An "Evolutionary" Step Backwards?

Remove all ads!

The first thing my high-school biology teatcher said when we started our class was roughly transelated: "In this room there is no such thing as God, if you want to discuss religous views on science then do so with your religion teatcher". I think it was well said and should apply pretty much everywhere.

The theory in evolution has developed from being just a theory. The fact is that the "religious flock" seem to be the only ones who seriously seek to deny it. Creationism belongs in the religion class or more preferrably in the trashbin.

 

I always laugh about them pointing out flaws in Darwin's theory as proof for creationism - oblivious to the point that that's why it is a theory and not a law.

 

Okay Aldeth I understand what you are saying.

I don't think its a good idea to teach both Evolution and Creationism in the same class, especially if the said class is Science! The 2 theories are not compatible to be taught side-by-side and will surely bring conflict.

 

Creationism is (to my extend of knowledge) more of a hypothesis, from a scientific point of view it lacks everything needed to be called theory.

The worst part is that it is not testable. It would be cool to bring god to do a little creating and designing so that we could verify our assumptions for the genesis...

 

I'll grrant you that Creationism is not testable, but neither is Evolution. You simply can't spend 10,000 years watching the offspring of animals to see what changes occur. You just don't live that long. If you want, as Morogoth suggests, to line the trashbin with Creati0onism, then fill the bin with Evolution and the Big Bang theory, because there is about as much proof of that as there is for God...

 

BTA explained things very well. I would like to add a few things, and build off of what Darkthrone said as well:

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Some people don't seem to understand exactly what types of rigorous testing some idea (or hypothesis as Darkthrone correctly states) has to undergo to become a theory. Like I said, the idea of an atom is still considered a theory. It's specifically called "The Atomic Theory". No one has ever actually seen an atom, not even with the highest power electon microscope, and as such there is no way for us currently to state beyond all doubt that there is such a thing as an atom. However, based on the preponderence of evidence in front of us, I'd say 99.99% of us are pretty convinced that atoms exists.

And the same goes for evolution. Science is incapable of proving that every living thing on the planet today is the product of billions of years of evolution. However, examining the flora and fauna of today with those in the fossil record give evolution a pretty good case.

One final point. To me, evolution and creationism are not even talking about the same thing. Evoultion is about speciation, diversity and the actions of various organisms within ecosystems. It in no way attempts to describe how the world was created, and does a very poor job in describing how life began on this planet. Evolution doesn't even pick up the ball until after the point at which life exists. It shows how life changes and diversifies after being brought into existance, whereas creationism talks about the creation of the world and the universe and how life started. It seems like if anything, those who believe in creationism should be taking the Big Bangers to task and not those who support evolution.

 

Maybe it's a good idea that creationism goes back into the schools, it gives them morals and a reason to believe in those morals..

Science doesn't grant them that, it gives them theories explaing the how's but not the why's, it leads the people to nihilism because they can't come up with the meaning of anything if they believe in the big-bang theory without divine intervention.
People would then ask themselves why it is bad to murder a man, and they can't answer it, there is only the consideration of the punishment of the law between the thought and the act, there is no reason for them to respect human life.

But which version should we then use then?
I don't mean the creationist version exactly by Genesis, but rather a version claiming that God sparked the big bang(as IIRC the RCC has accepted), then the how's(by science) and the why's(by the law of God) are mingled into one.

Yes, then we are conscioulsy lying to the people, but is 'the truth' so important for them?
Isn't it a leaders job to lead the people instead of informing them?

[ February 18, 2005, 09:11: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

"Darwinism" is not dead, even if elements had changed. "Darwinism" is used every single day in every single branch of biology, not just as a background assumption, but as a basis for experimentation and understanding experimental results. And exactly how many bio labs do you think use "Creationism" as a basis for experimentation?

I'm sorry to hear that Maryland has fallen for such buffoonery.

 

One more thing. "Darwinism" is probably one of those branches of thought that has been convoluted and obscured more than almost any theory throughout history. Darwin's original hypothesis stemmed from his observations at the Galapogos Islands. His simple "survival of the fittest" analogy has then been applied to a wide array of theories, most of which they were never intended. It was used to explain social problems, racism, and bigotry just to name a few. I agree with Bion that Darwinism isn't dead, but just be sure that you understand what it is that Darwinism actually stands for before you make that statement (and I do believe that Bion understands).

 

Gnarfflinger, you said:
"I'll grrant you that Creationism is not testable, but neither is Evolution. You simply can't spend 10,000 years watching the offspring of animals to see what changes occur. You just don't live that long. If you want, as Morogoth suggests, to line the trashbin with Creati0onism, then fill the bin with Evolution and the Big Bang theory, because there is about as much proof of that as there is for God..."

As stated before, you don´t have to wait 10,000 years to see the proof of evolution. A new species of orchid evolves in the rainforest at an estimate of 1 every 20 years. If that´s not evolution, I don´t know what it is. But it DOES happen. However, I seriously doubt that divine intervention applies.

And Morgoth, you said:
"Maybe it's a good idea that creationism goes back into the schools, it gives them morals and a reason to believe in those morals.."

And who is going to teach your kids about moral? Catholic priests? Oh yeah, they did a great job "teaching" the altarboys.

And the you said:
"But which version should we then use then?
I don't mean the creationist version exactly by Genesis, but rather a version claiming that God sparked the big bang(as IIRC the RCC has accepted), then the how's(by science) and the why's(by the law of God) are mingled into one.

Yes, then we are conscioulsy lying to the people, but is 'the truth' so important for them?
Isn't it a leaders job to lead the people instead of informing them?"

So what you are saying is that it´s okay to lie to people, as long you are the leader and it´s convienient to do so? Well then, that certainly makes George Bush´s plans of war a hell of a lot easier to execute.

Please correct me if I´m wrong, just keep in mind, that it is EXACTLY what you both said.

 

Nice pun there, but I fail to see the link between teaching the children creationism and 'teaching' them, maybe you read the special kiddy-molest version of the bible?
Are you perhaps implying that every Catholic with power over children likes choir boys too much?
What about every protestant with power over children? Or every muslim with too much power over children? Or every atheist with too much power over children?
Oh hey, why not every teacher with power over children...

Well, on basic reductionist level, there is no difference between "liberating a nation" and Giving all your money to charity, the basis is the same, you are doing what you think is best for yourself.

God waves his hand, "abacadabra", hey look a new species!!
Why doesn't divine intervention apply?

P.S.
Please use the

 

I think Yulaw was talking about evoloution, not creation and how God doesn't control how things evolve, rather their enviroment does.

Teaching Creationisim should be left to biblical studies or at least philosophy classes (if there are any). Besides, I didn't even know the big-bang theory or any other theory was taught in science classes. Those lessons are pointless anyway, teaching a child how the world supposedly came about isn't going to help them in the future.

Separation of church and state is paramount to running a fair and just society. If public schools educate people to believe in the Christian belief system what of the rights of those who are not Christian? Will they fail a test for stating that the world was NOT created by God?

 

But God made the environment right? And still, God is supposed to be omnipotent, it is possible for him to make such a string of mutations that a new species will evolve..

 

Well if you accout God to the changing of the enviroment then obviously the Boxing Day Tsunami was God's doing also since a geographical shift of the earth creates a very large change in the enviroment. But God is supposed to be a just god? A fair god? A god who loves all His children? It's a little contradictory.

So the only non-God-related evoloutions are those brought about by human interference in the enviroment? Unless we are all God's pawns then too...

 

I could ask the same god why my grandmother had to die.

Why can God only affect the evolution at the start of it all?

 

Well, the real issue here is probably, what can be proven at this time. I do not claim to be right, just that I´m having trouble believing the tenets of Creationism based on the facts presented so far.

"1500 years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the Universe. 500 years ago everybody knew the Earth was flat, and 15 minutes ago you knew that we were alone on this planet. Imagine what you´ll know tomorrow."

Yeah yeah, I know, Tommy Lee Jones, still, I like this quote. What I´m saying is that there is only one way to prove the existance of God... Unfortunately you´ll not live to tell about it. So let the kiddies decide for themselves, when they come of age. Religion class, science class, fine by me... But let´s keep it that way. Separated. After all... Didn´t God supposedly give us free will? Heh...

 

Why the hell would you want to prove the existance of god, anyway? Isn't the whole point of faith, like, overcoming doubt?

Knowledge sorta invalidates faith, doesn't it?

 

Agreed. This is a good point.

 

So if faith is excluded on the grounds that it can't be proven, then shouldn't skeptics have the right to demand that evolution or the Big Bang theory be excluded on the same grounds? Aren't the things we are to be taught in school the same regardless of whether we believe in God or not? Do they change if we believe that the Earth was Created or that animals evolved and that the planet came about by sheer chance? I highly doubt it.

The point of excluding things like Creationism, Evolution and the Big Bang Theory, much like I tried to make a while back when Alabama tried to ban Homosexuality from their curriculum, is to allow students to focus on other things and save those debates for when there is nothing more pressing going on, on their own time in a place where these issues can be discussed--like here in the AoDA.