you didnt read my whole post, did you?
go ahead, re-read it one more time, then you can apologize.
you didnt read my whole post, did you?
go ahead, re-read it one more time, then you can apologize.
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: chess9
Mrs. Cox apparently thinks "creationism" (aka "creation science") is a "competing theory" to evolution. Unfortunately, this statement only reveals an enormous ignorance on her part. No scientific theory of creation exists. Creation is a bible story, not science. Bible stories belong in bible schools and churches not public schools. I have often commented about the abysmal state of America's understanding of biological basics. Mrs. Cox made the case better than I ever could have.
Hero, if you believe the story of creation fine. That is your right. Don't call it science and don't pass off some creationist crap you copy and paste from some dim witted site as science. Creationists are bigger liars than politicians, and that is a big hurdle to leap. Many of the top creationists have phony degrees from phony "universities" and wouldn't know an allele from an Acura.
Good grief, you right wingers are hopelessy mired in nonesense. It's probably evolution gone bad....
Let's not go on with this debate because you don't want to learn any science. You want your prejudices pumped into the veins of every child in America.
-Robert
I'm not calling it science. Your reading comprehension sucks.
I'm calling it a theory. I'm also calling evolution a theory. Neither has any place in a science classroom.
Theory of relativity is also a theory, I guess we shouldn't teach it either. Or geometry. Two parallel lines don't intersect is an axiom, not proven. Non-euclidian geometry assumes they do intersect. So we shouldn't teach geometry. Let's just stop teaching things that are theories. That way our children don't have to think too hard.
Sure, Atlantis is also a theory so let's teach that as well. We could also teach the alien seeding theory. And the flat earth theory.
But as long as their teaching evolution as theory and not fact, then what do I care as long as they include every other creation theory as well.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Wheee!!!!!!!!
I have a duck.
No I have a cow.
No I have a duck.
No I have a cow.
Stand down guys. A lot of this is apples and oranges.
In SCIENCE class people can teach SCIENTIFIC theories.
In RELIGION class, people can teach RELIGIOUS viewpoints.
Sometimes they disagree, and sometimes they do not. In either case, like my example above, if people take different concepts in inappropriate contexts, you will see some things argued that make no sense.
HOP, when people come into church and scream for evolution over creationism, then you have a problem. When creationists go into classrooms demanding they revoke science, then they have a problem.
I see the second, but not the first.
I have a duck.
No I have a cow.
No I have a duck.
No I have a cow.
Stand down guys. A lot of this is apples and oranges.
In SCIENCE class people can teach SCIENTIFIC theories.
In RELIGION class, people can teach RELIGIOUS viewpoints.
Sometimes they disagree, and sometimes they do not. In either case, like my example above, if people take different concepts in inappropriate contexts, you will see some things argued that make no sense.
HOP, when people come into church and scream for evolution over creationism, then you have a problem. When creationists go into classrooms demanding they revoke science, then they have a problem.
I see the second, but not the first.
For Hero:
"In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution."
- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
Link
From the same link:
Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983
Also:
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.
etc.
"In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution."
- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
Link
From the same link:
Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983
Also:
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.
etc.
So if they teach relativity, they should also have to teach the dozens of alternative theories too? Anyone can come up with a theory of creation or evolution. Should the all be taught?Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: chess9
Mrs. Cox apparently thinks "creationism" (aka "creation science") is a "competing theory" to evolution. Unfortunately, this statement only reveals an enormous ignorance on her part. No scientific theory of creation exists. Creation is a bible story, not science. Bible stories belong in bible schools and churches not public schools. I have often commented about the abysmal state of America's understanding of biological basics. Mrs. Cox made the case better than I ever could have.
Hero, if you believe the story of creation fine. That is your right. Don't call it science and don't pass off some creationist crap you copy and paste from some dim witted site as science. Creationists are bigger liars than politicians, and that is a big hurdle to leap. Many of the top creationists have phony degrees from phony "universities" and wouldn't know an allele from an Acura.
Good grief, you right wingers are hopelessy mired in nonesense. It's probably evolution gone bad....
Let's not go on with this debate because you don't want to learn any science. You want your prejudices pumped into the veins of every child in America.
-Robert
I'm not calling it science. Your reading comprehension sucks.
I'm calling it a theory. I'm also calling evolution a theory. Neither has any place in a science classroom.
Theory of relativity is also a theory, I guess we shouldn't teach it either. Or geometry. Two parallel lines don't intersect is an axiom, not proven. Non-euclidian geometry assumes they do intersect. So we shouldn't teach geometry. Let's just stop teaching things that are theories. That way our children don't have to think too hard.
Sure, Atlantis is also a theory so let's teach that as well. We could also teach the alien seeding theory. And the flat earth theory.
But as long as their teaching evolution as theory and not fact, then what do I care as long as they include every other creation theory as well.
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 31,731
- 48,552
- 136
I don't ever recall hearing a theory about Atlantis. I remember a myth about it, hence the phrase "The Mythical City of Atlantis." - How does this apply?
The 'alien seeding theory' is a view shared by an extreme few, and lacks the moutains of research behind it that evolution has. - How does this apply?
There is no such thing as a 'flat earth theory,' although at one time most held this view. - How does this apply? (I find it odd that you'd use this as an example, as it was the church and it's followers who gave it the most resistance).
It still boils down to you guys considering creationism a theory, when it isn't. Theories are subject to refinement after analysis and testing, and are open to new views, providing there is enough substance to warrant their inclusion. Your religious story is a static, anthropomorphically sugar-coated easy-to-swallow geltab, NOT a reliable or accurate explanation of earth's earlier days.
GrGr:
Nice post.
Another good book is "The Growth of Biological Thought", by Ernst Mayr. Or his "What Evolution Is".
Gould is fantastic of course. Very readable and much more so than Mayr. Mayr's a bit dry.
Just one book and about 2-5 hours of reading and you can grasp the fundamental ideas in evolutionary biology.
-Robert
Nice post.
Another good book is "The Growth of Biological Thought", by Ernst Mayr. Or his "What Evolution Is".
Gould is fantastic of course. Very readable and much more so than Mayr. Mayr's a bit dry.
Just one book and about 2-5 hours of reading and you can grasp the fundamental ideas in evolutionary biology.
-Robert
Genysis: I was referring to your post about mathematics and science, not your subsequent post. If I offended you, I'm sorry, but if you are going to wrestle varsity you gotta' put on a little more muscle. 
--Robert
--Robert
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
this kinda sh*t makes it harder to laugh at the nutty religious schools in the middle east.
us religious clerics declare fatwa. there is no evolution!
allah says so! or was that just me...
religion has had a tradition of fighting science, and always has come out poorer for it. wasn't all that long ago when the earth being the center of the solar system and the sun orbiting the earth were the only biblically acceptable ideas. anyything else was...blasphemy.
us religious clerics declare fatwa. there is no evolution!
allah says so! or was that just me...
religion has had a tradition of fighting science, and always has come out poorer for it. wasn't all that long ago when the earth being the center of the solar system and the sun orbiting the earth were the only biblically acceptable ideas. anyything else was...blasphemy.
"Religion is the opiate of the masses." Marx
Look what religion has done in the middle east. Look what it did in the middle ages. Religion, all religion, is nothing but an attempt to explain the unknown and it has been detrimental throughout the span of history. People, for some reason, can't admit that there are some things they just don't understand so they make up explainations. Institutions are created and the people are controlled. Orthodox christians are a perfect example. They never think about any of their beliefs, they just swallow what they're told.
Evolution has been proved and creationism isn't a thery, its childrens story.
Look what religion has done in the middle east. Look what it did in the middle ages. Religion, all religion, is nothing but an attempt to explain the unknown and it has been detrimental throughout the span of history. People, for some reason, can't admit that there are some things they just don't understand so they make up explainations. Institutions are created and the people are controlled. Orthodox christians are a perfect example. They never think about any of their beliefs, they just swallow what they're told.
Evolution has been proved and creationism isn't a thery, its childrens story.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
But on the other hand this seems to be your religion. It certainly purports to present your beliefs about god and religion as fact. I should not have to remind you what Stalin and Mao did, and they were completely free from religious orthodoxy.
That is why I hate these kinds of threads.
All of science hates religion and all of religion hates science, or so it seems. Well, that is what one is forced to come away from here.
Science vs Religion? If you insist.
I'll take Bruce Lee vs Coke.
preslove
Lifer
- Sep 10, 2003
- 16,754
- 64
- 91
For those of you that don't know, Darwin was a devout christian and, for a while, a divinity student training for the ministry. He saw no contradiction in this because he was an intelligent man who understood the difference between faith and objective knowledge (science). Many evolutionary biologists are christians as are theoretical physicists who are trying to figure out what happened in the nanoseconds following the big bang. They can be christians and scientists because they understand the difference between the heart (religion, spirituality, whatever you want to call it) and the mind (science, desire for progress, accumalation of worldly goods).
Face it people, the Bible, the quran, the hindu vedas etc, are all great books that are part of the HUMANITIES. They contain great wisdom that can give us better understanding of the world and how it works. They contain beautiful allegories that give a picture of things THAT STILL GO ON TODAY (I, an athiest, love the fruit metaphor in genesis, it has so many different meanings). What none of them contain is an objective narrative of the history of the universe/mankind. If you actually think that some stone age tribe (take your pick) actually came up with an accurate analysis of reality then you are beyond hope and really should stop trying to think.
So, if you want to understand how our biosphere came to be what it is, you should read the work of an evolutionary biologist (I like Richard Dawkins' Selfish Gene). If you want a better understanding of yourself and/or the world around you, you should maybe read a sacred text and look for streems of meaning touch you. All of the great religious traditions (whether its the semetic religions of christianity, Islam, and Judaism; the Indian traditions of hinduism, buddhism, and the many many many other masters; or an indigenous shamanic religion of the americans) have something to teach you if you are willing to shut the fvck up and listen with your heart. This is Knowledge with a capital K. Friends, this Knowledge has nothing to do with teaching you how to interpret the fossil record.
In short, Shut the fvck up, open up your heart, and feel the knowledge that humans have been feeling for thousands of years.
Face it people, the Bible, the quran, the hindu vedas etc, are all great books that are part of the HUMANITIES. They contain great wisdom that can give us better understanding of the world and how it works. They contain beautiful allegories that give a picture of things THAT STILL GO ON TODAY (I, an athiest, love the fruit metaphor in genesis, it has so many different meanings). What none of them contain is an objective narrative of the history of the universe/mankind. If you actually think that some stone age tribe (take your pick) actually came up with an accurate analysis of reality then you are beyond hope and really should stop trying to think.
So, if you want to understand how our biosphere came to be what it is, you should read the work of an evolutionary biologist (I like Richard Dawkins' Selfish Gene). If you want a better understanding of yourself and/or the world around you, you should maybe read a sacred text and look for streems of meaning touch you. All of the great religious traditions (whether its the semetic religions of christianity, Islam, and Judaism; the Indian traditions of hinduism, buddhism, and the many many many other masters; or an indigenous shamanic religion of the americans) have something to teach you if you are willing to shut the fvck up and listen with your heart. This is Knowledge with a capital K. Friends, this Knowledge has nothing to do with teaching you how to interpret the fossil record.
In short, Shut the fvck up, open up your heart, and feel the knowledge that humans have been feeling for thousands of years.
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
Look at what humanism has done to America. You need two dead bolts on your door, an alarm on your car, kids are having sex parties in junior high, stds and drugs are worse than ever. Oh, but MAN, don't you DARE suggest there's a God frowning upon all of this...that would make me feel bad and I hate that.
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
There ya go
Children have to grow up and understand fundamentals. Perhaps you can protect your children from science, and have them go into business or art or something.
What disturbs me about many "religious" is that their faith is so weak that they cannot stand those who question how a thing may have happened.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
your pretending crime hasn't dropped. your ideas aren't based on fact, nostolgia is blinding. your safer in todays america then ever. in the past, unless you were rich, life was brutish, nasty and short.
and i don't even need to bring up righteous religious people beating their N8*ggers do i?
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
Too bad your parents protected you from reading classes. Where have I said that science is bad? Post any quote.
You are all arguing against a strawman who villifies science. That's not me. I just don't want origin THEORIES taught in a science class at all. Evolution is not fact...there is too much scientific evidence against evolution and not enough for it to make it fact.
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
I find it funny that there are still ignoramuses that don't believe in evolution. And before I am attacked by the fundies, I am a Christian.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Because it clearly refutes your attempts to twist the meaning of "theory" in the phrase "Theory of Evolution'.
No qualified, objective scientists dispute that life evolves, that today's species evolved from other, earlier species. They may dispute assorted details about the mechanics and about the evolutionary paths of specific species, but only the uneducated and religious fundamentalists try to deny evolution is real. The "facts" you present are misrepresentations by people who denounced evolution first, then sought pseudo-facts to support their denunciation. Their objections are NOT valid science.
Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. One only has to accept that evolution is the mechanism God used to create man.
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
Sorry, some of us just weren't so easily programmed.
Anyway, as a Christian you believe that God started the Big Bang and then sat back for billions of years until these past few thousand when he's finally been able to relate to us?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter