I Was Right

[Fin12]

That's a bit of an overkill.

I don't believe in evolution in terms of how life started, but I don't see how that belief is keeping society from progressing.

Take a guess at what theory we use to help understand new diseases develop modern day vaccines.

Their are plenty more such as helping to map the human mind etc etc.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Take a guess at what theory we use to help understand new diseases develop modern day vaccines.

Their are plenty more such as helping to map the human mind etc etc.

Whatever the case may be, I still don't see where my belief is stopping the progression of society. Scientists aren't walking around going "boy, those anti-evolution sure are making my job impossible"...

 

[Fin12]

Whatever the case may be, I still don't see where my belief is stopping the progression of society. Scientists aren't walking around going "boy, those anti-evolution sure are making my job impossible"...

I think the main fear by the "religion holds back progress" crowd. Is creationists pushing for creationist science to be taught as an accepted science and to push evoloutionary biology to the sideline.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I think the main fear by the "religion holds back progress" crowd. Is creationists pushing for creationist science to be taught as an accepted science and to push evoloutionary biology to the sideline.

I doubt they have anything to worry about. Most creationists who even want to see it in schools want creationism taught along side evolution.

In my son's private Lutheran school, when they talk about evolution, they talk about how it does happen and they give examples. It's not an avoided subject. We know evolution occurs and we don't dispute that. What we dispute is that evolution was what brought about man's existence. I used to be for creationism being taught (side by side with evolution) simply as a "here's another possibility to consider". Wouldn't have to go into any religious specifics or anything like that.

But I no longer advocate for that.

 

[Shane Roach]

I think it's important to point out that the very people who insist evolution as the origin of species is "over and done with" are projecting back in time in a way that can never be tested or falsified. Ask the same people to tell you when the next earthquake is going to hit and where. Science suddenly becomes much less impressive and pedantic.

It's painfully clear that we know little to nothing about the origin of life or species. This habit of popping up with a new skeleton every few years and pretending that settles anything is obvious propaganda.

I think it is highly unlikely that the diversity we see around us is the result of the evolution of one, single life form. The fact that we have a lot of evidence that would seem to point to that despite the fact that it is preposterous on its face should be taken as evidence that there is a lot we simply do not know on the subject right now.

 

[Braunwyn]

I doubt they have anything to worry about. Most creationists who even want to see it in schools want creationism taught along side evolution.

In my son's private Lutheran school, when they talk about evolution, they talk about how it does happen and they give examples. It's not an avoided subject. We know evolution occurs and we don't dispute that. What we dispute is that evolution was what brought about man's existence. I used to be for creationism being taught (side by side with evolution) simply as a "here's another possibility to consider". Wouldn't have to go into any religious specifics or anything like that.

But I no longer advocate for that.

As has been pointed out, while ToE is in bed with abiogenesis, distinctions should be made, and clearly creationism shouldn't be taught along side evolution. Perhaps it could be taught along side abiogenesis if the creationist pov is grounded in scientific thought (biochemistry, genetics, etc). Any way, there seems to be a bit of more news some are talking about. Some of the images in this vid are antagonistic, though. I'm not sure if it will be pulled.

YouTube - NEWS: Abiogenesis Confirmation

 

[Washington]

I think it's important to point out that the very people who insist evolution as the origin of species is "over and done with" are projecting back in time in a way that can never be tested or falsified.

If I read you correctly, and I'm not sure I do, you are saying that evolutionists contend that evolution no longer takes place. Not true.

Ask the same people to tell you when the next earthquake is going to hit and where. Science suddenly becomes much less impressive and pedantic.

I fail to see the relevance here.

It's painfully clear that we know little to nothing about the origin of life or species.

Not true. Science is getting closer all the time, and has assembled quite a bit of knowledge on the subject. Obviously you are not talking from a position of knowledge or understanding, but simply making assertions off the top of your head. Not good, Shane Roach.

This habit of popping up with a new skeleton every few years and pretending that settles anything is obvious propaganda.

And it continues. While it may seem smart to overstate a situation, it really comes across as rather stupid. If you were at all familiar with the issue you know that NO ONE has ever pretended it settles anything.

I think it is highly unlikely that the diversity we see around us is the result of the evolution of one, single life form.

Okay.

The fact that we have a lot of evidence that would seem to point to that despite the fact that it is preposterous on its face should be taken as evidence that there is a lot we simply do not know on the subject right now.

Your run-on sentences are difficult to decipher. Please try using internal punctuation. However, I will say that you're correct that there is a lot we don't know.

 

[Shane Roach]

While it may seem smart to overstate a situation, it really comes across as rather stupid. If you were at all familiar with the issue you know that NO ONE has ever pretended it settles anything.

Did you look at the OP? Someone went to the trouble of making a puppet account to post as Charles Dawkins and claim, "I was right."

Also, please stop the unsolicited commentary on my writing style.

 

[Shane Roach]

As has been pointed out, while ToE is in bed with abiogenesis, distinctions should be made, and clearly creationism shouldn't be taught along side evolution. Perhaps it could be taught along side abiogenesis if the creationist pov is grounded in scientific thought (biochemistry, genetics, etc). Any way, there seems to be a bit of more news some are talking about. Some of the images in this vid are antagonistic, though. I'm not sure if it will be pulled.

YouTube - NEWS: Abiogenesis Confirmation

It is my opinion that creationism need not be taught at all. The only thing most Christians (most, not all) want is for the underlying epistemology of science to be explained well enough that our kids know the difference between "likelihood" in terms of mathematics and "likelihood" in terms of subjective opinions.

Things such as the Big Bang, abiogenesis and evolution as the origin of species are all good things to understand and know, but they only become "likely" to the mind that dismisses other possibilities out of hand, and most especially those who seem to distance themselves from the nature of their own conscious experience of life.

Also, what's up with the video? The man barely flashes the magazine he supposedly gets his info from. Not much respect for the concept of citing sources there......

 

[Washington]

Did you look at the OP? Someone went to the trouble of making a puppet account to post as Charles Dawkins and claim, "I was right."

Sorry, but I fail to see "I was right" as meaning the discovery pretended it settles anything.

Also, please stop the unsolicited commentary on my writing style.

Certainly. I'll struggle along as best I can.

 

[Braunwyn]

It is my opinion that creationism need not be taught at all. The only thing most Christians (most, not all) want is for the underlying epistemology of science to be explained well enough that our kids know the difference between "likelihood" in terms of mathematics and "likelihood" in terms of subjective opinions.

That's reasonable and I suspect most parents want that for their children's education, religious beliefs or not.

Things such as the Big Bang, abiogenesis and evolution as the origin of species are all good things to understand and know, but they only become "likely" to the mind that dismisses other possibilities out of hand, and most especially those who seem to distance themselves from the nature of their own conscious experience of life.

I think this can be the case for some and moreso the case for those that don't like or understand science on either side of these debates. Scientific methodology and language allows for common ground. Individual experiences, while valuable, are ultimately personal and don't really lend to development that can be shared by the global community. So, I don't think it's a matter of dismissing, rather realizing it's something that lays outside the rigidity of science.

Also, what's up with the video? The man barely flashes the magazine he supposedly gets his info from. Not much respect for the concept of citing sources there......

Yea, the article was linked in the side line of the vid on youtube. I should have linked it since the vid embeds here. It's from Nature.
Access : RNA world easier to make : Nature News

 

[ReverendDG]

I think the main fear by the "religion holds back progress" crowd. Is creationists pushing for creationist science to be taught as an accepted science and to push evoloutionary biology to the sideline.

i honestly think the main reason is that it reinforces the attitude that we don't need science because creationism "answers" the question

at least i've read plenty of people who accept creationism who believe that "goddidit" is a valid answer. so instead they would rather we just jettison any motivation to understand the world outside of that context.

creationism with its anti-intellectual, anti-science stance would end up destroying what interest people had in science if it was in schools, as if it wasn't bad enough already.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

i honestly think the main reason is that it reinforces the attitude that we don't need science because creationism "answers" the question

at least i've read plenty of people who accept creationism who believe that "goddidit" is a valid answer. so instead they would rather we just jettison any motivation to understand the world outside of that context.

creationism with its anti-intellectual, anti-science stance would end up destroying what interest people had in science if it was in schools, as if it wasn't bad enough already.

My, you paint with a very large brush there.

I think you misunderstand the main tenants of creationism. It doesn't say that science isn't needed - it merely points to a belief that God created the universe. What do you care if people believe that God created the universe? Does it change your daily routine?

Your thinly veiled insults are noted, though.

 

[Penumbra]

I don't think it has to do with caring what people believe. People can believe whatever they want.

The fact is, only the tiniest of fringe scientists disregard evolution; it is an extremely widely accepted understanding of how species change on this planet. Evolution should be taught in schools because that's science.

Creationism is not science, it is belief. If creationism is going to be taught in schools, it should be taught in religious classes or sociology classes. Scientists don't teach that we have fire because the titan Prometheus stole it from Zeus and gave it to us, because that's not science, that is myth. Likewise, we don't teach creation as it is believed by other cultures, because they are not science either, but simply belief.

People can tell their children what they want at home, but in a public schooling system, we need to teach children understandings of our world that are supported by solid evidence, not religious belief of various cultures.

 

[ReverendDG]

It is my opinion that creationism need not be taught at all. The only thing most Christians (most, not all) want is for the underlying epistemology of science to be explained well enough that our kids know the difference between "likelihood" in terms of mathematics and "likelihood" in terms of subjective opinions.

"likelihood"? you mean probability? as far as i've seen christians, mostly creationists won't accept science unless its as infallible as they think their beliefs about god are or their belief in their bible is. this quote just goes to show you fail to understand how science works, science is based on evidence and how that evidence can be explained by current theory.

Things such as the Big Bang, abiogenesis and evolution as the origin of species are all good things to understand and know, but they only become "likely" to the mind that dismisses other possibilities out of hand, and most especially those who seem to distance themselves from the nature of their own conscious experience of life.

yet again you fail to understand how science works. no one dismisses any other possibilites in science, the other possibilites lack evidence that supports them, that other theories cannot explain. if you find new evidence that supports your theory as well as current evidence and currently held theory cannot explain the new evidence, scientists would have to abandon current theory for yours.
there is no "likely" involved here, its all about evidence, anything else is just claims

Also, what's up with the video? The man barely flashes the magazine he supposedly gets his info from. Not much respect for the concept of citing sources there......

its linked on the youtube page, i don't think he expected people not to go to the page
heres the link:Access : RNA world easier to make : Nature News

 

[ReverendDG]

My, you paint with a very large brush there.

no, this is from oh years of debating creationists, and yes many creationists who misunderstand science consider it worthless.
sorry but i did not say all, i said plenty, just go look in the evo/creo board or any anti-evolution board

I think you misunderstand the main tenants of creationism. It doesn't say that science isn't needed - it merely points to a belief that God created the universe.

no, there's more to creationism than simply that, but its not very useful

What do you care if people believe that God created the universe? Does it change your daily routine?

who said it had anything to do with belief about god? i said nothing pertaining to belief in god. i did say however that if we allow the teaching of creationism in schools there's a good chance it will harm the interest in science in the future, namely "god did it is a good enough answer, no need to go looking for other answers, the bible answers all the questions"

Your thinly veiled insults are noted, though.

i'm sorry? creationism is very anti-science, its very anti-astronomy, geology,evolution,and physics and any number of sciences that disagree with it.
something that rejects science for a literal reading of genesis or any myth is not pro-science by any stretch.

i find it strange that you get overly offended by my experiences interacting with creationists and reading about creationism, when creationism does just what i said.
have you watch expelled? or read about the 99 lawsuits or the 2001 issues in my state? or anything from 2005? or been to the evo boards?
i'm not trying to attack you on this, but i've been on a lot of creationist boards and forums and its nothing but attacking science and claiming this proves creationism correct somehow

now you may not be like those folks, and maybe pro-science, but my post pretty much is about the most common creationism i've come in contact with (kent hovind, ken ham, AV, Dad, supersport) they are very loud and want to regulate science to only being used for supporting the bible, not for exploring the universe