It%26#039;s very simple. In a science classroom, scientific theories are taught. A scientific theory has to:
- Be based upon evidence
- Make accurate predictions
- Allow for changes in light of new data
- Be falsifiable
Evolution is based upon evidence (The fossil record, radiometric dating, genetics), and all attempts to invalidate this evidence have been soundly refuted. If you have a specific qualm that you feel has not yet been addressed, please check this site: http://www.talkorigins.org.
Many sciences use it to make predictions, including taxonomy, biology, and medicine. One specific example was Charles Darwin%26#039;s utilization of the theory of natural selection to predict the physical characteristics of a hypothetical moth that could have pollinated an orchid that was baffling British botanists. Many years later, in Madagascar, a moth was observed pollinating said orchid. It matched Darwin%26#039;s description.|||You must be new here. You are attempting to make sense, and use a sound, rational argument that is backed by evidence. This is forbidden on R%26amp;S.
Heathen!
I CAST THEE OUT!!!
EDIT:
Holy Crap! Where did Bible Man come from? He%26#039;s Epic!
See? You%26#039;ve already angered God. Leave now, before you bring his wrath down upon us all!|||In addition to all that you say, religion does have a place in school... in elective theology classes at a college level. We should not hand kids a set of beliefs that are unfounded and say, %26quot;This is the set of beliefs socially acceptable to this country, please proceed.%26quot;|||Thanks for the websites, I really enjoy reading things like that.|||Excellent overview.
However, i would contend that ID and Creationism need not be %26quot;married%26quot; into a single view.
I believe -- and I admit this is NOT science and thus NOT verifiable -- in Intelligent Design. Yet I ALSO believe in evolution. Why can not both be true?
As for strict %26quot;Creationism%26quot; I find this very concept abhorrent to human reason.
Unfortunately it is now the avowed stand of many Fundamentalist who refuse to use their intellects or reason when making many of their decisions.
In 1986, 460 fundamentalists Christian leaders signed a %26quot;Manifesto for the Christian Church.%26quot; Within it were words that could easily be construed as treasonable. However there was much worse. LIKE THE FOLLOWING:
%26quot;The Bible is the ONLY absolute, objective, final test . . .for philosophies, books, values, actions, plans. . .%26quot;
%26quot;The Bible states reality for ALL areas of life and thought ..., in spheres of law, government, economics, business, education, arts, communication, medecine, psychology, and science.%26quot;
%26quot;All theories and practices of these spheres of life are only true, right, and realistic to the degree that they agree with the Bible.%26quot;
%26quot;Those people or nations that live in opposition to biblical laws and commandments will sooner or later, be cursed and destroyed.%26quot;
DOES THIS NOT FRIGHTEN ANY OF YOU?
And Pope Benedict (when still Cardinal Ratzinger) in commenting about the intrinsic disorder of homosexuality stated that what science has to say about homosexuality was essentually irrelevant. The %26quot;Catholic Church%26quot; KNOWS better!
Fundamentalists need surity and security of %26quot;salvation.%26quot; They are not happy when facts challenge their religious belief or when nuances in the text of their %26quot;inerrent%26quot; Bible are introduced or when forced tio deal wirth either contradictions or changing thought.
They are opposed to many of the most positive values of modern society. Like democracy, pluralism, religious tolerance, peacekeeping, free speech, or the separation between church and state.
What really lies behind fundamentalism is FEAR, a profound insecurity that makes them feel when they meet someone who doesn%26#039;t agree with them you that this challenges and threatens their very being. It is a sign of insecurity and belies a LACK of faith, not the presence of it.
????????????? How come no %26quot;creationsist%26quot; is commenting?
I NEVER claimed to put ID on the same footing as evolution. I stated that it is purely a BELIEF. And i agree that it should NOT be taught as a science. I%26#039;m merely pointing out that ID and Creationism need not be %26quot;joined at the hip.%26quot; And a person who believes that evolution is correct can STILL BELIEVE in ID.|||Personally, I think you are the one who is %26quot;mixed up.%26quot;
So many people (like you) love talkorigins.org, but they never get the other side of the story: http://www.trueorigin.org
Here are some of Darwin’s failed predictions: http://www.judgingpbs.com/dfp-printable....
From what I%26#039;ve seen, I have to agree with Timothy Wallace: “A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science education generally. Even advanced college biology students often understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)”
Now, what about ID? So many people these days are confusing biblical creationism with intelligent design. %26quot;Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence%26quot; (Dr. William Dembski). That%26#039;s it; it says nothing of who the creator is and how he/she/it/they did it. Intelligent Design encompasses every %26quot;creation%26quot; story, even aliens seeding life on this planet.
The thing is, reliable methods for detecting design exist and are employed in forensics, archeology, and data fraud analysis. These methods can easily be employed to detect design in biological systems.
As Dr. Stephen Meyer said (when being interviewed by Nightline), “From the evidence of the information that’s embedded in DNA, from the evidence of the nanotechnology in the cell, we think you can infer that an intelligence played a role. In fact, there are sophisticated statistical methods of design detection that allow scientists to distinguish the effects of an intelligent cause from an undirected natural process. When you apply those statistical measures and criteria to the analysis of the cell, they indicate that the cell was designed by an intelligence.”
Here is a brief overview of the scientific case for ID: http://www.arn.org/docs/positivecaseford...
And for those who put so much faith in peer-review, check this out: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/...
Many people have the problem of not making a distinction between the evidence and the implications. ID may have unsavory theological implications, and so many people simply reject it or dismiss it as religion. But implications don%26#039;t decide the truth of theories—evidence does. As Dr. Stephen Meyer has said, “The evidence is one thing; the implications are another. We want you to settle the discussion on the basis of the evidence.”
=========================
Edit:
The problem is, evolution is too flexible. Evolution is so “plastic” that it can be expanded to fit any data. Even data that is exactly the opposite of what has been used in the past to teach evolution is twisted as new “proof” of evolution.
Dr. Michael G. Houts, “This illustrates another key (non-scientific) feature of the theory of evolution. The theory is constructed in such a way that no matter what the evidence, evolutionists can claim it supports their religion. If a bird is brightly colored, it evolved vivid feathers to attract a mate. If a bird’s plumage is drab, it evolved that drabness to provide camouflage. If similar structures are derived from similar gene sequences, it is because the two species share a common ancestor. If similar structures occur in species that are genetically quite different, it is because of ‘convergent evolution.’ No matter what the evidence, in the eye of the believer, evolution is true.
One criterion for determining if a theory is scientific is if it is falsifiable. In other words, the theory must be constructed in a way that an experiment could be devised to prove it false. In the discussion of similarities between organisms, the theory of evolution is purposely constructed so that no experiment can prove it false.”
As Dr. Don Batten said, “...Darwinism never predicted anything, it was modified to accommodate the observations. In fact, because Darwinism is so malleable as to accommodate almost any conceivable observation, science philosopher Karl Popper proclaimed that it was not falsifiable, and therefore not a proper scientific theory in that sense.”
See: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002...|||OK, I agree with you completely, but is there actually a question here?|||bravo.
that being said, due to some inherent logical deficency in the american zeitgeist, people will still claim that these two paradigms are somehow equal in validity.
we need to take religion off its pedestal and expose it to the same scrutiny as any other set of ideas. as sam harris has stated, religion is a conversation stopper...meaning that any set of claims no matter how well supported seems to be %26quot;refuted%26quot; by saying %26quot;well I believe in x, and thats just as valid, because I have faith%26quot;.
we need to grow up and get honest as a society.|||Bravo!
They still won%26#039;t care though.
I think they%26#039;ve evolved an immeasurably thick skull to prevent new information from entering their brains.|||My favorite part of the ID as science struggle was the silliness around %26#039;irreducible complexity%26#039;. The ID promoters paraded the notion around for about a year claiming it as evidence because no scientist had/could disprove the examples. Then one by one every example was proven wrong.|||Only religious people are mixed up. Great post.|||Well written!|||Very well said. Bravo!|||Wow, you must be new here. You are very well written, but I highly doubt any of this will change the beliefs of the creationists. They are a very stubborn group.
Remember, faith can be used to justify absolutely anything on an equal, and equally unreasonable, basis, regardless of evidence (or lack thereof).|||ignorance and shortsightedness is my guess
I think people that crusade against evolution (or science in general) are weak in their faith and are threatened by their narrow view of the implications of the FACT that we evolved from lower life forms
there is no conflict in my opinion, between religion and science
an atheist
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment