Evolution, Intelligent Design, and Creationism
#31
Posted 03 July 2008 - 06:36 AM
Though I'm not a strict Atheist; I consider myself a Pantheist.
<b>(='.'=)</b> This is Bunny. Put him in your signature and help
<b>(")_(")</b> him on his way to world domination.
#32
Posted 08 January 2009 - 04:06 PM
Most of the things you learn in school will not be as valuable as the things you learn on your own.
#34
Posted 08 January 2009 - 05:48 PM
Most of the things you learn in school will not be as valuable as the things you learn on your own.
I actually quite disagree with this, there is no proof that evolution exists in the way it is believed to exist now. We were not developed from monkeys, in fact Darwin offered many theories in his book - including, and not limited to that one. The problem now is people forget that they are all theories. We have no actual clue on how evolution works, other then then the fact that we evolve from where we are. Where do we evolve to? Who knows. Where did we evolve from? No clue - not even scientists know. I can tell you one thing, we did not evolve from monkeys - look it up, it was one theory in a book of many theories.
Not true. Prove it.
#35
Posted 09 January 2009 - 01:03 AM
Evolutionary theory proper does not include abiogenesis, or even change from one type of organism to another (fish --> amphibian, for instance). Evolutionary theory has been used in an attempt to come up with a natural explanation for the origin of life and of biodiversity. Evolutionary theory includes natural selection (the fittest [best suited to the current conditions in their habitat] individuals are most likely to have more offspring), sexual selection (girls [in most cases] influence traits by choosing males with a certain phenotype [sometimes resulting in nonadaptive or even maladaptive traits to become more prominent in the gene pool]), kin selection (relatives look out for each other, often through alarm calls or by helping raise their mother's or siblings' offspring; this raises their indirect fitness), descent with modification (but not by Lamarckian evolution), Hardy-Weinberg, and so on. These parts of the theory are all observable, testable, and can be used to make predictions. They describe very well what is happening in the world right now.
As such, there is absolutely nothing wrong with teaching it. The problem is these are not the things that are taught to public school students. Public school students don't have the basis to really understand all of it. Biology majors don't even begin to learn all this stuff 'til they get into junior level classes, and I learned the different parts (some multiple times [Hardy-Weinberg was one. . . if you don't know it by the time you graduate as a major you don't deserve to graduate], others only in one class) in no fewer than four classes. What we do need for sure in public school is an emphasis on how the scientific method relates to everything the kids learn. If they have this basis for examining scientific evidence or determining that something is not scientific, then they can start deciding for themselves what could be/is right and wrong about what they're taught is evolutionary theory, and what they're fed about creationism.
(Evolution has no goal, btw, it's a directionless process that depends completely on current conditions.)
Most of the things you learn in school will not be as valuable as the things you learn on your own.
There's nothing about evolutionary theory (as I described it above) that is incompatible with religion. It's also not confusing. It's actually very straightforward.
Problem here is that the parents want religion taught as science. (And I think they rightly believe that something on equal ground is being taught, the solution is to remove that, not add something else unscientific.)
That's not a bad thing, whether it leads ultimately to renouncing it or stronger faith. It's unquestioning belief that should be discouraged (yes, in "evolution" too).
There are a LOT of problems in this world. Almost all are ultimately caused by people, but religion is only one excuse (of many) that people use to cause those problems, or to refuse to do anything to solve them. The issue here is that the first amendment guarantees that the government will not establish a state religion, will not promote any particular religion, and will not prohibit the free exercise of any religion (until it infringes on another's rights; human sacrifice would not be allowed, for example). Creationism is part of a specific religion, and should not be taught as fact in -public- schools. It could be taught in school as part of an -elective- about mythology or comparative religion or something.
#36
Posted 09 January 2009 - 02:22 AM
There is NO proof of any religion or scientific study as to why humans were created, and probably never will be. So yeah they are just theories.
And religion is probably the biggest "excuse" and "reason" for every problem in the world. But ultimately I think it's everyone's need to have on someone else has or want to be better than someone else. But again I think that leads to religions wanting to be bigger and more popular and enforce their beliefs on other's beliefs
If the United States wants to give freedom of belief, than we need to stop assassinating leaders and stop influencing governments for our own personal gain. Seeing as how many times it's back fire on us. The latest to date is the War in Iraq. Which now has a GREAT deal to do with religion, seeing as how millions of white-americans think that if you are buddhist or you believe in Hinduism or some kind of middle east religion that you are a terrorist.
I think evolution has become something that people have absolutely no idea about and are uneducated about, like Zoo has pointed out it is a THEORY and nothing else, just like Christianity. I do believe that it has been brought into the main-light as a religion now, which is cool I guess? Seeing as how I think most people need something to follow, and if it be evolution, good for them. But cartoons such as Pokemon I think have been subliminally drilling scientology into my generation, and following generations, or anyone who grew up with Pokemon. Pokemon evolve, grow stronger, take different forms, and become dominant based on these evolutions. Overall I guess you could point something out about any religion drilling themselves into younger generations to get more followers.
I met a man who studied history once and was a professor at UCLA for 12 years, he was a friend of the family. Somehow we got into this discussion, and he asked me what I thought would happen if a dictator came to power one day, such as Hitler, who destroyed every other nation but his. Would the world be at peace?
So if you can prove to me otherwise that religion is not the BIGGEST problem in the world today, than I will gladly read what you write.
#37
Posted 09 January 2009 - 03:22 AM
I was pointing out that evolutionary theory is not what laypeople generally claim it to be (and I didn't really learn this myself until I got into serious majors' biology classes), and that it is by the standards of science quite sound, being 1) observable, 2) testable, and 3) can be used to make predictions.
Abiogenesis and the origin of biodiversity (and the basis of Christianity [as well as other religions], if we're going to go there) are another matter entirely.
#39
Posted 10 January 2009 - 03:18 AM
Abiogenesis is the idea of life arising from non-life (a=without, bio=life, genesis=beginning), basically the belief that the early earth's atmosphere and surface (usually believed to be in liquid since it would be much more difficult for it to happen on land; imagine trying to get a reaction out of two average dry chemicals on a dry rock) gave rise first to self-replicating molecules and other [now] life-essential molecules, then more complex systems based on those, then very primitive single-celled life. We have some evidence that suggests this possibility, it is VERY VERY difficult to actually test; this is a conclusion that happens to follow logically if you work backwards from now with certain assumptions (unfortunately we can't escape assumptions even in science).
What you are referring to is metamorphosis, which is a drastic change in the lifestyle [and body, in the case of complete metamorphosis in an insect] of an organism, i.e. tadpole to frog, caterpillar to butterfly, etc. This is hard-coded, if you will, into the genome of the animal. Completely different thing.
It's also different to what I am calling the origin of biodiversity (it may have another name that I don't recall), which is the other part of what's taught as evolutionary theory that creationists hate. It's the change of one kind of organism to a very different one, i.e. fish-->amphibian, reptile-->bird, rather than more limited changes like a common ancestor diverging into similar species (like leopards, tigers, lions and jaguars [and possibly clouded leopards according to a recent genetic study]). We have evidence that suggests the former changes, and a lot of extrapolation. It's not impossible (and quite interesting if it is indeed true), just very difficult to test, as opposed to the parts of evolutionary theory I was pointing out in the post before last which have been tested and observed quite thoroughly.
[Sorry if I came off kind of harsh in my last post. I'm just -really- tired of the 'just a theory' argument, and you can probably understand why I would not want to be associated with that argument given the definition I provided in the last post. This is part of why scientists have so much jargon instead of just using regular words . The other reason is that I can say what I mean in one word instead of 21 like I did with metamorphosis above.]
#40
Posted 10 January 2009 - 03:56 AM
Not true. Prove it.
He doesn't have to. It's the popular thing to say on the internet. It makes you edgy and cool.
All the cool kids are doing it.
#41
Posted 10 January 2009 - 04:10 AM
On these three issues there is no solid scientific proof to prove 100% that one of them is correct so you have to use faith if you want to believe in one of them.
#43
Posted 10 January 2009 - 10:50 AM
Seriously, you can't claim superiority over one group and then turn around and do exactly what they do. You hate religion because you believe religion spreads hate? Are you fucking kidding me?
You are an advocate of combating hate with hate. You are no better than the radical/militant religious nuts.
Edit: I know it's coming, so I'm going to end the argument about my faith before it even comes up. I'm agnostic of sorts, not some angry butthurt fundamentalist christian. Piss off.
#44
Posted 11 January 2009 - 06:00 AM
GWAMM