted INACCURATE METAPHORS for DNA OFTEN USED BY CREATIONISTS AND I.D.ists. The two that he lists are:
Rodnas writes:
. . . ... and a code requires a programmer. Also, are we really talking about an actual code here? Or is that just an analogy we use to aid in discussing genetics? Like the "Laws of Nature" which do not actually exist, but rather are human formulations of patterns we humans have noticed in how natural processes are observed to work. Or the sun and moon rising and setting, which we still say despite knowing how false that analogy is.quote:His discussion of the second metaphor follows: quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
1 -- he can still read as a lurker. 2 -- the answers are for all lurkers and followers, not just the poster. 3 -- many suspensions have been lifted. All true of course. It's also true that Rodnas spent his time here yanking chains and not responding to the discussion. He was apparently so successful at it that people are still following up a week after he left here.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
It's also true that Rodnas spent his time here yanking chains and not responding to the discussion. Hit & run is a classic Biblical Christian/Creationist/Conman tactic but that does not mean it is not important to hammer home the point that the reason they do run is that their positions are indefensible and nonsense.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Babinsky's objections for why DNA is not like a computer code are very weak and unconvincing, primarily because DNA is very much like a computer code. "Brains are like computers" is a much better example of an "inaccurate metaphor."
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rodnas  Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 3392 days) Posts: 15 From: Seattle Joined: |
Ed Babinski writes:
physical complexity can increase from the basic assumption of fundamental physical laws, and theoretically it could eventually form self-catalytic chain reactions that could evolve further complexity such that "coding systems" that worked faster, better or left behind a greater abundance of some self-catalytic chain reactions over others, would proliferate. Since biology is not a complex form of physics it requires a code/language with meaning in order to carry out its functions of mitosis and meiosis. At least that is what biologists are saying. The question then is weather this code was programmed in the original DNA or if it was a process of natural self-organization. Whatever the case, would there be a problem in teaching this science in schools? Edited by Serapatatia, : No reason given. Edited by Serapatatia, : No reason given. Edited by Serapatatia, : Added text. Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2330 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
Rodnas,
You asked to be gone so I obliged you. If you want to come back you should petition one of the admins. Trying to sneak back in with a new account is just cheating. AdminAsgara Edited by AdminAsgara, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Whatever the case, would there be a problem in teaching this science in schools? A problem teaching what science? Science is not just whatever one or more biologists says. Instead it is what one or more scientists can back up or at least demonstrate that he is in the process of backing it up. You have yet to show us that anything you say here rises to the level of hypothesis, let alone theory. So that's the problem teaching your ID-lite in school. It is not science.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ggirard Junior Member (Idle past 3238 days) Posts: 1 From: Fort St. John BC Canada Joined: |
The theories of evolution and creationism aren’t mutually exclusive. It is conceivable that evolution is a process of creationism that has occurred over the course of hundreds of millions of years, as purported by science. There is convincing evidence that natural selection does occur. However, to believe that natural selection is the only, or even prime, mechanism driving evolution is as much an act of faith as it is to believe in a supreme consciousness driving it. Personally, I find it easier to accept that there is intelligent purpose in evolution than to accept that it has been driven solely by natural selection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
ggirard writes:
There is no theory of creationism. There isn't even a testable hypothesis.
The theories of evolution and creationism aren’t mutually exclusive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mikechell Inactive Member |
It is conceivable that evolution is a process of creationism that has occurred over the course of hundreds of millions of years Although I agree with the premise ... doesn't that contradict the "6000 years" creationist timeline?evidence over faith ... observation over theory
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Welcome to the fray, ggirard.
... It is conceivable that evolution is a process of creationism that has occurred over the course of hundreds of millions of years, as purported by science. There is convincing evidence that natural selection does occur. ... Indeed there is voluminous empirical evidence that (a) the earth is very very old, and (b) that natural selection has occurred and continues to occur.
... However, to believe that natural selection is the only, or even prime, mechanism driving evolution is as much an act of faith as it is to believe in a supreme consciousness driving it. ... Indeed, natural selection is only one process of evolution, and omitting the other processes is like trying to walk with only one leg:
Mutation is what causes the variation that selection operates on, it is random while selection is ecology\species specific. Another factor contributing to evolution is genetic drift.
The theories of evolution and creationism aren’t mutually exclusive. ... As already noted, creationism is not a scientific theory and thus is not on the same degree of explanatory ability as the tested and validated theory of evolution. There are many religions and many versions of creation concepts, and the issue is not so much what you believe, but whether what you believe is contradicted by objective empirical evidence, such as the belief in a young earth.
... Personally, I find it easier to accept that there is intelligent purpose in evolution than to accept that it has been driven solely by natural selection. You are free to believe anything you choose, reality does not care what you think, and opinions have shown remarkable lack of ability to alter it. Enjoy
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
RAZD writes: quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting TipsFor a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1420 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
There is convincing evidence that natural selection does occur. However, to believe that natural selection is the only, or even prime, mechanism driving evolution is as much an act of faith as it is to believe in a supreme consciousness driving it.
On the one hand, there's a lot of controversy in scientific circles about whether natural selection can be said to be the prime mechanism driving evolution. But on the other hand, at least natural selection can be demonstrated, unlike a "supreme consciousness." And there's no controversy concerning whether all species on Earth share common ancestry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Now how many creationists would you expect to appear with GG in their name before it becomes more than a coincidence?
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024