Perrard said:
Now, what does the term "Darwinism" mean to you personally?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Perrard said:Wow,
I never thought there would be such a quick backlash on a Christian forum to the ID debate. And I am already reading many people here who do not "clearly" understand the whole debate that did occur in Dover concerning ID.
Who am I? I have nothing to hide concerning my position or identity, my name is David Napierskie and I was selected
Don't worry, unfortunately it's quite normal.Perrard said:Wow,
I never thought there would be such a quick backlash on a Christian forum to the ID debate. And I am already reading many people here who do not "clearly" understand the whole debate that did occur in Dover concerning ID.
vossler said:How did you so overwhelmingly lose it?
Because as most of us understand it, IDism is a dishonest approach, and therefore unChristian. If you believe otherwise, we can debate its merits here.Perrard said:I never thought there would be such a quick backlash on a Christian forum to the ID debate.
The trial transcripts are all available online. Perhaps you would be willing to support your point?And I am already reading many people here who do not "clearly" understand the whole debate that did occur in Dover concerning ID.
Correct. That's what Sunday School is for.Perrard said:Currently we teach out children that they evolved through some scientific process and therefor their lives just "happened". No divine insight, no importance to their creation, no hope, just a simple occurrence that evolved through millions of years.
What flaws? Would you be willing to debate them here?Why can't teachers discuss the flaws concerning Darwin's "theory"?
So was flat-earthism, ether, and geocentrism. What's your point?Remember that before Darwin was accepted, the only acceptable scientific theory was creationism, read your history folks, creationism was taught as science at one time!
Perrard said:I feel that evolution in school must have an alternate view due to the significant ramifications it implies upon our children.
How about an alternate view due to the facts?
Currently we teach out children that they evolved through some scientific process and therefor their lives just "happened". No divine insight, no importance to their creation, no hope, just a simple occurrence that evolved through millions of years.
You seem to think that a science classroom is the appropriate forum for offering "divine insight," "importance to their creation," and "hope."
I should remind you that we also teach our children that should they fall out of a 30-story building, gravity will just "happen" to accelerate them at a rate of 32 feet/second/second. No divine protection, no importance to their preservation, no hope, just a simple stain on the sidewalk 300 feet below.
That can have some significant ramifications upon our children... where's the alternate view to that?
Why can't teachers discuss the flaws concerning Darwin's "theory"? Nowhere are public schools given any latitude to even discuss any debate on this.
Which flaws might those be?
Why? If the scientific community is so assured that their assumptions are full proof, then they should be open to debate.
You were given the oppertunity to debate in a court of law... both sides were heard, and ID came up laughably short. How would the classroom be any different?
Remember that before Darwin was accepted, the only acceptable scientific theory was creationism, read your history folks, creationism was taught as science at one time!
So was alchemy and astrology. Furthermore, at one time, slavery was taught as an acceptable moral practice, heresy was a capital offense, and an interracial relationship most commonly ended in a lynching.
At one time, people engaged in activities which are now considered absurd, obsolete, and/or barbaric. As a former member of a school board, your responsibility was to lead children forwards, not back.
Apparantly the voters felt the same way.
And the Scopes Trial of 1925 was a defeat initially for Darwinism.
How so? The issue was never whether or not evolutionary theory and/or Darwinism was actually true... although many people, then and now, wanted it to be the issue.
The issue was a simple question of law: Did John T. Scopes violate the Butler Act? Of course he did! That was the whole point of his action! Scopes was practically recruited by the ACLU to break this law, so that it would attract public attention. His guilt was a foregone conclusion... his conviction a slam-dunk.
For all the intelligent people out there that want to profess their expertise and professed intellectual superiority, I find it hard to believe that they believe their inception into this world was due to cosmic dust, millions of years of evolution and natural selection.
Well, you are entitled to your beliefs... nobody's denying you that.
Johnson is describing an atheistic evolution with some non-evolution material thrown in to poison the well. Typical rubbish from him.Perrard said:To Darwinists evolution means naturalistic evolution, an insistence that science must assume that the cosmos is a closed system of material causes and effects, which can never be influenced by anything outside of material nature, such as God. In the beginning, an explosion of matter created the cosmos, and undirected, naturalistic evolution produced everything that followed. Thus, no intelligent purpose guided evolution. If intelligence exists today, that is only because it has itself evolved through purposeless material processes.
-- Phillip E. Johnson
Not 100% - far from it in fact.ID in Dover was not a teaching tool to sequester our children into another line of teaching concerning evolution, and this is where the general public and media gets it 100% wrong.
Would you care to tell us what the first copies of this book said?ID was mentioned in a 4 paragraph statement that only referenced ID to the 9th grade biology students. Any "teaching" of ID was prohibited, and students were informed that they could research on their own, in the library, through a book called "Of Pandas & People".
And this is why parents should have little say over curricula.For those of you who need a little educating concerning Pennsylvania, we have a "law" in place that allows parents/students to "op" out of any class they deem controversial or against their religious beliefs.
What, that they actually might learn some science as opposed to myth?I feel that evolution in school must have an alternate view due to the significant ramifications it implies upon our children.
That is not true. The topics you list there do NOT belong in a science class. You have a Sunday School don't you?Currently we teach out children that they evolved through some scientific process and therefor their lives just "happened". No divine insight, no importance to their creation, no hope, just a simple occurrence that evolved through millions of years.
Because the "flaws" are advanced minutae and not basic tenets of the theory. The kids are not ready for that level of biology.Why can't teachers discuss the flaws concerning Darwin's "theory"? Nowhere are public schools given any latitude to even discuss any debate on this. Why? If the scientific community is so assured that their assumptions are full proof, then they should be open to debate.
Which Creationism? Hindu? Christian? Islamic?Remember that before Darwin was accepted, the only acceptable scientific theory was creationism, read your history folks, creationism was taught as science at one time! And the Scopes Trial of 1925 was a defeat initially for Darwinism.
You do realise this is an appeal from incredulity? It is also a mischaracterisation of many evolution supporters. You are implying evolution = atheism --- a well known canard of those without a real argument.For all the intelligent people out there that want to profess their expertise and professed intellectual superiority, I find it hard to believe that they believe their inception into this world was due to cosmic dust, millions of years of evolution and natural selection.
Perrard said:As for my definition of "Darwinism" I will offer the following:
... The term "Darwinism", ... has numerous meanings depending on who has used the term and at what period. A better understanding of the meaning of this term is only one reason to call attention to the composite nature of Darwin's evolutionary thought.
-- Joel Hanes
To Darwinists evolution means naturalistic evolution, an insistence that science must assume that the cosmos is a closed system of material causes and effects, which can never be influenced by anything outside of material nature, such as God. In the beginning, an explosion of matter created the cosmos, and undirected, naturalistic evolution produced everything that followed. Thus, no intelligent purpose guided evolution. If intelligence exists today, that is only because it has itself evolved through purposeless material processes.
-- Phillip E. Johnson
We can spend years here debating what exactly evolution means to each individual since it carries many distinct characteristics and definitions.
I for one believe in segments of evolution. But understand that I do not subscribe to evolutionists that state that man was created through natural selection or merely evolved through cataclysmic circumstances.
I feel that evolution in school must have an alternate view due to the significant ramifications it implies upon our children. Currently we teach out children that they evolved through some scientific process and therefor their lives just "happened". No divine insight, no importance to their creation, no hope, just a simple occurrence that evolved through millions of years.
Why can't teachers discuss the flaws concerning Darwin's "theory"?
Nowhere are public schools given any latitude to even discuss any debate on this. Why? If the scientific community is so assured that their assumptions are full proof, then they should be open to debate.
For all the intelligent people out there that want to profess their expertise and professed intellectual superiority, I find it hard to believe that they believe their inception into this world was due to cosmic dust, millions of years of evolution and natural selection.
gluadys said:IOW the evolution = athiesm canard won't work here.
shinbits said:ID is science, because it's falsifiable. There's a recent thread with a whole bunch of posts as to why it is.
ID should be given a chance in schools.
Yeah, thirded. Could you provide us with one example of a piece of evidence that could disprove the notion that the universe or any portion of it was designed by a supernatural being?shinbits said:ID is science, because it's falsifiable. There's a recent thread with a whole bunch of posts as to why it is.
ID should be given a chance in schools.
shinbits said:ID is science, because it's falsifiable. There's a recent thread with a whole bunch of posts as to why it is.
ID should be given a chance in schools.
shinbits said:This is true also.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?