When I first started surfing AppleInsider, I thought Fellowship was a complete ass. Fellowship, you've really learned and changed over the past few years... for the better. Shock horror, you are one of the respected members on AppleInsider, raising the intelligence of the board!
There are a couple of other members like that, and congrats on being one of them FCiB
not only that, but fellows is still young and growing...he actually thinks and learns and, horrors, sometimes changes how he looks at things...
the fellows of today is not the fellows of two years ago, nor will he be the same two years from now...and that is a good thing and i am very proud of him
Don't blame Jesus (or even his followers) for this one.
Government bodies have a unique, inbred ability to assess a situation and come up with a solution nobody asked for and doesn't solve the problem.
Though I've stayed out of the aforementioned AI wars, I believe in creation.
I think evolution, as taught today, is slowly being picked apart by modern science. (And no, I will not participate in a flame war so don't try.)
However, I certainly wouldn't support this "renaming" of a scientific concept simply to be politically correct. Every fundamentalist groups I've heard of (even the wackos) have been asking for the theory of creation to be given equal standing in classes or at least mentioned.
I'm not sure anybody has ever asked for Evolution supporters to be driven underground and forced to use "code words" to relay their position.
This is a bureaucratic solution that will cost more money to implement a process nobody asked for, and which will ultimately be ignored by all who encounter it.
This time around, the Right Wing and the Left Wing are united against the Chicken Wing.
Don't blame Jesus (or even his followers) for this one.
Government bodies have a unique, inbred ability to assess a situation and come up with a solution nobody asked for and doesn't solve the problem.
Though I've stayed out of the aforementioned AI wars, I believe in creation.
I think evolution, as taught today, is slowly being picked apart by modern science. (And no, I will not participate in a flame war so don't try.)
However, I certainly wouldn't support this "renaming" of a scientific concept simply to be politically correct. Every fundamentalist groups I've heard of (even the wackos) have been asking for the theory of creation to be given equal standing in classes or at least mentioned.
I'm not sure anybody has ever asked for Evolution supporters to be driven underground and forced to use "code words" to relay their position.
This is a bureaucratic solution that will cost more money to implement a process nobody asked for, and which will ultimately be ignored by all who encounter it.
This time around, the Right Wing and the Left Wing are united against the Chicken Wing.
Once again we have an a stunning example of someone not understanding what a scientific theory is. Creation is not a scientific theory. Evolution is...and when you say it is being picked apart, that's the point of a scientific theory. It CAN be picked apart. It can EVOLVE.
Ugh, I hate living in Georgia. If my teachers don't teach Evolution out of fear of stupid parents, I'll raise some hell at my school. I don't understand why people get so upset when a THEORY (read: explanation of events based on facts, but can be changed if future discoveries contradict said theory), but at the same time push for creationism, which has no facts to back it up, to be taught instead.
For the extremely religious kids, they don't have to believe what they learn in school. My World History teacher is always going on about how technology sucks. Do I agree? No. Do I get the school to make him shut up? No. I simply humor him. The creationist-believers should just learn about evolution for the sake of knowing about it. How does one expect to be well-educated if he or she does not know the truth about the most widely-believed theory on the origin of mankind? Plus, at most universities, evolution WILL be taught, creationism WILL NOT (unless you take some kind of theology class).
In conclusion, I hate living in GA, and I hate the stupidity of most Georgians.
Once again we have an a stunning example of someone not understanding what a scientific theory is. Creation is not a scientific theory. Evolution is...and when you say it is being picked apart, that's the point of a scientific theory. It CAN be picked apart. It can EVOLVE.
I don't think I said that I regard Creation as a scientific theory, it's simply a theory of how the earth came to be. The theory of evolution is cited by other good, intelligent people who see things differently.
I'm not a scientist and don't claim to be one. My point, and that of this thread, is that the policy is question is wrong-headed and solves nothing.
I don't understand people who think that "creation science" should be taught. I'm all for allowing people to have their own viewpoints, but teaching that it's possible the Bible creation story is word-for-word valid is just ridiculous. Even the Catholic Church, the Pope himself, is a supporter of evolutionary theory. At this point, there is no longer a conflict between evolution and creation because they can be thought of as one and the same thing. Evolution is a fact of life, or at least a strongly supported theory. The actual way that evolution has been carried out is the real matter of debate, and in that case I think multiple viewpoints should be taught. Teaching only Darwinian evolution is short-sighted, because it only provides one side of the story. The theory that random mutations have caused all of the changes from evolution is a valid one, but there are many alternate viewpoints that also have very strong support.
I read an excellent article by Stephen Jay Gould last night. It was inspiring - it showed me that religion and science are not inherently locked in conflict, and in fact they are often very similar. The Catholic Church is very active in the modern sciences. Gould said the one condition they imposed when accepting evolution as how things really happened was that it needs to be understood that at some point, our ancestors were infused with a soul, making us human. The distinction between human and animal is important, and necessary for religion. But you can't really argue that the earth was created 6000 years ago in a week and that evolution is false, because there is simply too much evidence that says otherwise. It's like trying to argue that the world is flat, or that the stars are a perfectly static layer just beyond the orbit of Saturn, or that the Earth is the center of the universe. People can try, but they really end up looking ridiculous in the end.
It was while reading that piece by Gould that I had a revelation. To make sure I had it, I wrote it down:
Quote:
The Bible cannot be taken literally because it was written by humans, and everyone knows that humans are imperfect beings that make mistakes. "But it is the WORD of God!" say Christians. They are correct in saying that. God told man how to write this Bible. But imagine if you tried to explain how a jet plane works to an ancient Greek philosopher. It would all be gibberish to him, or at least magickal. However, if he were to try to explain it, he'd arrive at an explanation that claims that some magick of the Gods creates a great wind in the engine. Obviously, that's not exactly how it works, but he's got the right idea - the engine somehow makes wind.
God is like that but a million times more complex. We were a simpler people thousands of years ago when the Bible was written. We explained the ideas of God in whatever terms we knew. As science discovers things, more and more of God's puzzles are solved. Easy ones, like the orbits of the planets, gravity, and atoms, have been solved, to an extent. But every time we solve a problem, new ones show up. They are more difficult. Throughout it all, God remains just out of reach. He planned it that way. It's our motivation to strive ever forward. Many major scientific problems present themselves as the key to unlocking the secret of God, but once we solve it we just find another door. The closer you get to God, the farther He gets from you.
If we were to write the Bible today, it would still convey the basic messages of living a compassionate and good life, but it would tell the story of creation as we scientifically know it to be - that it started billions of years ago, and that life on our planet evolved from single-celled organisms. Maybe 2000 years from now, our theories will look as ridiculous as the old Bible's creation story looks today.
That's almost exactly what I wrote last night (with a few changes for clarification purposes). Essentially, I'm saying that science and religion are one and the same. To find God, we have to learn... and to learn, we need science. But scientists should not shy away from religion any more than religious people should shy away from science. I think it shows great weakness if a person is unwilling to allow the study of the natural world for fear that it would contradict their literal interpretation of the Bible.
Luca (and we're all headed seriously off-topic), the one thing that your three paragraph revelatory treatise misses is that the Bible doesn't just tell us to live a compassionate, good life. That is the simplified, secular view of Judeo-Christian religions. The truth is, it asks us to Believe in a Supreme Being who created us with purpose aforethought. It requires that we acknowledge that Supreme Being through worship and obeisance. That's just the Christian Old Testament; like unto the Jewish Torah, an ancient and awesome history of how the Jews were led and instructed by God, whom they worshipped (grudgingly at times - just like people of many faiths today btw).
The New Testament, unique to Christianity, introduces a paradigm shift by the Supreme Being who is become flesh; God incarnate in human form, ie Jesus. Jesus' purpose was to absolve humanity of its sin, basically to "take a bullet" on our behalf. During his time on Earth his teachings and parables were not meek entreaties to "be nice to each other" but were passionate, articulate, incredibly deep ideas that instructed people to understand that this physical life is short and that we should prepare ourselves for the long road, eternal life.
I don't think I said that I regard Creation as a scientific theory, it's simply a theory of how the earth came to be. The theory of evolution is cited by other good, intelligent people who see things differently.
I'm not a scientist and don't claim to be one. My point, and that of this thread, is that the policy is question is wrong-headed and solves nothing.
No, Creationism is not a theory in the context of education. Stop calling it that. That's where the problem lies. It does not deserve equal footing with a scientific theory.
No, Creationism is not a theory in the context of education. Stop calling it that. That's where the problem lies. It does not deserve equal footing with a scientific theory.
Theory!...Theory!....Theory! (Sorry, couldn't help it.)
I'm not eager to dredge up a battle that was fought here two years ago, so I really didn't want to go too deep into this. Your latest reply made it occur to me that, in the interest of keeping things short, I have been a bit lax with my terminology, and for that I apologize.
Ok, Creationism is not a theory in the context of education. That's a subject for Sunday School.
However, when the issue of Origins is raised in classrooms, I do think it appropriate that the concept of Intelligent Design be introduced to students, in concert with the Theory of Evolution.
Theory!...Theory!....Theory! (Sorry, couldn't help it.)
I'm not eager to dredge up a battle that was fought here two years ago, so I really didn't want to go too deep into this. Your latest reply made it occur to me that, in the interest of keeping things short, I have been a bit lax with my terminology, and for that I apologize.
Ok, Creationism is not a theory in the context of education. That's a subject for Sunday School.
However, when the issue of Origins is raised in classrooms, I do think it appropriate that the concept of Intelligent Design be introduced to students, in concert with the Theory of Evolution.
Yeah. Intelligent design definitely should be brought up in the context of "here's a group of people that live in a world of black and white and make the logical fallacy of limiting our origins to one of two scenarios, then through shoddy pseudoscience attack evolution in order to bolster their claims! Students, this is what we call intellectual dishonesty and a completely backwards attempt at science. Class, we do not start with a fixed assumption and bend the world to fit in it. We start with a hypothesis and gather and analyze data to see whether or not that hypothesis has merit."
Yeah. Intelligent design definitely should be brought up in the context of "here's a group of people that live in a world of black and white and make the logical fallacy of limiting our origins to one of two scenarios, then through shoddy pseudoscience attack evolution in order to bolster their claims! Students, this is what we call intellectual dishonesty and a completely backwards attempt at science. Class, we do not start with a fixed assumption and bend the world to fit in it."
I'd be happy to include more scenarios which might be taken seriously by the public, whether they are "Martians were here first" or the Star Trek "Aliens seeded the galaxy with their DNA."
The classroom is a place of discussion, not a pulpit for the beliefs of arrogant forum posters. Kids don't learn these things in a vacuum, they interact with other humans in a place called SOCIETY. Turn off the computer and try it for yourself. Kids should leave school with an idea of the world they live in, and a willingness to explore radical solutions to problems and challenge common assumptions.
I don't understand people who think that "creation science" should be taught. I'm all for allowing people to have their own viewpoints, but teaching that it's possible the Bible creation story is word-for-word valid is just ridiculous. Even the Catholic Church, the Pope himself, is a supporter of evolutionary theory. At this point, there is no longer a conflict between evolution and creation because they can be thought of as one and the same thing. Evolution is a fact of life, or at least a strongly supported theory. The actual way that evolution has been carried out is the real matter of debate, and in that case I think multiple viewpoints should be taught. Teaching only Darwinian evolution is short-sighted, because it only provides one side of the story. The theory that random mutations have caused all of the changes from evolution is a valid one, but there are many alternate viewpoints that also have very strong support.
I read an excellent article by Stephen Jay Gould last night. It was inspiring - it showed me that religion and science are not inherently locked in conflict, and in fact they are often very similar. The Catholic Church is very active in the modern sciences. Gould said the one condition they imposed when accepting evolution as how things really happened was that it needs to be understood that at some point, our ancestors were infused with a soul, making us human. The distinction between human and animal is important, and necessary for religion. But you can't really argue that the earth was created 6000 years ago in a week and that evolution is false, because there is simply too much evidence that says otherwise. It's like trying to argue that the world is flat, or that the stars are a perfectly static layer just beyond the orbit of Saturn, or that the Earth is the center of the universe. People can try, but they really end up looking ridiculous in the end.
It was while reading that piece by Gould that I had a revelation. To make sure I had it, I wrote it down:
That's almost exactly what I wrote last night (with a few changes for clarification purposes). Essentially, I'm saying that science and religion are one and the same. To find God, we have to learn... and to learn, we need science. But scientists should not shy away from religion any more than religious people should shy away from science. I think it shows great weakness if a person is unwilling to allow the study of the natural world for fear that it would contradict their literal interpretation of the Bible.
Comments
There are a couple of other members like that, and congrats on being one of them FCiB
Barto
Originally posted by thegelding
not only that, but fellows is still young and growing...he actually thinks and learns and, horrors, sometimes changes how he looks at things...
the fellows of today is not the fellows of two years ago, nor will he be the same two years from now...and that is a good thing and i am very proud of him
g
Wait..... you mean he's... evolving?
Thank you guys for the kind words,
Fellows
Originally posted by addabox
Wait..... you mean he's... evolving?
Yes, he grew a third nipple.
Just when you guys forgot all about the dude who was stacking dead people up in piles up in the North Georgia mountains too....
I just hope nobody spills the beans on our possum-powered buses.
oops.
<sigh>
Originally posted by groverat
Thanks, Jesus.
Don't blame Jesus (or even his followers) for this one.
Government bodies have a unique, inbred ability to assess a situation and come up with a solution nobody asked for and doesn't solve the problem.
Though I've stayed out of the aforementioned AI wars, I believe in creation.
I think evolution, as taught today, is slowly being picked apart by modern science. (And no, I will not participate in a flame war so don't try.)
However, I certainly wouldn't support this "renaming" of a scientific concept simply to be politically correct. Every fundamentalist groups I've heard of (even the wackos) have been asking for the theory of creation to be given equal standing in classes or at least mentioned.
I'm not sure anybody has ever asked for Evolution supporters to be driven underground and forced to use "code words" to relay their position.
This is a bureaucratic solution that will cost more money to implement a process nobody asked for, and which will ultimately be ignored by all who encounter it.
This time around, the Right Wing and the Left Wing are united against the Chicken Wing.
Originally posted by Frank777
Don't blame Jesus (or even his followers) for this one.
Government bodies have a unique, inbred ability to assess a situation and come up with a solution nobody asked for and doesn't solve the problem.
Though I've stayed out of the aforementioned AI wars, I believe in creation.
I think evolution, as taught today, is slowly being picked apart by modern science. (And no, I will not participate in a flame war so don't try.)
However, I certainly wouldn't support this "renaming" of a scientific concept simply to be politically correct. Every fundamentalist groups I've heard of (even the wackos) have been asking for the theory of creation to be given equal standing in classes or at least mentioned.
I'm not sure anybody has ever asked for Evolution supporters to be driven underground and forced to use "code words" to relay their position.
This is a bureaucratic solution that will cost more money to implement a process nobody asked for, and which will ultimately be ignored by all who encounter it.
This time around, the Right Wing and the Left Wing are united against the Chicken Wing.
Once again we have an a stunning example of someone not understanding what a scientific theory is. Creation is not a scientific theory. Evolution is...and when you say it is being picked apart, that's the point of a scientific theory. It CAN be picked apart. It can EVOLVE.
So, in conclusion, thanks again.
For the extremely religious kids, they don't have to believe what they learn in school. My World History teacher is always going on about how technology sucks. Do I agree? No. Do I get the school to make him shut up? No. I simply humor him. The creationist-believers should just learn about evolution for the sake of knowing about it. How does one expect to be well-educated if he or she does not know the truth about the most widely-believed theory on the origin of mankind? Plus, at most universities, evolution WILL be taught, creationism WILL NOT (unless you take some kind of theology class).
In conclusion, I hate living in GA, and I hate the stupidity of most Georgians.
Originally posted by BR
Once again we have an a stunning example of someone not understanding what a scientific theory is. Creation is not a scientific theory. Evolution is...and when you say it is being picked apart, that's the point of a scientific theory. It CAN be picked apart. It can EVOLVE.
I don't think I said that I regard Creation as a scientific theory, it's simply a theory of how the earth came to be. The theory of evolution is cited by other good, intelligent people who see things differently.
I'm not a scientist and don't claim to be one. My point, and that of this thread, is that the policy is question is wrong-headed and solves nothing.
I read an excellent article by Stephen Jay Gould last night. It was inspiring - it showed me that religion and science are not inherently locked in conflict, and in fact they are often very similar. The Catholic Church is very active in the modern sciences. Gould said the one condition they imposed when accepting evolution as how things really happened was that it needs to be understood that at some point, our ancestors were infused with a soul, making us human. The distinction between human and animal is important, and necessary for religion. But you can't really argue that the earth was created 6000 years ago in a week and that evolution is false, because there is simply too much evidence that says otherwise. It's like trying to argue that the world is flat, or that the stars are a perfectly static layer just beyond the orbit of Saturn, or that the Earth is the center of the universe. People can try, but they really end up looking ridiculous in the end.
It was while reading that piece by Gould that I had a revelation. To make sure I had it, I wrote it down:
The Bible cannot be taken literally because it was written by humans, and everyone knows that humans are imperfect beings that make mistakes. "But it is the WORD of God!" say Christians. They are correct in saying that. God told man how to write this Bible. But imagine if you tried to explain how a jet plane works to an ancient Greek philosopher. It would all be gibberish to him, or at least magickal. However, if he were to try to explain it, he'd arrive at an explanation that claims that some magick of the Gods creates a great wind in the engine. Obviously, that's not exactly how it works, but he's got the right idea - the engine somehow makes wind.
God is like that but a million times more complex. We were a simpler people thousands of years ago when the Bible was written. We explained the ideas of God in whatever terms we knew. As science discovers things, more and more of God's puzzles are solved. Easy ones, like the orbits of the planets, gravity, and atoms, have been solved, to an extent. But every time we solve a problem, new ones show up. They are more difficult. Throughout it all, God remains just out of reach. He planned it that way. It's our motivation to strive ever forward. Many major scientific problems present themselves as the key to unlocking the secret of God, but once we solve it we just find another door. The closer you get to God, the farther He gets from you.
If we were to write the Bible today, it would still convey the basic messages of living a compassionate and good life, but it would tell the story of creation as we scientifically know it to be - that it started billions of years ago, and that life on our planet evolved from single-celled organisms. Maybe 2000 years from now, our theories will look as ridiculous as the old Bible's creation story looks today.
That's almost exactly what I wrote last night (with a few changes for clarification purposes). Essentially, I'm saying that science and religion are one and the same. To find God, we have to learn... and to learn, we need science. But scientists should not shy away from religion any more than religious people should shy away from science. I think it shows great weakness if a person is unwilling to allow the study of the natural world for fear that it would contradict their literal interpretation of the Bible.
Luca (and we're all headed seriously off-topic), the one thing that your three paragraph revelatory treatise misses is that the Bible doesn't just tell us to live a compassionate, good life. That is the simplified, secular view of Judeo-Christian religions. The truth is, it asks us to Believe in a Supreme Being who created us with purpose aforethought. It requires that we acknowledge that Supreme Being through worship and obeisance. That's just the Christian Old Testament; like unto the Jewish Torah, an ancient and awesome history of how the Jews were led and instructed by God, whom they worshipped (grudgingly at times - just like people of many faiths today btw).
The New Testament, unique to Christianity, introduces a paradigm shift by the Supreme Being who is become flesh; God incarnate in human form, ie Jesus. Jesus' purpose was to absolve humanity of its sin, basically to "take a bullet" on our behalf. During his time on Earth his teachings and parables were not meek entreaties to "be nice to each other" but were passionate, articulate, incredibly deep ideas that instructed people to understand that this physical life is short and that we should prepare ourselves for the long road, eternal life.
Just to get that in there.
</OFF TOPIC>
Originally posted by Frank777
I don't think I said that I regard Creation as a scientific theory, it's simply a theory of how the earth came to be. The theory of evolution is cited by other good, intelligent people who see things differently.
I'm not a scientist and don't claim to be one. My point, and that of this thread, is that the policy is question is wrong-headed and solves nothing.
No, Creationism is not a theory in the context of education. Stop calling it that. That's where the problem lies. It does not deserve equal footing with a scientific theory.
Originally posted by BR
No, Creationism is not a theory in the context of education. Stop calling it that. That's where the problem lies. It does not deserve equal footing with a scientific theory.
Theory!...Theory!....Theory!
I'm not eager to dredge up a battle that was fought here two years ago, so I really didn't want to go too deep into this. Your latest reply made it occur to me that, in the interest of keeping things short, I have been a bit lax with my terminology, and for that I apologize.
Ok, Creationism is not a theory in the context of education. That's a subject for Sunday School.
However, when the issue of Origins is raised in classrooms, I do think it appropriate that the concept of Intelligent Design be introduced to students, in concert with the Theory of Evolution.
Originally posted by Frank777
Theory!...Theory!....Theory!
I'm not eager to dredge up a battle that was fought here two years ago, so I really didn't want to go too deep into this. Your latest reply made it occur to me that, in the interest of keeping things short, I have been a bit lax with my terminology, and for that I apologize.
Ok, Creationism is not a theory in the context of education. That's a subject for Sunday School.
However, when the issue of Origins is raised in classrooms, I do think it appropriate that the concept of Intelligent Design be introduced to students, in concert with the Theory of Evolution.
Yeah. Intelligent design definitely should be brought up in the context of "here's a group of people that live in a world of black and white and make the logical fallacy of limiting our origins to one of two scenarios, then through shoddy pseudoscience attack evolution in order to bolster their claims! Students, this is what we call intellectual dishonesty and a completely backwards attempt at science. Class, we do not start with a fixed assumption and bend the world to fit in it. We start with a hypothesis and gather and analyze data to see whether or not that hypothesis has merit."
Originally posted by BR
Yeah. Intelligent design definitely should be brought up in the context of "here's a group of people that live in a world of black and white and make the logical fallacy of limiting our origins to one of two scenarios, then through shoddy pseudoscience attack evolution in order to bolster their claims! Students, this is what we call intellectual dishonesty and a completely backwards attempt at science. Class, we do not start with a fixed assumption and bend the world to fit in it."
I'd be happy to include more scenarios which might be taken seriously by the public, whether they are "Martians were here first" or the Star Trek "Aliens seeded the galaxy with their DNA."
The classroom is a place of discussion, not a pulpit for the beliefs of arrogant forum posters. Kids don't learn these things in a vacuum, they interact with other humans in a place called SOCIETY. Turn off the computer and try it for yourself. Kids should leave school with an idea of the world they live in, and a willingness to explore radical solutions to problems and challenge common assumptions.
------------------
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
I don't understand people who think that "creation science" should be taught. I'm all for allowing people to have their own viewpoints, but teaching that it's possible the Bible creation story is word-for-word valid is just ridiculous. Even the Catholic Church, the Pope himself, is a supporter of evolutionary theory. At this point, there is no longer a conflict between evolution and creation because they can be thought of as one and the same thing. Evolution is a fact of life, or at least a strongly supported theory. The actual way that evolution has been carried out is the real matter of debate, and in that case I think multiple viewpoints should be taught. Teaching only Darwinian evolution is short-sighted, because it only provides one side of the story. The theory that random mutations have caused all of the changes from evolution is a valid one, but there are many alternate viewpoints that also have very strong support.
I read an excellent article by Stephen Jay Gould last night. It was inspiring - it showed me that religion and science are not inherently locked in conflict, and in fact they are often very similar. The Catholic Church is very active in the modern sciences. Gould said the one condition they imposed when accepting evolution as how things really happened was that it needs to be understood that at some point, our ancestors were infused with a soul, making us human. The distinction between human and animal is important, and necessary for religion. But you can't really argue that the earth was created 6000 years ago in a week and that evolution is false, because there is simply too much evidence that says otherwise. It's like trying to argue that the world is flat, or that the stars are a perfectly static layer just beyond the orbit of Saturn, or that the Earth is the center of the universe. People can try, but they really end up looking ridiculous in the end.
It was while reading that piece by Gould that I had a revelation. To make sure I had it, I wrote it down:
That's almost exactly what I wrote last night (with a few changes for clarification purposes). Essentially, I'm saying that science and religion are one and the same. To find God, we have to learn... and to learn, we need science. But scientists should not shy away from religion any more than religious people should shy away from science. I think it shows great weakness if a person is unwilling to allow the study of the natural world for fear that it would contradict their literal interpretation of the Bible.
Good post.
Originally posted by Frank777
Regarding that last part, Sorry. I misread your reply.
So mind editing your post and getting rid of the terrible misquote?