Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8961 total)
202 online now:
dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (4 members, 198 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,429 Year: 1,177/23,288 Month: 1,177/1,851 Week: 301/320 Day: 1/72 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Help in teaching 11-12 Year olds (RE (Religious Education) in the UK)
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 58 of 126 (538686)
12-09-2009 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Peg
12-09-2009 6:34 AM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
Hi Peg,

Perhaps to a person who believes in evolution, yes. (and i do get it btw)

You say that, but from how you continue from there, it still seems as if you don't quite get it.

But to a person who believes in creation, they are very much dependent on each other.

Creationists believe in a creator who created all the life we see as fully formed creatures. So when weighing up the argument for evolution, I have to weigh up two things

1. 'God Created'
and
2. 'life evolved'

Okay, I see your point and I (hopefully) understand where you're coming from. The problem is that in taking this attitude you're setting up a false dichotomy.

In your version of events, God created all creatures fully formed. I acknowledge that this is incompatible with evolution.

The point is that evolution can be applied to far more hypothetical scenarios than just a natural origin of life.

I've shown you this list before;


  • God did it.
  • Some other god did it.
  • A whole bunch of gods did it in concert.
  • Life came from another planet.
  • Life was implanted into our reality via the hyper-dimensional ovipositor of the Queen of the Machine Elves.
  • The planet Earth is sentient and one day it just decided to grow life upon its surface.
  • A process of many chemical reactions created organic molecules of gradually increasing complexity until they eventually reached the level of complexity that we term "life".

Now any of those origins could have been followed up by evolution, yet you seek to limit us to two options; creation as per Genesis or a totally natural origin of all life. It's all or nothing. You exclude any and all other options. Why?

If you are going to say that Genesis describes divine creation (in current forms) and not anything else, I agree with you. The problem is that you seem to be assuming that if we don't go with the Genesis version, then all bets are off. Why?


Mutate and Survive

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Peg, posted 12-09-2009 6:34 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Peg, posted 12-10-2009 5:54 AM Granny Magda has responded

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 67 of 126 (538784)
12-10-2009 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Peg
12-10-2009 5:39 AM


Peg's DNA
how is a fish and a cow related? a dog and a cat??

thier DNA is not identicle, so how are they related?

Your DNA is not identical to your parents, so how are you related to them? Congratulations, you have just argued your way to illegitimacy.

Or, you might like to rethink that question.


Mutate and Survive

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Peg, posted 12-10-2009 5:39 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Peg, posted 12-10-2009 6:23 AM Granny Magda has responded

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 70 of 126 (538789)
12-10-2009 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Peg
12-10-2009 5:54 AM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
its not about which God/gods was the creator in this case...

Of course it is. You claim that it's Yaweh or the highway. That's a false dichotomy. You have excluded the mean, excluded all other options out of hand.

its about 'creation' as opposed to an unguided natural phenomenon

And the point that is being made ad nauseum is that either of those origins are compatible with evolution.

God created simple life... and it evolved.

Life arose through unguided chemical processes... and it evolved.

You seem determined to misunderstand this. In what way can you completely rule out a deity creating the first simple replicators? I cannot. Can you?

the creator has proof in the form of eyewitnesses (whether you believe them or not is not the point)

It very much is the point. Millennia-old religious tracts do not count as eye-witnesses and their testimony is irrelevant to the origins of life (unless you are credulous enough to believe everything you read).

evolution has no eyewitness and no proof as to how it got started

No eyewitnesses? That sounds entirely consistent with the theory that when life arose it was extremely simple. No eyewitness would be possible.


Mutate and Survive

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Peg, posted 12-10-2009 5:54 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Peg, posted 12-10-2009 6:30 AM Granny Magda has responded

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 74 of 126 (538793)
12-10-2009 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Peg
12-10-2009 6:23 AM


Re: Peg's DNA
Okay,
I have to say that WK is far better placed to explain this than I. Basically though, you and I do have similar DNA to all other living creatures. It is often mentioned that we share 90% of our DNA with chimps, but we also share a large portion of our DNA with strawberries. All living things share DNA, to a greater or lesser extent.

We accept that shared DNA can be used to determine relatedness in humans, so, as WK asked, why should this suddenly stop working between species? Don't you think it's a bit of a co-incidence that genetic relatedness corresponds to morphological similarity?


Mutate and Survive

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Peg, posted 12-10-2009 6:23 AM Peg has not yet responded

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 76 of 126 (538795)
12-10-2009 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Peg
12-10-2009 6:30 AM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
no you are wrong.

its not about which God at all. Its about creation vs evolution.

So you would be happy to accept that Brahma might have made the first life?

the very earliest lifeforms were far from simple, so there goes your first point

You are being unreasonable and evading the point. Comparitively simple life then. OK?

God made comparitively simple life... and it evolved.

How can you rule this out? You seem to have no trouble doing so; on what basis do you dismiss the idea?

chemicals do not come to life, there goes your second.

No chemical that you know of has come to life. Unless you are suggesting that you have observed every single individual example of a chemical substance that ever existed, you do not know whether chemicals come to life or not. On what basis can you rule this out? That you have never seen it? I have never seen the creation of the Earth, but I have a feeling that it happened nonetheless.

DNA prevents species jumping the very real entirely arbitrary and imaginary barrier that keeps them replicating in the manner of their parents.... so none of what you've said has any founding.

Fixed that for you. Or perhaps you disagree. If so, please point out this boundary. I'd love to see it.


Mutate and Survive

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Peg, posted 12-10-2009 6:30 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Peg, posted 12-10-2009 7:13 AM Granny Magda has responded

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 83 of 126 (538808)
12-10-2009 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Peg
12-10-2009 7:13 AM


Evolution and Origins
Granny writes:

So you would be happy to accept that Brahma might have made the first life?

Peg writes:

again, its not the issue.

I'm sorry, but it is.

You are ruling in one explanation for the origin of life; the Jewish creation story.

You are ruling out all other creation stories, any and all natural explanations...

On what basis can you say that one is compatible with evolution and another incompatible?

The main point that started me on this thread is simply this; evolution does not depend on any particular explanation for life's origin. Could you at least give me some kind of signal that you understand what I'm saying? Even if you disagree, it would be nice to know that you are getting my point here.

because the cambrian period shows a burst of life in great variety as opposed to a slow gradual increase

because the genetic code stops a plant or animal from moving too far from its parents appearance. There is great variety i agree(eg humans, cats, dogs) but not so much that one living thing could change into another...genetics and dna determine what a creature will look like, not random mutations.

because what we actually see in living things is stability and a limited range of variation

Again, we seem to be talking at cross-purposes. I didn't ask why you don't believe in evolution. I asked how you can demonstrate that evolution requires a natural origin. I'm trying to get at the fact that many possible origins are compatible with evolution, both natural and supernatural. Do you see where I'm coming from?

so you believe there is a chemical out there that has the ability to come to life?

The fact that life exists and that it is composed of chemicals proves beyond doubt that this is true. The only bone of contention is how life started. I am trying to show you that evolution is compatible with pretty much any origin, certainly it is compatible with a natural origin or a supernatural origin.

I wouldnt know, but im not going to base my world view on something that could be out there. I cant prove that its not out there...perhaps if scientists find it we will have the answer to abiogenesis.

Indeed, we should not believe what we cannot evidence. For my part, I don't believe in any particular origin of life. I have no idea what happened. I believe that a naturalistic explanation is more likely, but that's simply because every single other workable and well evidenced explanation for a phenomenon has been naturalistic. Supernatural explanations have an appalling track record in explaining the world. Historically, supernatural explanations have only ever been proved wrong. This alone is good enough reason to expect every phenomenon, including life, to have a naturalistic explanation. It is also the case that a number of reasonable naturalistic hypotheses exist regarding origins and progress is being made. It seems a little premature to rule them out and resort to "God-did-it" just yet.

Just another quick point; even if scientists create life in a lab tomorrow, we still won't be able to say definitively that this was how the original life arose. It might be, we wouldn't be able to tell for sure.

I believe that WK has answered your point about sterility.


Mutate and Survive

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Peg, posted 12-10-2009 7:13 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Peg, posted 12-12-2009 7:25 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020