Perry.."Evolution is a theory"

Originally Posted by Castout

YET.

Same applies to evolution actually, that's why it is a theory.




Quite the contrary faith results in proof. It doesn't deny proof. Blind faith is stupidity and hypocrisy is foolishness but genuine faith with knowledge is simply common sense.

Your dogmatism is showing. Faith is not proof and can never be. Faith denies proof since it must reject any and all evidence that runs counter to the accepted articles faith. Otherwise there is no faith.

It is axiomatic in science that one cannot prove a negative so no thinking atheist would attempt to prove the non-existence of any deity. Likewise there is no reason why the Theory of Evolution cannot co-exist with faith without trying to magically create some impossible empirical equivalence.

The Theory of Evolution has made literally dozens of predictions that have verified by peer reviewed scientific method. The Christian bible, source of all creationist mythology, along with intelligent design has of yet made exactly zero biological predictions that can be empirically proven.

Where were the three-toed sloths, capybaras, alpacas and wolverines on the Ark? Nowhere, because the book of Genesis contains reference to animals only found in what is now the Middle East. Had Noah brought forth a pair of moose unto the Ark your argument might require some effort at debunking but that is not the case.

If it makes you happy to spin theism into science go ahead and be happy but your arguments are hollow and not at all credible. Sticking to them makes you sound like a religious fanatic.

[Castout]

Originally Posted by Randomizer

Your dogmatism is showing

Stop right there.

WRONG. BIG TIME.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Castout

Stop right there.

WRONG. BIG TIME.

Actually it seems obvious to everyone but you.

Evolution may or may not be proven true in the long run, but for now all the evidence points that way. Anyone can find flaws in any scientific theory, and every scientist worth his salt knows that today's best theory might be tomorrow's laughingstock. But scientists work with what they have and keep expanding what is known.

Creation may or may not be proven true in the long run, but for now the only evidence at all is some stories written thousands of years ago, and are no more or less valid than the Greek, Egyptian or Mayan stories that we now dismiss as myths. That is why Randomizer said Creation could not even be a theory. There is no science there at all. None whatsoever. Creationists hold on to it because the Bible says it's so, and for no other reason. There is no evidence to show that God even exists, and certainly no evidence that the Earth was created in six days. Only the stories. As I said, it may be true, but so may the Norse or Greek stories. That said, we have no way of knowing, because there is no evidence at all.

The teaching of evolution in schools is little more than an attempt to destroy Christianity by teaching children that it could not be factual, and thus destroying the foundation of its theology.

Wow
perhaps a basic foundation in bible study would help you

Creationism IS taught in Texas schools. Its part of an elective Biblical History course. How is it that this has not been stopped?

Errrrr..... bible study in bible study
errrrrrr....studying religion in religious studies
errrr......hebrew myths and legends in ancient mythology class.

All no problem, everything is hunky dory.
But....cretinism in science lessons as a scientific theory
As Augustine of Hippo said only an idiot would ridicule their own religion in such a way
"foundation of its theology"

[Skybird]

Empirical evidence speaks volumes when comparing creationist claims to evolution. VOLUMES.

Empiry also speaks volumes about the likelihood that it makes any sense when scientifically oriented mind tries to reasonably discuss with the belief-oriented mind. The latter, in the lack of own argument, will always claim the freedom to just fall back to saying "But I believe different", and leave it to that as if that were evidence, and from that point on dismiss all reason and empiry and logic, kick them out of his thinking and fill the so-created vacuum with magical ideas of his own belief.

It's in vein. Just avoid such people, and just prevent such people from getting power and influence in the world.

Over the past ten years, I have quoted this passage repeaterldy, at various opportunities. However, it is a gem worth to remind of once a year or so. While being written in a different historical setting of the author who later was assassined by the Nazis, it holds so much truth for so much wider a diversity of situations and aspects of the world. And certainly also for the dogmatism of certain religions.

"Stupidity is a more dangerous foe of the good than evil is. It is possible to protest against evil, to expose oneself, and at times it can be prevented by force. Evil always carries in itself the gern of a substitute for it, in that it leaves behind at least a feeling of uneasiness in men. Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor force can accomplish anythin here; reasons are of no avail; facts that contradict one's own prejudices simply do not need to be believed -- in such cases the stupid person even becomes critical -- and if they are unavoidable, the can simply be shoved aside as insignificant, isolated cases.

In this the stupid person, in contrast to an evil one, is completely satisfied with himself. Indeed he even becomes dangerous in that he is easily inclined to assume the offensive. Thus more care must be shown in dealing with a stupid person than with an evil one. We shall never again seek to convince a stupid person with reasons; it is senseless and dangerous. In order to know how to deal with stupidity we must seek to understand its nature. This much is certain, that it is not essentially an intellectual defect but a human one. There are intellectually quite able men who are stupid, and intellectually very dull men who are anything but stupid. In certain specific situations we make this discovery to our astonishment. In this connection one has less the impression that stupidity is an inborn defect than that under certain circumstances men are made stupid, or perhaps let themselves be made stupid.

We observe, moreover, that men who live secluded and alone show this defect less often than men and groups of men who are inclined or fated to sociability. Thus stupidity seems to be less a psychological problem than a sociological one. It is a particular form of the effect of historical circumstances on man, a psychological phenomenon that accompanies specific external relationships. On closer view it is seen that every strong outward development of power, whether of a political or of a religious nature, smites a large portion of mankind with stupidity. Yes, this has precisely the appearance of a sociological-psychological law. The power of one man needs the stupidity of another. In this it does not turn out that specific -- and thus perhaps intellectual -- human concerns suddenly are spoiled or go awry, but that under the overpowering impression of the development of power, man is robbed of his inner independence, and theat he now -- more or less unconsciously -- renounces any attempt to find his own relation to the situation that has developed.

The fact that a stupid person is often stubborn should not deceive anyone into thinking that he is independent. In conversation with him it is felt that you are not dealing with the person himself, but with cliches, slogans, etc., that have gained dominance over him. He is under a spell, he is blinded, he is misused, mishandled in his own being. Thus having become a will-less instrument the stupid person becomes capable of all evil, and at the same time incapable of recognizing it as evil. Here lies the danger of the diabolical abuse. In this way men can be destroyed forever.

But it is here that it also becomes quite clear that iti is not instruction but only liberation that can overcome stupidity. In this connection we must first realizae that a genuine inner liberation is possible in most cases only after external liberation has preceded it. Until then we must renounce all attempts to convince the stupid. In this state of affairs lies the reason why under such circumstance it is useless to seek to know what 'the people' are really thinking, and why this question is so superfluous for the one who thinks and acts responsibly -- only however, under the given circumstances. The word of the Bible that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom (Ps. 111:10) says that the inner liberation of man to responsible life before God is the only real conquest of stupidity.

Furthermore, these thoughts about stupidity have this element of comfort, that they by no means permit one to regard the majority of men as stupid under all circumstances. It will really depend on whether those in power can expect more from stupidity or from the inner independence and intelligence of men."

-- Dietrich Bonhoeffer, I Loved This People

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

errrr......hebrew myths and legends in ancient mythology class.

Ancient Mythology class? Riiiight: because there are no Hebrews anymore...

Ancient Mythology class? Riiiight: because there are no Hebrews anymore...

There are still greeks, is it modern greek mythology or ancient greek mythology

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I've seen some howlers in GT in my day, but this....this is right up there at the top of the list. Wow.

My reaction when I read that:



That's not an argument against science, it's an argument for it! It's precisely why science works. Science is a constantly evolving and changing process. Theories are proposed to fit the existing evidence. New evidence is found and the theories are revised or thrown out altogether. Scientists disagreeing on things is the process at work. New interpretations of existing data are found, new data itself is found, and all of that that brings us closer to the ultimate truth. Disagreement makes science stronger, not weaker.

Mookie, let me clarify. What I should have put is that the insistence on teaching evolution in schools (along with the exclusion of any other viewpoint - specifically a creationism one) is designed to undercut faith. Teacing evolution itself isn't necessarily about getting rid of religious views, but the unwillingness to even broach other ideas - is. As for the second part, of your comment, you prove my point. If disagreement is how the process works, why is it that an alternative view on the subject is not allowed? Would not science be viewed as the stronger arguement if it were taught in contrast to other views? Why is it that we cannot expect the children who are (supposedly) being taught how to function as adults to be able to discern logically which they feel is accurate? Or has the public school sysem failed to the point where pure dogma (of any kind) is all it deals in, which turns children into sheep who will go along with anything because they were "told" something was so?

Oh wait... I think we know the answer to that...

And the way you did the pic was cool - I laughed!

[Tchocky]

You can buy tshirts that explain Haplo's post here - http://controversy.wearscience.com/

Teacing evolution itself isn't necessarily about getting rid of religious views, but the unwillingness to even broach other ideas - is.

Science is science scripture is scripture, Haplo has a problem with science and doesn't even know the scripture he "supports".
Given those basics what he says has absolutlely no bearing at all on the topic and never can have.... apart from as an example of why "scripture" people should be kept miles away from any science class.

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Whats funny is that no one wants to address the last part of Gov. Perry's statement. He says that we figure kids are smart enough to figure out what to believe.

Most kids actually will blindly believe most of what their parents tell them (particularly under the age of 14). Kids tend to be the most fanatical age group you can think of. Add to this the heavy indoctrination that goes on in most major (and plenty of minor) religious organizations and you have a pretty brainwashed group of individuals who can ferverantly believe in the most absurd stories imaginable, and even die for them.

Honestly I think kids should be raised with out it, and then once they are old enough, choose if they wish to follow a belief system. I was raised this way, where we were neither encouraged nor discouraged to investigate religion, and could do so as we chose and when we chose.

Society spends ever increasing sums of money in public schools, where "facts" such as evolution are taught, but anything that threatens the monopoly of the evolutionary dogma is "unconstitution" and must be quashed. I mean, its not like after the trillions of dollars we have spent on education, kids would know how to think "logically" and examine the "facts" and make intelligent decisions about what they CHOOSE to believe.

Evolution is not a fact, it is the current scientific theory. It is however falsifiable, and well supported by the information we have. The basic concept of creation (as related in the bible) is easily demonstrated to be false (the world was not created 6000 years ago as is, there is a veritable mountain of counter evidence). Intelligent design is certainly possible, but it cannot be disproven and is not scientific.

The other major issue, is if the schools have to teach other ideas that are based in religion, why should it only be the Judeo/Christian/Islamic view? If they have to teach creationism, then they should teach all the other stories of how the world was created. Fair is fair right?

The teaching of evolution in schools is little more than an attempt to destroy Christianity by teaching children that it could not be factual, and thus destroying the foundation of its theology.

Or maybe Christians should stop trying to take the bible so literally, realize that these are a collection of ancient stories (with many flaws and contradictions I might add). Focus on the message, on the ideas, and useful teachings, and not all the nonsense. You can be Christian, believe in Jesus, etc. and still be a scientist, and scientific in your thinking.

Of course, it never occured to anyone that teaching children that we don't know how long the earth has been here (since "science" can't agree on a number), that we don't have any clearly defined record prior to ~6000 years ago, and that there are many ideas or theories about the earth's origins - but that since no humans were around at the start of it all, perhaps they can figure out what they want to believe on their own.

Your joking right? We sure as heck have a clearly defined record going back beyond 6000 years, from numerous scientific disciplines, plus several ancient civilizations that go back much further then that. We may not know exactly how old the earth is (we have a pretty good estimate), but it is defiantly a lot older than 6000 years. Again there is a mountain of evidence behind that.

Dogma is dogma, whether it be creationism or evolution. If parents and teachers did their jobs correctly, kids would be able to think things through and figure it out for themselves, instead of having one view shoved down their throat while excluding any others.

Hmm isn't that exactly what most major religions do to kids? Shove one incontrovertible and absolute view down their throats? Anyhow I addressed that already. Evolution is not a matter of dogma, as dogma cannot be debated or argued against. Evolution can most certainly be argued against and has flaws in it which will eventually be addressed. Evolution is an evolving theory, and has already changed quite a bit from what Darwin proposed. As more counter evidence surfaces, the theory will continue to change, and may even be discarded for a better one. This by definition makes it not dogma. Creationism is dogmatic however, because adherents refuse to let it be challenged, even though it is again demonstrability false.

Creationism IS taught in Texas schools. Its part of an elective Biblical History course. How is it that this has not been stopped?

I have no issue with this stuff being taught in the appropriate setting. Religion does not belong in science class, the two cannot be compared and they are not equals. If you want to teach religious dogma in a religion course, go nuts.

[MH]

What about a compromise....
Bible is thought in Israel in secular schools as part heritage all together with all the other subjects.
Its though more on a philosophical mindset.
And no it has nothing to do with religious brain washing into certain views.

Bible is thought in Israel in secular schools as part heritage all together with all the other subjects.

Is it taught as the basis of a scientific theory though?
That is the question in hand.

[Blood_splat]

"You ever noticed how people who believe in Creationism look really unevolved? You ever noticed that? Eyes real close together, eyebrow ridges, big furry hands and feet. "I believe God created me in one day" Yeah, looks like He rushed it."
- Bill Hicks

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Mookie, let me clarify. What I should have put is that the insistence on teaching evolution in schools (along with the exclusion of any other viewpoint - specifically a creationism one) is designed to undercut faith.

Teaching about the theory of evolution by natural selection is done because it is the explanation for the observable fact of evolution with the most overwhelming empirical evidence for it. It is the accepted scientific explanation for why evolution happens. It's not a conspiracy to stomp out religion.

Teacing evolution itself isn't necessarily about getting rid of religious views, but the unwillingness to even broach other ideas - is.

If there were an alternative scientific theory of why evolution happens that had the same sort of evidence for it as the theory of natural selection, then it would be taught as an alternative. Creationism is not science, it's faith. It cannot be subjected to the scientific method. There can be no observations, no data collection, no experiments run. It's based simply on faith and belief.

Observation: Things exist.
Hypothesis: God created the world in 7 days.
Prediction: ???
Experimentation: ???
Conclusion: Yup.

It just doesn't work as science. Why should it be treated as such?