|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 865 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Teacher Fired for Disagreeing With Literal Interpretation of Bible | |||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Here is a link to the article in the Des Moines Register.
I do like this bit:
quote: I like the way that it was felt necessary to identify Prof. Avalos as an atheist religion professor. The comments section is an interesting read, too. Added by edit: Oops. I see that bob gray has already linked to this article. I didn't reread the thread after I read it this morning, so missed it. Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given. In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
The ToE is a philosophy with racist connotations.... Actually, it's not. The theory of evolution is a description of a phenomenon, nothing more. The theory of evolution is simply the statement of the facts that in a natural population some individuals produce many offspring, some produce few offspring, and some produce none at all; in a natural population, this difference in reproduction is because of variations in the physical characteristics; these physical variations are inherited; so in the next generation, more individuals will have the physical characteristics associated with the production of more offspring, and fewer individuals will have the physical characteristics that produce fewer offspring; over time, the population will eventually consist solely of individuals with the characteristics that produce many offspring, and no individual will have the characteristics that produce few offspring; and that new variations appear. Furthermore, the theory of evolution states that that the many species that we know derived from a single ancestral population several billion years ago through this process of differential reproduction due to inherited physical characteristics. See? The theory of evolution is simply a description of a phenomenon. There is nothing in this description that labels some actions as "good" or other actions as "bad", nor does it imply any sort of ideology or philosophy. This is much like Newton's theory of gravity is simply a description of a phenomenon. It does not imply that people should live in low valleys and avoid hilltops; it does not state that flying in airplanes or living in tall buildings is wrong. It simply describes how objects will fall to the ground; it does not imply that humans should leap off of cliffs because that is the "natural thing to do". -
Religion kills because of people. Exactly. People will be racists and will commit acts that we think are morally wrong. They will then justify their beliefs with the explanatory framework that is available to them. In present day North America, white supremists are Christians. They found justification for their racism with their interpretation of the Bible. In the early 20th century, eugenicists were more scientifically minded. They justified their racist views with their interpretations of biology. -
...so we can't blame it on God if we choose to do what's wrong. Nor can we "blame it on evolution" when we do wrong. -
if evolution is true we just have a consensus on what is right and what is wrong and that changes all the time. That is what happens anyway. Most religious societies are simply the result of a consensus of what's right and wrong. -
God doesn't change however and his law is perfect.... Which is an opinion that seems to be confined to those followers of God, and hence isn't an unbiased opinion. -
God doesn't change however and his law is perfect and it's written in our consciences which is something we were given by God so we have the ability to know what's right and what's wrong. Even if we don't listen, we know. Okay. So I know that abortion is right; preventing a woman from terminating her pregnancy is wrong. I know this. Is this because God wrote this in my conscience? -
...-it's just a new religion that tells people that what God wrote is not true.... Actually, it is a reasonable and logical explanation of the physical evidence that we see around us, evidence that is so overwhelming that one can only refuse to accept it by perversely sticking to one's religious beliefs. The data simply show that the events recorded in the first two chapters of Genesis (as well as the chapters describing a global flood) did not happen. If God did indeed write Genesis, then, yes, I'm afraid that what God wrote is not true. I can see how you would be troubled with the idea that God might write something that is not true; I'll leave it to you how to deal with it. I will suggest, though, that simply dismissing the overwhelming abundance of evidence that supports the theory of evolution isn't a particularly rational way of dealing with this, and it's possible that this sort of emotional avoidance of issues that you find unpleasant might be harmful in other situations. But that's your call. Edited by Chiroptera, : typo Edited by Chiroptera, : Fixed a parody of a quote to use the same word. Progress in human affairs has come mainly through the bold readiness of human beings not to confine themselves to seeking piecemeal improvements in the way things are done, but to present fundamental challenges in the name of reason to the current way of doing things and to the avowed or hidden assumptions on which it rests. -- E. H. Carr
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
(Content hidden -- I just saw Ned's warning.)
Macromutational change is believed to have occurred not because it has been observed but because it has been extrapolated from the micromutational evidence. This is false. Macroevolutionary change is believed to have occurred because it is the simplest, most reasonable explanation for a whole host of evidence for which no other explanation exists. Microevolution is assumed to be the cause of macroevolution because we know that microevolution occurs, and we have no other likely explanation for the macroevolution that we know, from the evidence, must have occurred. -
As a result of this lack of evidence, Gould and Eldredge proposed a new theory to deal with that fact -punctuated equilibrium. Actually, Gould and Eldridge proposed punctuated equilibrium to explain why we don't see evidence of microevolution in the fossil record. The fossil record shows very good evidence for macroevolution, but very little evidence for microevolution. The question is: if microevolution is the cause of macroevolution, and we see macroevolution in the fossil record, why don't we see signs of the microevolutionary steps? Punctuated equilibrium was their explanation for this. And it isn't just a hypothesis. It is a theory that, like all scientific theories, can be tested. -
but the evidence fails for the most part to support this contention. The evidence is actually quite strong. -
That's true but nonetheless the theory allows people to imagine that there is no God in which case who makes the rules? That is a good question. Why don't you actually go to a thread where that is on topic, or start a new thread? Why do you have to derail every single thread in which you participate? Why can't you remain on topic? (I know, I'm a bit of a hypocrite since I'm currently enabling him. But can I help it that the only interesting discussions occur as off-topic digressions?) -
Except the theory of gravity is not a philosophy since it is fully supported by the facts. As is the theory of evolution. -
I agree and that is why so many cults spring up all over -they interpret according to what they want to believe, not what the Bible actually says.... So you agree that a philosophy may not be evil in itself, it may be that people are twisting what it says. So now you can see that even if evolution were a philosophy (it's not; I'm just saying this for the sake of argument) it's not necessarily evil in itself, but could be twisted by people for their own ends. Why the double standard? Why is twisting the theory the fault of people in the case of the Bible, but twisting the theory the fault of the theory in the case of evolution? You are committing a fallacy called "special pleading". -
I do not think that an unseared conscience can come to that conclusion. I was replying to your previous statement:
quote: I know what is right and what is wrong. Preventing a woman from exercising her choice to terminate a pregnancy is wrong. A woman terminating her pregnancy because she doesn't want to be pregnant is right. I know this. By your previous statement, this must be what God wrote in my conscience. Either we all know what is right, or we don't. If we believe differently about right and wrong, then obviously we don't all know what is right. Then either right and wrong are subjective opinions, or there is no reliable way of determining what is right and wrong. Christian ethical philosophy is quite muddled. Why don't you start a thread on it so that we can straighten all of this out? At any rate, none of this has anything to do with evolution, and it certainly doesn't have much to do with the OP. -
...neither can we prove the big bang, abiogenesis and so many other so called 'facts' of evolution.... Hell, we can't prove anything at all in real life. But that doesn't stop us from coming to reasonable conclusions about reality based on the evidence that we have. Based on the real evidence, it is reasonable to accept evolution as a fact; in fact, it would be unreasonable to not accept it. Literal Genesis is simply out. There is no way that a literal interpretation of Genesis can be squared with what we know about the real world. -
I will unhide this part, since I think it is relevant:
...a closer look at the Bible shows many provable facts of history supported by historical accounts as well as by archeological finds. Not to mention the alignment of nations that currently want to annihilate Israel exactly as foretold in many chapters of the Bible where the end times are mentioned. Wow! You really can't stick to a topic, can you? You can't even stick to the topic of your own digressions. Have you ever considered that this inability to focus on a given topic for any length of time is a sign that maybe your somewhat confused about the topic and issues? Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given. Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given. Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given. Edited by Chiroptera, : Edited the last sentence to try to make it sound less insulting. But maybe it still is, I dunno. If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Beretta,
I started a new topic concerning morality and evolution to discuss whatever connections you might see. If you want to continue this topic, join us there. If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024