Science under attack in Texas

[JohnStOnge]

Does that mean that, if I bet that if I put an 8 oz. glass of distilled water in a controlled environment at -10 C for 24 hours at 14 PSI atmospheric pressure it will be ice by the end of the 24 hours you are willing to bet that it will not?

It's going to happen, N. You can be 100% certain of that.

Since you seem to find common ancestry incredulous (though you do not say so directly, it seems implied. Correct me if this is not accurate)

If what you're talking about is the idea that a single individual is a common ancestor to all members of a particular species, you are correct. In fact that's one problem I have with the ERV insertion thing. As far as I can tell it includes the idea that one individual can be a common ancestor to not only our species but a number of others.

N, I am one who does believe the overall theory of evolution basically correct. What I object to is what I consider to be dogmatic declarations of it being established with the highest level of certainty. I don't like that stuff about saying "nothing is absolutely certain" in order, I think, to deflect attention from the fact that the overall theory of evolution is not established with the certainty associated with, say, the germ theory of disease. What I really dislike is stuff like when Stephen J. Gould compared it to the certainty associated with theories on the effects of gravity by saying "I suppose apples could start rising tomorrow."

To me, when people start that stuff they are being disingenuous.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Okay ... even with that correction ... what is so hard to think that all complex life forms we see now started from single cells? .

I don't necessarily find it "hard" to believe. As I said in my post to N, I personally believe in the overall theory of evolution. What I'm objecting to is the idea that it's been established at the highest level of "scientific" certainty.

The hypothesis, theory, whatever you want to call it, is that a population of single celled organisms can be the origin of a series of events which eventually leads to multicellular organsims like blue whales. At this point, it has not been experimentally demonstrated that a population of single celled organisms can be the origin of a population of multicellular organisms at all. Not even something like, say, a Volvox; mush less a blue whale.

Compare that to, say, the germ theory of disease. It can and has been demonstrated experimentally that microorganisms and viruses cause disease. That is true with respect to animals and even humans. As we speak I'm thinking of feeding studies in which humans were experimentally exposed to pathogenic bacteria. I'm also thinking of plans that have been described to me in which humans will be subjected to norovirus in feeding studies.

 

[KittenKoder]

Okay ... even with that correction ... what is so hard to think that all complex life forms we see now started from single cells? .

I don't necessarily find it "hard" to believe. As I said in my post to N, I personally believe in the overall theory of evolution. What I'm objecting to is the idea that it's been established at the highest level of "scientific" certainty.

The hypothesis, theory, whatever you want to call it, is that a population of single celled organisms can be the origin of a series of events which eventually leads to multicellular organsims like blue whales. At this point, it has not been experimentally demonstrated that a population of single celled organisms can be the origin of a population of multicellular organisms at all. Not even something like, say, a Volvox; mush less a blue whale.

Compare that to, say, the germ theory of disease. It can and has been demonstrated experimentally that microorganisms and viruses cause disease. That is true with respect to animals and even humans. As we speak I'm thinking of feeding studies in which humans were experimentally exposed to pathogenic bacteria. I'm also thinking of plans that have been described to me in which humans will be subjected to norovirus in feeding studies.

You still show too much ignorance in what evolution means, and what parts are theory. The fact is, evolution happens, we see it, we witness less complex life forms evolving every day, some become a little more complex, some just stay the same complexity, but they always evolve. The more complex a life form becomes the more difficult it is to see evolutionary steps, for instance humans have evolved since the Roman Empire fell, it's a very small step though compare to what is needed to create a new species. Evolution isn't even always a physical change, mentality evolves as well, intellect is the one thing we can see in more complex species, domestic animals are a perfect example of that (though you could say it was guided by humans it's not) as they had to adapt to working within a society of a more complex species, us. So their intellect evolved to a degree allowing them to cope with the new environment they now live in. The best way to think about it is look at DNA, each part can change without causing any noticeable changes save minor traits like eye color and hair color, evolution is a collection of these small changes adding up to an eventual noticeable change in the species. Now ... sorry to burst your bubble, but evolution is fact, there are theories based on the fact of it's existence but the only theory that is debatable is the theory of human evolution, which the track is incomplete and currently untraceable.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Now ... sorry to burst your bubble, but evolution is fact, there are theories based on the fact of it's existence but the only theory that is debatable is the theory of human evolution, which the track is incomplete and currently untraceable.

Kitten, evolution is known to be a fact in terms of the fact that popluations change in nature over time. That has been directly observed as it has occurred.

But the idea that life started with single celled organisms and gradually proceeded, through evolution, to the level of complexity we see today is not known to be a fact. It has not been directly observed and it has not been experimentally demonstrated. Again, it has not even been experimentally demonstrated that a population of single celled organisms can give rise to even the most primitive multicelluar organisms.

 

[KittenKoder]

Now ... sorry to burst your bubble, but evolution is fact, there are theories based on the fact of it's existence but the only theory that is debatable is the theory of human evolution, which the track is incomplete and currently untraceable.

Kitten, evolution is known to be a fact in terms of the fact that popluations change in nature over time. That has been directly observed as it has occurred.

But the idea that life started with single celled organisms and gradually proceeded, through evolution, to the level of complexity we see today is not known to be a fact. It has not been directly observed and it has not been experimentally demonstrated. Again, it has not even been experimentally demonstrated that a population of single celled organisms can give rise to even the most primitive multicelluar organisms.

Um ... it has been observed, less complex life forms have been seen to evolve to more complex ones. Reread my whole post, it addresses this quite well. There are many new molds that have recently evolved from virus', which are very simple life forms evolving into a more complex one. It is the nature and entire purpose of evolution. Even those who believe in gods know that everything has a purpose and reason, why else would evolution exist (no matter how it started) if not to form complex life forms. You are just ignoring most facts to keep your mind simple, sorry, but reality is not as simple as that.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now ... sorry to burst your bubble, but evolution is fact, there are theories based on the fact of it's existence but the only theory that is debatable is the theory of human evolution, which the track is incomplete and currently untraceable.

Kitten, evolution is known to be a fact in terms of the fact that popluations change in nature over time. That has been directly observed as it has occurred.

But the idea that life started with single celled organisms and gradually proceeded, through evolution, to the level of complexity we see today is not known to be a fact. It has not been directly observed and it has not been experimentally demonstrated. Again, it has not even been experimentally demonstrated that a population of single celled organisms can give rise to even the most primitive multicelluar organisms.

Given the present knowledge of the genetic structure of both single celled and multi-cellular organism, it is known to be a fact. Were you speaking prior to the decoding of the genetic RNA and DNA, you might have a case. Today, with the knowledge of the genetics of life on earth, you have none.

 

[YWN666]

Ignorance will ALWAYS be part a humans make up. Or do you think we wil transcend humanity ? Science simply cannot explain everything and never will. The part that remains unknown is what religion speaks to.

Just because science doesn't yet have an answer to something doesn't mean the religious explanation is the default.

Okay, I can't resist this. Just because religion doesn't yet have an answer to something doesn't mean the scientific explanation is the default.

I never said such a thing. Science is not afraid to say "we don't know yet". Religion IS.

The Theory of Evolution should be taught in schools along with its "flaws". The ideas of creationism and ID should be mentioned in science class as what they are... further attempts to answer these questions. Creationism and ID should not be taught as science because neither idea can be proven without "faith" and science is not built upon faith alone.

Science is not built upon faith at all.

There is absolutely no need for the animosity between science and faith... in fact, science should be working to prove faith as "where does faith come from?" and "Does God exist?" are two questions unanswered by science.

Immie

Science has no interest in religious beliefs because they are not in the realm of science.

 

[YWN666]

I was with you up until this, "The ideas of creationism and ID should be mentioned in science class as what they are... further attempts to answer these questions."

Science is an attempt to answer questions about the world from a naturalistic perspective. Religion is an attempt to answer questions from a supernatural perspective. You seem to understand this, but I fail to see why you would want to mention creation and ID in a science class at all? It is a silly can of worms to open.

My reasoning is simple. Any attempts to squash any discussion of any topic is censorship. Let the ideas be discussed openly and freely without judgment upon any of the participants. Don't hide the fact that there are differing points of views and don't make it seem as if a student who has been brought up believing that God created all life has no basis for his beliefs. Science is about the search for answers. That being the case, don't shun the questions.

Immie

Baloney. No one is being forbidden from discussing creationism/ID. They are just being asked to discuss in the appropriate forum and that is NOT in a science class because Creationism/ID can't and never will qualify as science. Many public schools have comparative religion classes where they discuss the creation stories of many cultures and religions. The problems is that the rabid fundamentalists, like petulant children, don't want to be told to share the spotlight with anyone else.

 

[YWN666]

I was with you up until this, "The ideas of creationism and ID should be mentioned in science class as what they are... further attempts to answer these questions."

Science is an attempt to answer questions about the world from a naturalistic perspective. Religion is an attempt to answer questions from a supernatural perspective. You seem to understand this, but I fail to see why you would want to mention creation and ID in a science class at all? It is a silly can of worms to open.

My reasoning is simple. Any attempts to squash any discussion of any topic is censorship. Let the ideas be discussed openly and freely without judgment upon any of the participants. Don't hide the fact that there are differing points of views and don't make it seem as if a student who has been brought up believing that God created all life has no basis for his beliefs. Science is about the search for answers. That being the case, don't shun the questions.

Immie

Because creationism is not science and should not be taught in the classroom. The fact that someone was brought up believing something is irrelevant since it does not make it a scientific issue. Some people believe in fairies and ghosts. Does that mean fairies and ghosts should be taught in science class?

Someone once asked (and I'm paraphrasing here) "if we teach creationism theory as a plausible explanation for how the universe started, can we also teach the stork theory as a plausible explanation for human reproduction?"

 

[YWN666]

Also, I did not say teach ID or Creationism. I said mention it and allow it to be discussed openly and freely.

The only reason creationism/ID should even be mentioned in a science classroom is as a lesson in how NOT to do science.

If you want to see what Creationism/ID is REALLY all about, Google the phrase "wedge document" and you'll see that creationism/ID is all a scam to promote religion.

 

[Red Dawn]

Because creationism is not science and should not be taught in the classroom. The fact that someone was brought up believing something is irrelevant since it does not make it a scientific issue. Some people believe in fairies and ghosts. Does that mean fairies and ghosts should be taught in science class?

That of course depends on the science class.

A class on physics? Probably not.

A class on Parapsychology or one delving into the realm of the unexplained phenomenon of this world should discuss ghosts if not fairies too.

Again with the "taught"!


No where did I ever say ID or Creationism should be "taught" in a science class. I stated that they should mentioned and discussed. There is a big difference between teaching a subject and mentioning that it exists.

why do you have a vested interest in it being "mentioned". What is the point? Its not science, and it does not adhere to the scientific method.

Its a science class. The current state of the best available science is what needs to be taught to students. Along with a basic grounding in the scientific method, more broadly.

Why teach stuff crap that is either wrong, or isn't science? Do we teach or "mention" medieval alchemy as a viable alternative to modern chemistry in a chemistry class? No we don't. Do we teach astrology as a viable alternative to modern astronomy in astronomy class? No we don't.

The only reason some people want "creation science" mentioned in science class, is to promote religious faith and biblical fairy tales as an alternative to modern science.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Also, I did not say teach ID or Creationism. I said mention it and allow it to be discussed openly and freely.

Alright, I see what you're saying. I still think that discussing ID or creationism in a science class is inappropriate if it is portrayed with any favor or scientific validity. A science class should be concerned with what is science only. They should only be discussed as what is NOT science.

And that my friend, is what should be taught. It is not scientific, but that does not mean that it is false either. Simply because something cannot be proven scientifically does not mean it should be shunned and hidden from the classroom. That has been tried before especially by the religious. Catholics attempted to silence Martin Luther and look where that got them. When scientist refuse to hear and discuss ideas they become close minded. They become biased themselves.

ID and creationism are scientifically false. If something doesn't have roots in science it shouldn't be taught or discussed as though there is some factual validity to it in a science class.

Really, then show me the missing link!

There is one missing link in a chain of many links. There are many different hominids in the fossil record going back millions of years. There is much evidence that they used tools. I took physical or biological anthropology in college and learned far more than I ever thought I would.

Although we can not yet prove that human beings evolved from simpler primates, because of the staggering amount of evidence it is irrational to think that humans didn't evolve from simpler primates. For example: a man is tried in court for murdering his wife. They have the murder weapon with his fingerprints on it and it was found in his possession. His wife's extramarital lover testifies that she was indeed cheating on her husband. They have the husband's clothing with his wife's blood on it. His DNA has been found in skin under her finger nails. He has scratches on his arms and face. The husband was alone and has no alibi for the night in question. His friends and family testify that the husband mentioned, as if in passing, killing his wife. They recorded the 911 call she made before she died wherein she said her husband was going to kill her. The only thing missing is a witness that actually saw him murder his wife. So should he be found not-guilty because of one key piece of the prosecuting attorney's case missing?

The fossil record shows homo sapiens appearing in Africa about 2 millions years ago. It shows simpler primates appearing in the same regions of Africa earlier than that and using tools. Although we can't prove that homo sapiens are descended from those species, it almost requires denial to believe that we didn't.

See, what I mean, you have become close minded. You assume that we all came from apes and damn anyone that believes otherwise. Common ancestry has not been proven. It has been theorized.

And it might never be proven. However, there is a lot of supporting evidence of common ancestry.

I do not deny evolution exists today. But, I find it impossible to believe the abiogenetic belief that says we all started as a single cell in a primordial muck hundreds of billions years ago. Talk about requiring faith to believe!

Not really. I have taken several biology classes and done much reading on this subject because it became interesting to me after my biological anthropology class, and there is a lot of evidence that life did start in the promodial muck about 3 billion years ago. Have you ever seen the tv series or read the book, Cosmos, by Carl Sagan. He lays it out very clearly. With the current evidence it is logical that life sprang from proteins that developed out of amino acids which occur naturally. Not only do modern physics and chemistry support this, so does modern biology. Here I'll link it:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGExn4uHsec&feature=PlayList&p=DC50E11C4B81F76B&index=6]YouTube - Carl Sagan (COSMOS TV Series) EPISODE 1/13 - (PART 7 of 7)[/ame]

This is the whole series on youtube.

Science may be neutral regarding religion, but many scientists are not.

Which is understandable since, historically, religion has been opposed to and has suppressed, tortured, exiled, and even killed scientists in the past. Although it's not quite as drastic in its opposition today, there are still many examples. Just consider christian scientists and their refusal to seek medical help when ill. Many have been charged with child neglect, abuse, and even manslaughter. There is opposition to stem cell research which could lead to cures for many current incurable conditions and diseases. The conservatives lobby strongly to cut NASA's operational budget. Many religious people are extremely untrusting of science and think scientists are untrustworthy people who generally have some ulterior motive. Why is that? Not to mention religion's denial of any theory that doesn't work with their beliefs i.e. Evolution through natural selection, the Big Bang, etc. etc. Now, I understand that these are theories, but that doesn't make them not true. We should still follow these directions of thought until, if they ever, are shown to be mistaken. Most likely these theories don't accurately represent the whole picture, but they certainly seem to be on the right track.

Absolutely this should be mentioned in history class! It i,s as a matter of fact, a part of history. There are today people who deny that the holocaust happened. That is fact. It most definitely should be mentioned in a history class. As for your other examples, anytime a topic of discussion involves those topics then yes, they should be discussed.

I see your point. But like I said earlier, mentioning these in class is one thing, but its another to teach, show favor to them, or represent them in any way as valid.

The same could be said about abiogenesis. The thought that all life started from one single cell and matured to the myriad of different types of cells in just the human body itself is absolutely impossible. It takes much more faith to believe that this has happened than to believe that God decided to form the various forms of life as he saw fit.

I addressed this above, but just to reiterate: I assume you haven't taken a biology class recently, for if you had, you would've learned that there is strong supporting evidence for just that very idea: that all life is descended from earlier, simpler, single celled organisms which, in turn, are descended from primitive chains of DNA and RNA, which are in turn descended from amino acids which naturally occur. Physics, chemistry, and modern biology all support these claims with physical evidence. We haven't proved it, sure, but denial almost always represents either a religious bias or ignorance of the subject on the part of the denier.

As for the various ailments you discuss... well take those up with God when you meet him. Surely, had I been the creator things would have been different, but I wasn't so I won't presume to answer your questions.

I will be sure to. Cause let me tell you, I grow hair in my crack and it can make wiping a real, well, pain in the ass!

Well, I am so glad that you caught the dilemma that I mentioned. I cannot explain everything about the Bible nor do I want to. I mentioned the fact that some say that God said six days, but it could have been six periods. I don't know what he said or what he was trying to tell us. Does it matter to me if he said six periods instead of six days? No.

That was not what I said. I said that we misunderstood what he said. Big difference.

That doesn't seem like a big difference to me. It seem like splitting hairs. If humans misunderstood God's word when writing the Bible, then isn't that a mistake? Aren't we mistaken about his Word?

Liberal believers like to say that they believe that God inspired portions of the Bible but other parts were put in the Bible by man and they like to use Paul's statements about women as leaders of the church as examples of parts that they don't believe are God inspired. How then can one pick and chose which part of the Bible is "God Inspired" and which is not? I don't believe we can do that.

Then doesn't it seem better just to throw the whole thing out as most likely inaccurate and try to discern God's will on your own?

As for my statements about mankind mis-interpreting what God said, I find nothing wrong or too difficult to understand in that kind of a statement. It is obvious to me that no man can fully comprehend what God inspired the authors of the Bible to write. If is completely unimaginable to me that God created the Earth and all life on it in a matter of six 24 hour periods. Not because I think he could not do it, but because when you look at the evidence surrounding us, it is clear that there are long periods of time that are not reported in the Bible.

Could God have created the Earth with "age"? Sure, but why would he?

All that being said, I will simply state that I believe God's word to be true and with that belief there are things that I must accept on the basis of faith and realize that I will probably never know the answers to my questions.

Until you die and if He does exist maybe He will take some time out of his busy schedule to explain creation for you. That would be nice. Why He hasn't done it for all of us, so that we can all know that He truly is the creator and omnipotent ruler of the Universe, and that his son did die and was resurrected to cleanse us of our sins, so that no one has to burn in Hell forever because they were unable to overcome their very reasonable doubts about the statments made in His seemingly inaccurate instruction manual which leaves out many new scientific discoveries which do not support the current version - I don't know.

Here is where you and I disagree.

You see teaching that there are other thoughts as to how life started and what those ideas are, is not teaching those ideas. For instance, if I am a teaching you how to navigate across the ocean using a chart and compass and positions of aids to navigation and I mention that there are some people who use a sextant and that they can accomplish the task in another manner, I am not teaching you how to use a sextant. I am teaching you how to navigate using another method, but I am not ignoring that a different method exists.

The analogy doesn't quite fit because both navigational methods mentioned will actually get you where you want to go. Science backs up both methods. There is no scientific evidence that the Christian God, or any of the other gods, exist.

If I am teaching the Theory of Evolution (which in order to teach, I do not have to espouse as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth) I can do a fine job of teaching what the Theory states even when pointing out that some people believe that an intelligent being created the universe out of nothing and I can do this without casting judgment for or against either idea. That is, if I am allowed to "teach" a curriculum and not required by a particular board to espouse the Theory of Evolution as the only possible answer to a question that man has been asking since the dawn of time.

The Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is taught as a theory. In science classes in primary school, children are taught, though usually incorrectly, what scientific observations, hypotheses, theories, and scientific laws are. So in class biology teachers don't call it The Law of Evolution through Natural Selection. They refer to it as a theory. Since it is the only scientific theory which has overwhelming scientific evidence supporting it, and no theory that is near in its apparent accuracy or better, has been put forth, the Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is the only one taught in schools. So, you should see, there's a good reason why it is that way.

Unfortunately, many so called scientists are just as dogmatic as many Christians and they refuse to open their minds to the idea that the Theory of Evolution is still malleable and someday we may look back as say, "That Charles Darwin put us on the right track, but he was missing a key piece of evidence that we now have".

I wouldn't call is dogma, though there are dogmatic scientists, as no human is infallible. I would just say that scientists, especially biologists, tend not to think that the Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is untrue or unfounded because it would require them to unlearn all of the overwhelming supporting evidence about which they have learned, and deny their experiences working in that field when those experiences support the Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection. That to me, or any reasonable scientist, is irrational and unreasonable. Especially since it seems that although the theory lacks a key piece to prove that the theory is a fact, there is so much supporting evidence that we could very well be on the right track.

Funny, I have read all of this thread, and it seems that even the other evolutionists who seem to make some sense and seem to know what they are talking about disagree with you. Evolution IS a theory. A well founded theory, but a theory none the less. The idea that all life shares a common ancestor, as put forth above by N4mddissent, has not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt as you indicated earlier. And because it has not been proven there is still a possibility that science will find evidence that either proves or disproves the theory.

Those other posters and anyone else who claim that evolution is a theory are mistaken. Plain and simple. Evolution is not a theory. I repeat: Evolution is not a theory. I'll link supporting documents:

Observations of evolution

Evolution is an observable, reproduceable, scientific fact. You can see it everywhere. Here are examples from everyday life: cancer, congenital birth defects, domestic animal and pet breeding, agricultural plant breeding (like seedless grapes and watermelon), children of parents of different races displaying traits of both races, children of parents displaying traits of both parents (I look like my father and my mother), and the myriad differences between individuals of the same species: its why each person looks differently.

Natural Selection is a theory to explain Evolution which is an observable, reproduceable, scientific fact. Natural Selection is a human attempt to understand why and how evolution works. It also is an attempt to understand why there numerous and differing species of plant and animals. The implications of the theory imply common ancestry. This is a common misunderstanding for both religious folks and those not educated in biology. Call your local university. Ask a biologist and they will tell you this. I've studied this, officially and on my own, and if someone tells you differently, then they don't know what they are talking about. It really is that simple. Evolution is as much a fact as gravity, the Earth being round, and the Earth revolving around the Sun.

It used to be believed that man could not fly... no way... no how. Then the Wright Brothers proved that to be incorrect and now even I have flown thousands upon thousands of miles.

It used to be said that the Earth was flat. Or that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Both ideas were supported by the Church and those who thought otherwise were considered heretics and tortured and burned alive. Over the course of recorded human history science has demonstrated more and more that natural cause and effect explain observed phenomena and shown less and less a supernatural cause. Religion, and not just Christianity, has historically suppressed and denied the logical conclusions of the scientific method, and oppressed those who adhered more to the logical conclusions of the scientific method than those who believed the supernatural conclusions, of which there is no supporting physical or mathmatical evidence, made my clergy people and holy men who I would claim are not experts on the natural world. When it comes to evolution and the Big Bang, I see history repeating itself and that history repeating itself is more likely than evolution, the Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection, and The Big Bang (also of which there is much supporting evidence) being totally wrong.

Some day scientists might just find the "missing link". If and when they do then that will only help to better prove the theory. But, to be honest with you, even if science proved that all life began as a single cell in the primordial ooze of nothingness, I can still trust that the single cell was formed by the creator of all things.

Finding the missing link will only prove common ancestry. It will lend support to the other claims of the Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection, but it won't prove it. The theory is so far-reaching and all-encompassing that it may never be proven. But to be biologist and not work in the framework of this theory, or especially assuming that all life is created as it appears today, would force that biologist out of work and into the field of the clergy, not in the field of science. Any work done by that biologist would be non-sensical, illogical, and so pointless that the biologist would either have to quit, accept the current scientific methods of today, or publish work so rife with bias as to be unpublishable by any truly scientific, peer-reviewed journal.

No, scientists should not ask questions like: "How can I prove God exists?" They should ask "Does God exists and if so what evidence do I have that he does?" Someday an open minded scientist just might find the key to unlocking that door.

For a scientist to ask "Does God exist, and, if so, what evidence is there that supports this claim?" is no different than for a scientist to ask "Do purple dragons exist, and, if so, what evidence is there to support this?" There must first be scientific observations made that cause a scientist to infer that there might be a God or purple dragons. Then to explain those observations, a hypothesis must be formed and then tested. What scientific observations have been made that would make a scientist infer that God exists? How would that hypothesis be tested?

CMM,

I don't know you very well. I have only read some of your posts about religion and nothing else. I respect your point of view although I do not agree with you. You ask well thought out questions and from what I have seen you are generally respectful. I appreciate that.

God Bless,

Immie

Immie-

I appreciate the respect and will take this as a compliment. Although we don't fully agree with eachother I'm glad we can communicate without insult or disrespect. I respect your faith, even though I don't share it or fully understand it. I can tell from your posts that you're a critical thinker and I respect that. Its good to have an exchange like ours where ideas are bounced off of eachother instead of "shouting" or insulting eachother and I appreciate it.

Cheers!

-Ian

 

[HUGGY]

Also, I did not say teach ID or Creationism. I said mention it and allow it to be discussed openly and freely.

Alright, I see what you're saying. I still think that discussing ID or creationism in a science class is inappropriate if it is portrayed with any favor or scientific validity. A science class should be concerned with what is science only. They should only be discussed as what is NOT science.

And that my friend, is what should be taught. It is not scientific, but that does not mean that it is false either. Simply because something cannot be proven scientifically does not mean it should be shunned and hidden from the classroom. That has been tried before especially by the religious. Catholics attempted to silence Martin Luther and look where that got them. When scientist refuse to hear and discuss ideas they become close minded. They become biased themselves.

ID and creationism are scientifically false. If something doesn't have roots in science it shouldn't be taught or discussed as though there is some factual validity to it in a science class.



There is one missing link in a chain of many links. There are many different hominids in the fossil record going back millions of years. There is much evidence that they used tools. I took physical or biological anthropology in college and learned far more than I ever thought I would.

Although we can not yet prove that human beings evolved from simpler primates, because of the staggering amount of evidence it is irrational to think that humans didn't evolve from simpler primates. For example: a man is tried in court for murdering his wife. They have the murder weapon with his fingerprints on it and it was found in his possession. His wife's extramarital lover testifies that she was indeed cheating on her husband. They have the husband's clothing with his wife's blood on it. His DNA has been found in skin under her finger nails. He has scratches on his arms and face. The husband was alone and has no alibi for the night in question. His friends and family testify that the husband mentioned, as if in passing, killing his wife. They recorded the 911 call she made before she died wherein she said her husband was going to kill her. The only thing missing is a witness that actually saw him murder his wife. So should he be found not-guilty because of one key piece of the prosecuting attorney's case missing?

The fossil record shows homo sapiens appearing in Africa about 2 millions years ago. It shows simpler primates appearing in the same regions of Africa earlier than that and using tools. Although we can't prove that homo sapiens are descended from those species, it almost requires denial to believe that we didn't.



And it might never be proven. However, there is a lot of supporting evidence of common ancestry.



Not really. I have taken several biology classes and done much reading on this subject because it became interesting to me after my biological anthropology class, and there is a lot of evidence that life did start in the promodial muck about 3 billion years ago. Have you ever seen the tv series or read the book, Cosmos, by Carl Sagan. He lays it out very clearly. With the current evidence it is logical that life sprang from proteins that developed out of amino acids which occur naturally. Not only do modern physics and chemistry support this, so does modern biology. Here I'll link it:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGExn4uHsec&feature=PlayList&p=DC50E11C4B81F76B&index=6]YouTube - Carl Sagan (COSMOS TV Series) EPISODE 1/13 - (PART 7 of 7)[/ame]

This is the whole series on youtube.



Which is understandable since, historically, religion has been opposed to and has suppressed, tortured, exiled, and even killed scientists in the past. Although it's not quite as drastic in its opposition today, there are still many examples. Just consider christian scientists and their refusal to seek medical help when ill. Many have been charged with child neglect, abuse, and even manslaughter. There is opposition to stem cell research which could lead to cures for many current incurable conditions and diseases. The conservatives lobby strongly to cut NASA's operational budget. Many religious people are extremely untrusting of science and think scientists are untrustworthy people who generally have some ulterior motive. Why is that? Not to mention religion's denial of any theory that doesn't work with their beliefs i.e. Evolution through natural selection, the Big Bang, etc. etc. Now, I understand that these are theories, but that doesn't make them not true. We should still follow these directions of thought until, if they ever, are shown to be mistaken. Most likely these theories don't accurately represent the whole picture, but they certainly seem to be on the right track.



I see your point. But like I said earlier, mentioning these in class is one thing, but its another to teach, show favor to them, or represent them in any way as valid.



I addressed this above, but just to reiterate: I assume you haven't taken a biology class recently, for if you had, you would've learned that there is strong supporting evidence for just that very idea: that all life is descended from earlier, simpler, single celled organisms which, in turn, are descended from primitive chains of DNA and RNA, which are in turn descended from amino acids which naturally occur. Physics, chemistry, and modern biology all support these claims with physical evidence. We haven't proved it, sure, but denial almost always represents either a religious bias or ignorance of the subject on the part of the denier.



I will be sure to. Cause let me tell you, I grow hair in my crack and it can make wiping a real, well, pain in the ass!



That doesn't seem like a big difference to me. It seem like splitting hairs. If humans misunderstood God's word when writing the Bible, then isn't that a mistake? Aren't we mistaken about his Word?



Then doesn't it seem better just to throw the whole thing out as most likely inaccurate and try to discern God's will on your own?



Until you die and if He does exist maybe He will take some time out of his busy schedule to explain creation for you. That would be nice. Why He hasn't done it for all of us, so that we can all know that He truly is the creator and omnipotent ruler of the Universe, and that his son did die and was resurrected to cleanse us of our sins, so that no one has to burn in Hell forever because they were unable to overcome their very reasonable doubts about the statments made in His seemingly inaccurate instruction manual which leaves out many new scientific discoveries which do not support the current version - I don't know.



The analogy doesn't quite fit because both navigational methods mentioned will actually get you where you want to go. Science backs up both methods. There is no scientific evidence that the Christian God, or any of the other gods, exist.



The Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is taught as a theory. In science classes in primary school, children are taught, though usually incorrectly, what scientific observations, hypotheses, theories, and scientific laws are. So in class biology teachers don't call it The Law of Evolution through Natural Selection. They refer to it as a theory. Since it is the only scientific theory which has overwhelming scientific evidence supporting it, and no theory that is near in its apparent accuracy or better, has been put forth, the Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is the only one taught in schools. So, you should see, there's a good reason why it is that way.



I wouldn't call is dogma, though there are dogmatic scientists, as no human is infallible. I would just say that scientists, especially biologists, tend not to think that the Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is untrue or unfounded because it would require them to unlearn all of the overwhelming supporting evidence about which they have learned, and deny their experiences working in that field when those experiences support the Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection. That to me, or any reasonable scientist, is irrational and unreasonable. Especially since it seems that although the theory lacks a key piece to prove that the theory is a fact, there is so much supporting evidence that we could very well be on the right track.



Those other posters and anyone else who claim that evolution is a theory are mistaken. Plain and simple. Evolution is not a theory. I repeat: Evolution is not a theory. I'll link supporting documents:

Observations of evolution

Evolution is an observable, reproduceable, scientific fact. You can see it everywhere. Here are examples from everyday life: cancer, congenital birth defects, domestic animal and pet breeding, agricultural plant breeding (like seedless grapes and watermelon), children of parents of different races displaying traits of both races, children of parents displaying traits of both parents (I look like my father and my mother), and the myriad differences between individuals of the same species: its why each person looks differently.

Natural Selection is a theory to explain Evolution which is an observable, reproduceable, scientific fact. Natural Selection is a human attempt to understand why and how evolution works. It also is an attempt to understand why there numerous and differing species of plant and animals. The implications of the theory imply common ancestry. This is a common misunderstanding for both religious folks and those not educated in biology. Call your local university. Ask a biologist and they will tell you this. I've studied this, officially and on my own, and if someone tells you differently, then they don't know what they are talking about. It really is that simple. Evolution is as much a fact as gravity, the Earth being round, and the Earth revolving around the Sun.



It used to be said that the Earth was flat. Or that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Both ideas were supported by the Church and those who thought otherwise were considered heretics and tortured and burned alive. Over the course of recorded human history science has demonstrated more and more that natural cause and effect explain observed phenomena and shown less and less a supernatural cause. Religion, and not just Christianity, has historically suppressed and denied the logical conclusions of the scientific method, and oppressed those who adhered more to the logical conclusions of the scientific method than those who believed the supernatural conclusions, of which there is no supporting physical or mathmatical evidence, made my clergy people and holy men who I would claim are not experts on the natural world. When it comes to evolution and the Big Bang, I see history repeating itself and that history repeating itself is more likely than evolution, the Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection, and The Big Bang (also of which there is much supporting evidence) being totally wrong.



Finding the missing link will only prove common ancestry. It will lend support to the other claims of the Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection, but it won't prove it. The theory is so far-reaching and all-encompassing that it may never be proven. But to be biologist and not work in the framework of this theory, or especially assuming that all life is created as it appears today, would force that biologist out of work and into the field of the clergy, not in the field of science. Any work done by that biologist would be non-sensical, illogical, and so pointless that the biologist would either have to quit, accept the current scientific methods of today, or publish work so rife with bias as to be unpublishable by any truly scientific, peer-reviewed journal.

No, scientists should not ask questions like: "How can I prove God exists?" They should ask "Does God exists and if so what evidence do I have that he does?" Someday an open minded scientist just might find the key to unlocking that door.

For a scientist to ask "Does God exist, and, if so, what evidence is there that supports this claim?" is no different than for a scientist to ask "Do purple dragons exist, and, if so, what evidence is there to support this?" There must first be scientific observations made that cause a scientist to infer that there might be a God or purple dragons. Then to explain those observations, a hypothesis must be formed and then tested. What scientific observations have been made that would make a scientist infer that God exists? How would that hypothesis be tested?

CMM,

I don't know you very well. I have only read some of your posts about religion and nothing else. I respect your point of view although I do not agree with you. You ask well thought out questions and from what I have seen you are generally respectful. I appreciate that.

God Bless,

Immie

Immie-

I appreciate the respect and will take this as a compliment. Although we don't fully agree with eachother I'm glad we can communicate without insult or disrespect. I respect your faith, even though I don't share it or fully understand it. I can tell from your posts that you're a critical thinker and I respect that. Its good to have an exchange like ours where ideas are bounced off of eachother instead of "shouting" or insulting eachother and I appreciate it.

Cheers!

-Ian

[I grow hair in my crack and it can make wiping a real, well, pain in the ass!
/B]

Do you ever consider keeping something to yourself?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I grow hair in my crack and it can make wiping a real, well, pain in the ass!

Do you ever consider keeping something to yourself?

It was a joke, Huggy, c'mon, I know you have a sense of humor.

 

[Immanuel]

I was with you up until this, "The ideas of creationism and ID should be mentioned in science class as what they are... further attempts to answer these questions."

Science is an attempt to answer questions about the world from a naturalistic perspective. Religion is an attempt to answer questions from a supernatural perspective. You seem to understand this, but I fail to see why you would want to mention creation and ID in a science class at all? It is a silly can of worms to open.

My reasoning is simple. Any attempts to squash any discussion of any topic is censorship. Let the ideas be discussed openly and freely without judgment upon any of the participants. Don't hide the fact that there are differing points of views and don't make it seem as if a student who has been brought up believing that God created all life has no basis for his beliefs. Science is about the search for answers. That being the case, don't shun the questions.

Immie

Baloney. No one is being forbidden from discussing creationism/ID. They are just being asked to discuss in the appropriate forum and that is NOT in a science class because Creationism/ID can't and never will qualify as science. Many public schools have comparative religion classes where they discuss the creation stories of many cultures and religions. The problems is that the rabid fundamentalists, like petulant children, don't want to be told to share the spotlight with anyone else.

Baloney, if you won't allow a discussion in any forum even in a science class then you are forbidding the discussion. If ID/Creationism offer an alternative to Evolution, whether or not it can be scientifically defended, it should be allowed in the discussion. Personally, I don't support the fundamentalists. I think they go way too far in everything they do, but I find it ironic that people on the left, such as yourself, are so afraid of open discussions. Aren't you supposed to be the tolerant ones?

If you forbid the discussion of Creationism in a science class you are in fact censoring the discussion. President Bush was accused forcing protestors five blocks or more away from places he was appearing at. That was censorship because they were forced out of the mainstream onto corners where no one could hear their protests. Pushing a discussion of Creationism out of the science class would be no different.

Also, if I were teaching a science class, and Creationism came up, that would be the perfect place to teach students what IS science and what is not without being judgmental of their points of view. The discussion would simply go from the idea of Creationism to what is science and why is Evolution considered scientific and why is Creationism not considered scientific.

No one is being forbidden from discussing creationism/ID. They are just being asked to discuss in the appropriate forum and that is NOT in a science class because Creationism/ID can't and never will qualify as science.

Horse Hockey! What you are really saying is that you want to shove religion into a corner where you don't have to deal with it, just like President Bush attempted to do with protestors.

Also, do you have anything to back up your claim that public schools... I'm certain you meant High School's... offer comparative religion classes. To my knowledge very few do.

Immie

 

[Father Time]

My reasoning is simple. Any attempts to squash any discussion of any topic is censorship. Let the ideas be discussed openly and freely without judgment upon any of the participants. Don't hide the fact that there are differing points of views and don't make it seem as if a student who has been brought up believing that God created all life has no basis for his beliefs. Science is about the search for answers. That being the case, don't shun the questions.

Immie

Because creationism is not science and should not be taught in the classroom. The fact that someone was brought up believing something is irrelevant since it does not make it a scientific issue. Some people believe in fairies and ghosts. Does that mean fairies and ghosts should be taught in science class?

Someone once asked (and I'm paraphrasing here) "if we teach creationism theory as a plausible explanation for how the universe started, can we also teach the stork theory as a plausible explanation for human reproduction?"

 

[N4mddissent]

And that my friend, is what should be taught. It is not scientific, but that does not mean that it is false either. Simply because something cannot be proven scientifically does not mean it should be shunned and hidden from the classroom. That has been tried before especially by the religious. Catholics attempted to silence Martin Luther and look where that got them. When scientist refuse to hear and discuss ideas they become close minded. They become biased themselves.

You are not understanding my position exactly. I will try to clarify. Approach this from a practical standpoint. The reason I mentioned astrology, christian science, geocentrism, etc.. is to illustrate the point that there are lots of ideas that are not science- not just ID and creationism. There is a lot of science information a teacher has to cover to provide a student with a good education. It would be impractical and impossible to discuss all the things that are not scientific in science class and still be able to teach science. As a matter of fact, if we discussed why homeopathy is bunk, crystal healing is bunk, how most products with the vague claim that they remove unnamed "toxins" is junk, plus all of the various creation stories from around the world, aliens, bigfoot, and the loch ness monster, we probably would not have time to teach any actual science.

I believe that if one does an effective job teaching scientific thinking, methodology, and facts, then the students will be well prepared to consider and discuss all of those ideas on their own without any need for discussion and analysis in the classroom reducing precious time needed for teaching actual scientific discoveries.

Really, then show me the missing link!

When a comment is made that is nonsensical from a scientific persepective, I try to assume that it is due to a lack of exposure to information, rather than rejection on ideological grounds or intentional ignorance, and I am extending that same benefit of the doubt to you. So If you will bear with me, I will try to explain why this is nonsensical so that you will have the benefit of being better informed.

I often use linguistic evolution as an analogy for biological evolution. Even though it is not a 1:1 correlation, it is very similar in many respects and useful for demonstrating certain concepts. Consider if you had a document from England dated from 850 C.E.. It would be written in Anglo-Saxan and would be illegible to anyone without training. Now, on another display is a document from England, 1100 C.E. You would notice striking differences. There is still a great deal of anglo-saxon, but the words have altered and some are completely different from early forms. Also, there are new Norman French words incorporated into the language. The next document you have is a copy of Chaucer's Cantebury Tales as it originally appeared. It can be read without special training albeit perhaps with difficulty in places. Next is Shakespeare. Obviously it can be understood by almost any English speaker today, but no doubt the words and phrases are sometimes a little obscure or unfamiliar. Certainly they would not be mistaken for modern English. Finally, you have modern English, with which you write your posts.

Obviously all of these represents points in the evolution of the English language. However, there are sizable gaps between them. Now what would it take to satisfy a request for missing links between these? What if we searched until we had a document from every other century spanning from 800C.E. until today? That would give us a very good picture of the evolution of the English language, but there would still be missing links. Well, what if we have a document from every century? Better, but there are still missing links. Every 50 years? Terrific! But there are still missing links. Every decade? Even better, but there are still missing links. Are we going to demand discovering a document from every single year from 800 C.E. to the present? Even then, the picture would not be complete. Language can change if a new word comes into use or a new name, etc... even within a year.

I hope that this illustrates why asking about missing links when discussion of continuous change over time makes little sense. It asks for specific points which are arbitrary on a continuum. It's a bit like a line in geometry. A line is made up of an infinite number of points. However, we need only two data points to draw a line. Asking for a missing link in evolution is similar to demanding an infinite number of points before you can draw a line. If you would like information about some of the data points we have, you can go here. And consider that we are lucky to have even these. Fossilization is not a common occurence. I would also suggest that genetics makes common ancestry as certain as any conclusion in science, but that is another discussion, one which I will be happy to have if you request it.

See, what I mean, you have become close minded. You assume that we all came from apes and damn anyone that believes otherwise. Common ancestry has not been proven. It has been theorized.

I don't see that I have become closed minded. I have looked at all of the evidence carefully and the conclusion is inescapable if considered objectively in my opinion. Additionally, I did not say it was absolute even in the post to which you are alluding. I have to say I feel a bit disheartened that you would quote me and take it out of context. I stated that common ancestry is correct science- which you quoted. But my very next sentence stated it may change one day, but as of now, common ancestry is the correct scientific interpretation. And I think that statement, acknowledging it could potentially change with new information, refutes your claim that I have a closed mind. As far as evidence, I have mentioned my willingness to discuss it with you. Finally, I would say common ancestry has been hypothesized as part of the evolutionary theory. Just trying to avoid the confusion over common usage of the word theory vs. scientific usage.

I do not deny evolution exists today. But, I find it impossible to believe the abiogenetic belief that says we all started as a single cell in a primordial muck hundreds of billions years ago. Talk about requiring faith to believe!

Are you familiar with logical fallacies- specifically, the argument from personal incredulity? If not, here is a link. It is a common fallacy. But the first step to more clear logic is awareness of fallacies.

Science may be neutral regarding religion, but many scientists are not.

This is true, but their personal beliefs should have no weight on their scientific discoveries. No one is free from bias, but that is why science has error correcting mechanisms like peer review and gives authority to consensus rather than individual views. Your logic and facts must be strong enough to convince a wide range of individuals with a variety of beliefs- thus working to weed out personal bias. That is why two of the most vocal advocates on behalf of evolution are Richard Dawkins- a very outspoken atheist, and Kenneth Miller- a very devout Catholic. I mean, imagine a theory so strong that Richard Dawkins and the Pope agree on it.

We don't throw out Dawkins ideas on evolution based on his belief any more than we throw out Francis Collins discoveries because he is a protestant. We don't throw out the big bang theory just because it was suggested by a catholic priest and mathematically predicted by Einstein, a jew who was agnostic. So I guess I don't understand why that matters?

 

[Immanuel]

why do you have a vested interest in it being "mentioned". What is the point? Its not science, and it does not adhere to the scientific method.

Its a science class. The current state of the best available science is what needs to be taught to students. Along with a basic grounding in the scientific method, more broadly.

Why teach stuff crap that is either wrong, or isn't science? Do we teach or "mention" medieval alchemy as a viable alternative to modern chemistry in a chemistry class? No we don't. Do we teach astrology as a viable alternative to modern astronomy in astronomy class? No we don't.

The only reason some people want "creation science" mentioned in science class, is to promote religious faith and biblical fairy tales as an alternative to modern science.

Because I don't believe Creationism should be "taught" in the public schools. I do believe that God created the universe but I cannot prove that even enough to make it a hypothesis. I take it on faith. Faith is personal and not something that in this day and age can be quantified or proven in any way at all.

Creationism is not science. But, I believe it takes more faith to believe in the primordial ooze theory than it does to believe in ID/Creationism.

I do NOT think Creationism should be taught in a public school unless it were done in a comparative religion course or one on creation stories. However, I am opposed to the idea of censoring any students points of view or questions.

Also, I never said it "should" be mentioned. I did not say the teacher should bring up the discussion point. I said it should be allowed to be discussed. If a student brings it up, let it go on and teach science from the opposing point of view. Incorrect examples are great tools for teaching.

I sort of answered you question about medieval alchemy when CMM mentioned different examples earlier. Medieval alchemy could very well be a point of discussion in a chemistry class... in fact, after my chemistry classes, I would think maybe it would have added a level of interest that I never received. But, it could be used to point out how we came to understand modern chemistry and the steps that were taken from such a point.

Alright, I see what you're saying. I still think that discussing ID or creationism in a science class is inappropriate if it is portrayed with any favor or scientific validity. A science class should be concerned with what is science only. They should only be discussed as what is NOT science.

I agree, it should not be portrayed in a favorable light. It is after all a religious point of view and the government should not promote religion in any manner. I do not want President Obama insisting that I become a member of the UCC!

Since they are not science as we know science, they should not be taught as science. But, that would not preclude a teacher from teaching why they are not scientific without casting judgment on the validity of the discussion.

ID and creationism are scientifically false. If something doesn't have roots in science it shouldn't be taught or discussed as though there is some factual validity to it in a science class.

We disagree here on terms. You say "scientifically false". I would say unscientific but not false. You see as far as I understand scientists don't label things as scientifically false because false insinuates that it is absolutely untrue. My understanding is that true scientists like to keep an open mind on such things until they can prove otherwise.

But technically, Creationism is not science and should never be taught as science in a classroom public or private. At least not until someone comes up with a legitimate theory that has some kind of scientific evidence to sustain it.

There is one missing link in a chain of many links. There are many different hominids in the fossil record going back millions of years. There is much evidence that they used tools. I took physical or biological anthropology in college and learned far more than I ever thought I would.

Evidence is not proof. It is a step towards proving. Without clear and sustainable unimpeachable proof, you still have missing links. Pun intended.

Although we can not yet prove that human beings evolved from simpler primates, because of the staggering amount of evidence it is irrational to think that humans didn't evolve from simpler primates. For example: a man is tried in court for murdering his wife. They have the murder weapon with his fingerprints on it and it was found in his possession. His wife's extramarital lover testifies that she was indeed cheating on her husband. They have the husband's clothing with his wife's blood on it. His DNA has been found in skin under her finger nails. He has scratches on his arms and face. The husband was alone and has no alibi for the night in question. His friends and family testify that the husband mentioned, as if in passing, killing his wife. They recorded the 911 call she made before she died wherein she said her husband was going to kill her. The only thing missing is a witness that actually saw him murder his wife. So should he be found not-guilty because of one key piece of the prosecuting attorney's case missing?

A good defense attorney would claim that they lover murdered her and framed the husband.

The fossil record shows homo sapiens appearing in Africa about 2 millions years ago. It shows simpler primates appearing in the same regions of Africa earlier than that and using tools. Although we can't prove that homo sapiens are descended from those species, it almost requires denial to believe that we didn't.

Well, then I am in denial to some extent, but even so, even if we have "evolved" from primates that does not convince me that God did not first create "mankind" in a "lower" form and that we have not adapted to where we are today. Show me my relationship to an Amoeba and maybe I'll think twice about it.

And it might never be proven. However, there is a lot of supporting evidence of common ancestry.

You are right it may never be proven... that does not mean it is false. In the same manner, Creationism may never be proven that does not mean it is false.

What would be your feelings if it was proven that an intelligent being did in fact create the first living cell and allow it to expand as it has? Although, I still do not believe that it is possible that all the intricate cells that make up life on Earth could have possibly evolved from one single cell billions upon billions of years ago.

Not really. I have taken several biology classes and done much reading on this subject because it became interesting to me after my biological anthropology class, and there is a lot of evidence that life did start in the promodial muck about 3 billion years ago. Have you ever seen the tv series or read the book, Cosmos, by Carl Sagan. He lays it out very clearly. With the current evidence it is logical that life sprang from proteins that developed out of amino acids which occur naturally. Not only do modern physics and chemistry support this, so does modern biology.

And you guys think Christians have faith?

Which is understandable since, historically, religion has been opposed to and has suppressed, tortured, exiled, and even killed scientists in the past. Although it's not quite as drastic in its opposition today, there are still many examples. Just consider christian scientists and their refusal to seek medical help when ill. Many have been charged with child neglect, abuse, and even manslaughter. There is opposition to stem cell research which could lead to cures for many current incurable conditions and diseases. The conservatives lobby strongly to cut NASA's operational budget. Many religious people are extremely untrusting of science and think scientists are untrustworthy people who generally have some ulterior motive. Why is that? Not to mention religion's denial of any theory that doesn't work with their beliefs i.e. Evolution through natural selection, the Big Bang, etc. etc.

I don't disagree with you in the statements about religions opposition to science. But, let me remind you... it takes two to Tango.

Now, I understand that these are theories, but that doesn't make them not true. We should still follow these directions of thought until, if they ever, are shown to be mistaken. Most likely these theories don't accurately represent the whole picture, but they certainly seem to be on the right track.

I broke this part out from the last quote because I think this needs to be highlighted. I absolutely agree with you these theories should be followed and researched until such a point, if ever, they are shown to be mistaken. I also agree that they don't accurately represent the whole picture and that they may very well be on the right track.

I have for a very long time believed that Charles Darwin was on the right track and that his theory will continue to evolve. I do not believe that science and religion need be at odds.

I addressed this above, but just to reiterate: I assume you haven't taken a biology class recently, for if you had, you would've learned that there is strong supporting evidence for just that very idea: that all life is descended from earlier, simpler, single celled organisms which, in turn, are descended from primitive chains of DNA and RNA, which are in turn descended from amino acids which naturally occur. Physics, chemistry, and modern biology all support these claims with physical evidence. We haven't proved it, sure, but denial almost always represents either a religious bias or ignorance of the subject on the part of the denier.

I may be older than dirt, but that doesn't mean I forgot everything I learned. Just because I have not taken a Biology Class recently doesn't mean that was not taught back then as well. I will say this again, it takes more faith for you to believe this than it does for me to believe in God.

Just thinking of the myriad of cells that make up the human eye makes me doubt the very idea you present.

I will be sure to. Cause let me tell you, I grow hair in my crack and it can make wiping a real, well, pain in the ass!

Thanks for the laugh and don't feel alone.

That doesn't seem like a big difference to me. It seem like splitting hairs. If humans misunderstood God's word when writing the Bible, then isn't that a mistake? Aren't we mistaken about his Word?

Yes, we are mistaken about his Word, but just as we do not fully have all the answers to the question of Evolution i.e. missing links, that does not mean the Theory (or in this case the Word) is wrong. We, Christians, are arrogant to assume that we know everything God said and meant especially since we can't read the original wording and language has developed since those days.

Then doesn't it seem better just to throw the whole thing out as most likely inaccurate and try to discern God's will on your own?

Is that what you have done? No, I disagree, because I believe the truth is there but that I am incapable of fully understanding it.

Until you die and if He does exist maybe He will take some time out of his busy schedule to explain creation for you. That would be nice. Why He hasn't done it for all of us, so that we can all know that He truly is the creator and omnipotent ruler of the Universe, and that his son did die and was resurrected to cleanse us of our sins, so that no one has to burn in Hell forever because they were unable to overcome their very reasonable doubts about the statments made in His seemingly inaccurate instruction manual which leaves out many new scientific discoveries which do not support the current version - I don't know.

Nor do I, but I am not convinced that simply not knowing those answers will lead either of us to Hell, nor will doubting. I have read the Bible many times and studied it as well for years, but, I don't recall God ever saying that if you did not understand every bit of his word you were condemned.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life

John 3:16

Note: it doesn't say that whoever understands him...

The analogy doesn't quite fit because both navigational methods mentioned will actually get you where you want to go. Science backs up both methods. There is no scientific evidence that the Christian God, or any of the other gods, exist.

Hey! I'm not pefect. I tried, but I also knew it didn't quite fit.

The Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is taught as a theory. In science classes in primary school, children are taught, though usually incorrectly, what scientific observations, hypotheses, theories, and scientific laws are. So in class biology teachers don't call it The Law of Evolution through Natural Selection. They refer to it as a theory. Since it is the only scientific theory which has overwhelming scientific evidence supporting it, and no theory that is near in its apparent accuracy or better, has been put forth, the Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is the only one taught in schools. So, you should see, there's a good reason why it is that way.

Ah, but as the theory evolves, pun intended, it may very well encompass Creationism. Once again, there is nothing that says that an intelligent being, didn't create and allow the world to evolve. Rather we have not yet found the evidence.

I wouldn't call is dogma, though there are dogmatic scientists, as no human is infallible. I would just say that scientists, especially biologists, tend not to think that the Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is untrue or unfounded because it would require them to unlearn all of the overwhelming supporting evidence about which they have learned, and deny their experiences working in that field when those experiences support the Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection. That to me, or any reasonable scientist, is irrational and unreasonable. Especially since it seems that although the theory lacks a key piece to prove that the theory is a fact, there is so much supporting evidence that we could very well be on the right track.

The Theory of Evolution does not have any evidence to "prove" how life began. Until, and if, it does then only the dogmatic few can claim that the Creationism and Evolution are mutually exclusive.

Those other posters and anyone else who claim that evolution is a theory are mistaken. Plain and simple. Evolution is not a theory. I repeat: Evolution is not a theory. I'll link supporting documents:

Observations of evolution

Evolution is an observable, reproduceable, scientific fact. You can see it everywhere. Here are examples from everyday life: cancer, congenital birth defects, domestic animal and pet breeding, agricultural plant breeding (like seedless grapes and watermelon), children of parents of different races displaying traits of both races, children of parents displaying traits of both parents (I look like my father and my mother), and the myriad differences between individuals of the same species: its why each person looks differently.

Natural Selection is a theory to explain Evolution which is an observable, reproduceable, scientific fact. Natural Selection is a human attempt to understand why and how evolution works. It also is an attempt to understand why there numerous and differing species of plant and animals. The implications of the theory imply common ancestry. This is a common misunderstanding for both religious folks and those not educated in biology. Call your local university. Ask a biologist and they will tell you this. I've studied this, officially and on my own, and if someone tells you differently, then they don't know what they are talking about. It really is that simple. Evolution is as much a fact as gravity, the Earth being round, and the Earth revolving around the Sun.

Reproducable? You mean when a scientist manipulates a mouse so that it grows a human ear on its back? That is not Evolution.

Yes, species adapt. No question about it. But prove to me that a dog became a whale! Or is it a whale became a dog? Can't remember which... I am after all getting old!

It used to be said that the Earth was flat. Or that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Both ideas were supported by the Church and those who thought otherwise were considered heretics and tortured and burned alive. Over the course of recorded human history science has demonstrated more and more that natural cause and effect explain observed phenomena and shown less and less a supernatural cause. Religion, and not just Christianity, has historically suppressed and denied the logical conclusions of the scientific method, and oppressed those who adhered more to the logical conclusions of the scientific method than those who believed the supernatural conclusions, of which there is no supporting physical or mathmatical evidence, made my clergy people and holy men who I would claim are not experts on the natural world. When it comes to evolution and the Big Bang, I see history repeating itself and that history repeating itself is more likely than evolution, the Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection, and The Big Bang (also of which there is much supporting evidence) being totally wrong.

Funny yesterday, I had edited out statements I had made about "flat earth".

As you said, no human being is perfect, including those who believed in the flat earth or those who fought so hard to deny it. They were wrong, but they were also wrong when they supported the Spanish Inquisition.

Finding the missing link will only prove common ancestry. It will lend support to the other claims of the Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection, but it won't prove it. The theory is so far-reaching and all-encompassing that it may never be proven. But to be biologist and not work in the framework of this theory, or especially assuming that all life is created as it appears today, would force that biologist out of work and into the field of the clergy, not in the field of science. Any work done by that biologist would be non-sensical, illogical, and so pointless that the biologist would either have to quit, accept the current scientific methods of today, or publish work so rife with bias as to be unpublishable by any truly scientific, peer-reviewed journal.

I'm not sure I ever suggested that a scientist should work outside the boundaries of the theory.

For a scientist to ask "Does God exist, and, if so, what evidence is there that supports this claim?" is no different than for a scientist to ask "Do purple dragons exist, and, if so, what evidence is there to support this?" There must first be scientific observations made that cause a scientist to infer that there might be a God or purple dragons. Then to explain those observations, a hypothesis must be formed and then tested. What scientific observations have been made that would make a scientist infer that God exists? How would that hypothesis be tested?

I didn't mean in the context of evolution. I meant if a scientist were interested in discovering evidence that God exists. And I AM NOT stating that I believe such evidence exists.

Immie-

I appreciate the respect and will take this as a compliment. Although we don't fully agree with eachother I'm glad we can communicate without insult or disrespect. I respect your faith, even though I don't share it or fully understand it. I can tell from your posts that you're a critical thinker and I respect that. Its good to have an exchange like ours where ideas are bounced off of eachother instead of "shouting" or insulting eachother and I appreciate it.

Cheers!

-Ian

It was most definitely meant as a compliment.

I, too, respect your point of view and am glad to have had this conversation with you and hope it can continue on this subject and others. I don't proclaim to be right in my thinking or understanding, but I hope to remain open minded.

I fully believe that eventually the Theory of Evolution will evolve to encompass a further understanding of how life began and that through such growth it might even lead us to a better understanding of that omnipotent being I call God and I welcome such growth.

Immie

 

[N4mddissent]

Does that mean that, if I bet that if I put an 8 oz. glass of distilled water in a controlled environment at -10 C for 24 hours at 14 PSI atmospheric pressure it will be ice by the end of the 24 hours you are willing to bet that it will not?

It's going to happen, N. You can be 100% certain of that.

Of course it doesn't mean that I would be willing to bet it will not. Saying something is not absolutely guaranteed or absolutely certain is not the same as say that I don't think it is likely or probable. I could believe it is 99.999999999% likely to happen (and that would actually be underestimating). Why would I bet against those odds? And for practicality's sake, I operate as if it is certain to happen. However, the equation I posted means that it is not 100% certain.

Since you seem to find common ancestry incredulous (though you do not say so directly, it seems implied. Correct me if this is not accurate)

If what you're talking about is the idea that a single individual is a common ancestor to all members of a particular species, you are correct. In fact that's one problem I have with the ERV insertion thing. As far as I can tell it includes the idea that one individual can be a common ancestor to not only our species but a number of others.

One individual can be ancestor to a number of species according to evolutionary theory. It sounds like you are also making an argument from personal incredulity. The ERV insertion does suggest common ancestry between humans and other species. Common ancestry is the only reasonable explanation I have ever encountered for the commonality of pseudogenes in general.

N, I am one who does believe the overall theory of evolution basically correct. What I object to is what I consider to be dogmatic declarations of it being established with the highest level of certainty. I don't like that stuff about saying "nothing is absolutely certain" in order, I think, to deflect attention from the fact that the overall theory of evolution is not established with the certainty associated with, say, the germ theory of disease. What I really dislike is stuff like when Stephen J. Gould compared it to the certainty associated with theories on the effects of gravity by saying "I suppose apples could start rising tomorrow."
To me, when people start that stuff they are being disingenuous.

But see, this is why it is important to understand what theory means. The theory of gravity is not just "things fall", or even that objects with mass attract each other. Those would be aspects. But the theory of gravity also includes the warping of space-time suggested by relativity, many complicated effects- including Newton's "laws" which work in some cases, but not others. And it is still incomplete. The theory of gravity has no accepted understanding of what gravity is exactly. They do not know if it is a wave or a particle or perhaps something we haven't even considered. Our understanding of gravity could alter radically with new discoveries. We just don't know. We just have our current understanding, an explanation which best fits the evidence. The same is true for evolution.
There have been many opportunities for evolutionary theory to be proven false. If the bones of a modern animal was found among undisturbed pre-cambrian fossils
that would certainly deal it a blow. If the discovery of genetics had revealed a mechanism that did not pass on copies which are nearly identical but subject to mutation, then evolution would have died. This is a key point in evolution, and remember- Darwin had never heard of genes because Mendel's discoveries were not part of the scientific knowledge of the day. No one had even heard of a gene, much less DNA. Yet, as our knowledge grew, every discovery seemed to confirm predictions made by evolution. That is why it is so strong.
Mutation and Selection are as certain as the Rate of a falling body in a vacuum due to gravity. The overall theory of evolution- inclusive as it is, is strong but incomplete- like the theory of gravitation. And by the way, the equation I posted earlier- it leads to the understanding that while extremely unlikely- it is not impossible for an apple to fall up.

 

[YWN666]

Also, I never said it "should" be mentioned. I did not say the teacher should bring up the discussion point. I said it should be allowed to be discussed. If a student brings it up, let it go on and teach science from the opposing point of view. Incorrect examples are great tools for teaching.


Immie

If a student believes that the universe was created by a giant hedgehog named Spiny Norman, do you think that warrants 15 minutes of discussion in a classroom? I do not. If teachers have to address every wild thing that people can dream up, there will be no time left for science. There should be SOME evidence for an assertion if a teacher addresses it and uses up classroom time.