Push-Back Against 'Evolution' in Schools?

[NYcarbineer]

There is no plausible alternative to the theory of Evolution in post 95.

I think many people hold two conflicting beliefs. They believe living organisms originating from specific acts of divine creation in accordance with the biblical account and also believe living organisms developed and diversified from earlier forms as do over 90% of the scientists.

For a person of faith in both religion and science, it's a classic case of cognitive dissonance, holding two conflicting beliefs. Creationism is an attempt to resolve the dilemma by collecting scientific evidence that supports the biblical account while ignoring the preponderance of evidence that supports evolution.

This is completely illogical but most humans aren't very logical. Their lives are ruled by love, joy, hate, fear, and anger.

"....For a person of faith in both religion and science, it's a classic case of cognitive dissonance,..."


"According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not."
What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times

And what percent of that 51% would you estimate have rejected the theory of evolution?

 

[NYcarbineer]

"... trying to discuss evolution with people who just flat out refuse to accept it..."
You're fibbing.


Check out post #95



Actually....you are the one who refuses to accept the facts, e.g., post #95


Why?

I guess that the indoctrination you've been exposed to just sticks, huh?

There is no plausible alternative to the theory of Evolution in post 95.

I think many people hold two conflicting beliefs. They believe living organisms originating from specific acts of divine creation in accordance with the biblical account and also believe living organisms developed and diversified from earlier forms as do over 90% of the scientists.

For a person of faith in both religion and science, it's a classic case of cognitive dissonance, holding two conflicting beliefs. Creationism is an attempt to resolve the dilemma by collecting scientific evidence that supports the biblical account while ignoring the preponderance of evidence that supports evolution.

This is completely illogical but most humans aren't very logical. Their lives are ruled by love, joy, hate, fear, and anger.

Don't forget that the creation myth in the Bible is one of hundreds, perhaps thousands of creation myths that have been part of the teachings of the many many religions, past and present.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There is no plausible alternative to the theory of Evolution in post 95.

I think many people hold two conflicting beliefs. They believe living organisms originating from specific acts of divine creation in accordance with the biblical account and also believe living organisms developed and diversified from earlier forms as do over 90% of the scientists.

For a person of faith in both religion and science, it's a classic case of cognitive dissonance, holding two conflicting beliefs. Creationism is an attempt to resolve the dilemma by collecting scientific evidence that supports the biblical account while ignoring the preponderance of evidence that supports evolution.

This is completely illogical but most humans aren't very logical. Their lives are ruled by love, joy, hate, fear, and anger.

Don't forget that the creation myth in the Bible is one of hundreds, perhaps thousands of creation myths that have been part of the teachings of the many many religions, past and present.

Evolution is the myth

 

[Flopper]

There is no plausible alternative to the theory of Evolution in post 95.

I think many people hold two conflicting beliefs. They believe living organisms originating from specific acts of divine creation in accordance with the biblical account and also believe living organisms developed and diversified from earlier forms as do over 90% of the scientists.

For a person of faith in both religion and science, it's a classic case of cognitive dissonance, holding two conflicting beliefs. Creationism is an attempt to resolve the dilemma by collecting scientific evidence that supports the biblical account while ignoring the preponderance of evidence that supports evolution.

This is completely illogical but most humans aren't very logical. Their lives are ruled by love, joy, hate, fear, and anger.

Don't forget that the creation myth in the Bible is one of hundreds, perhaps thousands of creation myths that have been part of the teachings of the many many religions, past and present.

It seems every religion makes some attempt to explain creation. In ancient times, creation and many other issues had to be explained in terms people could understand, a supernatural being who commanded it. The purpose of the Bible was to teach us how to act toward our fellowman and God. Whether the heavens and earth were created in 7 days or 7 billion years is irrelevant to its purpose.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think many people hold two conflicting beliefs. They believe living organisms originating from specific acts of divine creation in accordance with the biblical account and also believe living organisms developed and diversified from earlier forms as do over 90% of the scientists.

For a person of faith in both religion and science, it's a classic case of cognitive dissonance, holding two conflicting beliefs. Creationism is an attempt to resolve the dilemma by collecting scientific evidence that supports the biblical account while ignoring the preponderance of evidence that supports evolution.

This is completely illogical but most humans aren't very logical. Their lives are ruled by love, joy, hate, fear, and anger.

Don't forget that the creation myth in the Bible is one of hundreds, perhaps thousands of creation myths that have been part of the teachings of the many many religions, past and present.

Evolution is the myth

Trolling is easy. Providing a plausible alternative to evolution to explain life on earth as we know it isn't.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Don't forget that the creation myth in the Bible is one of hundreds, perhaps thousands of creation myths that have been part of the teachings of the many many religions, past and present.

Evolution is the myth

Trolling is easy. Providing a plausible alternative to evolution to explain life on earth as we know it isn't.

You are as ignorant as you are disreputable.

There are dozens of alternative explanations.....just as proven as Darwinian theory.


How about the view of scientist Francis Crick, of DNA fame.....

Directed Panspermia - postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and that life here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization. Crick, Francis 'Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature' , p.141

According to Crick, this is the only alternative that satisfactorily explains what Darwinism and punctuated equilibria do not - this planet's absence of transitional forms; transitional forms being the evidence for evolution which, "would only have existed on the sender planet, not on Earth," p.144



OK....let's see you subscribe to that one.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think many people hold two conflicting beliefs. They believe living organisms originating from specific acts of divine creation in accordance with the biblical account and also believe living organisms developed and diversified from earlier forms as do over 90% of the scientists.

For a person of faith in both religion and science, it's a classic case of cognitive dissonance, holding two conflicting beliefs. Creationism is an attempt to resolve the dilemma by collecting scientific evidence that supports the biblical account while ignoring the preponderance of evidence that supports evolution.

This is completely illogical but most humans aren't very logical. Their lives are ruled by love, joy, hate, fear, and anger.

Don't forget that the creation myth in the Bible is one of hundreds, perhaps thousands of creation myths that have been part of the teachings of the many many religions, past and present.

It seems every religion makes some attempt to explain creation. In ancient times, creation and many other issues had to be explained in terms people could understand, a supernatural being who commanded it. The purpose of the Bible was to teach us how to act toward our fellowman and God. Whether the heavens and earth were created in 7 days or 7 billion years is irrelevant to its purpose.

"It seems every religion makes some attempt to explain creation. "

That includes the religion of 'Darwinian evolution," among other inanities of 'science.'



An example?

1. Dawkins, among others, has embraced the ‘multiverse,’ [the Landscape] idea, that there could be an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natural laws of physics, vastly different from ours.

Why, then, scruple at the Deity? After all, the theologian need only apply to a single God and a single universe. Dawkins must appeal to infinitely many universes crammed with laws of nature wriggling indiscreetly and fundamental physical parameters changing as one travels the cosmos. And- the entire gargantuan structure scientifically unobservable and devoid of any connection to experience.


2. Now, get this:
Dawkins actually writes, “The key difference between the radically extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis, is one of statistical improbability.”

From "The Devil's Delusion," Berlinski

 

[Derideo_Te]

Chemical bonds form because of the properties of matter. The simple experiment of making a supersaturated solution of copper sulphate demonstrates how a changing environment alters the form and how bonds can occur between copper and iron molecules. So put all of the chemicals into a massive ocean sized test tube and apply heat and electricity and yes, over billions of years you will eventually observe "random atoms banging together" coming up with some interesting combinations.

When one considers the atmosphere, chemicals in the early ocean, incoming interplanetary debris, and the makeup and actions of the crust at that time, you can readily see the chemical soup and energy environment that made abiogenisis possible. Here is just one of the interesting studies on the role of minerals in this.

Mineral Surfaces, Geochemical Complexities, and the Origins of Life

Crystalline surfaces of common rock-forming minerals are likely to have played several important roles in life’s geochemical origins. Transition metal sulfides and oxides promote a variety of organic reactions, including nitrogen reduction, hydroformylation, amination, and Fischer-Tropsch-type synthesis. Fine-grained clay minerals and hydroxides facilitate lipid self-organization and condensation polymerization reactions, notably of RNA monomers. Surfaces of common rock-forming oxides, silicates, and carbonates select and concentrate specific amino acids, sugars, and other molecular species, while potentially enhancing their thermal stabilities. Chiral surfaces of these minerals also have been shown to separate left- and right-handed molecules. Thus, mineral surfaces may have contributed centrally to the linked prebiotic problems of containment and organization by promoting the transition from a dilute prebiotic “soup” to highly ordered local domains of key biomolecules.

And we've seen how many of these geochemical elements form amino acids? proteins? cells?

None

Not once

Not ever

We haven't been running an experiment for a couple of billion years either.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear PC: The best way not to "dumb down" the education for the masses is to QUIT pigeonholing every issue as Either/Or.

Why not teach that science and secular systems serve as a necessary check and complement to faith based traditions that serve as a stabilizing foundation. Why demonize or discredit one for the other. As is they dont both serve equally important roles in society.

As for evolution and creation, there are ways to demonstrate both.
Why not teach the different contexts where these apply so our future generations dont waste resources arguing over these issues that each have their place.

These arguments get old going nowhere because there is no need for conflict to begin with.
May we get past this stage soon, so the next generation that inherits the internet does not have all this garbage still mucking it up, but can use it to solve real problems in real life!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Evolution is the myth

Trolling is easy. Providing a plausible alternative to evolution to explain life on earth as we know it isn't.

You are as ignorant as you are disreputable.

There are dozens of alternative explanations.....just as proven as Darwinian theory.


How about the view of scientist Francis Crick, of DNA fame.....

Directed Panspermia - postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and that life here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization. Crick, Francis 'Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature' , p.141

According to Crick, this is the only alternative that satisfactorily explains what Darwinism and punctuated equilibria do not - this planet's absence of transitional forms; transitional forms being the evidence for evolution which, "would only have existed on the sender planet, not on Earth," p.144



OK....let's see you subscribe to that one.

There's more evidence for directed panspermia than there is for Darwinism? lol, good one.

First of all that makes no case against evolution; if the first life here was only some space alien microorganisms, then it would have been they who evolved into more complex life.

Secondly, Francis Crick:

Crick once joked, "Christianity may be OK between consenting adults in private but should not be taught to young children."

In his book Of Molecules and Men, Crick expressed his views on the relationship between science and religion. After suggesting that it would become possible for people to wonder if a computer might be programmed so as to have a soul, he wondered: at what point during biological evolution did the first organism have a soul? At what moment does a baby get a soul? Crick stated his view that the idea of a non-material soul that could enter a body and then persist after death is just that, an imagined idea.

For Crick, the mind is a product of physical brain activity and the brain had evolved by natural means over millions of years. Crick felt that it was important that evolution by natural selection be taught in schools and that it was regrettable that English schools had compulsory religious instruction.

Crick felt that a new scientific world view was rapidly being established, and predicted that once the detailed workings of the brain were eventually revealed, erroneous Christian concepts about the nature of humans and the world would no longer be tenable; traditional conceptions of the "soul" would be replaced by a new understanding of the physical basis of mind.

He was sceptical of organized religion, referring to himself as a skeptic and an agnostic with "a strong inclination towards atheism".

Francis Crick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and this:

Crick was a firm critic of Young Earth creationism. In the 1987 United States Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard, Crick joined a group of other Nobel laureates who advised that, "'Creation-science' simply has no place in the public-school science classroom."

Crick was also an advocate for the establishment of Darwin Day as a British national holiday.[

 

[NYcarbineer]

So the first chicken appeared suddenly on earth as an adult, having never hatched from a chicken egg?

How many of them appeared at once? One? Two? A million?

What is the creationists' plausible theory on that?

 

[Steven_R]

What is the creationists' plausible theory on that?

1) Godditit
2) Satandidit
3) If the answer is in the Bible, that's enough. If the answer isn't in the Bible, you don't need to know it anyways.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What is the creationists' plausible theory on that?

1) Godditit
2) Satandidit
3) If the answer is in the Bible, that's enough. If the answer isn't in the Bible, you don't need to know it anyways.

Although I can't remember the issue, I actually once had that sort of conversation with a Jehovah's witness:

"Well, how do you know that's true?"

"It's in the Bible."

"Well, how do you know that it being in the Bible makes it true?"

"Because it's the Bible."

 

[NYcarbineer]

People who are blessed with faith shouldn't send it into battle with science; they should put it in the safest place they can find.

 

[IanC]

this is an even stupider version of Pascual's Wager. all of the proposed theories of how life started are almost certainly wrong. especially creationism via the bible, and evolution as described by Darwin.

 

[Toro]

Just as a reminder: most right-wing critics of Evolution aren't critics because they are interested in empirical understanding. They are critics of Evolution because it challenges their religious beliefs. They wish to tear down The Theory of Evolution because they want their version of the origins of the universe to remain unchallenged.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Just as a reminder: most right-wing critics of Evolution aren't critics because they are interested in empirical understanding. They are critics of Evolution because it challenges their religious beliefs. They wish to tear down The Theory of Evolution because they want their version of the origins of the universe to remain unchallenged.

Exactly right. What is interesting that Science has no interest in "challenging religious beliefs". It is purely a quest for factual knowledge. The problem is that religion cannot refute these scientific facts that they see as a "challenge" to their beliefs. So the fundamentalists have taken to inventing their own instead of remaining within the confines of religion. That puts religion at a disadvantage because it means that religion is now being held to scientific standards of proof. Not a smart move and they would be better advised to remain within the sphere of religion where their only have to deal with "challenges" from other religions.

 

[jasonnfree]

What is the creationists' plausible theory on that?

1) Godditit
2) Satandidit
3) If the answer is in the Bible, that's enough. If the answer isn't in the Bible, you don't need to know it anyways.

Although I can't remember the issue, I actually once had that sort of conversation with a Jehovah's witness:

"Well, how do you know that's true?"

"It's in the Bible."

"Well, how do you know that it being in the Bible makes it true?"

"Because it's the Bible."

Or, "The bible says it, I believe it, that settles it".

 

[PoliticalChic]

1) Godditit
2) Satandidit
3) If the answer is in the Bible, that's enough. If the answer isn't in the Bible, you don't need to know it anyways.

Although I can't remember the issue, I actually once had that sort of conversation with a Jehovah's witness:

"Well, how do you know that's true?"

"It's in the Bible."

"Well, how do you know that it being in the Bible makes it true?"

"Because it's the Bible."

Or, "The bible says it, I believe it, that settles it".

Would you like to quote the Bible, IQFree?

Well, here's one that applies to the theory without proof,....Darwins' idea....


Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.
Hebrews, 11:1

 

[Derideo_Te]

Although I can't remember the issue, I actually once had that sort of conversation with a Jehovah's witness:

"Well, how do you know that's true?"

"It's in the Bible."

"Well, how do you know that it being in the Bible makes it true?"

"Because it's the Bible."

Or, "The bible says it, I believe it, that settles it".

Would you like to quote the Bible, IQFree?

Well, here's one that applies to the theory without proof,....Darwins' idea....


Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.
Hebrews, 11:1

Ironic considering that PoliticalSpice refuses to comprehend proof that can be seen with the naked eye.