quote:
science, empirical science will always change, and what might be evolution today might be revolution tomorrow.
Except that evolution has been rigorously tested for a century and a half, and the only people who seriously oppose it today are those who have a pre-existing emotional need to believe it is wrong, or have been deceived by well-meaning believers.
quote:
the fact is, even sciencetists and journalists can not get around seeing from their point of view or belief system. Even if that belief system is purely science.
Don't set up a false dichotomy here. There aren't just two points of view, and most informed people of almost
every belief system are satisfied with the evidence for evolution. My belief system has changed much throughout my life, and the evidence has always been convincing to me. I managed to be a YEC for a while because I was deceived by misuse of anecdotal evidence and unsupported assertions that I had an emotional need to accept.
quote:
I believe in God and I don't consider myself a creationist or evolutionist. I actually used to love science and math as a kid, till some of my teachers killed that enthuaism, before then I was actually invited numerious amounts of times to the governors school program of maths and sciences in Virginia. Instead of becoming purely science, it became political.
So sorry to hear about that. It's happened to a lot of people. Three years after college, I'm only starting to regain the interest I had as a kid.
quote:
Now i realize that there are people who are still in the field, who do it for pure science, but overall its become such a freak show that stem from emotions and the latest theories one strives to completely overcome the other's beliefs.
Do you really believe that most scientists are so emotional and irrational as you're painting it? I mean, I can accept some being a little bit eccentric, but that's what peer review is for. Most published work is scrutinized by other scientists and held to very high standards.
quote:
science in its purest form would reguard evolution as a theory and would strickly enforce that it would taught so. Its not a law or fact, but a theory. It should be taught as a theory, unlike most teachers who teach it today as fact because of their own beliefs and politics to push their agenda to justify themselves in someway.
Actually, whenever the subject comes up here, it seems most people felt they were undereducated in grade school with regard to evolution. I recall learning more about evolution from casually skimming my biology book than was actually taught in class. Actually, come to think of it, I don't remember
any evolution entering my classes until my freshman year of college. The only reason I knew anything was my own reading before then.
quote:
It should also be taught that most current mutations are harzadous to keep kids from thinking that they are going to turn into the X-men some day.
I seriously doubt today's kids are that ignorant.
quote:
Should ee teach creationism in school? Well yes and no. They should be taught that its a belief, they should be taught that its not a theory.
And they should be taught this in religion classes.
quote:
They should be challenged, if that is what they really believe, then they should form a hypothesis and move on from there with the scientific process.
Children should have the right to have as many facts available to them to be laid so that they can make their own choice. Not all the Pros of one side or the other.
The problem is that when you lay it out that way, if you insist on the false dichotomy view of things, there is absolutely zero evidence for a supernatural creation. The only evidence presented by "creation science" is actually evidence claimed to discredit some aspect of the theory of evolution or of related issues like the age of the earth. Virtually all of it can be rebutted by even an educated layman.
quote:
Both sides are killing science and the fascination with how things work and instead of working together for the benefit of everyone, rather than pushing around their personal agendas and grudges which both are guilty for.
Actually, most scientists don't pay much attention to the remaining debate because it seems so silly to them. Those who do may often appear condescending because they are generally so much better informed than their opponents and tire of hearing the same debunked arguments repeated for decades.
quote:
out of curiousity since time is the rate of change....what is the control for this?
Could you rephrase the question? It's rather confusing.
) I know you've gotten a lot of critical responses to your posts. However, I think you'd be hard pressed to find one that wasn't made in a constructive spirit. You have to admit, you've advertised the fact that your knowledge is incomplete, and many people here are happy to try and fill you in.
™ Version 4.2