Why not teach problems with ToE in school?

crashfrog responds to Robert Byers:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Also again there are few 9 to 5 paid evolutionary scientists.

---

​

Really? I can give you a list of almost 300 "paid evolutionary scientists", if you like - and that's just looking at the folks named Steve:

---

That said, the number of "9 to 5 paid" scientists in a field doesn't really have that much to do with it. There are only a couple thousand "9 to 5 paid" astrophysicsts in the country...so few, in fact, that one year "astrophysicist" made the top of the "most dangerous profession" list. It seems that some had an accident in the observatory (falling off the telescope platform, getting crushed between the telescope and the dome, etc.) that the ratio was quite high.Does the relative dearth of "9 to 5 paid" astrophysicsts mean astrophysics is a bogus field of scientific inquiry and that the work products of those astrophysicists are worthless? The stars really are lights set in a fixed dome?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Robert Byers responds to me:

quote:

---

You make my point. There are just a few astrophysicsts, relatively, and yet great ideas are presented to society as if a great movement of minds has come to conclusions that must replace previous conclusions.

---

And you just made mine:You don't seem to complain when the astrophysicists do it. So why are you picking on evolutionary biologists?Obviously, it isn't the number of active scientists in the field that is causing your hackles to rise. It's the conclusions of their investigations that are.

quote:

---

Yet in the creationist world we claim thousands of years( hundreds of years in the intellectually advanced English-speaking world)by millions of people persuaded by the truth of scripture and ready to contend with all comers. And science thinkers too many too count.

---

Logical error: Argumentum ad populum.It doesn't matter how many people believe a dumb thing. It's still a dumb thing.By this logic, you should stop being a Christian since the vast majority of the world thinks your god is a figment of your imagination.Too, if you're going to use "science thinkers" as your justification, then we wind up concluding evolution as there is no significant group of "science thinkers" that advocate anything but evolution. If you look at any professional science organization such as the AAAS, you won't find any "creationism" or "intelligent design" field. You'll find lots of evolutionary disciplines, though. One would think that if creationism were such a common outlook among "science thinkers," they'd manage to get together during the conferences.Logical error: Complex question.You seem to think that if god is true, then evolution must be false. And yet, there is no reason to claim this. The official position of the Catholic church, for example, is that evolution is the only scientifically valid theory we have for explaining how life diversified on this planet. You're not calling the Pope an atheist, are you? I'm not saying you need to believe in Catholic theology. I am simply pointing out that the Pope believes in god and agrees with evolution.Are you saying god cannot create life that evolves?Have you considered the possibility that god does exist but not in the way you think?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

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!