choccy already provided a reference. If you really want me to, I'll dig up more.
And, (like Morat pointed out), in doing so they figured the Earth would be much older than the accepted (~6000 year) Biblical timeline.
Upvote
0
Schools reject evolution because of pressure from creationist parents
- Thread starter ocean
- Start date
choccy already provided a reference. If you really want me to, I'll dig up more.
And, (like Morat pointed out), in doing so they figured the Earth would be much older than the accepted (~6000 year) Biblical timeline.
Originally posted by paulewog
Ok, I'll post something on topic, sorry about that, I have problems with "hijacking" threads
I'd still like to know the school that did this, 'cause I've never heard of a public school not teaching evolution, hehe
Well, my school, for one. A public school in California. There was a whole chapter in evolutionary theory in my biology book. Guess which chapter we just happened to skip over?
Upvote
0
I've had choccy on ignore for ages, so I didn't see it. Comte de Buffon was not a geologist, so I don't see the relevance of the quote. And the oldest I've ever heard regarding his estimates was 70,000 years.
Anyway, sure. If you can dredge up some pre-Darwinian geologists who concluded that the earth was billions of years old based on what they discovered, I'd love to see the evidence.
Upvote
0
That's correct. But I have this neurological condition that causes a delayed adrenal reaction, which is why I believed in an old earth and evolution during my first several years as a Christian. The fear didn't take over my ability to reason until much later.
Upvote
0
Woah now, don't be putting words into my mouth. I never claimed they thought the world was necessarily billions of years old. Rather, they had tossed out the idea of a young (~6000 year old) Earth.
From this article: http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv11n2_scrip_geol.asp
"In the early 1800s Georges Cuvier (17681832), the famous French comparative anatomist and vertebrate palaeontologist, developed his theory of catastrophism112 as expressed in his Theory of the Earth (1813). ... He believed that Earth history was very much longer than the traditional 6,000 years, but that the Flood had occurred only a few thousand years ago, just as the Bible indicated."
Further down,
"Through the influence of these two [Adam Sedgwick and William Buckland] and others (for example, George Greenough, William Conybeare, Roderick Murchison and Henry De la Beche), old-Earth catastrophist (or diluvial) geology was widely accepted in the 1820s by most geologists and academic theologians."
Further still,
"A massive blow to catastrophism came during the years 1830 to 1833, when Charles Lyell (17971875), a lawyer by training as well as a former student of Buckland, published his masterful three-volume work, Principles of Geology. ... His theory was a radical uniformitarianism in which he insisted that only present-day processes at present-day rates of intensity should be used to interpret the rock record of past geological activity. The uniformity of rates was an addition to Huttons theory but was the essential, distinctive feature of Lyells view."
Please note, that all of this is happening well before Darwin published Origin of the Species (which wasn't published until 1859).
Upvote
0
So what? That has nothing to do with the point I was making. The only quote you provided that even comes close is the one about Charles Lyell. There are only four problems with that quote.
First, Lyell was a lawyer, not a geologist.
Second,
A: Charles Lyell: 17971875
B: Charles Darwin: 1809-1882
No, Origin hadn't been published yet, but I have to wonder what other sources of information Lyell had.
Third, his position was one of deism, so his presupposition of an older earth had a different motivation but it was still a presupposition.
Fourth, how old did Lyell think the earth was? Did he approach the bench of geology from the assumption that the earth was millions to billions of years old? No? Then what did that have to do with my point?
TODAY, most geologists approach geology with the assumption that evolution is true, which requires an earth that is millions to billions of years old. So they interpret the evidence through those glasses.
Upvote
0
So what is your point, then? That geologists approach the idea of an old Earth with respect to evolution? Despite that they had tossed out the idea of a young (6000 year old) Earth about 200 years ago? (which is my point, and not something I see you actually trying to refute)
I think you should spend some time actually reading that article I linked(specifically the part entitled "Historical developments in geology, palaeontology and cosmology").
Upvote
0
*snicker* "Lyell was a lawyer". *snicker*. Come on, Nick, do you really think that's an argument?
You do realize that the "professional scientist" didn't show up for some time, right?
Nick's point is fairly simple, if not too bright. Modern geologists are taught the world is old, so anything they do is with that presumption. Of course, modern geologists are also taught the world is flat, that it's not hollow, and that it moves around the sun once a year.
All of these ideas, age included, are accepted because they have been shown to be true beyond any reasonable doubt. And yet, in the process of actual geology, they're studied and tested daily.
And while we don't require geologists to relearn everything in geology, on their own, with no books or resources beyond tools, we do teach them the history of geology. And they learn why certain things are so well established as facts.
In Nick's Bizzaro World, Computer programmers would be forced to write their own compilers, after building their own motherboards and processors, from IC's they built in their own garage.
You do realize that the "professional scientist" didn't show up for some time, right?
Nick's point is fairly simple, if not too bright. Modern geologists are taught the world is old, so anything they do is with that presumption. Of course, modern geologists are also taught the world is flat, that it's not hollow, and that it moves around the sun once a year.
All of these ideas, age included, are accepted because they have been shown to be true beyond any reasonable doubt. And yet, in the process of actual geology, they're studied and tested daily.
And while we don't require geologists to relearn everything in geology, on their own, with no books or resources beyond tools, we do teach them the history of geology. And they learn why certain things are so well established as facts.
In Nick's Bizzaro World, Computer programmers would be forced to write their own compilers, after building their own motherboards and processors, from IC's they built in their own garage.
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
I didn't even realise you had one. Care to share it with the really dense of us. Lyell arrived at the conclusion that the world had to be 100's of millions, if not billions of years old, without any prior assumption of old age. What point are you trying to make?
How do you think they would interpret modern radiometric dates without prior assumptions about the actual age of the earth? Since different methods all give us the same answer they must have the same error of approx 4.5 billion years, which fits exactly with a literal interpretation of Genesis? Or would they conclude that the world is approx 4.5 billion years old, regardless of what age biologists might want it to be?
Choccy
Upvote
0
Having spent the last four years as a PowerBuilder/SQL developer, the Bizarro World scenerio could be fun...
Upvote
0
Just a little bit of background on Charles Lyell:
"LYELL, SIR CHARLES (1797-1875), British geologist, was the eldest son of Charles Lyell of Kinnordy, Forfarshire, and was born on the 14th of November 1797, on the family estate in Scotland. His father (1767-1849) was known both as a botanist and as the translator of the Vita Nuova and the Convito of Dante: the plant Lyellia was named after him. From his boyhood Lyell had a strong inclination for natural history, especially entomology, a taste which he cultivated at Bartley Lodge in the New Forest, to which his family had removed soon after his birth. In 1816 he entered Exeter College, Oxford, where the lectures of Dr Buckland first drew his attention to geological study. After taking his degree of B.A. in 1819 (M.A. in 1821) he entered Lincoln's Inn, and in 1825, after a delay caused by chronic weakness of the eyes, he was called to the bar, and went on the western circuit for two years. During this time he was slowly gravitating towards the life of a student of science. In 1819 he had been elected a fellow of the Linnean and Geological Societies, communicating his first paper, "On a Recent Formation of Freshwater Limestone in Forfarshire," to the latter society in 1822, and acting as one of the honorary secretaries in 1823. In that year he went to France, with introductions to Cuvier, Humboldt and other men of science, and in 1824 made a geological tour in Scotland in company with Dr Buckland. In 1826 he was elected a fellow of the Royal Society, from which in later years he received both the Copley and Royal medals; and in 1827 he finally abandoned the legal profession, and devoted himself to geology." - source (emphasis mine)
"LYELL, SIR CHARLES (1797-1875), British geologist, was the eldest son of Charles Lyell of Kinnordy, Forfarshire, and was born on the 14th of November 1797, on the family estate in Scotland. His father (1767-1849) was known both as a botanist and as the translator of the Vita Nuova and the Convito of Dante: the plant Lyellia was named after him. From his boyhood Lyell had a strong inclination for natural history, especially entomology, a taste which he cultivated at Bartley Lodge in the New Forest, to which his family had removed soon after his birth. In 1816 he entered Exeter College, Oxford, where the lectures of Dr Buckland first drew his attention to geological study. After taking his degree of B.A. in 1819 (M.A. in 1821) he entered Lincoln's Inn, and in 1825, after a delay caused by chronic weakness of the eyes, he was called to the bar, and went on the western circuit for two years. During this time he was slowly gravitating towards the life of a student of science. In 1819 he had been elected a fellow of the Linnean and Geological Societies, communicating his first paper, "On a Recent Formation of Freshwater Limestone in Forfarshire," to the latter society in 1822, and acting as one of the honorary secretaries in 1823. In that year he went to France, with introductions to Cuvier, Humboldt and other men of science, and in 1824 made a geological tour in Scotland in company with Dr Buckland. In 1826 he was elected a fellow of the Royal Society, from which in later years he received both the Copley and Royal medals; and in 1827 he finally abandoned the legal profession, and devoted himself to geology." - source (emphasis mine)
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
Evolution disappearing from Canadian schools
"In Ontario, public school students may go their entire grade school education without being taught the theory of evolution at all.
Ontario provincial curriculum developers have quietly removed virtually all teaching about evolution in order to avoid controversy. The new provincial curriculum has only one course that teaches evolutiona Grade 12 biology course for students headed for university studies in biochemistry or biology."
I keep bringing this up, but no one seems to be listening to me.
Upvote
0
interesting. I don't think not teaching evolution will make too much of a difference to people who pursue science as a career, as soon as they get to university they're going to have to learn it or they'll fail - of course, the general public will be more ignorant than they already are, but what does that matter....
Upvote
0
I am listening Pete, I just hope Manitoba doesn't follow suit... oops, doesn't matter since I live in a very fundamentalist town, most of the teachers have done this on their own...
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
TheBear
NON-WOKED
Thank you for the reference point. It is confusing to start a thread, making vague assertions, without references or sources.
The Academy of Science of the Royal Society of Canada has already made a declaration on this this subject, and it was delivered by Fellows of the Academy, to each Provincial Minister of Education in Canada.
Here's what they had to say:
"The Academy of Science of the Royal Society of Canada considers that "scientific creationism" has nothing to do with science or the scientific method. "Scientific creationism" does not belong in any discussion of scientific principles or theories, and therefore should have no place in a science curriculum.
Science provides knowledge of the natural world in the form of evidence gathered by observation and experiment. Analysis of this evidence allows scientists to generate hypotheses that link and explain different phenomena. Scientific hypotheses must be capable of being tested by further research. If a hypothesis is found to explain many different facts, and even to allow accurate predictions of subsequent discoveries, greater confidence is placed in it, and it is called a theory.
The theory of evolution by natural selection was first clearly formulated in 1859, and for over a century it has been tested and improved by the research of many thousands of scientists: not only by biologists and geologists, but also by chemists and physicists. From deductions based on abundant data, the theory has been developed to explain the changes that have taken place in living things over much of the Earth's history. In its modern form, it remains the only explanation for the diversity of life on this planet that is acceptable to the scientific community.
Science itself evolves, since it must continuously modify existing explanations to incorporate new information. The theory of evolution continues to be refined as new evidence becomes available. Only one thing in science is not open to change: its demand that every explanation be based on observation or experiment, that these be in principle repeatable, and that new evidence be considered.
Scientific creationists adopt an entirely different approach in their attempt to explain the natural world. They accept either biblical or some other authority as overriding other kinds of evidence. They reject much of the accumulated scientific knowledge, and commonly deny the validity of deductions based on directly observable phenomena such as radioactive decay. This is because their philosophy is rooted in a different aspect of human culture. If their claim, that the Earth and all its living things were created only several thousand years ago, was correct, many of the central concepts of modern science would have to be abandoned. The methodology and conclusions of scientists and "scientific creationists" are therefore incompatible, and the term "scientific creationism" is a contradiction in terms, since it has no basis in science."
The Academy of Science of the Royal Society of Canada has already made a declaration on this this subject, and it was delivered by Fellows of the Academy, to each Provincial Minister of Education in Canada.
Here's what they had to say:
"The Academy of Science of the Royal Society of Canada considers that "scientific creationism" has nothing to do with science or the scientific method. "Scientific creationism" does not belong in any discussion of scientific principles or theories, and therefore should have no place in a science curriculum.
Science provides knowledge of the natural world in the form of evidence gathered by observation and experiment. Analysis of this evidence allows scientists to generate hypotheses that link and explain different phenomena. Scientific hypotheses must be capable of being tested by further research. If a hypothesis is found to explain many different facts, and even to allow accurate predictions of subsequent discoveries, greater confidence is placed in it, and it is called a theory.
The theory of evolution by natural selection was first clearly formulated in 1859, and for over a century it has been tested and improved by the research of many thousands of scientists: not only by biologists and geologists, but also by chemists and physicists. From deductions based on abundant data, the theory has been developed to explain the changes that have taken place in living things over much of the Earth's history. In its modern form, it remains the only explanation for the diversity of life on this planet that is acceptable to the scientific community.
Science itself evolves, since it must continuously modify existing explanations to incorporate new information. The theory of evolution continues to be refined as new evidence becomes available. Only one thing in science is not open to change: its demand that every explanation be based on observation or experiment, that these be in principle repeatable, and that new evidence be considered.
Scientific creationists adopt an entirely different approach in their attempt to explain the natural world. They accept either biblical or some other authority as overriding other kinds of evidence. They reject much of the accumulated scientific knowledge, and commonly deny the validity of deductions based on directly observable phenomena such as radioactive decay. This is because their philosophy is rooted in a different aspect of human culture. If their claim, that the Earth and all its living things were created only several thousand years ago, was correct, many of the central concepts of modern science would have to be abandoned. The methodology and conclusions of scientists and "scientific creationists" are therefore incompatible, and the term "scientific creationism" is a contradiction in terms, since it has no basis in science."
Upvote
0
Similar threads
