Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
99 online now:
dwise1, nwr, PaulK, Phat, Tanypteryx (5 members, 94 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,063 Year: 5,175/6,534 Month: 18/577 Week: 6/80 Day: 6/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist/ID Education should be allowed
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 110 days)
Posts: 2384
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 41 of 116 (659474)
04-16-2012 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by OpticalIllusions
04-16-2012 7:19 AM


Hi OpticalIllusions and welcome to the forum,

I think you have started from a number of misaprehensions of what the Theory of evolutionis and what it is not.

If they teach evolution they need to keep the big bang part out.

The Big Bang is not a part of the Theory of Evolution, which is concerned with biology, not cosmology. When we say "evolution" the word can have many different meanings. In the context of a message board like this, where evolution proponents engage with creationists, when someone says "evolution" they're normally talking about biological evolution. Nothing to do with the Big Bang.

If we evolved from the big bang then why are there still bangs on earth today?

The phrase "Big Bang" is just a nickname. Originally it was a derisory nickname given to the theory by its opponents. The actual evwent described by the Big Bang Theory was not merely a "bang" in any normal sense of the word. No such events take place on earth today.

If they are going to teach the theory, they at least need to teach that maybe god, or "a god of some type which science can't figure out" made the bangs. I just wish science class was all about what science knows for absolute sure (just the laws not the theories), not what they think they might know but aren't sure.

I think you're contradicting yourself there. You want kids to be taught only what we know for sure, but you also want them to be taught about a god that you admit science "can't figure out". Also, I think you have misunderstood what the term "theory" means in science. It does not mean that scientists doubt the theory's veracity. theories are not preomoted to the status of laws when the evidence reaches some threshold. The term "theory" is the highest accolade science has for an idea.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by OpticalIllusions, posted 04-16-2012 7:19 AM OpticalIllusions has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by OpticalIllusions, posted 04-16-2012 7:47 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 110 days)
Posts: 2384
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 47 of 116 (659512)
04-16-2012 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by OpticalIllusions
04-16-2012 7:47 AM


If the big bang didn't happen, then how could evolution happen?

Science is about understanding the universe. Trouble is, the universe is a big, complex place. It's not possible to study everything at once. That's why scientists take smaller subjects and examine them in detail. Biology is one of those subjects and evolution is a part of biology. the Big Bang is not biology. In trying to force an understanding of both the Big Bang and biological evolution as if they were one subject, you're making both of them harder to understand, not easier.

Does science have any theories other than the big bang about how the universe started that do fit with evolution?

Well yes; creationism, although I would hesitate to call it science. Evolution is perfectly compatible with many forms of creationism. One could simply assume that a god (or gods) created life and that then, that life proceeded to evolve.

Now I don't think that's a good idea or anything, but certainly evolution is compatible with that scenario. One could posit any number of scenarios whereby life came to exist. It doesn't really effect evolution. All we need know is that life began to exist, then began to evolve.

I would also note that we can observe evolution taking place in the here-and-now. No amount of speculation about origins could possibly trump those real-world observations.

I think if the theories do not fit together, then at least one of them is wrong.

Or our understanding of them is wrong.

I can accept that the term "big bang" may not be accurate and is simplified, but if science just uses labels to help describe things (and those labels are not the whole theory) then why not accept the label of "God" to help use understand things. It doesn't mean it has to be my personal God or anything like that.

Well as Crashfrog notes, it's not a very helpful label. It's actually pretty unhelpful. Further, the Big Bang theory goes a lot deeper than just a label. It is built upon multiple observations and a very profound understanding of physics. Don't confuse the label with the theory itself.

Doesn't the theory of God fit better with creation science then the big bang theory fits with evolution theory?

Both of those pairs fit each other well. Only one pairing has the advantage of being true.

I don't get it though; what is it that you think makes evolution and the Big Bang a poor match for each other? Where's the beef?

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by OpticalIllusions, posted 04-16-2012 7:47 AM OpticalIllusions has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Genologist, posted 09-15-2012 5:41 PM Granny Magda 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