Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 57 (9174 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,616 Year: 4,873/9,624 Month: 221/427 Week: 31/103 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
Member (Idle past 3471 days)
Posts: 92
Joined: 04-06-2012

Message 145 of 2073 (658564)
04-06-2012 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by extent
05-04-2010 7:22 PM

I am perturbed, flabbergasted, and disturbed by the continuing efforts of misguided (to the point even of committing perjury in ‘Dover, et. al.’) and scripturally incorrect religious people to foist their misconceptions, under the guise of ‘scientific theories’ (creationism, intelligent design, etc.) upon the educational system. In addition to the obvious damage and hindrance to our educational curricula, these attempts are a huge misrepresentation of spiritual reality
Evolution as a scientific discipline must be divorced from the associated parent philosophy Uniformitarianism which was in vogue preceding it for reasons which have been discredited since. Evolution is a valid scientific discipline, Uniformitarianism is a disproven philosophy and school of thought. Uniformitarianism has intruded and embedded itself into scientific thought and thus skewed many considerations of cosmology and astral physics from being objective and empirical. Never mind poor old Emmanuel Velikovsky: While the evidence that he was considering was and is relevant and valid, his derivations (due to his great lack in correct scientific methodology) and conclusions were far amiss. He thus did a great disservice to the school of astral catastrophism, and set back its credibility immensely.
The most recent conclusive disproof of Uniformitarianism is this(Coverage to the public was broadcast on a segment of Nova in the last 12 months):
1. In the past decade (survey completion in last 3-4 years) a radar/topological mapping satellite of improved precision surveyed the surface of Venus.
2. Recently formed (even of possibly historical times), non-eroded craters were found in large and significant quantities on the surface of Venus, craters which were not the result of volcanic activity, but of astral catastrophism (meteoric impact).
3. When a renowned (I didn’t take note of his name, due to the following) uniformitarian astrophysicist was interviewed for his opinion he said: Well, I don’t see how Uniformitarianism can ever possibly explain these craters. But, nevertheless, I’m not willing to give it up.
4. Gentlemen, this is not objective, logical, scientific methodology. Scientific methodology requires that when the derived conclusions of your theory are found to be false in light of the evidence, then you either discard the theory or, if possible modify the flawed part of it accordingly. To cling to it after it has been disproved is not objective, it is religious domaticism.
Creationism per se in all of its multi-farious manifestations, since it invokes to some extent and at some point a supernatural genesis of species, is thus by its very nature incapable of being a scientific discipline. That being the case, creationism has absolutely no place whatsoever in any scientific textbook.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add blank lines between paragraphs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by extent, posted 05-04-2010 7:22 PM extent has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Larni, posted 04-06-2012 11:13 AM PaulGL has not replied
 Message 158 by Pressie, posted 04-19-2012 1:06 AM PaulGL has not replied

Member (Idle past 3471 days)
Posts: 92
Joined: 04-06-2012

Message 254 of 2073 (737709)
09-28-2014 5:52 PM

Genesis is an evolutionary account
I. The Bible is unique
There is no comparison with any other works of mankind. No other books had anywhere near the number of contributors (39+), nor have any been written over such a long span of time (1,600 years). Yet it is profoundly cohesive in all of its contents.
II. The Bible is God's word
In addition to the infinite profundity of the whole, it contains prophecies of many events that are still future in terms of time. These are given with adequate and specific details to be able to unmistakably predict in advance the events recorded.
It is not possible that it is merely human in origin because many of its ramifications are beyond human capabilities.
III. Creationism aka 'Intelligent Design' are not scientific disciplines and therefore should not be taught as such in schools.
"The scientific view of the Universe is such as to admit only those phenomena that can, in one way or another, be observed in a fashion accessible to all, and to admit those generalizations (which we call laws of nature) that can be induced from those observations."
Any explanation of observed phenomena, that invokes to any extent supernatural influence such as divine motivation, is thus inherently self-disqualified from being a scientific discipline.
IV. Evolution is valid
Evolution, however, is the only valid scientific theory which adequately explains the known data. And it has been verified by the correlation of the relevant data corresponding to its testable conclusions.
Dear reader: please lay aside any and all traditional, biased schools of thought within the realm of prideful, puffed-up knowledge. Objectively consider that God may have used evolution to create man. Do not disregard so doing due to bias, dogmatism, or love of argumentation.

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Larni, posted 09-28-2014 5:55 PM PaulGL has not replied
 Message 256 by jar, posted 09-28-2014 6:17 PM PaulGL has not replied
 Message 257 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-28-2014 8:54 PM PaulGL has not replied
 Message 258 by dwise1, posted 09-29-2014 12:30 AM PaulGL has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024