Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New Questions--moral perspective
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 6 of 73 (90479)
03-05-2004 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by booboocruise
03-05-2004 1:56 AM


Welcome back booboo, it's been awhile.
To the evolutionists: Is fundamental Christianity truly a threat to your cause? And if yes, why? After all, if you believe that an open-minded education system with instruction from many various perspectives is the cornerstone of a free education, why is evolution the sole theory directed in a classroom setting (I mean, LEGALLY teachers have the right to discuss creation and its principles from an unbiased point of view at any time in a classroom)?
Since a scientist can't really be said to have a "cause", except in the sense of preserving biodiversity or somesuch (like Wilson, Levine, Ehrlich, etc etc), I'm not sure your first question makes a lot of sense. Most practicing scientists, while perhaps aware in a vague sort of way that creationism exists, simply don't pay much attention to it - it doesn't intersect with their world. How many evolutionary biologists do you know that try and preach the Gospel According to Darwin from the church pulpit? By the same token, how many fundamentalists do you know that try and preach literalist biblical intepretation in molecular biology labs? There is simply no connection between the two. Which is as it should be.
Getting to the intent behind your question, rather than how you phrased it, there is a strong backlash against teaching biblical literalism in science classes. Science classes, especially in secondary schools, are intended to teach the fundamentals of science, covering the current scientific concensus on subjects as diverse as cosmology and physics as well as biology, not a narrow minority interpretation of Christianity, no matter how much the latter would wish it. Science classes in secondary school are designed to provide the student with some very basic concepts and an introduction to scientific methodology and (hopefully) critical thinking. OTOH, literalism CAN be taught - in comparative religion classes, or even in history and/or anthropology classes. Since the subject has neither evidential support nor any real relevance to the scientific endeavor, it is left quite alone in science classrooms.
You might be pleased to know that in some of the best secondary school science curricula I've seen, including the International Baccalaureate Biology program, there are several modules discussing creationism. The downside, of course, is that when exposed to the light of scientific evidence - even if presented in an even-handed way - creationism comes across looking extremely weak. Critical examination of the claims of creationism when contrasted to direct observation of the natural world fails abysmally. It's not clear to me why, under these circumstances, creationists are so adamant about including their ideas. They don't hold up very well - and this may in fact cause them to lose potential adherents or even have potential converts turn away from Christianity entirely. You're setting your entire religious worldview up for potential failure when you insist that literalism be compared actively to evolution and hence subject to scientific scrutiny.
A final note: evolution (in the sense of the modern neodarwinian synthesis) isn't the "sole theory" discussed in science classes. Especially in modules on the philosophy of science or history of science. Lamarckism, saltationism, and even creationism etc are usually covered in these subjects.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by booboocruise, posted 03-05-2004 1:56 AM booboocruise has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 66 of 73 (91335)
03-09-2004 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Mammuthus
03-09-2004 8:10 AM


Re: 'just' a theory
There's an "oops" here, O Extinct One. "servant" not "savior" wrote the, err, post to which you were responding. Savior seems to have more of a head on his/her shoulders than Servant does.
[This message has been edited a total of 11 times and then redacted from Sanskrit to make it completely incomprehensible by Quetzal, 03-08-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Mammuthus, posted 03-09-2004 8:10 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 73 of 73 (91519)
03-10-2004 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Saviourmachine
03-08-2004 5:12 PM


Degenerationism and Evolution
Hi Saviour.
I'm uncertain about the explaining features of current evolution theory (with natural selection and mutations) in regard to this whole picture. Isn't the role of natural selection overestimated? And the driving force of mutations? That are several reasons why I'm a degenerationist.
I agree with most of what you write, but I think degenerationism vs neodarwinism would make a fascinating topic to explore. Obviously we can't do it in this thread. Would you be willing to open a new thread in either Evolution or Misc Topics to expand on why you consider this approach more likely than current theory? I'd like to hear your views on the subject. BTW: I'm not "up" on degenerationism - I had thought it was more a social/cultural theory than biological - so if you choose to, please start with a precis of what it is in relation to biology. Looking forward to it.
edited to fix grammar. Duh oh.
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 03-10-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Saviourmachine, posted 03-08-2004 5:12 PM Saviourmachine 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