No, evolution is the best collection of theories to come along to explain how we got here, scientifically and without a bunch of fairy tales and myths. Creation traditions can't do that.
Are there BAD parts of evolution? Sure. Do some evolutionistas have an agenda? Absolutely. But you need to separate the AGENDA from the SCIENCE. As with most other things. Just because some folks with a political agenda promote evolution doesn't mean that evolution is flawed or purely political.
As for Creationism, should we also teach the creation story of ALL religious traditions? If we teach Christian creation, shouldn't we also teach the Hindu creation story (upon which the Christian story is based anyway), and the Greek creation story, etc.?
Now, before anyone slams me as some kind of pagan (not that there's anything WRONG with that), I'll ask a simple question: Who or what set up evolution and made sure that all the little things went right?
Regardless of whether you believe in the Garden of Eden, you have to ask yourself "Who started the clock?" Maybe nobody, but it's a valid question, and it takes into account all of the things that mankind has found with its collective mind over the past 50,000 years.
Scientists in good conscience cannot say, well it just happened this when literally every variable turned out just right.
That's a crock of shit. Nothing turned out 'just right'. That's a bigger assumption than any evolutionist makes. Nothing is 'just right', it just is. It works now, but things can and do function better or worse than they are right now.
You're the one working backwards, not the evolutionists timing how long it would take to create the eye. You're mindset is one trying to figure out how 'nature' could create such a perfect scenario out of random chance. The thing is, this is not such a perfect scenario.
The eye is a great example. How could it be 'just right' if it doesn't zoom? If it's so easily destroyed? If it degenerates over time? If its peripheral vision is not 360 degrees? If it can't see in the dark? If it needs two for three dimensional vision?
Like the knee, it works well enough. It's severely flawed though. It's a crutch until the next best thing comes along.
Trumptman, now having spent a lot of energy in this thread denouncing evolution and related sciences, what is your pet theory on the origin of the Universe and life? I guess you must have some thoughts on it?
That's a crock of shit. Nothing turned out 'just right'. That's a bigger assumption than any evolutionist makes. Nothing is 'just right', it just is. It works now, but things can and do function better or worse than they are right now.
You're the one working backwards, not the evolutionists timing how long it would take to create the eye. You're mindset is one trying to figure out how 'nature' could create such a perfect scenario out of random chance. The thing is, this is not such a perfect scenario.
The eye is a great example. How could it be 'just right' if it doesn't zoom? If it's so easily destroyed? If it degenerates over time? If its peripheral vision is not 360 degrees? If it can't see in the dark? If it needs two for three dimensional vision?
Like the knee, it works well enough. It's severely flawed though. It's a crutch until the next best thing comes along.
Well as for your more perfect eye scenarios you should ask an evolutionist. He is the one to best answer why we haven't all evolved to have telephoto eyeballs. Amazingly enough the program run by the evolutionary proponants never evolved a second lens as well. Then again perhaps you answer some of your own questions. I'm sure someone who believes in evolution would argue that the necessity of a second lens that not only focuses but must move forward and backwards adds even more complexity and likelyhood of breakdown within an eyeball. Some of the others I don't quite get because although we don't see in the dark, some animals do. Likewise we do have three dimensional vision.
Likewise I didn't set up the experiment. I even posted it from talkorigins. They determined the final result and saw how long it took to get there. I simply pointed out that with evolution, the final outcome couldn't be known beforehand and that as a result it was a flawed experiment. Evolution proponants often just dismiss this with a "well it's here so it must have worked out that way." I do not give that leeway.
The turning out "just right" is related to how our universe and the laws within it are arranged. They are so coincidentally "just right" that it moves well beyond chance. While life might have multiple chances to get it right with evolution, there is, as far as we know only one universe and it just happened to pop out right the first time. This is so unlikely that the multiverse theory has been proposed to account for all the times the attempts at a universe didn't get it right. Think of it as evolution but with universes instead of animals and plants. I posted a link to it from Scientific American and it is a valid theory. It is also likely completely untestable and would require as much faith as any religion.
No, evolution is the best collection of theories to come along to explain how we got here, scientifically and without a bunch of fairy tales and myths. Creation traditions can't do that.
Are there BAD parts of evolution? Sure. Do some evolutionistas have an agenda? Absolutely. But you need to separate the AGENDA from the SCIENCE. As with most other things. Just because some folks with a political agenda promote evolution doesn't mean that evolution is flawed or purely political.
As for Creationism, should we also teach the creation story of ALL religious traditions? If we teach Christian creation, shouldn't we also teach the Hindu creation story (upon which the Christian story is based anyway), and the Greek creation story, etc.?
Now, before anyone slams me as some kind of pagan (not that there's anything WRONG with that), I'll ask a simple question: Who or what set up evolution and made sure that all the little things went right?
Regardless of whether you believe in the Garden of Eden, you have to ask yourself "Who started the clock?" Maybe nobody, but it's a valid question, and it takes into account all of the things that mankind has found with its collective mind over the past 50,000 years.
No the better question is to ask, why is there a clock. Space-time doesn't have to set up in the manner it just happens to be. Likewise just because you experience time in a linear manner related to the objects around you here on earth doesn't mean it is the only way it exists.
That said, I'll repeat, isn't criticism of evolutionary theory already taught in science classrooms?
No in fact most people, as witnessed here get upset if you suggest aspects of evolution are anything but a fact, not even a theory.
Bunge, if anything you should be completely for this. Students will likely feel better about their belief in evolution if they know about the flaws in it and just choose to accept them. If they get a half-teaching and then get blind-sided about the flaws in it, they will feel like they were given propoganda and will become skeptical about it.
Trumptman, now having spent a lot of energy in this thread denouncing evolution and related sciences, what is your pet theory on the origin of the Universe and life? I guess you must have some thoughts on it?
I haven't denounced "related sciences" if anything I have said that chemistry is getting ready to help revolutionize biology. An interdisciplinary field bio-chemistry has to confront serious problems with evolution at the molecular level.
I would be more than happen to have you quote from this thread where I have denouncing science. You are showing your own biases here.
As for the origin of the universe and life, if you start a thread on it, I likely will post there. However this thread has a title and a topic. I prefer to keep to them.
BTW, Sammi Jo have you actually answered the topic yet? Do you believe that scientific criticisms of evolution should be presented along with the teaching of the theory? Or do you believe in information and thought control?
Powerdoc answered your question in one of his first posts. I highly doubt you are an expert on education. If you're looking for answers, then there is a ton of research on education for you to look through if you're interested. I'm not sure any of us can fully answer your question without said research. We can offer opinions- mostly uninformed/ some informed, but you certainly won't find answers from us. I think this is a topic best suited for yourself to find out about, since the topic is generally speaking one involving teaching theory- not evolution.
i dont think you get it. the universe is observable, no? that means quite simply that it is stable enough to be observed. that means the physical laws governing it are just one set (perhaps the only set -- this is where the multiverse part comes in, because mathmatically it may be provable that a different set of laws can lead to a stable system) of many that lead to a stable universe that is observable. if it was not stable, ie its existence terminated before any creature was able to observe it, it wouldnt be observed, that simple.
because we observe it must mean it is observable, right? that means it falls into a category of things that exist for said amount of time, for instance, if the earth was really only 6000 years old, our observing it now would mean that within some limitations, its half life is at least that long (i am assuming that tomorrow there is a 50/50 shot that earth will disappear in a puff of smoke). because we observe it must mean that it has existed while we observed it, you cannot observe transient things for longer than they exist. the universe is the way we see it because it is stable enough to have been observed by us. if the universe fell apart moments after its birth (which by the way, i think is a conceptional reminant of creation theory), we wouldnt see it, we wouldnt be around to see it...
perfect means observable in describing the universe. and that is just it.
Powerdoc answered your question in one of his first posts. I highly doubt you are an expert on education. If you're looking for answers, then there is a ton of research on education for you to look through if you're interested. I'm not sure any of us can fully answer your question without said research. We can offer opinions- mostly uninformed/ some informed, but you certainly won't find answers from us. I think this is a topic best suited for yourself to find out about, since the topic is generally speaking one involving teaching theory- not evolution.
Why would you doubt an educator is not an expert on education?
As for the layperson, regardless of whether they are expert educators, they do vote people onto school boards. Likewise the school board members are often not "expert educators" nor are they even scientists.
So the topic is best asked of the general populace because in the U.S. that is who decides what the "expert educators" will teach to our children. School boards address k-12 education which most people have experienced and feel fit and knowledgeable enough to comment and address with regard to curriculum.
Evolutionary information shouldn't be restricted. The criticisms of scientists should be presented. The folks here saying that evolution information should be restricted would likely argue for more information in almost every other aspect of life. I am just appealing to them to be consistant.
Lastly I was not asking HOW something should be taught. The theory about the best way to teach something would be educational theory. I was asking about WHAT should be taught which is curriculum. Educators at the k-12 level, for better or worse, have this decided for them by a combination of state legislators and school boards.
Why would you doubt an educator is not an expert on education?
As for the layperson, regardless of whether they are expert educators, they do vote people onto school boards. Likewise the school board members are often not "expert educators" nor are they even scientists.
So the topic is best asked of the general populace because in the U.S. that is who decides what the "expert educators" will teach to our children. School boards address k-12 education which most people have experienced and feel fit and knowledgeable enough to comment and address with regard to curriculum.
Evolutionary information shouldn't be restricted. The criticisms of scientists should be presented. The folks here saying that evolution information should be restricted would likely argue for more information in almost every other aspect of life. I am just appealing to them to be consistant.
Lastly I was not asking HOW something should be taught. The theory about the best way to teach something would be educational theory. I was asking about WHAT should be taught which is curriculum. Educators at the k-12 level, for better or worse, have this decided for them by a combination of state legislators and school boards.
Nick
BULL.
Being an educator DOES NOT automatically qualify you as an expert on education itself. You merely have experience in the field. That DOES NOT mean you have expert knowledge of curriculum theory. Take this excerpt from
Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues by Ornstein and Hunkins:
Quote:
Curriculum is a complex phenomenon. Although few curricularists agree on all theoretical aspects of the field, they realize that they must advance their understanding of it if they are to conceptualize and develop curricula of value for students.
It is completely without merit to suggest that the general population is best suited for making decisions about curriculum. They may be the ones who eventually make some of the decisions, but it is only logical to suggest that the best informed are "best suited" to decide.
Not the soccer mom.
Furthermore, you separate "HOW" and "WHAT" like you can actually do that. Tell me how introducing criticism of evolution on whatever scale you want does not pertain to both WHAT will be taught and HOW it will be taught.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
It is because it is... sounds more like zen then science to me.
Nick
if zen=scientific logic then i completely agree
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Evolution is junk science with an agenda.
No, evolution is the best collection of theories to come along to explain how we got here, scientifically and without a bunch of fairy tales and myths. Creation traditions can't do that.
Are there BAD parts of evolution? Sure. Do some evolutionistas have an agenda? Absolutely. But you need to separate the AGENDA from the SCIENCE. As with most other things. Just because some folks with a political agenda promote evolution doesn't mean that evolution is flawed or purely political.
As for Creationism, should we also teach the creation story of ALL religious traditions? If we teach Christian creation, shouldn't we also teach the Hindu creation story (upon which the Christian story is based anyway), and the Greek creation story, etc.?
Now, before anyone slams me as some kind of pagan (not that there's anything WRONG with that), I'll ask a simple question: Who or what set up evolution and made sure that all the little things went right?
Regardless of whether you believe in the Garden of Eden, you have to ask yourself "Who started the clock?" Maybe nobody, but it's a valid question, and it takes into account all of the things that mankind has found with its collective mind over the past 50,000 years.
Originally posted by trumptman
Scientists in good conscience cannot say, well it just happened this when literally every variable turned out just right.
That's a crock of shit. Nothing turned out 'just right'. That's a bigger assumption than any evolutionist makes. Nothing is 'just right', it just is. It works now, but things can and do function better or worse than they are right now.
You're the one working backwards, not the evolutionists timing how long it would take to create the eye. You're mindset is one trying to figure out how 'nature' could create such a perfect scenario out of random chance. The thing is, this is not such a perfect scenario.
The eye is a great example. How could it be 'just right' if it doesn't zoom? If it's so easily destroyed? If it degenerates over time? If its peripheral vision is not 360 degrees? If it can't see in the dark? If it needs two for three dimensional vision?
Like the knee, it works well enough. It's severely flawed though. It's a crutch until the next best thing comes along.
Originally posted by bunge
That said, I'll repeat, isn't criticism of evolutionary theory already taught in science classrooms?
No. Kids are brainwashed to become evolutionist-atheist-communist-homosexual-welfare-dependents.
Originally posted by finboy
{snip}
what are you some kind of pagan?
Originally posted by BRussell
Kids are brainwashed to become evolutionist - atheist - communist - homosexual - welfare - dependents.
Huh. And I used to think it just came naturally to me.
No. Kids are brainwashed to become evolutionist-atheist-communist-homosexual-welfare-dependents.
HA! now i know why my teachers were so pissed about me skipping all those classes.
Originally posted by bunge
That's a crock of shit. Nothing turned out 'just right'. That's a bigger assumption than any evolutionist makes. Nothing is 'just right', it just is. It works now, but things can and do function better or worse than they are right now.
You're the one working backwards, not the evolutionists timing how long it would take to create the eye. You're mindset is one trying to figure out how 'nature' could create such a perfect scenario out of random chance. The thing is, this is not such a perfect scenario.
The eye is a great example. How could it be 'just right' if it doesn't zoom? If it's so easily destroyed? If it degenerates over time? If its peripheral vision is not 360 degrees? If it can't see in the dark? If it needs two for three dimensional vision?
Like the knee, it works well enough. It's severely flawed though. It's a crutch until the next best thing comes along.
Well as for your more perfect eye scenarios you should ask an evolutionist. He is the one to best answer why we haven't all evolved to have telephoto eyeballs. Amazingly enough the program run by the evolutionary proponants never evolved a second lens as well. Then again perhaps you answer some of your own questions. I'm sure someone who believes in evolution would argue that the necessity of a second lens that not only focuses but must move forward and backwards adds even more complexity and likelyhood of breakdown within an eyeball. Some of the others I don't quite get because although we don't see in the dark, some animals do. Likewise we do have three dimensional vision.
Likewise I didn't set up the experiment. I even posted it from talkorigins. They determined the final result and saw how long it took to get there. I simply pointed out that with evolution, the final outcome couldn't be known beforehand and that as a result it was a flawed experiment. Evolution proponants often just dismiss this with a "well it's here so it must have worked out that way." I do not give that leeway.
The turning out "just right" is related to how our universe and the laws within it are arranged. They are so coincidentally "just right" that it moves well beyond chance. While life might have multiple chances to get it right with evolution, there is, as far as we know only one universe and it just happened to pop out right the first time. This is so unlikely that the multiverse theory has been proposed to account for all the times the attempts at a universe didn't get it right. Think of it as evolution but with universes instead of animals and plants. I posted a link to it from Scientific American and it is a valid theory. It is also likely completely untestable and would require as much faith as any religion.
Nick
Originally posted by finboy
No, evolution is the best collection of theories to come along to explain how we got here, scientifically and without a bunch of fairy tales and myths. Creation traditions can't do that.
Are there BAD parts of evolution? Sure. Do some evolutionistas have an agenda? Absolutely. But you need to separate the AGENDA from the SCIENCE. As with most other things. Just because some folks with a political agenda promote evolution doesn't mean that evolution is flawed or purely political.
As for Creationism, should we also teach the creation story of ALL religious traditions? If we teach Christian creation, shouldn't we also teach the Hindu creation story (upon which the Christian story is based anyway), and the Greek creation story, etc.?
Now, before anyone slams me as some kind of pagan (not that there's anything WRONG with that), I'll ask a simple question: Who or what set up evolution and made sure that all the little things went right?
Regardless of whether you believe in the Garden of Eden, you have to ask yourself "Who started the clock?" Maybe nobody, but it's a valid question, and it takes into account all of the things that mankind has found with its collective mind over the past 50,000 years.
No the better question is to ask, why is there a clock. Space-time doesn't have to set up in the manner it just happens to be. Likewise just because you experience time in a linear manner related to the objects around you here on earth doesn't mean it is the only way it exists.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
That said, I'll repeat, isn't criticism of evolutionary theory already taught in science classrooms?
No in fact most people, as witnessed here get upset if you suggest aspects of evolution are anything but a fact, not even a theory.
Bunge, if anything you should be completely for this. Students will likely feel better about their belief in evolution if they know about the flaws in it and just choose to accept them. If they get a half-teaching and then get blind-sided about the flaws in it, they will feel like they were given propoganda and will become skeptical about it.
Nick
Sounds like zen to me. Maybe you should try buddhism one of these days...
Originally posted by sammi jo
Trumptman, now having spent a lot of energy in this thread denouncing evolution and related sciences, what is your pet theory on the origin of the Universe and life? I guess you must have some thoughts on it?
I haven't denounced "related sciences" if anything I have said that chemistry is getting ready to help revolutionize biology. An interdisciplinary field bio-chemistry has to confront serious problems with evolution at the molecular level.
I would be more than happen to have you quote from this thread where I have denouncing science. You are showing your own biases here.
As for the origin of the universe and life, if you start a thread on it, I likely will post there. However this thread has a title and a topic. I prefer to keep to them.
BTW, Sammi Jo have you actually answered the topic yet? Do you believe that scientific criticisms of evolution should be presented along with the teaching of the theory? Or do you believe in information and thought control?
Nick
There are so many parameters that are tuned to have life on earth that it makes it unlikely there is life anywhere else in the universe.
The universe is big and we currently have a rather small sample size (one planet in one solar system). There is life nearly everywhere on earth.
The anthropic principle and irreducible complexity: these must be invoked in every thread on evolution.
Originally posted by amyklai
So your argument is "There must be a god because things are the way they are".
Sounds like zen to me. Maybe you should try buddhism one of these days...
Perhaps you should learn to quote people. It is the little button down there on the lower right.
Then you wouldn't have to misquote them and as a result misjudge them.
Nick
Powerdoc answered your question in one of his first posts. I highly doubt you are an expert on education. If you're looking for answers, then there is a ton of research on education for you to look through if you're interested. I'm not sure any of us can fully answer your question without said research. We can offer opinions- mostly uninformed/ some informed, but you certainly won't find answers from us. I think this is a topic best suited for yourself to find out about, since the topic is generally speaking one involving teaching theory- not evolution.
Originally posted by trumptman
{snip}
i dont think you get it. the universe is observable, no? that means quite simply that it is stable enough to be observed. that means the physical laws governing it are just one set (perhaps the only set -- this is where the multiverse part comes in, because mathmatically it may be provable that a different set of laws can lead to a stable system) of many that lead to a stable universe that is observable. if it was not stable, ie its existence terminated before any creature was able to observe it, it wouldnt be observed, that simple.
because we observe it must mean it is observable, right? that means it falls into a category of things that exist for said amount of time, for instance, if the earth was really only 6000 years old, our observing it now would mean that within some limitations, its half life is at least that long (i am assuming that tomorrow there is a 50/50 shot that earth will disappear in a puff of smoke). because we observe it must mean that it has existed while we observed it, you cannot observe transient things for longer than they exist. the universe is the way we see it because it is stable enough to have been observed by us. if the universe fell apart moments after its birth (which by the way, i think is a conceptional reminant of creation theory), we wouldnt see it, we wouldnt be around to see it...
perfect means observable in describing the universe. and that is just it.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Trumptman,
Powerdoc answered your question in one of his first posts. I highly doubt you are an expert on education. If you're looking for answers, then there is a ton of research on education for you to look through if you're interested. I'm not sure any of us can fully answer your question without said research. We can offer opinions- mostly uninformed/ some informed, but you certainly won't find answers from us. I think this is a topic best suited for yourself to find out about, since the topic is generally speaking one involving teaching theory- not evolution.
Why would you doubt an educator is not an expert on education?
As for the layperson, regardless of whether they are expert educators, they do vote people onto school boards. Likewise the school board members are often not "expert educators" nor are they even scientists.
So the topic is best asked of the general populace because in the U.S. that is who decides what the "expert educators" will teach to our children. School boards address k-12 education which most people have experienced and feel fit and knowledgeable enough to comment and address with regard to curriculum.
Evolutionary information shouldn't be restricted. The criticisms of scientists should be presented. The folks here saying that evolution information should be restricted would likely argue for more information in almost every other aspect of life. I am just appealing to them to be consistant.
Lastly I was not asking HOW something should be taught. The theory about the best way to teach something would be educational theory. I was asking about WHAT should be taught which is curriculum. Educators at the k-12 level, for better or worse, have this decided for them by a combination of state legislators and school boards.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Why would you doubt an educator is not an expert on education?
As for the layperson, regardless of whether they are expert educators, they do vote people onto school boards. Likewise the school board members are often not "expert educators" nor are they even scientists.
So the topic is best asked of the general populace because in the U.S. that is who decides what the "expert educators" will teach to our children. School boards address k-12 education which most people have experienced and feel fit and knowledgeable enough to comment and address with regard to curriculum.
Evolutionary information shouldn't be restricted. The criticisms of scientists should be presented. The folks here saying that evolution information should be restricted would likely argue for more information in almost every other aspect of life. I am just appealing to them to be consistant.
Lastly I was not asking HOW something should be taught. The theory about the best way to teach something would be educational theory. I was asking about WHAT should be taught which is curriculum. Educators at the k-12 level, for better or worse, have this decided for them by a combination of state legislators and school boards.
Nick
BULL.
Being an educator DOES NOT automatically qualify you as an expert on education itself. You merely have experience in the field. That DOES NOT mean you have expert knowledge of curriculum theory. Take this excerpt from
Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues by Ornstein and Hunkins:
Curriculum is a complex phenomenon. Although few curricularists agree on all theoretical aspects of the field, they realize that they must advance their understanding of it if they are to conceptualize and develop curricula of value for students.
It is completely without merit to suggest that the general population is best suited for making decisions about curriculum. They may be the ones who eventually make some of the decisions, but it is only logical to suggest that the best informed are "best suited" to decide.
Not the soccer mom.
Furthermore, you separate "HOW" and "WHAT" like you can actually do that. Tell me how introducing criticism of evolution on whatever scale you want does not pertain to both WHAT will be taught and HOW it will be taught.