Why not teach problems with ToE in school?

Things seem to be largely getting pretty remote to the theme.

Adminnemooseus

ps: Prediction of "The Theory of the Evolution of a Topic" - This message will have no obvious effect on where the topic goes.

Please send any replies to the message to the "Change in Moderation?" topic.

---

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests

Wasn't there a lady in Africa (a prostitue I think) who was found to be immune to HIV and who has passed that immunity to her offspring, who also happen to be prostitutes? Her body is able to rapidly adapt and provide immunity to the changes that the HIV virus mutates into.
I'll try to find some more information on the web.

Well, I've posted links to what the position of the Episcopal Church has to say about Evolution.

Here is the position of the Presbyterians.

Therefore, the Program Agency recommends to the 194th General Assembly (1982) the adoption of the following affirmation: Affirms that, despite efforts to establish "creationism" or "creation­science" as a valid science, it is teaching based upon a particular religious dogma as agreed by the court (McLean vs Arkansas Board of Education); Affirms that, the imposition of a fundamentalist viewpoint about the interpretation of Biblical literature -- where every word is taken with uniform literalness and becomes an absolute authority on all matters, whether moral, religious, political, historical or scientific -- is in conflict with the perspective on Biblical interpretation characteristically maintained by Biblical scholars and theological schools in the mainstream of Protestantism, Roman Catholicism and Judaism. Such scholars find that the scientific theory of evolution does not conflict with their interpretation of the origins of life found in Biblical literature. Affirms that, academic freedom of both teachers and students is being further limited by the impositions of the campaign most notably in the modification of textbooks which limits the teaching about evolution but also by the threats to the professional authority and freedom of teachers to teach and students to learn; Affirms that, required teaching of such a view constitutes an establishment of religion and a violation of the separation of church and state, as provided in the First Amendment to the Constitution and laws of the United States; Affirms that, exposure to the Genesis account is best sought through the teaching about religion, history, social studies and literature, provinces other than the discipline of natural science, and Calls upon Presbyterians, and upon legislators and school board members, to resist all efforts to establish any requirements upon teachers and schools to teach "creationism" or "creation science."

There is nothing in Christianity that oposes Evolution. Evolution does not preclude GOD. Rather Evolution is the best available explaination of HOW this wonderous world came about. It is the record that God wrote, unlike the Bible that was written by mere men.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So how do you explain that athiests, like the many in here believe evolution to the tee, yet are athiests. And then religious crazys who believe in evolution. A theory dealing with materialism and biological evolution through natural processes believe in God? Do you really think you can have it both ways? IMO the only one making sense is the athiest. Because at least his being consistent with his theory. Men like Dr Dawkins and humanists are all men taking the ToE consistently.

Theistic Evolution

It would seem to be a better place to discuss your viewpoint.

Since I was the starter of that topic, I'm making this suggestion in the non-admin mode.

Cheers,
Moose

To clarify, I'm almost positive it was Herbert Spencer, speaking of "social Darwinism", who first coined the term "survival of the fittest". It's a connotation thing, I know, but in the case of evolution it's more like...

Survival of the traits of those best able to adapt to their environment.

So it's not necessarily that the whole world is some bloodthirsty, dog-eat-dog place where all but the strong will die, as the term inplies; just that the fittest are going to survive long enough to reproduce more often than those less able to avoid predators and catch prey.

Oh, and I think the world could use a few more jars.

***

As far as the original topic, well, I don't think I have more to say beyond what others have contributed... yes, teach the flaws; I was really actually encouraged by learning theories' flaws in my chemistry class when I was younger (as an example), as it showed me that there definitely *is* still much to learn out there. But, (since this cannot be repeated too often) make sure that the flaws taught are real flaws.

quote:

---

There is nothing in Christianity that oposes Evolution. Evolution does not preclude GOD. Rather Evolution is the best available explaination of HOW this wonderous world came about. It is the record that God wrote, unlike the Bible that was written by mere men.

---

Well, if you admit the bible was written by humans, why are you confident Jesus even existed in the first place? I mean, that could be a human lie or error, couldn't it? Certainly in the case of choosing between Christianity, Islam and Judaism, Christianity is entirely dependant on the bible being accurate.

This message has been edited by contracycle, 08-06-2004 07:40 AM

Take it to the proper thread and I'd be glad to discuss it.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Find a good thread on that or start one and I would be happy to discuss it with you. But that's very much OT.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Certainly in the case of choosing between Christianity, Islam and Judaism, Christianity is entirely dependant on the bible being accurate.

That's an utterly ridiculous claim, Contracycle. The central point (as I see it) of Christianity is the concept of a personal relationship with Jesus - you don't need the bible to convince you of that.

Fundamentalism and biblical inerrancy are a largely american phenomena - throughout much of the rest of the world, and much of history there was no such claim made.

Wasn't there a lady in Africa (a prostitue I think) who was found to be immune to HIV and who has passed that immunity to her offspring...

Perhaps you are thinking of natural allelic variants in the CCR5 gene - CCR5 is used by HIV to interact with and infect cells.

Some CCR5 variants prevent infection all together, while others delay onset of AIDS or the extremity of AIDS. Other variants in CCR5 actually accelerate onset of AIDS.

Her body is able to rapidly adapt and provide immunity to the changes that the HIV virus mutates into.

Given what I know about HIV biology, a human "adapting" as fast as the virus is impossible - perhaps this statement is a misinterpretation or exaggeration by a non-science source...

Second, a big beneficial mutation in humans is the partial to full immunity to HIV that some people conferred from their anscestors who survived the Bubonic Plague in Europe.

I've heard the plague - HIV immunity link is bogus, that an analogy or inference was made between the individual immunity to the two that got misconstrued.

Do you have a source for the claim? I just want to make sure bogus claims don't get thrown around, and would like to correct myself if I'm mistaken...

A worthy discussion that deserves a better home.

I don't think there is an suitable existing topic.

New topic time?

Adminnemooseus

Added by edit - Note that this is the 3rd topic drift alert I have issued on this page. Straighten up or it's going to be closing time. Messages should have something to do with scientific deficencies in the TOE.

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 08-06-2004 10:29 PM

---

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests

almeyda writes:

quote:

---

Seeing how Catholics believe in the Bible i would assume they can point to the verse that says In the beginning life evolved by me?

---

The Bible doesn't mention computers or cell phones, either. Do they not exist?

The fact that the Bible does not say, "Life evolved," does not mean evolution is incompatible with the Bible. Genesis is fairly vague when it comes to discussing exactly how god did his creation. Who are you to say it couldn't possibly have been through evolution?

quote:

---

Or is it just there own interpretation of the scriptures?

---

Neither. The Bible doesn't say how god did it. Therefore, why rule anything out?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

The fact that the Bible does not say, "Life evolved," does not mean evolution is incompatible with the Bible. Genesis is fairly vague when it comes to discussing exactly how god did his creation. Who are you to say it couldn't possibly have been through evolution?

---

How do you explain that evolution evolves through death and survival of the fittest. Whereas the Bible says God made a world deemed 'very good' by god himself, ruined by sin. Not until the fall of man did the world have death and suffering. Evolution however uses death and bloodshed over millions of yrs, the unfit die, the fit genes go on. If this is the case then how are they compatible?