Is religion the offspring of evolution
- Thread starter Martin Moe
- Start date
People used to do it just for fun. Atheist seem to be grasping for straws.
"Although not actually guilty of the alleged crime, Scopes cooperated in a clever and friendly plan to test the constitutionality of the Butler Act. The ACLU in New York City had advertised in Tennessee newspapers for a willing teacher/defendant. This ad was then answered by Scopes at the encouragement of a few town fathers of Dayton on both sides of the evolution issue. Their reasoning was that such a case—if held in the local courthouse—would boost the economic prospects of their small and shrinking town. No clergymen (mean-spirited or otherwise) were involved in the instigation, planning, or hosting of the trial."
Upvote
0
EternalDragon
Counselor
Not evolution as in natural selection and mutations. But again I don't know
of any Christians trying to get it removed from science class.
Upvote
0
Creationists have been trying to remove the theory of evolution from classrooms for a long time now. Why are you trying to pretend otherwise?
"The Louisiana Science Education Act, Act 473 (SB733) of 2008[1] is a controversial law passed by the Louisiana Legislature on June 11, 2008 and signed into law by Governor Bobby Jindal on June 25. The act allows public school teachers to use supplemental materials in the science classroom which are critical of established science on such topics as the theory of evolution and global warming.[2][3] Louisiana was the first state to have passed a law of this type."
Louisiana Science Education Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Time and again, christian conservatives are trying to muck up the science classroom in the name of religion.
Upvote
0
I've been at a meeting for four days and haven’t had a a chance to weigh in on the animal intelligence issue. So to go back a bit, I have a comment on that. Creationists, and others also, usually tend to consider “intelligence” as a mental trait universal to the animal kingdom and endowed to different species at various levels of strength and competency. Humans, of course, are at the top of the ladder and then the degree of intellectual capacity extends downward along the rungs of the intellectual ladder with chimpanzees and the other great apes, who are most like humans, on the second rung and then all the way down to the soft. squishy species that have no central distinctive brain. Evolutionists know that this is not the way it works.
The first thing that people in the fields of science, industry, law (and supposedly politics and government) do when they enter project planning and discussions is to define their terms, and this is always important. The terms usually associated with the definition of intelligence are abstract thought, language, self awareness, learning, planning memory IQ, creativity, logic, communication of abstract ideas, retention of knowledge and the ability to construct new concepts from varied information. Although a few of these terms can be marginally identified with various species of animals only the human species puts all of them into the bag labeled intelligence. But many successful animal species seem to reflect some of these characteristics, even to a greater extent then humans, and thus seem to have various levels of “intelligence” within and between species. More accurately, however, the Darwinian term “fitness” is appropriate. Every species of animal, humans included, fit into an ecological niche. The better they fit is due to the better that they have evolved the physical, mental, and behavioral traits that enhance survival of their gene pool (their species), and this betters the short term and usually the long term survival of that species. The way we humans define “intelligence” when we apply it anthropomorphically to other animal species has absolutely no bearing, meaning. or functional application in describing the mental characteristics of other species that have independently evolved the biology, ecology, and behavior that compose that species.
However each individual member of every species (as a rule) is genetically different; which is absolute scientific fact well documented in the last 60 years of genetic science. These genetic differences are expressed not only in morphology but also in mental ability within the capacity of the genetic structure of that species. The separation and recombination of genetic codes during sexual reproduction assures that each individual is distinct. Thus each individual has, mostly in small ways, a differing “fitness” including mental capacity that adapts it to its environment and the behavior of its species. Thus the term “degree of fitness”, including mental traits, is far more appropriate to describe animal “intelligence”, and as an assessment of mental capacity it is a functional description only within the behavior of each species. Thus comparison of individual fitness, including variable mental traits (intelligence), of individuals of each species is relevant only within that species and each gene pool of each species contains the coding of the mental traits that provide a functional mental capacity for that species.
The first thing that people in the fields of science, industry, law (and supposedly politics and government) do when they enter project planning and discussions is to define their terms, and this is always important. The terms usually associated with the definition of intelligence are abstract thought, language, self awareness, learning, planning memory IQ, creativity, logic, communication of abstract ideas, retention of knowledge and the ability to construct new concepts from varied information. Although a few of these terms can be marginally identified with various species of animals only the human species puts all of them into the bag labeled intelligence. But many successful animal species seem to reflect some of these characteristics, even to a greater extent then humans, and thus seem to have various levels of “intelligence” within and between species. More accurately, however, the Darwinian term “fitness” is appropriate. Every species of animal, humans included, fit into an ecological niche. The better they fit is due to the better that they have evolved the physical, mental, and behavioral traits that enhance survival of their gene pool (their species), and this betters the short term and usually the long term survival of that species. The way we humans define “intelligence” when we apply it anthropomorphically to other animal species has absolutely no bearing, meaning. or functional application in describing the mental characteristics of other species that have independently evolved the biology, ecology, and behavior that compose that species.
However each individual member of every species (as a rule) is genetically different; which is absolute scientific fact well documented in the last 60 years of genetic science. These genetic differences are expressed not only in morphology but also in mental ability within the capacity of the genetic structure of that species. The separation and recombination of genetic codes during sexual reproduction assures that each individual is distinct. Thus each individual has, mostly in small ways, a differing “fitness” including mental capacity that adapts it to its environment and the behavior of its species. Thus the term “degree of fitness”, including mental traits, is far more appropriate to describe animal “intelligence”, and as an assessment of mental capacity it is a functional description only within the behavior of each species. Thus comparison of individual fitness, including variable mental traits (intelligence), of individuals of each species is relevant only within that species and each gene pool of each species contains the coding of the mental traits that provide a functional mental capacity for that species.
Upvote
0
DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
That article does not state what you want it to state or think it states.
If you would talk to the authors, both of would be standing on complete and utter opposite sides of the argument, wouldn't you agree?
That paper does not agree with you.
evolutionnews is a creationist propaganda site. I wonder why you even try to deny that.
Upvote
0
EternalDragon
Counselor
No. The whole idea of that site is to be impartial about the latest
scientific findings. A place where not just a dogmatic naturalistic
conclusion is formulated because that is what is expected or
supposed. There are quite a lot of problems with a lot of current
conclusions.
Like this one:
Paper Suggests Catch 22: Neo-Darwinism Faces Either a Massive Molecular Clock Misfire, or a Major Biogeographical Conundrum - Evolution News & Views
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Standing_Ultraviolet
Dunkleosteus
- Jul 29, 2010
- 2,798
- 132
- 32
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Evolution News and Views is owned by the Discovery Institute, the infamous conservative political think-tank that came up with the "wedge strategy". They're a group that very much takes advantage of the ability to manipulate symbols and language to cloak their views in a culturally acceptable idea of "balance". Science is, of course, one field where evidence is supposed to make some views more highly weighted than others, and I firmly believe that the Discovery Institute understands that and carries on with their strategy anyway.
Upvote
0
This is more about an honest debate. Did the authors of the articles at Evolution News & Views do any of the science that they are writing about? No, they didn't. They are giving their opinion about science that real scientists actually did. Some of the articles at EN&V even have anonymous authors.
An honest debate requires people to present the actual science done by the scientists who did it. This means going to the original article, and showing how the results in that scientific paper support their argument. Unfortunately, most creationists in this forum don't understand the science. Instead, they go to sites that have conclusions that they like, and really don't care if the science supports those conclusions.
Upvote
0
Are you going to go to the original articles and discuss the science?
Did you read what I wrote about an honest debate?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
You believe?
Why don't you DEMONSTRATE that your conclusions are supported by the findings in the paper. That is what an HONEST debate would look like.
Upvote
0
EternalDragon
Counselor
I don't have any conclusions. I leave that up to the scientists. The links
are there for you.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
