Can science go forward...

[udx]

My school don't teach evolution.

Most unfortunate...

I read that chapter on my own. The only thing relavent in that chapter is microevolution. You don't need theory of evolution to get a 5 on AP Bio.

I studied genetics, and it has nothing to do with evolution either.

I suspect you missed the essential point of the chapter. That point should be that all life on Earth is related.

You don't need theory of evolution to get a 5 on AP Bio.

I studied genetics, and it has nothing to do with evolution either.

I have no idea what a "5 on AP Bio." means, but I guess ya done good. Congrats.

I studied genetics, and it has nothing to do with evolution either.

Again, you apparently missed the point of whatever genetics material you read. Genetics is fundamental to understanding biology and evolution.

No I didn't miss the most essential point of the chapter. I read almost the entire college level biology book and the entire evolution chapter. Evolution is very speculative and there is still no answer in how the abiotic synthesized organic compounds generated the first unit of 'life'.

Back to my point, creation and evolution are both totally irrelevant to the subject of science.

Edited December 9, 2011 by udx

[nebula]

And that's why I don't believe teaching evolution is even a "step in the right direction."

As I've said, evolution was taught in my high school biology curriculum. Was the end result any better than the school system that didn't teach evolution?

WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM? Can you provide evidence that the schools systems teaching evolution, as my state, are producing more equipped science students than those that are not? And can you reduce the evolution factor to being the significant difference if there is such evidence?

Nebula, do you agree that ensuring that religion touted as science (making it pseudoscience) is left out of the science classroom is a step in the right direction? I don't know what claim you are talking about, can you please provide me with a quote? I don't recall claiming that school systems that teach evolution are producing more equipped science students, I did say that creationism is (in part) a product of the broken educational system, and ensuring creationism/ID is out of the science classroom (dispelling creationism) is a step in the right direction.

I tried to look for this claim of mine but couldn't find it, perhaps you misread something.

The claim that teaching evolution and not mentioning creationsim is a step in the right direction to improving science education.

What evidence supports this claim that it will make a difference (what a "step in the right direction" is).

By evolution, do you mean all life arising from non-life all on its own? Or do you mean adaptation?

I mean the theory of evolution, the fact of evolution, the principles of evolution. Ya know, biological evolution as espoused by evolutionary biologists, the scientific theory that explains the unity and diversity of life through two central processes, mutation and natural selection. It was a general biology course after all.

We can observe adaptation. We can't observe single-celled organisms producing descendants that are multicellular. We can't observe the development of new traits non-existant before arising in organisms.

And seriously, D-9. If you claim belief in God as creator in some manner, shape, or form, how can it be truth to remove Him from the equation of life?

I'm not sure what you're asking, I simply seek to keep science science. God is simply not part of the science equation, we cannot test God's power, nor isolate God's Will, let alone falsify God's very existence. To bring God into the realm of science is of the utmost absurdity as God is outside the purview and limitations of science. I do, however, have no problem putting God into the equation outside the halls of science, even I myself do so.

Are you seeking the truth or are you seeking science?

Do YOU believe in God? Do YOU believe He is the creator (All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that has been made.)?

If you believe thus, how can eliminating Him from the process (even if only at the beginning) be considered truth in YOUR eyes?

[Fraught]

In another thread, it was put forth that America could not keep its science edge because people believed in a young earth.

Personally I find that insulting, as that one field of study is not needed to...

build a computer, Build an airplane, build a rocket, or chart the planets movements, or to find new medicines, or many other fields.

Also the following people were Christians, and as far as I know creationists, though history does not leave us what they believed on that, but since evolution really did not have a hold as it does to day its safe to assume.

Sir Issac Newton, Robert Boyle, Johannes Kepler , George Washington Carver, The Wright brothers and Samuel Morse. So you are saying they could not have done what they did if they did not believe in evolution?

No Science does not need evolution, in any way shape or form.

Isaiah,

this goes beyond the mere discussion about evolution. And i would not extrapolate the future from the past. Rome and Greece were also the beacons of western cultural civilization a long time ago (incidentally, would that imply that philosophy would not exist if it wasn't for those Zeus/Jupiter believers?).

Believing that the universe is some thousands years old flies in the face with all we know about science. You can believe it, but I do not see how you can even read a layman scientific magazine without seeing huge contradictions with this view.

That would imply that all we know about

- Physics

- Cosmology

- Astronomy

- Geology

- Anthropology

- Paleontology

- Biology

is wrong by 6 orders of magnitude (one million factor), surely not a deviation that falls into the expected experimental error range. It would be like saying that the width of North America is a couple yards.

I could never embrace science if it makes predictions that are so massively wrong from what I think is true.

If it is really the case that a certain nation holds beliefs which are so distant from the result of science, then I do not see the motivation for this nation to keep on financing such "useless" research. If I firmly believed that North America is a couple of yards wide and science tells me that I am wrong by a factor 1 million, why should I invest my taxes on science?

This shift has already started: the focus of fundamental experimental physics research has moved from North America to Europe (Geneva). And considering the discussions concerning teaching ID and creationism in American biology classes, I am afraid that this is only the beginning.

Ciao

- viole

just slow down a sec - regarding your last paragraph !! that research moved because of CERN. (on a side note, but interesting, from what i've read, during the talks about where to locate the facility, texas was one of the places considered, but it seems we just didn't want to finance it.)

[nebula]

just slow down a sec - regarding your last paragraph !! that research moved because of CERN. (on a side note, but interesting, from what i've read, during the talks about where to locate the facility, texas was one of the places considered, but it seems we just didn't want to finance it.)

Howdy,

You nailed it, That is exactly what I wanted to say. If people believe that the universe is a few thousands year old, why should they spend a lot of money on a facility which is built upon theories that support a multi billions years old universe?

Viole, you have always been rational in your debates. Why are you suddenly posting pot-shots?

Seriously, why does the USA have to always be the major financial supporter of every world program?

It was about time Europe actually foot the majority of the bill.

But actually, in looking it up, it seems the top financial contributor was not one of the nations CERN was built in, but Great Brittan.

[nebula]

We didn't have direct observable evidence that the Earth was round until 1961.

Not true. The ancient philosophers/mathematicians/scientists determined the Earth was round with observable evidence:

- the way ships disappeared over the horizon

- How constellations shifted in position as one moved from the northern Mediterranean to the southern Mediterranean.

- the shadow of the Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse

The whole Christopher Columbus proving the Earth was round is a fallacy. He actually believed the flawed mathematics of one astronomer/mathematician who calculated the circumference of the Earth to be smaller than it actually is. The majority of people believed the more correct calculations of Eratosthenes (mid-200's BC).

[nebula]

In an ultimate sense I do seek Truth, and that quest has led me to believe that without God's existence, existence itself is non-existent. But when talking about science specifically, I like to keep it within the confounds of science,

So in other words, you refuse to let Jesus be the Lord of your reason, intellect, education, and pursuit of scientific knowledge?

[nebula]

This same Jesus allows people to believe the Universe is 6000 years old. How does Jesus help us determine anything scientifically? Jesus doesn't tell us what dinosaurs existed we have to dig up bones.

Tell this to the orphans digging through garbage dumps for scraps to eat in Central America and see what they care.

It's funny how you adore and reverence science, yet deny it holds the place of religion in your life. But you sure do act like it is!

[Valoran]

And that's why I don't believe teaching evolution is even a "step in the right direction."

As I've said, evolution was taught in my high school biology curriculum. Was the end result any better than the school system that didn't teach evolution?

WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM? Can you provide evidence that the schools systems teaching evolution, as my state, are producing more equipped science students than those that are not? And can you reduce the evolution factor to being the significant difference if there is such evidence?

Teaching evolution is a step in the right direction, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's everything there is to be done. When you put students through the education process and have them come out at the end of it still believing in pseudoscientific concepts like creationism, it tells you that there's still things with the education process that could use some improvement.

[Guest]

Pseudo-Scientific

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:16

Or Truth

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11

Choose Wisely

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. Matthew 2:1-2

__________________

___________

______

___

And that's why I don't believe teaching evolution is even a "step in the right direction."

As I've said, evolution was taught in my high school biology curriculum. Was the end result any better than the school system that didn't teach evolution?

WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM? Can you provide evidence that the schools systems teaching evolution, as my state, are producing more equipped science students than those that are not? And can you reduce the evolution factor to being the significant difference if there is such evidence?

Teaching evolution is a step in the right direction, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's everything there is to be done. When you put students through the education process and have them come out at the end of it still believing in pseudoscientific concepts like creationism, it tells you that there's still things with the education process that could use some improvement.

Exactly!

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2 Timothy 4:2-4

This Paganism Called Evolution Is Exactly Why Young Folk

Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? Isaiah 45:9

Believers And Non-Believers Alike, Are Going Into Engineering And Medicine

I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. Psalms 139:14

Rather Than Spending Their Entire Professional Life Living A Lie

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said Genesis 3:1(a-c)

While Denying What Any Man Can Plainly See

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 2 Peter 3:5-6

And Rationally Deduce

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. Genesis 1:26

______________

__________

______

___

Believe

That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: John 1:9-12

And Be Blessed Beloved

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

Love, Joe

[nebula]

I do not think we should dismiss naturalism so readily. Naturalism assumes that nature is a closed system, and therefore there is nothing supernatural. If, nature is a closed system and science is able to deal with nature, then the scientific method is necessary and sufficient to find all objective truths.

But if there is a spiritual world (an alternate dimension that interacts with ours) that is involved, then naturalism is based on a lie. Thus even a working conclusion isn't the real truth.

Even if naturalism is not correct, I do not see any evidence that is wrong, silly or rudimentary by default.

What do you call a statement containing 99% truth and 1% untruth?

Acceptance of that 1% untruth can result in grave consequences.