Science academies around world urge evolution lessons

[dd_8630]

I do not see a problem with theistic evolution. Evolution contradicts the literal English-language King James Bible, yes, but not theism. Remeber, not all theists are Christian.

BTS: I think we need to accept a little bit of "poetic license" in this. Don't you? It is just a catchphrase, not to be taken literally.

I was merely making the point that your analogy is flawed, that it is more fanciful for a fully-formed prince to magically appear than for said organism to evolve.

People that really want to learn and ask questions on why people think about a topic like evolution the way they do don't make provactive statement like the one above.

People that want to learn why other people believe the way they do ask the question "why" they don't debate to make their points. That is "selling" something.

"wrong on all counts" is not asking why or how come.

My statement was not provocative, or was not meant to be. I was merely sharing how I view Jesus: a remarkable man, judging for the Bible, but unlikely to be a divine avatar.

"Selling" something is when you flatly deny the belief of another and claim your own as the truth. And in all fairness, look at the posts in this thread. It is full of quotes "selling" Christianity.

rfw, your quotes are from 20-25 years ago. No modern quotes?

After all, nobody was around millions of years ago to watch the stirring of the primordial soup, or to see the first fish crawl out onto land, or to see the first winged creature take to the air in powered flight.

Yet someone who was 'inspired' by an unknown force to write a book can be taken as fact. The historical sciences work by inference, indeed can only work by inference.

To believe in evolution, a "scientist" must throw out the scientific method, suspend his common sense, and twist or ignore the facts. That so many continue to do so, and belittle those who dare to challenge their belief, shows the strength of their faith. Far from being open-minded seekers of truth, evolutionists appear to be closed-minded, dogmatic "defenders of the faith". Did life "just happen"? What do you think?

Exactly what facts are ommitted or contradicted? Give me any evidence that evolution isn't an active phenomena supported by evidence from every scientific field I can think of.

[dd_8630]

I do not see a problem with theistic evolution. Evolution contradicts the literal English-language King James Bible, yes, but not theism. Remeber, not all theists are Christian.

The question goes begging – are there any Darwinists who are theists? The famous anthropologist (and evolutionist) George Gaylord Simpson summed up the evolutionist mindset when he stated, "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind."

Why do you think Darwinists insist on a godless system without an option for a Creator-God? Why would any theist (Christian or non-Christian) choose to buy into the idea the universe must operate by random mindless processes? Where does God fit into you worldview? Isn't it true from a Christian perspective that evolution contradicts much, much more than "the literal English-language King James Bible"? Let's concentrate on facts and reality.

Darwinists do not insist on a godless system, nor does Darwinism remove any place for God. Evolution is a description of a natural phenomena. The cause of said phenomena, may be God. It may be God nudging certain mutations to occur, thereby resulting in us. I don't know.

I am myself a theist, Wiccan to be exact. That the universe operates by random processes is irrelevant, and, given the nature of randomness, may in fact lead another door open for God. What causes the random decay of a radioactive particle? for one.

Also, Darwinism is de dicto beliving the works of Darwin. While groundbreaking, neo-Darwinism is the current scientific consensus.

Edited June 24, 2006 by dd_8630

[Nero's Fiddle]

It may be God nudging certain mutations to occur, thereby resulting in us.

Theism is not outright precluded by evolutionism; however, Christianity is in many ways.

For instance, the Bible calls death an "enemy" that came about because of sin and must be defeated.

According to evolutionism, death is actually a positive and necessary thing. Only through it can progress be made in the bettering of species.

Christianity calls death an enemy brought into the world by man; evolution calls it a friend that brought man into the world.

Evolutionism is NOT compatible with any but the most liberal "Christian" systems, which neglect or relegate to moralistic fairytales the Bible in the first place.

[dd_8630]

As a Wiccan what exactly is your definition of "God"? If all existence is strictly by chance and randomness what role does the god(s) of Wiccan play in the scheme of things?

The Wiccan concept of the divine is varied, but there is general consensus on 2 deities, equal and opposite, commonly known as the God and the Goddess (not to be confused, obviously, with the Judaeo-Christian God). Most Wiccans accept the existance of divinities from other religions, and the validity of the philosophies common to all (the 'Golden Rule', for example).

If all existence is strictly by chance and randomness, then the gods play whatever role they must. A god does not become any less of a god if it has less or no control over things. It is what it is ('I am that I am', as it were). God does not need to play a part in the universe to exist in it.

How is Darwinism de dicto in relationship to Darwin

[dd_8630]

I can see from you comments above that you have very little understanding of Darwinism or science (big diffference between the two, btw). If you want to discuss/debate such topics you will need to do more in-depth study of the subject at hand. You once again offer absolutely no evidence to back up your non-scientific comments and ramblings. Please do some research and come back when you truly understand what you wish to defend.

You are guilty of the same failings! Lack of evidence for anti-evolution or pro-creation!

Darwinism is:

# the theory referring to biologist Charles Darwin's beliefs that the origin of species is a result of variation due to a genetic mutation from the parents, with individuals who are best adapted to survive chosen through the process of natural selection. Survival requires cooperation, which is why socialists of London's day accepted Darwinian science as proof of the superiority of their politics.

sunsite.berkeley.edu/London/Essays/glossary.html

# a theory of evolution by natural selection put forward by Charles Darwin

www.fairchildgarden.org/EduProfDev/Adaptations_vocabulary.html

# The theory attributed to Charles Darwin (1809-82) which posits that all biological organisms evolve through natural selection , a scientific term which essentially means that certain species will survive over others because they are better suited to a particular environment. For instance, as different species are struggling to survive in a particular ecosystem, Nature herself, in a sense, selects those species which are the fittest to survive. ...

www.apologetics.org/glossary.html

# The theory of evolution that states that all plants and animals developed from earlier forms by changing and adapting to their environment for survival

www.sitesalive.com/admin/glossary/sectD.html

# The theory of how evolution might have come about which constitutes the major contribution to science made by Charles Darwin (1809-1882).

www.theology.edu/theology/glossary.htm

# a theory of organic evolution claiming that new species arise and are perpetuated by natural selection

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# Darwinism is a term used for various processes related to the ideas of Charles Darwin, particularly concerning evolution and natural selection. Darwinism in this sense is not synonymous with evolution, but rather with evolution by natural selection. Modern biology suggests a number of other mechanisms involved in evolution which were unknown to Darwin, such as genetic drift.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

Where, then, have I gone to terribly wrong?

The philosopher, William James wrote, "A rule of thinking which would absolutely prevent me from acknowledging certain kinds of truth, if those kinds of truth were really there, would be an irrational rule." Darwinism is just one of many irrational philosophical systems that categorically denies the Judeo-Christian God, thus eliminating His role as the Creator of the universe. Therefore Darwinism is neither a rational nor a legitimate worldview. Legitimate science does not (and cannot) eliminate the possibility of the supernatural. If God exists (and He does) then He is reality. Darwinists have completely eliminated God from their worldview thus separating themselves from reality.

While Darwinism can be interprited to 'catagorically deny the Judaeo-Christian God', it does not set out to do so. Indeed, if so interprited, it would omit any divine concept that involves a Creation myth, not just Judaeo-Christianity.

I also like how you assume that if something contradicts your beliefs (ie, Christianity), then it immediatly becomes an irrational and illegitimate worldview. Further, since when does legitimate science allow for the supernatural? If you are so clued up on Science, then you would know that the supernatural cannot exist, as there is nothing but the natural, by definition. Science works by observation and inference, formulating peer-reviewed hypothesis to explain empirical data. The supernatural, if it could exist, cannot interact with the natural, and so cannot be observed nor measured, and so is beyond the realm of science. That is, the supernatural may exist, but there is no way to prove either or.

Wiccan is another such irrational worldview that tries to eliminate the reality of the Judeo-Christian God. What about you – do you also eliminate the possibility of the existence of my God? Much is written about Him, have you ever read the Bible? From your post it appears your concept of deity is rather weak and confusing – almost as if you don’t really buy into it all. Are you sure you are truly a Wiccan or are you just experimenting with the concept? Are you sure you want to embrace such an irrational worldview? Only my God offers a credible and realistic view of reality. I would challenge you to exam the true God and His personal plan for you.

Wicca (not Wiccan, please have a little care) has no say on Judaeo-Christianity and its divine concepts.

I believe the Judaeo-Christian God may exist, but not as the literal Olde-English Bible words Him. Whether our Gods are part of one larger force, or are seperate in their own right, is quite irrelevant.

Also, how is my concept of deity weak, not to mention confusing? You simply state that it is such. Is it any more confusing that the idea that one God (who is actually three at the same time) sent his 'son' (or rather, one of the three) to incarnate on Earth so that he can die, for that is the only way to clense humans of their intrinsic sins?

I am a Wiccan of 4 years, and I throughly enjoy it, thank you. You say only your God offers a credible and realistic view of reality? I tried Christianity, I went to Church, I prayed to your God to forgive me of something I hadn't done but was supposedly being punished for anyway, and I ignored the atrocities and absurdities in the Bible. You call me irrational? Take a good, long, objective look at your own beliefs before you start rallying mine.

Back to debate methinks

Does anyone have any evidence that evolution leads to moral decline? What about homosexuality? Beastiality? Communism? Atheism?

Edited June 25, 2006 by dd_8630

[rfw]

Evolution

Here's your chance Double d. I'm no scientist, but the information I read in the above link seems very compelling to me. Check it out. See if what you've been taught can stand against it.

[rfw]

Does anyone have any evidence that evolution leads to moral decline? What about homosexuality? Beastiality? Communism? Atheism?

The basic premise of evolutionism denies any purpose or meaning in life, or any responsibility to yourself or your neighbors, other than to please yourself and pass on your genes. If there is no God to give an ultimate answer to, there is no valid evolutionary reason to hold to any moral standard that does not forward those goals. Thus you have Nazism and Communism, and a few other "-isms" that arise with the idea of a Master Race subjugating the rest of the world and excusing all sorts of monstrous actions because their focus is "sub-human". Opposed to that, you have true Christianity, ideally devoted to sacrificial love that values even those we disagree with. Does faith in the theory of evolution immediately destroy society, or even those who believe it? No. But the seeds of their destruction are in their blind faith in the aforementioned basic premise. And there will be payday someday.

[dd_8630]

The basic premise of evolutionism denies any purpose or meaning in life, or any responsibility to yourself or your neighbors, other than to please yourself and pass on your genes. If there is no God to give an ultimate answer to, there is no valid evolutionary reason to hold to any moral standard that does not forward those goals. Thus you have Nazism and Communism, and a few other "-isms" that arise with the idea of a Master Race subjugating the rest of the world and excusing all sorts of monstrous actions because their focus is "sub-human". Opposed to that, you have true Christianity, ideally devoted to sacrificial love that values even those we disagree with. Does faith in the theory of evolution immediately destroy society, or even those who believe it? No. But the seeds of their destruction are in their blind faith in the aforementioned basic premise. And there will be payday someday.

Evolution does not imply self-satisfaction, not in humans. In all social species, altruism for the net genetic benefit of the society is key. Since humans are social species, we work towards enhancing the society as a whole, coopting the environment to ensure optimal reproductive conditions. Our improved intellects allow us to do this with much greater impact than other animals, but the point remains: human societies revolve around successfully rearing (protecting, educating etc) the young, at the expense of the older generations if need be.

You are correct in seeing Nazism as a perversion of evolution (given the name Eugenics in this case) as Nazism promotes the idea that the Germanic race is somehow 'more evolved' than the other 'races', and is therefore superior and should be given dominance.

Communism is entierly unrelated, and if I'm honest, I think you only mentioned it because of the prexisting slander the US government has given it. True, attempts at practicle Communism have been warped into something rather different from established Commnuism (namely Genocide), but Communism as a social theory is the best attempt at a utopia we have so far come up with (control of produce goes to the producers etc).

Anyways, it is a quite humongous logical fallicy (domino effect, in fact) to go from atheistic morals to the 'Evils That Are Nazism And Communism [TM]' since many atheist are moral, if for different reasons to you. They are moral because they choose to be; you are moral because you are told to be.

Further, I question the 'blind faith' people put in evolution. True, the layman is unlikely to know the intricate details of evolution, genetics, etc, and so rely in the empiricy of science, but as for the scientists themselves, the thousands of men and women from across the whole sphere of scientific fields, all those people accept evolution as a fundamental scientific fact. You quote a handful of scientists who reject evolution. It would be more suspicioius if there weren't any anti-evolution scientists. My point, ladies and gentlemen, is that if evolution really was the flawed mess of a philosophy you people call it, then a lot more scientists would clue in, don't you think?

Edited June 25, 2006 by dd_8630

[rfw]

My point, ladies and gentlemen, is that if evolution really was the flawed mess of a philosophy you people call it, then a lot more scientists would clue in, don't you think?

They do!! Most of the creationist websites have credentialed scientists and not laymen providing the information. And they provide documentation of both their information sources and their credentials.

I recognize we may not convince you. You seem determined to receive only the indoctrination you had before coming here. But there is light, if only you will see it. I urge you to examine the online book linked from my previous post, and see if there might not be some alternate explanation to what you have been taught.

[dd_8630]

My point, ladies and gentlemen, is that if evolution really was the flawed mess of a philosophy you people call it, then a lot more scientists would clue in, don't you think?

They do!! Most of the creationist websites have credentialed scientists and not laymen providing the information. And they provide documentation of both their information sources and their credentials.

I recognize we may not convince you. You seem determined to receive only the indoctrination you had before coming here. But there is light, if only you will see it. I urge you to examine the online book linked from my previous post, and see if there might not be some alternate explanation to what you have been taught.

I have looked at it. It serves to outline some of the specifics of evolution at best, not disprove it. Also, bear in mind that a handful of Creationist scientists does not bear much weight against the vast majority of Evolutionary scientists; rather, it shows them to have seriously misunderstood evolution.

Think about what you are saying. You are asking me to accept that some mighty force in the sky created all I see around me, that the entire scientific community is flawed, that for whatever reason Christianity is the only logical alternative (Hinduism for one has been remarkably in line with science, from alinear time to quantum fluctuations). You say I ignore the painfully obvious light, that I am 'determined to receive only the indoctrination had before coming here'; I could say exactly the same about you.

What evidence do you have for Creationism? And why should Creationism, Genesis, and the Judaeo-Christian God be the alternative to Evolution (apart from your indoctrinated pre-belief)?

Back to the OP, of sorts (Should Evolution/Creationism be taught in the (American) classroom?), should Science not be taught in the Science Classroom, and Religous Education in the Religous Education Classroom?

Edited June 27, 2006 by dd_8630