Creationism vs. Evolution

[gallo]

Quote by: samsara15 If any kind of answer, however weak it be, does not invoke the existence of God and/or supernatural agents, then for me, it is automatically more likely than answers that do require the existence or intervention of supernatural/divine agents. Therefore evolution, even if it has flaws, is the only plausible answer, as far as I am concerned.

OK. Occam's Razor. "One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything" (William of Ockham, 1285-1349). In other words, "plurality should not be assumed without necessity." Thus, if naturalistic explanations are sufficient to explain a phenomenon, the supernatural explanations are unnecessary. It is understandable that William of Ockham (a Franciscan friar) was unpopular with the church hierarchy. However, he is thought to have died of the Black Death.

[Locutus]

Well here is one to make your blood boil, Intelligent design (creationist theory) will be taught in Australian schools. What bothers me is that kids beleive what you tell them. I see it as little more than a recruitment drive for the church.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/aug/05082901.html

I have always said that i have no problem with a persons personal beleif in God, I am fine with that. I just don't understand why the church has to try and shove it down everyones throat all the time. :eek:

[Kite]

One of their goals is to unite all people under one religion, theirs. It is a very big deal for them, I am fairly certain that they think the day all the world is united under Catholosism, Jesus will return, thus bringing about the judging of the human race. On a personal note, I'm going to fight them every step of the way, because I am sure I'll be burning in hell if they get their way.

[Jack]

Well, Kansas will now be teaching ID as science. Story

Kansas on Tuesday became the latest U.S. state to introduce criticism of evolution into teaching standards, a move that critics charge was driven by religious zealotry. In a hearing room packed with high school students, teachers and national media, the Kansas State Board of Education on a 6-4 vote approved a new set of science standards that question the veracity of evolution theory. "This is a great day for education. This is one of the best things that we can do," said board chairman Steve Abrams, who is on record as saying evolutionary theory is incompatible with the Bible's version of God's creation of life on Earth. The new public school standards include several specific challenges to evolution, including statements that there is a lack of evidence or natural explanation for the genetic code, charges that fossil records are inconsistent with evolutionary theory, and a statement that says certain evolutionary explanations "are not based on direct observations ... and often reflect ... inferences from indirect or circumstantial evidence." Although the redrawn teaching standards do not mention religion and Abrams denied the changes were religiously motivated, both local and national science groups charged that the new standards are a product of religious zealotry. Critics said the standards go farther than any other state to date in opening up evolutionary principles to criticism, and said implementation will lead to more aggressive undermining of scientific principles in other states and will ultimately weaken U.S. achievement in scientific arenas. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, said the decision would encourage school districts in Kansas and elsewhere to make similar moves, distracting and confusing teachers and students. "It will be marketed by the religious right ... as a huge victory for their side," she said. "We can expect more efforts to get creationism in."

Kansas: getting stupid with Jesus!

[RickSp]

Quote by: Isherwood Well, Kansas will now be teaching ID as science. Story Kansas: getting stupid with Jesus!

But Pennsylvannia will not. Evolution Slate Outpolls Rivals

All eight members up for re-election to the Pennsylvania school board that had been sued for introducing the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in biology class were swept out of office yesterday by a slate of challengers who campaigned against the intelligent design policy. Among the losing incumbents on the Dover, Pa., board were two members who testified in favor of the intelligent design policy at a recently concluded federal trial on the Dover policy: the chairwoman, Sheila Harkins, and Alan Bonsell. The election results were a repudiation of the first school district in the nation to order the introduction of intelligent design in a science class curriculum. The policy was the subject of a trial in Federal District Court that ended last Friday. A verdict by Judge John E. Jones III is expected by early January.

[Kite]

Good for Pensylvainia. They have their heads on straight at least.

[Sonart]

Alas, Kansas still doesn't. I was hoping it was the Kansas school board that was voted out. No such luck.

--"A decision this week by the Kansas Board of Education to delete the teaching of evolution from the state's science curriculum has angered the mainstream science community in the United States."--

Oh well... good on Pennsylvania, and on to Kansas!!!

.

[RickSp]

I suspect the next target for the Kansas Board of Education (or Edukashun, as they spell it there) is to take on the theory of gravity. It is after all just a theory and doesn't explain what happened to Dorothy and Toto.

I know understand that what Dorothy really said was "I don't think we are in Kansas any more, Toto. Thank goodness."

[Kite]

I heard a story about a man who gave a lecture about gravity, and through the use of logic and physics he proved the theory false on his chalkboard. To prove that the theory was wrong, he then jumped out of the 82nd floor window of the building he was in. Tragically, he forgot to carry a 2 in one of his equations. He wasnt too concerned about it at that point, having been reduced to a large messy spot on the ground below.

Theres a moral here somewhere, but I'm not sure what it is.

[US Independent]

I do not mind schools teaching Intelligent Design in a class like theology. That's all it is a wacky spin off of creationism. Since those ID supporters think that evolution has problems. ID has one also. They say that the world and life was created by an intelligent being. Where is this intelligent being now, why is there no evidence of such a being, and if you don't have any evidence of such a being then why do you insist that there is such a being.

[RickSp]

Dover, PA better watch out. Reverend Pat is putting a holy curse on them.

Pat Robertson warns Pa. town of disaster

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson warned residents of a rural Pennsylvania town Thursday that disaster may strike there because they "voted God out of your city" by ousting school board members who favored teaching intelligent design. All eight Dover, Pa., school board members up for re-election were defeated Tuesday after trying to introduce "intelligent design" - the belief that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power - as an alternative to the theory of evolution. "I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city," Robertson said on the Christian Broadcasting Network's "700 Club."

What is so funny about all this is that the ID folks claim that ID is not religion but when the voters boot the school board buffoons supporting ID, Robertson claims that the town has "rejected" God. Guess he didn't get the memo that everyone is supposed to pretend that ID isn't religion. Oops.

[Apeman81]

Faith predicates one's belief in this and most matters. If one puts their Faith in Jesus Christ, then by definition, he would be obliged to believe that God, the Father, created the heavens and earth.
None of that speaks to how God performed the task. Simply that he did
I happen to put my Faith in Christ, and believe that it happened as his word tells us. That is my Faith.
Science is very much a Faith. No real evidence exists to prove the theory of the Big Bang, hence its title of theory. If one chooses to look for answers to such age old questions not in a deity but rather in postulations from observations, then so be it.
The only time I have a problem with some believers of science is when they state theory, postulation, supposition, and hypothesis as fact. Very wide gaps exists between the sparse "evidence" of many scientific beliefs, and actual, definitive proof of the theory.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Apeman81 Science is very much a Faith. No real evidence exists to prove the theory of the Big Bang, hence its title of theory. If one chooses to look for answers to such age old questions not in a deity but rather in postulations from observations, then so be it. The only time I have a problem with some believers of science is when they state theory, postulation, supposition, and hypothesis as fact. Very wide gaps exists between the sparse "evidence" of many scientific beliefs, and actual, definitive proof of the theory.

Science is faith. Up is down. Wet is dry. Sure.

There is real evidence of the Big Bang theory regardless of whether you are knowledgeable of it or not.

[gallo]

Quote by: Apeman81 Science is very much a Faith.

Nonsense. Either you don't know what science is, or you don't know what faith is, or both.

Quote by: Apeman81 No real evidence exists to prove the theory of the Big Bang, hence its title of theory.

And that is real evidence that you don't know what science is or how it works. It is called the big bang theory because it explains the observed facts and was used to predict other facts that were then observed.

Quote by: Apeman81 If one chooses to look for answers to such age old questions not in a deity but rather in postulations from observations, then so be it.

And if you think that your god can be measured and probed by science, so be it.

Quote by: Apeman81 The only time I have a problem with some believers of science is when they state theory, postulation, supposition, and hypothesis as fact.

And the only time I have a problem with scientific illiterates is when they start talking about theory as fact. That would be quite strange since the theory is built upon and explains the observed facts.

Quote by: Apeman81 Very wide gaps exists between the sparse "evidence" of many scientific beliefs, and actual, definitive proof of the theory.

There is no such thing as "definitive proof" of a scientific theory. A theory is an explanation of the observations that has been tested. There are lots of scientific theories that you probably think are facts - like the heliocentric theory, the germ theory of disease, the theory of gravity. Fortunately the theory of evolution is one theory for which we have mountains of evidence from a variety of disciplines. Besides, the theory of evolution explains how and why the observed mechanisms of evolution work the way they do. Evolution has been observed.

[Apeman81]

“There is real evidence of the Big Bang theory regardless of whether you are knowledgeable of it or not.”

Evidence? Perhaps you can supply some. Not indicative supposition and postulation, evidence. I would like very much to be enlightened.

[rez]

Quote by: Apeman81 “There is real evidence of the Big Bang theory regardless of whether you are knowledgeable of it or not.” Evidence? Perhaps you can supply some. Not indicative supposition and postulation, evidence. I would like very much to be enlightened.

Ok, acceptable response to Rick - now reply to gallo.

[Apeman81]

“There is no such thing as "definitive proof" of a scientific theory.”

Thank you for proving my point. Since you freely admit that the theories being taught in our schools, paid for by you and me, is not fact, but a reasoned BELIEF, then why is so wrong to entertain academically another BELIEF.
After all, we both pay for our children to attend the schools.
This argument is not about who is right or wrong, just the ability to represent dissimilar views. And please, don’t give me the drivel about keep religion out of science class. You know as well as I do that the teaching of theory as fact, that occurs every day in our schools, is no less an offense to education than a few words concerning the possibility that some intelligent designer (you said God, not I) may have had a hand in the beginnings of the universe, or, for that matter, the dawn of man.
Why is it that you fear even the mention of the possibility that life is not simply the result of random accidents?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: RickSp Dover, PA better watch out. Reverend Pat is putting a holy curse on them. Pat Robertson warns Pa. town of disaster What is so funny about all this is that the ID folks claim that ID is not religion but when the voters boot the school board buffoons supporting ID, Robertson claims that the town has "rejected" God. Guess he didn't get the memo that everyone is supposed to pretend that ID isn't religion. Oops.

That lunatic is a prime example of proof that God doesn't exist. A just and reasonable God would have smitten his crazy ass a long time ago.

[rez]

Quote by: Apeman81 “There is no such thing as "definitive proof" of a scientific theory.” Thank you for proving my point. Since you freely admit that the theories being taught in our schools, paid for by you and me, is not fact, but a reasoned BELIEF, then why is so wrong to entertain academically another BELIEF. After all, we both pay for our children to attend the schools. This argument is not about who is right or wrong, just the ability to represent dissimilar views. And please, don’t give me the drivel about keep religion out of science class. You know as well as I do that the teaching of theory as fact, that occurs every day in our schools, is no less an offense to education than a few words concerning the possibility that some intelligent designer (you said God, not I) may have had a hand in the beginnings of the universe, or, for that matter, the dawn of man. Why is it that you fear even the mention of the possibility that life is not simply the result of random accidents?

Why did you reply to the topic sentence of the paragraph. You basically left out all of gallos supporting material and made up your own. This post is a waste of space and the argument continues to be dumbed down by Christians.

Quote by: gallo A theory is an explanation of the observations that has been tested. There are lots of scientific theories that you probably think are facts - like the heliocentric theory, the germ theory of disease, the theory of gravity. Fortunately the theory of evolution is one theory for which we have mountains of evidence from a variety of disciplines. Besides, the theory of evolution explains how and why the observed mechanisms of evolution work the way they do. Evolution has been observed.

[Apeman81]

“Besides, the theory of evolution explains how and why the observed mechanisms of evolution work the way they do. Evolution has been observed.”

Observed? When? The Piltdown Man? The Nebraska man? Perhaps you refer to the Java or the Orce man. For I have not heard of a scientist be present for the birth of a new species from an existent one. Mayhap you have a story to which I have not been privy.

Let’s accept for the moment that adaptation occurs. As such, the formation of a simians footpad to closely resemble its hand would be the result of its arboreal lifestyle. Assuming this developed over time (is there a skeletal trail to support this?) and was not the original design, this would represent adaptation, not evolution. The resultant monkey is no more or less a monkey than his predecessor.

What creature has been observed to evolve into a new species of animal?