Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism

[Lady Sidhe]

Originally posted by DanaC
The problem comes ( imo) when mythos is taught as fact in schools. As I understand it there are many schools in the western world ( particularly in the US) which teach the two theories as equally valid.

I'm 33 years old, and I've never been taught creationism in school. When people try to teach creationism, it generally goes to court and gets thrown out.


Sidhe

[Lady Sidhe]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar


You can prove speciation. Micro evolution.

Again, that's different than the amino-man chain.

Cuz, Sidhe, if *you* can prove macro-evolution, you have done what no other scientist in the world can do. (As evidenced in TS's redundant reply.)


**edit:
I was rhetorical because it illustrated that those things can't be proven. That is why I didn't expect a reply. I understand many of the dwellars are not Christian, but that doesn't justify the sarcasm. Keep it friendly, please.

I really wasn't being sarcastic. I was just posting my opinion.

Sidhe

[Torrere]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar

13. When, where, why, and how did: a) Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two- and threecelled intermediates?)

Single celled organisms grouped together (like flocks and herds) into colonies such as Volvox (which so happens to be the name of my Linux box). Volvox are massive colonies of thousands of flagellate single cells organisms. They reproduce by forming daughter colonies within the colony, which grow for a while inside the parent colony before being released into the wild. They're also very pretty (and my Linux box is named volvox ).

[jaguar]

I hope, after all these replies, in detail, to your silly questions and sillier arguments you can see how arguing for creationism from a scientific basis is frankly, stupid. If you want to believe some wonderful deity made everything that's cute, but don't pretend there is any science whatsoever in any form backing you up. The fact that around half your 'unanswerable' questions can be answered says more than enough about the scientific ineptitude of the entire school of 'thought' you champion.

What shits me about creationists is that despite any supporting evidence whatsoever (the scant and weak evidence against evolution is exactly that and provides no support to creationism more than any other crackpot theory) they seem to feel that it should be taught alongside evolution in schools and is somehow equal in scientific stature. Each and every one of those people is personally contributing to the dumbing down of society and the education system and should hang their heads in shame. religion is not science, teaching it as such is lying to kids.

That's why I won't keep it friendly*. Because fuckwits who believe absolutely in a badly translated book want their ideas taught like legitimate science and that I find repugnant in the extreme.

* This applies to all groups that pursue agendas by attempting to hijack the school system, political (RIAA, anti-drug), religious or otherwise.

[Lady Sidhe]

Originally posted by jaguar
[B}

What shits me about creationists is that...(snip) they seem to feel that it should be taught alongside evolution in schools and is somehow equal in scientific stature.(snip)... religion is not science, teaching it as such is lying to kids.

That's why I won't keep it friendly*. Because fuckwits who believe absolutely in a badly translated book want their ideas taught like legitimate science and that I find repugnant in the extreme.

* This applies to all groups that pursue agendas by attempting to hijack the school system, political (RIAA, anti-drug), religious or otherwise. [/b]

I agree with your basic ideas here. While I do believe in a Deity, albeit not the "christian" one, and believe that a Deity gave the first shove to the primordial soup, I would probably classify myself as an "Pagan Evolutionist." Science has proven evolution, and it seems to me that the only reason that religious groups insist upon creationism is that they don't like the idea that they may have evolved from lower organisms.

Religion is NOT science. Science is much more objective, and doesn't tend to have an agenda as religion does. Religion is based on faith, not logic or facts. There's nothing wrong with having faith in a Deity...however, it shouldn't be taught in schools, especially not as science.

Religion is for church. We don't teach the three R's in sunday school, so they should keep their noses out of our classrooms. One has nothing to do with the other.

If a religious parent wishes to teach creationism to their child, then that's their perogative. Do it at home. There's no proof for it. Whether you or I believe in the intervention of a Deity makes no difference. There is no proof for it, whereas there is scientific proof for evolution.

Religion sticking its nose in education has led to beliefs such as the idea that the earth is the center of the universe--Copernicus got into all kinds of trouble with the church when he said that the sun was the center, remember? The theory behind the idea that the earth was the center of the universe was this: Heaven was furthest from the center. Everything towards the center was increasingly more evil and sinful. Hell was in the center of the earth, being the most sinful and evil and thus the furthest away from heaven. But the church felt that earth's sinfulness and evilness was just a step above Hell, so it was the "center," furthest away from heaven.

That's not science. And it's wrong. This is why religion should not have influence on school teaching. There are no facts and no scientific method in the religious worldview, only faith, and that doesn't work when it comes to secular education.

I don't think that anything other than education should be taught in school--what I mean by that is: no religion (unless one chooses to take a religion class), no pushing sexuality on people (such as "Daddy's Roommate" and "Heather Has Two Mommies" for fifth graders)--Sex Ed is one thing--advocating a particular form of sexuality, straight or otherwise, is not. Religion and sexualityare two subjects that, while interesting if one chooses to take classes concerning them, should not be FORCED upon students. Those subjects are best taught at home, because they have no usefulness in the classroom beyond the fact that they can be interesting.



Sidhe

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
no pushing sexuality on people (such as "Daddy's Roommate" and "Heather Has Two Mommies" for fifth graders)--Sex Ed is one thing--advocating a particular form of sexuality, straight or otherwise, is not.

A minor note - those two books don't "advocate" any form of sexuality. Most obviously, there is no sexuality in the books of any kind. Also, you can't advocate having two parents of the same sex - there's nothing the kid can do about it either way. You might as well "advocate" having interracial parents or immigrant parents.

[Lady Sidhe]

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
A minor note - those two books don't "advocate" any form of sexuality. Most obviously, there is no sexuality in the books of any kind. Also, you can't advocate having two parents of the same sex - there's nothing the kid can do about it either way. You might as well "advocate" having interracial parents or immigrant parents.

I disagree on that. I have no problem, personally, with homosexuality, or with gays adopting or having children. I think that what should concern folks is the quality of life the child has with the parents, straight or gay, not the sexuality of the parents.

However, those two books were REQUIRED reading for fifth-graders in New York about five years ago. I don't know if they still are, because of the big to-do that resulted.

Some parents don't want their young children taught about sexuality at school, and that's valid. Sexuality, like religion, is something that is the parent's responsibility to teach, not the school's. Those books shouldn't be required reading any more than the bible should be required reading, and for the same reason: it serves to promote a non-educational viewpoint. If you want to assign it as extra credit, fine. If you put it on a book list for the parents to review and approve or disapprove, that's fine. But to make it a requirement is wrong. The purpose of school is to teach skills and facts, not promote particular social viewpoints.

That was the point I was trying to make.


Sidhe

[Torrere]

Er, I can't find this word. Just a minute...

[Lady Sidhe]

Minute's up....

Sidhe

[Torrere]

Originally posted by jaguar
I hope, after all these replies, in detail, to your silly questions and sillier arguments you can see how arguing for creationism from a scientific basis is frankly, stupid.

Huh? I had thought that Onyx was playing the devil's advocate, or maybe trolling.

Some of her points are well founded: if we accept evolution without thinking critically about it, then what difference is there (to the lay man) between science and religion? The scientists, sure, many of them are thinking critically about the basic concepts they hold dear, and they test them experimentally, with controlled testing and reviewed critically by their peers. The person that does not understand evolution and how it works, who cannot test it, who cannot do the math -- they have to take it on faith.

Unfortunately, many people do not understand even how the scientific community operates. I have occasionally visited a Hare Krishna cafe down the street, and the most inflammatory line that I've ever read in their literature went along the lines of: "I have met scientists who did not accept evolution. The scientists disagree amongst themselves, but they project a (falsely) unified front. However, all of the cultists that I've brainwashed believe wholly in the idea that all life came from our God. There is no dissent among us. Therefore, because every one of us agrees, we must be right."

Unfortunately, most of the debate over whether or not evolution is valid takes place at the behest of the religious loyalists of the old model, who believe that an superman formed of absolutes -- knowing everthing, capable of anything and everything, etc -- simply placed us here. Most of the examples used in the debate are ones picked up by the faithful after they saw that the scientists had already disproven them. Please, please, stop trotting out the fucking moths! Most of the debate is based in the narrowness of minds and our concept of time. Can we accept that slight changes, over thousands to millions of years and over millions to billions of iterations, can accumulate into substantial and significant changes? Most of the debate is based on the nobility of our origins. Can we accept that In The Beginning, instead of paradise, instead of the good old days, instead of a rib and a snake, there was pond scum being thrown against the rocks by the crashing waves?

[Perry5]

March 24,004.

By:Joseph B Verrengia.Associated Press,science writer.

Igniting a scientific furor,scientist say that thay may have found the genetic mutation that first seperated the earliest humans from there apelike ansestors.

[perth]

(Do you have a link? Because without it, the point isn't worth much.)

[Perry5]

was provided in the article but it should make thinking people think.

Iff you realy are interested,see iff you can find an Associated press link.

[perth]

Originally posted by Perry5
was provided in the article but it should make thinking people think.

Not really. Watch this:

May 21, 2004

By:Mike Hawksred.Associated Press,science writer.

Igniting a scientific furor, scientists say that they have found irrefutable proof of God's existence.

See how I've provided no credible proof of the above statement, making it absoutely worthless in this or any other context? You can't make a statement or provide a quote like this without backing it up and expect to be taken seriously.

[Perry5]

Means nothing more than change,if you do not look the same today as you did the day that you were born then you have evolved to what ever it is that you see when you look into your miror.