Do any Christians or non-christians believe that Macro-Evolution should be taught in schools. (By the way, macro-evolution is the idea that creatures evolved from other creatures. Micro-evolution is the idea that creatures or humans will adapt when put into a new enviroment.) I would really like to know.
-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Macro-Evolution
- Thread starter messenjah
- Start date
Currently, macro and micro evolution are taught as being suplementary to each other, as evidence suggests.
I believe it should continue to be taught.
I believe it should continue to be taught.
Upvote
0
If macro evolution is to be taught, then so should Creation, they both have science to back them up, and they both have theories, so they should both be taught. Remember, in Christianity, no decision at all is still a decision and we should give the kids the oppurtunity to hear both sides.
Upvote
0
jon1101
Well-Known Member
I would tend to want both evolution and creation to be taught, but before that would/should happen, creationism would have to become more science and less ministry. It doesn't give you much credence when you just publish whatever you think lines up with genesis in a christian book store or three.
-jon
-jon
Upvote
0
No more then an archealogist "picking the age" of fossils....."Oh ok its in this layer so that means its 1.865 gazillion years old".
Upvote
0
supermagdalena
The Shrubs and the Flan.
If they teach Darwinism, and they teach beliefs of religions like Hinduism and Buddhism, I think creationism should be thrown into the mix. That is, if the rights violations police are really unbiased.
Upvote
0
I'm going to have to stop reading these evolution threads.
First off, bad as the general practice of pawning off evvolution may be, politically, scientists do not just pick an age for these things. The radiometric dating techiniques are not all that complex and can be used to sort of cross check one another. This, of course, says nothing about whether or not enough time actually exists for the calculations to be correct, but still, the ages set to rocks are not entirely arbitrary.
Having said that, the idea that Creation is not scientific is blatantly false. There are two things that make Creation hard for some people to believe. One is that they don't believe in God in the first place, and the other is, even if they do, they trust the scientific data more than the Biblical account or believe the Biblical account is symbolic of something and need not be read literally.
But how Creation comes to be scientific is really quite simple. All of science is based on building credibility through repeated observation and measurement and so forth. Why do people believe in God, then? (It is a prerequisiste to beleive in God before one can believe that God created the universe) They believe in Him because of their own experience of consciousness and free will, and because of historical evidence. The evidence of free will, while perhaps not definitive, is overwhelming. The documentation of spirituality and religion is also massive,. if not entirely conclusive. But, that is the basis. Ther physical basis is our own conscious lives, and the reliability of the Biblical version comes from ones feelings of trusing the people who bring the story to you.
This is exactly how evolution works. They have some physical evidence, but much of it is conjecture, it cannot be statistically analyzed to give "probabilities, the likelihood of it being true is a function of your worldview and what kinds of evidence and what kinds of people you trust most.
The creation of life, the universe and everything is such a deeply philosphical subject that it probably shouldn't be taught in science classes unless they are going to go ahead and give a fair understanding of the underlying philosophy and equal time to alternate concepts.
Every class I've ever taken where it comes up, creation gets discussed anyhow, so why not quit pretending they are not related and let's be open and talk aboit the thing.
First off, bad as the general practice of pawning off evvolution may be, politically, scientists do not just pick an age for these things. The radiometric dating techiniques are not all that complex and can be used to sort of cross check one another. This, of course, says nothing about whether or not enough time actually exists for the calculations to be correct, but still, the ages set to rocks are not entirely arbitrary.
Having said that, the idea that Creation is not scientific is blatantly false. There are two things that make Creation hard for some people to believe. One is that they don't believe in God in the first place, and the other is, even if they do, they trust the scientific data more than the Biblical account or believe the Biblical account is symbolic of something and need not be read literally.
But how Creation comes to be scientific is really quite simple. All of science is based on building credibility through repeated observation and measurement and so forth. Why do people believe in God, then? (It is a prerequisiste to beleive in God before one can believe that God created the universe) They believe in Him because of their own experience of consciousness and free will, and because of historical evidence. The evidence of free will, while perhaps not definitive, is overwhelming. The documentation of spirituality and religion is also massive,. if not entirely conclusive. But, that is the basis. Ther physical basis is our own conscious lives, and the reliability of the Biblical version comes from ones feelings of trusing the people who bring the story to you.
This is exactly how evolution works. They have some physical evidence, but much of it is conjecture, it cannot be statistically analyzed to give "probabilities, the likelihood of it being true is a function of your worldview and what kinds of evidence and what kinds of people you trust most.
The creation of life, the universe and everything is such a deeply philosphical subject that it probably shouldn't be taught in science classes unless they are going to go ahead and give a fair understanding of the underlying philosophy and equal time to alternate concepts.
Every class I've ever taken where it comes up, creation gets discussed anyhow, so why not quit pretending they are not related and let's be open and talk aboit the thing.
Upvote
0
Very well said.What your argument boils down to is that, since we have a long established history of people believing in God, that lends factual credibility to the creation account?
The Genesis account is part of the Torah. That is a Jewish book, not a Christian book. If anyone is best qualified to judge the historicity of Genesis, it is the Jews. It is, after all, their book. And, by and large, the Jews do not believe Genesis is a literal account of history.
The entire Christian belief in a literal Biblical creation is based on the amazing premise that they believe that they know how to better interpret someone else's religious book.
Upvote
0
It is science.
How ironic it is that evolutionists have been known to refuse debates with creationists unless religion is included in the debate. When the creationist says the debate must contain science and not religion, the evolutionist throws a fit.
Then again, it's kind of hard to prove where giraffes came from, unless the evolutionist wants to violate the laws of science.
Upvote
0
Those are secular Jews, and be they secular or religious, the Jews of today have no more knowledge or insight into the book of Genesis than do Christians.
Uh, the historical account contained in the book of Genesis did not begin with some Jew writing it.
Why, the earliest known Chinese civilization included the Genesis stories in the characters of their written language, which are still in use today!
Upvote
0
I am taught in a gramar school in Holland and that is exactly what they do. They explain both the Christian and scientific account of the creation of the universe and humans and they compare them. Nowhere do they say that one is correct and they put both of them forth as theories. In tests they make the questions so that they don't show one belief as true. For example:
"Name one scientific and one religious creationist arguments against the Big Bang"
Answer:
- The Big Bang is inconsistent with perservation of mass and energy.
- The Big Bang is inconsistent with the bible.
"What does Darwin say about the origin of man?"
Answer:
He says nothing about the origin of man specifically. However he states that complicated creatures evolve from more simple/primitive creatures and he does not give us any reason to believe that he did not mean this to work for humans as well.
"Can conventional science and Christian belief be combined?"
Answer: Yes, but only if the bible is not seen as a literal description of what happened. The idea that God created the world in six days is inconsistent with modern scientific theories. But the idea that God caused the beginning of the universe (Created the Big Bang/ first mass etc.) is not in conflict with modern theories of the creation of the universe.
So it can only be combined if the bible is not taken literally.
All these questions are taken literally from the test. I got an 8,9 (A-) for it.
"Name one scientific and one religious creationist arguments against the Big Bang"
Answer:
- The Big Bang is inconsistent with perservation of mass and energy.
- The Big Bang is inconsistent with the bible.
"What does Darwin say about the origin of man?"
Answer:
He says nothing about the origin of man specifically. However he states that complicated creatures evolve from more simple/primitive creatures and he does not give us any reason to believe that he did not mean this to work for humans as well.
"Can conventional science and Christian belief be combined?"
Answer: Yes, but only if the bible is not seen as a literal description of what happened. The idea that God created the world in six days is inconsistent with modern scientific theories. But the idea that God caused the beginning of the universe (Created the Big Bang/ first mass etc.) is not in conflict with modern theories of the creation of the universe.
So it can only be combined if the bible is not taken literally.
All these questions are taken literally from the test. I got an 8,9 (A-) for it.
Upvote
0
Macro-evolution, usually referred to as speciation in my experience, is indeed science. Unfortunately, some people insist on saying that it is not, despite direct observations.
I don't suppose you could provide a cite for this claim? I wouldn't ask, except I've only seen the exact opposite and therefore must question your honesty.
Oh my, I wasn't aware of any laws of science which even addressed the origins of giraffes, let alone forbade giraffes from being produced. Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide a citation for this as well?
Upvote
0
Macro-evolution is not science. It's fantasy. And what direct observations? None have ever been "observed" that prove animals can change into completely different animals and produce off-spring accordingly.
Evolutionists have refused to debate Dr. Walt Brown unless religion is included in the debate. Dr. Brown will only debate on the grounds that religion is left out, but evolutionists insist that it be included. Gee, I wonder why?
If the unscientific theory of evolution is true, evolutionists should be able to explain the origin of giraffes with documentation and illustrations that explain each pre-giraffe species on the evolutionary ladder leading up to the "completed" giraffe we see today. Alas, they cannot.
Upvote
0
conservation of mass and energy would only apply if you were talking in terms of a physically coherent universe, which at the spacetime point that it came about, was not the case.
Upvote
0
They didn't ask us to prove one of the two points, just to give to arguments that are used, and whethere that argument holds or not, it is used a lot...
Upvote
0
Actually not true. Said a Hebrew Scholar
"There is not another Hebrew Scholar, that I know of, who does not believe that the writers in Genesis meant a literal six day creation."
Upvote
0
I looked a little, but the tests are all in Dutch. I just translated it so you would understand... If you speak Dutch I can post some links.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
