You're right, it's not how it came to be. It's how it changed over time. Not a single bit of evidence? Stop it. Everything we know about every life and earth science is consistent with it. As someone else stated in this thread, new theories have to take the observations explained by the old theories and re-interpret them in a more satisfactory fashion. If you deny those observations in the first place I don't see how we're going to get anywhere.
Maybe some day creationists, with their critical stance toward evolution, will genuinely contribute to science. But in order to do that they must first understand how evolution explains the observation made in the life- and earh-sciences.
A challenge for fellowhips, trumptman, and ena (and BTW, I thought ena you had been banned for getting hysterical in one of these evolution threads before),:
What are the basic observations about the world that evolution has explained? Can you briefly summarize them - can you make the other side's case? That would be the first step toward throwing over the theory, it seems to me.
You still don't seem to be picking up on what I am saying.
Both evolution and the creationist account require faith.
Neither is conclusive.
Nothing more, nothing less.
I see nothing wrong with questions being asked of the theory of evolution in the classroom being it is just a theory I see questions as needed.
Try calming down--stay away if you're going to make cryptic threats.
Threat? Nah. What in the world could I do to you anyway?
I'm just reminded of a person from Alaska I think a while back who used to always get into it with Hassan and others on evolution, and then went nuts and got banned. And then this person had several aliases and when caught claimed to be part of a class project and then an internet cafe or something where everyone was switching their names around. It was great fun.
I don't remember the name - does anyone else remember this?
Threat? Nah. What in the world could I do to you anyway?
I'm just reminded of a person from Alaska I think a while back who used to always get into it with Hassan and others on evolution, and then went nuts and got banned. And then this person had several aliases and when caught claimed to be part of a class project and then an internet cafe or something where everyone was switching their names around. It was great fun.
I don't remember the name - does anyone else remember this?
This is harrasment---I don't know what this is supposed to mean but I'll will take it you have personal problems that are better solved at home.
The very idea that the planet is 10,000 years old has to do with one VERY specific interpretation of the first chapter of the religious text of ONE of the world's many religions. The Yorubu people of West Africa believe that Obatala climbed down a sheet on the first morning of the world drunk on palm wine and made people from clay. And what they believe is every bit as valid as anything in Genesis.
There's no way you can prove that either is the one that 'really' happened, no matter how fervent your belief. Neither is provable, neither respects the laws of physics, neither have left any evidence.
Evolutionary science, on the other hand, is an explanation that actually seems to fit what we know about the planet and the things in it and every year it gets a bit more complete. It's just wrong to even try and make the comparison.
That was beautiful man .... ****ing beautiful. I'm going to memorize that and hit my crazy bible thumpin' Aunt Claire with it, when she comes to visit me from Australia next week!
You still don't seem to be picking up on what I am saying.
Both evolution and the creationist account require faith.
Neither is conclusive.
Nothing more, nothing less.
I see nothing wrong with questions being asked of the theory of evolution in the classroom being it is just a theory I see questions as needed.
Fellowship
FCiB,
I actually agree with you here (and throughout this thread in many ways), but I don't necessarily accept that it's "faith." Faith, as I understand it, requires doubt. There has to be the possibility that what's being believed in is not actually true. As Augustine put it, it's "belief in the presence of things unseen." Science deals exclusively in what is either empirically observable or mathematically provable. Science deals, usually, in observable phenomena (although there are of course wings of it--astrophysics, for example) that rely on a series of mathematical and logical deductions (which are a part of science's empirical mandate) as a means of arriving at conclusions and theories. Sometimes these theories cannot be proven in an observable way. Sometimes they can.
Here's where I agree with you: what constitutes "proof" or "fact" changes over time. Such matters are entirely constructions of the cultures they exist in. And even more, they differ from culture to culture, place to place, and time to time.
In other words, as members of a planet dominated by western culture, we have inherited its turn toward the empirical/secular and away from a religious way of explaining the world around us.
And we have also inherited western culture's belief that what its empiricism "finds" or determines as "fact" is, in fact, "true." And yet these things are not determined by any inherent "truthfulness" or "facticity." And they will change.
I'm surprised to find you making such postmodernist/poststructuralist/cultural relativist arguments!
It's beeen a year, and fellowship still has absolutely no idea what evolution is.
Evolution starts with the premise that there is life. A reasonable assumption.
ena might also like to learn this.
By the way, care to post that "creationist theory of everything" we have been asking for, or are you going to ignore this? Just like you ignore every other request for information. But then, you have to, don't you? After all, it's not as if creationist's have anything that comes close to the success of evolutionary theory. And that burns you up, doesn't it? You hate it that your little creationist fantasy can be so easily discredited.
You know fellowship, I can't wait for you to quote some scientists out of context. Or to quote a bunch of people who died 100 years ago.
I actually agree with you here (and throughout this thread in many ways), but I don't necessarily accept that it's "faith." Faith, as I understand it, requires doubt. There has to be the possibility that what's being believed in is not actually true. As Augustine put it, it's "belief in the presence of things unseen." Science deals exclusively in what is either empirically observable or mathematically proveable. Science deals, usually, in observable phenomena (although there are of course wings of it--astrophysics, for example) that rely on a series of mathematical and logical deductions (which are a part of science's empirical mandate) as a means of arriving at conclusions and theories. Sometimes these theories cannot be proven in an observable way. Sometimes they can.
Here's where I agree with you: what constitutes "proof" or "fact" changes over time. Such matters are entirely constructions of the cultures they exist in. And even more, they differ from culture to culture, place to place, and time to time.
In other words, as members of a planet dominated by western culture, we have inherited its turn toward the empirical/secular and away from a religious way of explaining the world around us.
And we have also inherited western culture's belief that what its empiricism "finds" or determines as "fact" is, in fact, "true." And yet these things are not determined by any inherent "truthfulness" or "facticity." And they will change.
I'm surprised to find you making such postmodernist/poststructuralist/cultural relativist arguments!
Cheers
Scott
Thank you Sir.
Quote:
Originally posted by Fangorn
Actually, Fellowship is right on target.
And thank you as well Sir.
As for what I would advocate in the classroom it is simply the following as many of you understand my position.
I do not wish to mandate Creationist viewpoints in the classrooms the country over. I simply see it reasonable and fit to allow for these other viewpoints to direct some questions towards the theory of evolution. I respect science and I respect religion. I see nothing fruitful in attacking either. If you read over this thread some rush to do just this.
I take the pragmatic road of simply allowing questions directed towards the theory of evolution to be permitted.
What I believe about evolution is really not important with this regard. It is just a method of academic freedom to question I am addressing here.
So, essentially, we're trying to argue with people who believe in magic. Just wonderful. No wonder we don't get anywhere!
Condescending.
Quote:
Originally posted by THT
Seriously, I have thought about various strategies to discuss this, against people who believe in the "supernatural", and I have yet to come up with one for fair discourse. If a person isn't willing to follow logic, there is very little one can do except to wait for the magic to fail them at some level.
Where is the logic in your arguement? A belief in the "supernatural" does not preclude logic; if so, you would have to dismiss most of the "great" thinkers in history.
Quote:
Originally posted by THT
To speak of the beginnings without a rational framework for proof only means that one is fantasizing. It is also fine to say that one does not know. Saying it is theological is merely a conflation of politics and science. In other words, science is encroaching upon religious territory as it has through time, and people must defend their religion. Sort of unfortunate that thousands of years of science trumping religious dogma has not changed anything, but we're all humane afterall.
This is total nonsense. Part A, "To speak of the beginnings . . ." does not lead to B "one is fantasizing." What that has to do with not knowing beats me. How you get from "theological" to a "conflation of politics and science" also eludes me. Science is a tool and when used properly does not encroach on true religion. And science has not been "trumping religious dogma" for thousands of years, especially since it hasn't been around as such that long.
Baffling post. But I think the point goes back to the "less evolved thus less intelligent being because she believes in God" thing.
Back to the original question ... Evolution should be the only theory taught simply because it's the only one NOT backed by a religeous faith. If not Evolution ... then the story about billy bob making the population out of clay- because it's a cute story, and I think fun for children to learn.
If preference is given to Genesis, then you are in fact teaching that Christ is indeed real. I may go to hell for saying this ... but I don't think that's right.
I can see why christians get all ruffled about it though, unless Genesis gets some credit for the creation of the planet, it won't be more then a couple hundred years before the religion itself is forgotten.
I can see why christians get all ruffled about it though, unless Genesis gets some credit for the creation of the planet, it won't be more then a couple hundred years before the religion itself is forgotten.
This is harrasment---I don't know what this is supposed to mean but I'll will take it you have personal problems that are better solved at home.
Uh, yeah, harassment. Hey, if I'm wrong, sobeit. Let's just say your online... demeanor... reminds me of another person who was banned a while ago. Funny how our personalities come through so strongly over this medium. Maybe alcimedes will check for me just for laughs.
What I believe about evolution is really not important with this regard. It is just a method of academic freedom to question I am addressing here.
That's not quite fair. What trumptman apparently wants (or at least the article he cites) is for evolution to be singled out for criticism. Of course there is already academic freedom to criticize evolution.
BTW, I agreed with your last post, like midwinter (although I wouldn't associate myself with that post-modernist crap ).
Anyone who has faith in evolution is a bonehead. You shouldn't have faith in theories. You use them and you ditch them if you find a better one. Just like I treat my women. (Just kidding.) It's just a useful tool.
I have a brother-in-law who just got his PhD in botany from Michigan. He does taxonomy - classifying plants according to genetic similarity. Want to know whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable? He's the one to ask. Now there is just no way he could do what he does without thinking in terms of evolution. Does he have an atheist agenda? Absolutely not. He just likes plants. But thinking in terms of how plants have changed over time through genetic mutations and natural selection is a necessity. It's the framework that guides everything he does, and everything falls together as a result of that framework.
Originally posted by BRussell BTW, I agreed with your last post, like midwinter (although I wouldn't associate myself with that post-modernist crap ).
You should. All the cool people are doing it. It'll make you look older.
Quote:
Anyone who has faith in evolution is a bonehead. You shouldn't have faith in theories. You use them and you ditch them if you find a better one. Just like I treat my women. (Just kidding.) It's just a useful tool.
I hope you're not too fond of gravity. Or the weather channel.
You can't just dismiss evolution that easily. Is it open to debate? Sure. Can we just dismiss it? No. It's too good at explaining too much. You don't throw the baby out with the bath-water. Unless you don't like the baby in the first place. And some people don't.
Quote:
I have a brother-in-law who just got his PhD in botany from Michigan. He does taxonomy - classifying plants according to genetic similarity. Want to know whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable? He's the one to ask. Now there is just no way he could do what he does without thinking in terms of evolution. Does he have an atheist agenda? Absolutely not. He just likes plants. But thinking in terms of how plants have changed over time through genetic mutations and natural selection is a necessity. It's the framework that guides everything he does, and everything falls together as a result of that framework. [/B]
Which speaks directly to the points that FCiB and I are making: the reason it fits is not necessarily because it's true; it's because there's a massive framework (in which evolution is included. As is space travel. As is all modern medicine.) within which it makes sense.
With that said, do I buy the theory of evolution? Sure. It's a beautiful theory and it makes a lot of sense. But I'm also aware that the only reason it makes sense is because of when and where I live.
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
What specific criticisms of the theory of evolution should be mandated?
nice try
wrong thread
Originally posted by ena
nice try
wrong thread
What's the title of this thread, again?
Originally posted by ena
nice try
wrong thread
You're clearly hysterical.
Originally posted by BRussell
You're right, it's not how it came to be. It's how it changed over time. Not a single bit of evidence? Stop it. Everything we know about every life and earth science is consistent with it. As someone else stated in this thread, new theories have to take the observations explained by the old theories and re-interpret them in a more satisfactory fashion. If you deny those observations in the first place I don't see how we're going to get anywhere.
Maybe some day creationists, with their critical stance toward evolution, will genuinely contribute to science. But in order to do that they must first understand how evolution explains the observation made in the life- and earh-sciences.
A challenge for fellowhips, trumptman, and ena (and BTW, I thought ena you had been banned for getting hysterical in one of these evolution threads before),:
What are the basic observations about the world that evolution has explained? Can you briefly summarize them - can you make the other side's case? That would be the first step toward throwing over the theory, it seems to me.
You still don't seem to be picking up on what I am saying.
Both evolution and the creationist account require faith.
Neither is conclusive.
Nothing more, nothing less.
I see nothing wrong with questions being asked of the theory of evolution in the classroom being it is just a theory I see questions as needed.
Fellowship
Originally posted by ena
Try calming down--stay away if you're going to make cryptic threats.
Threat? Nah. What in the world could I do to you anyway?
I'm just reminded of a person from Alaska I think a while back who used to always get into it with Hassan and others on evolution, and then went nuts and got banned. And then this person had several aliases and when caught claimed to be part of a class project and then an internet cafe or something where everyone was switching their names around. It was great fun.
I don't remember the name - does anyone else remember this?
If you guys calmed down you might notice that.
(but then again, since you can't answer my questions you might as well concoct any straw man you can)
...in over your head, perhaps?
*yawns as he dons jetpack and leaves thread*
Originally posted by BRussell
Threat? Nah. What in the world could I do to you anyway?
I'm just reminded of a person from Alaska I think a while back who used to always get into it with Hassan and others on evolution, and then went nuts and got banned. And then this person had several aliases and when caught claimed to be part of a class project and then an internet cafe or something where everyone was switching their names around. It was great fun.
I don't remember the name - does anyone else remember this?
This is harrasment---I don't know what this is supposed to mean but I'll will take it you have personal problems that are better solved at home.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Bollocks.
The very idea that the planet is 10,000 years old has to do with one VERY specific interpretation of the first chapter of the religious text of ONE of the world's many religions. The Yorubu people of West Africa believe that Obatala climbed down a sheet on the first morning of the world drunk on palm wine and made people from clay. And what they believe is every bit as valid as anything in Genesis.
There's no way you can prove that either is the one that 'really' happened, no matter how fervent your belief. Neither is provable, neither respects the laws of physics, neither have left any evidence.
Evolutionary science, on the other hand, is an explanation that actually seems to fit what we know about the planet and the things in it and every year it gets a bit more complete. It's just wrong to even try and make the comparison.
That was beautiful man .... ****ing beautiful. I'm going to memorize that and hit my crazy bible thumpin' Aunt Claire with it, when she comes to visit me from Australia next week!
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
You still don't seem to be picking up on what I am saying.
Both evolution and the creationist account require faith.
Neither is conclusive.
Nothing more, nothing less.
I see nothing wrong with questions being asked of the theory of evolution in the classroom being it is just a theory I see questions as needed.
Fellowship
FCiB,
I actually agree with you here (and throughout this thread in many ways), but I don't necessarily accept that it's "faith." Faith, as I understand it, requires doubt. There has to be the possibility that what's being believed in is not actually true. As Augustine put it, it's "belief in the presence of things unseen." Science deals exclusively in what is either empirically observable or mathematically provable. Science deals, usually, in observable phenomena (although there are of course wings of it--astrophysics, for example) that rely on a series of mathematical and logical deductions (which are a part of science's empirical mandate) as a means of arriving at conclusions and theories. Sometimes these theories cannot be proven in an observable way. Sometimes they can.
Here's where I agree with you: what constitutes "proof" or "fact" changes over time. Such matters are entirely constructions of the cultures they exist in. And even more, they differ from culture to culture, place to place, and time to time.
In other words, as members of a planet dominated by western culture, we have inherited its turn toward the empirical/secular and away from a religious way of explaining the world around us.
And we have also inherited western culture's belief that what its empiricism "finds" or determines as "fact" is, in fact, "true." And yet these things are not determined by any inherent "truthfulness" or "facticity." And they will change.
I'm surprised to find you making such postmodernist/poststructuralist/cultural relativist arguments!
Cheers
Scott
Edit: I can't spell today.
Originally posted by xenu
It's beeen a year, and fellowship still has absolutely no idea what evolution is.
Evolution starts with the premise that there is life. A reasonable assumption.
ena might also like to learn this.
By the way, care to post that "creationist theory of everything" we have been asking for, or are you going to ignore this? Just like you ignore every other request for information. But then, you have to, don't you? After all, it's not as if creationist's have anything that comes close to the success of evolutionary theory. And that burns you up, doesn't it? You hate it that your little creationist fantasy can be so easily discredited.
You know fellowship, I can't wait for you to quote some scientists out of context. Or to quote a bunch of people who died 100 years ago.
Actually, Fellowship is right on target.
the brilliance of it all has caused me one.
sheesh.
Originally posted by midwinter
FCiB,
I actually agree with you here (and throughout this thread in many ways), but I don't necessarily accept that it's "faith." Faith, as I understand it, requires doubt. There has to be the possibility that what's being believed in is not actually true. As Augustine put it, it's "belief in the presence of things unseen." Science deals exclusively in what is either empirically observable or mathematically proveable. Science deals, usually, in observable phenomena (although there are of course wings of it--astrophysics, for example) that rely on a series of mathematical and logical deductions (which are a part of science's empirical mandate) as a means of arriving at conclusions and theories. Sometimes these theories cannot be proven in an observable way. Sometimes they can.
Here's where I agree with you: what constitutes "proof" or "fact" changes over time. Such matters are entirely constructions of the cultures they exist in. And even more, they differ from culture to culture, place to place, and time to time.
In other words, as members of a planet dominated by western culture, we have inherited its turn toward the empirical/secular and away from a religious way of explaining the world around us.
And we have also inherited western culture's belief that what its empiricism "finds" or determines as "fact" is, in fact, "true." And yet these things are not determined by any inherent "truthfulness" or "facticity." And they will change.
I'm surprised to find you making such postmodernist/poststructuralist/cultural relativist arguments!
Cheers
Scott
Thank you Sir.
Originally posted by Fangorn
Actually, Fellowship is right on target.
And thank you as well Sir.
As for what I would advocate in the classroom it is simply the following as many of you understand my position.
I do not wish to mandate Creationist viewpoints in the classrooms the country over. I simply see it reasonable and fit to allow for these other viewpoints to direct some questions towards the theory of evolution. I respect science and I respect religion. I see nothing fruitful in attacking either. If you read over this thread some rush to do just this.
I take the pragmatic road of simply allowing questions directed towards the theory of evolution to be permitted.
What I believe about evolution is really not important with this regard. It is just a method of academic freedom to question I am addressing here.
Fellowship
Originally posted by THT
So, essentially, we're trying to argue with people who believe in magic. Just wonderful. No wonder we don't get anywhere!
Condescending.
Originally posted by THT
Seriously, I have thought about various strategies to discuss this, against people who believe in the "supernatural", and I have yet to come up with one for fair discourse. If a person isn't willing to follow logic, there is very little one can do except to wait for the magic to fail them at some level.
Where is the logic in your arguement? A belief in the "supernatural" does not preclude logic; if so, you would have to dismiss most of the "great" thinkers in history.
Originally posted by THT
To speak of the beginnings without a rational framework for proof only means that one is fantasizing. It is also fine to say that one does not know. Saying it is theological is merely a conflation of politics and science. In other words, science is encroaching upon religious territory as it has through time, and people must defend their religion. Sort of unfortunate that thousands of years of science trumping religious dogma has not changed anything, but we're all humane afterall.
This is total nonsense. Part A, "To speak of the beginnings . . ." does not lead to B "one is fantasizing." What that has to do with not knowing beats me. How you get from "theological" to a "conflation of politics and science" also eludes me. Science is a tool and when used properly does not encroach on true religion. And science has not been "trumping religious dogma" for thousands of years, especially since it hasn't been around as such that long.
Baffling post. But I think the point goes back to the "less evolved thus less intelligent being because she believes in God" thing.
If preference is given to Genesis, then you are in fact teaching that Christ is indeed real. I may go to hell for saying this ... but I don't think that's right.
I can see why christians get all ruffled about it though, unless Genesis gets some credit for the creation of the planet, it won't be more then a couple hundred years before the religion itself is forgotten.
Originally posted by xenu
By the way, care to post that "creationist theory of everything" we have been asking for, or are you going to ignore this?
try this.
I can see why christians get all ruffled about it though, unless Genesis gets some credit for the creation of the planet, it won't be more then a couple hundred years before the religion itself is forgotten.
You've GOT to be kidding. Seriously.
Originally posted by the cool gut
... then the story about billy bob making the population out of clay....
well thank you, i knew someone would get around to the truth...
and thank you again for bringing this topic back to the question.
Originally posted by ena
This is harrasment---I don't know what this is supposed to mean but I'll will take it you have personal problems that are better solved at home.
Uh, yeah, harassment. Hey, if I'm wrong, sobeit. Let's just say your online... demeanor... reminds me of another person who was banned a while ago. Funny how our personalities come through so strongly over this medium. Maybe alcimedes will check for me just for laughs.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
What I believe about evolution is really not important with this regard. It is just a method of academic freedom to question I am addressing here.
That's not quite fair. What trumptman apparently wants (or at least the article he cites) is for evolution to be singled out for criticism. Of course there is already academic freedom to criticize evolution.
BTW, I agreed with your last post, like midwinter (although I wouldn't associate myself with that post-modernist crap
Anyone who has faith in evolution is a bonehead. You shouldn't have faith in theories. You use them and you ditch them if you find a better one. Just like I treat my women. (Just kidding.) It's just a useful tool.
I have a brother-in-law who just got his PhD in botany from Michigan. He does taxonomy - classifying plants according to genetic similarity. Want to know whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable? He's the one to ask. Now there is just no way he could do what he does without thinking in terms of evolution. Does he have an atheist agenda? Absolutely not. He just likes plants. But thinking in terms of how plants have changed over time through genetic mutations and natural selection is a necessity. It's the framework that guides everything he does, and everything falls together as a result of that framework.
Originally posted by BRussell BTW, I agreed with your last post, like midwinter (although I wouldn't associate myself with that post-modernist crap
You should. All the cool people are doing it. It'll make you look older.
Anyone who has faith in evolution is a bonehead. You shouldn't have faith in theories. You use them and you ditch them if you find a better one. Just like I treat my women. (Just kidding.) It's just a useful tool.
I hope you're not too fond of gravity. Or the weather channel.
You can't just dismiss evolution that easily. Is it open to debate? Sure. Can we just dismiss it? No. It's too good at explaining too much. You don't throw the baby out with the bath-water. Unless you don't like the baby in the first place. And some people don't.
I have a brother-in-law who just got his PhD in botany from Michigan. He does taxonomy - classifying plants according to genetic similarity. Want to know whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable? He's the one to ask. Now there is just no way he could do what he does without thinking in terms of evolution. Does he have an atheist agenda? Absolutely not. He just likes plants. But thinking in terms of how plants have changed over time through genetic mutations and natural selection is a necessity. It's the framework that guides everything he does, and everything falls together as a result of that framework. [/B]
Which speaks directly to the points that FCiB and I are making: the reason it fits is not necessarily because it's true; it's because there's a massive framework (in which evolution is included. As is space travel. As is all modern medicine.) within which it makes sense.
With that said, do I buy the theory of evolution? Sure. It's a beautiful theory and it makes a lot of sense. But I'm also aware that the only reason it makes sense is because of when and where I live.