Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9072 total)
72 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 71 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,114 Year: 4,226/6,534 Month: 440/900 Week: 146/150 Day: 0/16 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010

Message 166 of 2058 (663672)
05-26-2012 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by extent
05-04-2010 7:22 PM

Trouble is, the use of the term 'religion' as opposed to Creationism leaves nothing to reply to for Creationists like myself who think if Evolution is to be taught in schools then so should Creationist theories, but don't support teaching religion in schools. The theories Darwin replaced like Catastrophism and Core Created Species as opposed to Macroevolution remain debatable to today, as Macroevolution remains still unproven. Such theories can be taught without teaching religion, they are Biblically compatible but do not require teaching the Bible in schools. Like Evolutionary theory they are just frameworks; hypotheses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by extent, posted 05-04-2010 7:22 PM extent has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by pandion, posted 05-27-2012 2:47 AM Jzyehoshua has replied

Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010

Message 169 of 2058 (663856)
05-27-2012 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by pandion
05-27-2012 2:47 AM

Re: Strawman
By the way, there is no such thing as a "creationist theory." Creationism is founded in the mythology of bronze age, nomadic herdsmen. There are no observations, hypotheses, or testing involved.

Much of our departure from the Dark Ages was the result of Creationist scientists like Louis Pasteur and Isaac Newton. Pasteur was strongly opposed to Darwinian Evolution at the time.

Furthermore, there were reasonable, Biblically compatible theories held by Creationists before the invention of evolution and Uniformitarianism. Before that, Catastrophism was the prevailing view, that a major catastrophe or catastrophes was the predominant force in shaping the world we see today. And it was believed core created species were made, rather than a common ancestor.

Evolution is actually the more recent theory. Same with the Big Bang theory. Same with Uniformitarianism. All are more recent theories, and the Creationist theories are the older ones.

Creationism arrives at conclusions first and then searches for facts to support the conclusions. Any facts that are contrary to the conclusions are rejected.

And you think this doesn't happen in Evolution? How do you explain the rush to judgment in assuming a linear transition to apes, and belief Lucy walked on all fours? How do you explain falling for hoaxes like Piltdown Man for decades by the scientific establishment? They had their conclusion and did not consider other alternatives. They wanted evidence too badly to do an honest evaluation at the time.

Actually, catastrophism was debunked without regard to any theory proposed by Darwin. Catastrophism was debunked by christian scientists who believed in creation before Darwin published his theories.

Source? According to the University of California, Berkeley, Catastrophism was abandoned only after Lyell invented his theory of Uniformitarianism out of dislike for the Bible.

"Catastrophism," as this school of thought came to be known, was attacked in 1830 by a British lawyer-turned-geologist named Charles Lyell (1797-1875). Lyell started his career studying under the catastrophist William Buckland at Oxford. But Lyell became disenchanted with Buckland when Buckland tried to link catastrophism to the Bible, looking for evidence that the most recent catastrophe had actually been Noah's flood. Lyell wanted to find a way to make geology a true science of its own, built on observation and not susceptible to wild speculations or dependent on the supernatural.


Of course, the Biblical kinds, what you replace with "Core Created Species," has no support in reality. You see, there is no evidence to support that superstition that would warrant its inclusion in any science curriculum.

How do you explain sterility in interspeciary breeding? Why, if all species had a common ancestor, do we see animals even as closely related as horses and donkeys or lions and tigers produce sterile offspring? If they all had a common ancestor, why then does sterility result? This was a major issue for Darwin and he spent a whole chapter in "On the Origin of Species" trying to explain it away.

How do you explain the lack of transitions and stasis in the fossil record inconsistent with Gradualistic Evolution? This issue was becoming so dangerous to Evolution that Gould proposed his theory of Punctuated Equilibrium a few decades ago suggesting evolution went really fast for short time periods to explain away this growing body of evidence.

Macroevolution is, quite simply, evolution above the species level that has produced more than one species from a single ancestral lineage. For example: Mallard, Bottled Duck, American Black Duck, Gadwall, Northern Pintail, American Wigeon, Eurasian Wigeon, Northern Shoveler, Garganey, Cinnamon Teal, Blue-winged Teal, Green Winged Teal, etc. All of the above are of the same genus. Macroevolution has been well established as fact by several lines of research. To deny that fact is ignorant.

All of those could arguably be considered of the same core created parent species and thus Microevolution compatible with the Bible rather than Macroevolution indicative of a common ancestor.

So please name the "core created species" for us.

I will create a new topic proposal on this as it will require some serious examination for me. Genesis 1 and Leviticus 11 provide the outline from what I can tell, however.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by pandion, posted 05-27-2012 2:47 AM pandion has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Tangle, posted 05-27-2012 6:03 AM Jzyehoshua has taken no action
 Message 171 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-27-2012 7:40 AM Jzyehoshua has taken no action
 Message 172 by dwise1, posted 05-27-2012 3:33 PM Jzyehoshua has taken no action
 Message 2050 by dwise1, posted 03-15-2022 1:54 AM Jzyehoshua has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022