DaHoffermn
Member
Evolution is outside the parameters of science. . .it's a Darwinian religion and should be tossed from the schools.
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.
Intelligent Design
- Thread starter Truth in Faith
- Start date
Utter nonsense. In what sense is evolution a religion? Is gravity a religion? How about electro-magnetism?
Further, once you've tossed evolution from the schools, what do you propose to teach in biology classes, especially upper level university courses? Evolution and common descent are the central organizing principles of biology. Is biology itself a religion? Please substantiate your claim.
Upvote
0
DaHoffermn
Member
Sure. . .the foundations of evolution are based upon assumption. First, we must BELIEVE that the earth is so many billions of years old. We my BELIEVE that fossils are this old, and so the rock they are in are the same age. Then we can compare anything we find to this assumed age.
Darwinsim also allows society to justify, by pointing to the Almighty evolutionary process, eugenics, abortion, social engineering, ans social darwinism.
Creationism does not refute any of the sciences listed above, by the way. As Creationism and Darwinism are BOTH untestable, that rules both out for scientific inquiry. This debate is more historical than it is scientific, because we CANNOT test either process.
Darwinsim also allows society to justify, by pointing to the Almighty evolutionary process, eugenics, abortion, social engineering, ans social darwinism.
Creationism does not refute any of the sciences listed above, by the way. As Creationism and Darwinism are BOTH untestable, that rules both out for scientific inquiry. This debate is more historical than it is scientific, because we CANNOT test either process.
Upvote
0
Mechanical Bliss
Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
Nope, the foundation of the theory of evolution is evidence.
It has nothing to do with belief; it has to do with the evidence. The Earth was theorized to be very old before the theory of evolution was postulated and accepted. The age of the Earth was arrived at by lines of evidence independent from evolution.
It's the other way around. We can date rocks, so the fossils encased in old rocks must be old themselves. That's not an outlandish assumption at all.
The theory of evolution is scientific and has no bearing on sociological philosophies. Whether or not people do or have made those connections is irrelavent to the veracity of evolution, however. Just because some people might extend the concept of evolution and apply it to sociological philosophy does in no way mean it's wrong.
No, it doesn't, because creationism itself as been thoroughly refuted.
Observations are made in modern genetics and by paleontologists. Furthermore, this is not about "Darwinism" per se, this is about modern evolutionary biology.
Upvote
0
An ancient age of the Earth is not an "assumption"; it is well established through independent lines of evidence:
www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html
Here's a link that will give you plenty to read about some of the evidence we have for evolution and common descent:
www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
Also, I highly recommend Ernst Mayr's book "What Evolution Is" to give you a good sense of the overwhelming amount of evidence that favors evolution by Neo-Darwinian mechanisms. In fact, I would go so far as to say that Mayr should be required reading on the subject for any non-scientist who wishes to discuss this topic. The depressing number of Hovind, AiG, etc. cites we see here would be reduced dramatically.
Your claim that evolution justifies abortion, euthanasia, social engineering, eugenics, etc. is also flawed. Evolutionary theory describes the processes we find at work in the world; it makes no normative statements about ethical issues. People who claim otherwise -- be they supporters or opponents of such measures -- are simply guilty of misusing science to further their ideological agendas.
Finally, evolutionary theory is testable (i.e., in principle falsifiable). It makes specific predictions about what we will find in the fossil record, genetic similarities between various branches of the plant and animal kingdoms, etc.
Your affecting a stance of pure agnosticism toward historical events is unwarranted. By that same logic, if I am on trial for murder and there is no eye witness to the deed but a mountain of forensic data that points to my guilt, all I need is one person like you on the jury and I am guaranteed at least a hung jury if not acquittal. Do you see the problem with this? Given the sheer amount of physical data we have, it is true beyond any reasonable doubt that evolutionary processes are at work in the world. People who claim otherwise are either arguing in bad faith to support their theology or have been duped by such people.
Upvote
0
JohnR7
Well-Known Member
The religion is secular humanism. Darwinism is just a sect within that religion.
What is interesting is they want their "pet" theory of evolution taught in the school system. Just as long as God is not a part of it. But they do not want theistic evolution taught. They do not want to acknowledge God as creator in anyway.
They sure are going to be surprised someday, when they have to go before God and give an account of their lives. They are going to have to give an account of why the battled against God every step of the way and tried to prevent others from coming to Him.
Upvote
0
The religion is secular humanism? Try telling that to Lucaspa, a Christian. BTW, John, not all atheists are secular humanists. You knew that, right? Right?
You never have explained why or how the supernatural can be a legitimate subject of discourse in a science class. Let's have it. If one were to teach theistic evolution, how precisely would that differ in content from a course in evolutionary biology as currently taught? Aside from a teacher ridiculously repeating, "Goddidit," or "And here a miracle occurred," would not the same physical processes be discussed?
Upvote
0
John,
Should this extend to other science subjects as well such as earth sciences or physics? Are those classes teaching "pet" theories as well? How does allowing students to decide for themselves whether God is involved as an act of faith prevent those students from coming to him?
Should non-Christian teachers be required to teach that the God of the Christian bible is the God here, or could they insert their God into the curriculum as they see fit or, do you just stick with "higher power" or "intelligent designer"?
Science and theories discuss physical, measurable phenomena and evidence. They cannot be used to either confirm or deny the existence of a supernatural entity directing it all. It is very ecumenical and multicultural and cannot be tied to a particular religion or set of beliefs. It is not intended to answer those questions.
Upvote
0
Aradia
Regular Member
John:
Theistic evolution requires god. Correct? I assume, then, that the only *major* difference in teaching theistic evolution would be that science classes would teach that god is the driving force behind evolution. Am I still somewhat correct here? If so, then it is plainly not allowed in public schools. If it was taught in public schools, then the public school system is pushing the belief in god on children, not all of whom are christian (or even, necessarily, theistic). If you want to teach theistic evolution, that's what private schools are for. One of my aunts sends her kids to a private christian school because she wants them to have a christian upbringing. I respect that much more than had they thrown a hissy fit to force public schools to teach religious beliefs. No, theistic evolution is not a religion. But the basis of it is religious in nature, and hence not allowed to be taught.
Unless, of course, you want all religions taught. I assume you wouldn't mind if any Islamic, Hindu, Vodun, Wiccan, or Laveyan Satanism creation theories were taught? Along with scores of others?
Theistic evolution requires god. Correct? I assume, then, that the only *major* difference in teaching theistic evolution would be that science classes would teach that god is the driving force behind evolution. Am I still somewhat correct here? If so, then it is plainly not allowed in public schools. If it was taught in public schools, then the public school system is pushing the belief in god on children, not all of whom are christian (or even, necessarily, theistic). If you want to teach theistic evolution, that's what private schools are for. One of my aunts sends her kids to a private christian school because she wants them to have a christian upbringing. I respect that much more than had they thrown a hissy fit to force public schools to teach religious beliefs. No, theistic evolution is not a religion. But the basis of it is religious in nature, and hence not allowed to be taught.
Unless, of course, you want all religions taught. I assume you wouldn't mind if any Islamic, Hindu, Vodun, Wiccan, or Laveyan Satanism creation theories were taught? Along with scores of others?
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
Outside the parameters of science? You've got to be kidding. Go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcg and enter "evolution" as your search term and see the number of scientific papers you get.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
Theistic evolution is a belief. So is atheistic evolution. Neither can be taught in schools. Only agnostic evolution can be taught.
Now, can you give us specific examples where atheistic evolution is taught? By that I mean specific examples where teachers tell students that evolution means there is no deity.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
First, yes it does take just as much faith to believe in atheistic evolution. That's one reason Darwin and Huxley never had much use for atheists.
Second, as someone pointed out, evolution isn't a "random process of chance".
Third, tell us, specifically, where evolution is being taught as atheism. This seems a major fear of creationists but, whenever I have asked, they can never give an example of evolution being taught as saying God doesn't exist. Perhaps you'll be the first, John.
Upvote
0
I noticed that many people seem to have a problem with observations of evidence generated by past events. If someone was on trial for murder, this evidence would be called "phorensic data." I've done a bit of casual study in the field of law, and I've found that phorensic data is generally *more compelling* than eyewitness testimony. Eyewitness testimony is AMAZINGLY unreliable because people's memories are fickle and selective. Phorensic data do not change.
I came across a case where a woman had been raped. While she was being raped, she said to herself that she would not kick or scream, but she would remember every detail of this man so that she could lock him behind bars for the rest of his life. She later picked him out in a lineup, and he was sent to prison for life without the possibility of parole.
15 years later, DNA evidence showed that the man locked away for the crime was not the man who raped that woman.
I came across a case where a woman had been raped. While she was being raped, she said to herself that she would not kick or scream, but she would remember every detail of this man so that she could lock him behind bars for the rest of his life. She later picked him out in a lineup, and he was sent to prison for life without the possibility of parole.
15 years later, DNA evidence showed that the man locked away for the crime was not the man who raped that woman.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
Today at 08:21 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #32
Go ahead, "falsify" theist evolution. If you can not "falsify" it, then it must be true, and it should be tought. Forget intelligent design vs. Evoluion. It's now my version of evolution theory, vs your version of evolution theory
First, as Notto pointed out, not being falsified doesn't equate to being true. For over 100 years creationism wasn't falsified, but it wasn't true, either. We accept evolution as (provisionally) true because every attempt to falsify it has failed. Not only failed, but resulted in support.
However, theistic evolution isn't evolution. It's an extrapolation from evolution to a belief. Since theistic evolution is a belief, it can't be taught in science class.
You want evolution taught, but only the evolution theory that you subscribe to. You only want your version of evolution theory taught.
And what version is that? And can you document that this version is being taught in schools?
You are in violation of the law, the law requires that evolution theory be taught in the schools.
Actually, no law requires this. Various curricula standards mandate the teaching of biological evolution, but no laws that I am aware of. Just as their are no laws to teach gravity or cell theory.
If your version of evolution is required to be taught, than my version of the evolution theory should be taught also.
My version is "Goddidit".
Not good enough. "Goddidit" isn't a scientific theory by itself. You need a how Goddidit. What's your how?
Go ahead, "falsify" theist evolution. If you can not "falsify" it, then it must be true, and it should be tought. Forget intelligent design vs. Evoluion. It's now my version of evolution theory, vs your version of evolution theory
First, as Notto pointed out, not being falsified doesn't equate to being true. For over 100 years creationism wasn't falsified, but it wasn't true, either. We accept evolution as (provisionally) true because every attempt to falsify it has failed. Not only failed, but resulted in support.
However, theistic evolution isn't evolution. It's an extrapolation from evolution to a belief. Since theistic evolution is a belief, it can't be taught in science class.
You want evolution taught, but only the evolution theory that you subscribe to. You only want your version of evolution theory taught.
And what version is that? And can you document that this version is being taught in schools?
You are in violation of the law, the law requires that evolution theory be taught in the schools.
Actually, no law requires this. Various curricula standards mandate the teaching of biological evolution, but no laws that I am aware of. Just as their are no laws to teach gravity or cell theory.
If your version of evolution is required to be taught, than my version of the evolution theory should be taught also.
My version is "Goddidit".
Not good enough. "Goddidit" isn't a scientific theory by itself. You need a how Goddidit. What's your how?
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
Today at 10:08 AM DaHoffermn said this in Post #43
Sure. . .the foundations of evolution are based upon assumption. First, we must BELIEVE that the earth is so many billions of years old. We my BELIEVE that fossils are this old, and so the rock they are in are the same age. Then we can compare anything we find to this assumed age.
Niether of those are assumptions. Both are conclusions from the data. The idea that the earth is younger than 4.5 billion years old has been shown to be false. The idea that individual fossils are less than the accepted ages have also been shown to be false. That's what the scientific papers do. When we say "A fossil is 2.5 million years old plus or minus 300,000 years" that is shorthand for saying "all other ages have been shown to be false".
Darwinsim also allows society to justify, by pointing to the Almighty evolutionary process, eugenics, abortion, social engineering, ans social darwinism.
Social darwinism was an extrapolation way, way, beyond the science. Darwinists at the time protested the abuse of science. Social Darwinists committed the naturalistic fallacy: that what IS in nature is how people OUGHT to behave.
As Creationism and Darwinism are BOTH untestable, that rules both out for scientific inquiry.
What's your definition of Darwinism?
This debate is more historical than it is scientific, because we CANNOT test either process.
Sorry, but creationism was tested in the 1700s and early 1800s and falsified. Darwinism -- as purely a scientific theory and not the warped definition used by creationists -- has also been tested. Common ancestry, descent with modification, and natural selection have been strongly supported. To the point that it is simply perverse to withold provisional acceptance.
Sure. . .the foundations of evolution are based upon assumption. First, we must BELIEVE that the earth is so many billions of years old. We my BELIEVE that fossils are this old, and so the rock they are in are the same age. Then we can compare anything we find to this assumed age.
Niether of those are assumptions. Both are conclusions from the data. The idea that the earth is younger than 4.5 billion years old has been shown to be false. The idea that individual fossils are less than the accepted ages have also been shown to be false. That's what the scientific papers do. When we say "A fossil is 2.5 million years old plus or minus 300,000 years" that is shorthand for saying "all other ages have been shown to be false".
Darwinsim also allows society to justify, by pointing to the Almighty evolutionary process, eugenics, abortion, social engineering, ans social darwinism.
Social darwinism was an extrapolation way, way, beyond the science. Darwinists at the time protested the abuse of science. Social Darwinists committed the naturalistic fallacy: that what IS in nature is how people OUGHT to behave.
As Creationism and Darwinism are BOTH untestable, that rules both out for scientific inquiry.
What's your definition of Darwinism?
This debate is more historical than it is scientific, because we CANNOT test either process.
Sorry, but creationism was tested in the 1700s and early 1800s and falsified. Darwinism -- as purely a scientific theory and not the warped definition used by creationists -- has also been tested. Common ancestry, descent with modification, and natural selection have been strongly supported. To the point that it is simply perverse to withold provisional acceptance.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
Who is "they"?
God cannot be promoted in public schools because of the US Constitution. There can be no advancement of a particular religion. Science is agnostic about the role of God in evolution. As Gould put it: "To say it for all my colleageues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists. " To put God into science class is asking something that science can't legitimately do.
I don't think evolutionists are going to have any trouble accouting to God. Even atheistic evolutionists such as Eugenie Scott are going to stand a better chance than creationists before God. After all, Scott successfully opposed language that inadvertently would have excluded God.
How creationists are going to explain their heresy, violation of the 1st Commandment, and apostasy is beyond me.
Upvote
0
Well, really all that has to be done is get a couple of passages of Genesis read out, and move on to the next subject.
Its not like they've got anything else to contribute.
Upvote
0
Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
Wonderful. Now we can chuck all those PhDs in the incinerator and crawl back into the cathedrals.
Well, a few of us can. the rest of us live in our huts and wait for the cathedral people to tell us what to do...
Upvote
0
JohnR7
Well-Known Member
When God is not a part of the education of our young people. Then drugs, guns and illicit sex is going to take over. It is only a question of time, before people destroy themselves.
Everyone is given time to repent and accept God's plan of redemption and deliverance. Those who do not repent, will be destroyed. God will eliminate anyone who is an offence to Him.
We should teach our young people about God and His ways, every chance we get.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
