An "Evolutionary" Step Backwards?

Remove all ads!

Interesting. No end, no beginning. Ends and beginnings only happen because there is *time*, which just happens to be a dimension in our particular universe.

Kinda off-topic; insects are entirely programmed and their actions can be predicted with a certain amount of accuracy. A higher organism (in terms of brain development), such as a lizard starts to get a limited amount of decision making, although they too are fairly instinctive and can be predicted. An even higher organism, like a dog starts to get harder to predict. Human beings have such highly developed brains their actions are almost impossible to predict. Brain processes are however still all the same and operating on the same fundamental laws in all four creatures. More powerful brains = more neurons firing in a more coordinated fashion, they are not operating any differently on the most basic level.

 

Will get back to this in the next few days. Will edit this post with actual response. Been kindof busy lately.

 

Cough, interesting though this morality, free will, predetermined etc discussion is, I'm struggeling to see the relevance to the topic whether or not creationism should be tought as science in US schools?

To which of course the answer is no, but I think I did say that

 

Well actually it's a form of yak shaving, if we solve this problem, then we can solve the preceding problem, and a few iterations later we would come to an agreement about evolutions in schools...
But yeah, we are way off-topic

 

Isn't it funny how threads always shoot off on some tangent!

To be back on topic, I am with Viking. No it shouldn't be taught in science class. Seriously, what is there to teach? "You were all created. The end."

 

DARWIN WRONG! MONKEYS INSIST: NO RELATION

TO HUMAN SPECIES!

A leading spokessimian for the monkey species stated today that chimpanzees, gorillas, and orang-utans absolutely reject the idea that they are related in any way with the species known as "homo sapiens". "We would be embarrassed to be associated in any way with the things they do," stated Cheetah, press officer of the All-Simian Congress. "Tarzan was bad enough, with his ridiculous loincloth; but these guys in Maryland don't even have a loincloth." Banana dacquiries were then served to the press.

[ March 18, 2005, 06:05: Message edited by: Cernak ]

 

@Tassadar and Viking: In full agreement.

@Morgoth: Sorry but I am having difficulty mustering up any enthusiasm for the arguable-whether-it-is-even-tangentially-related morallity/free will deabte(at least in THIS thread).


@Tass': Actually there IS a lot more to the issue of teaching Creationism in school(and in particular, in SCIENCE classrooms!). IF we, for whatever brain-addled reason decide to embark on teaching such things in such places, then we must decide on WHICH creationism we are going to teach!

Raelian creationism(if you can call it that) is every bit as scientific and empirically supported as Biblical Creationism(maybe more so!) and the "We were all born in Godzilla's Atomic wrath!" brand I just pulled from my arse is also on equal footing, UNLESS you are using an ad numeri barometer or something(and then my Godzilla-Creationism is just one well-planned PR campaign from overtaking Christian Creationism as THE Creationism!)

[ March 25, 2005, 16:01: Message edited by: RuneQuester ]

 

I'm sorry if this was already posted...but I just couldn't read through all four pages in depth...

I do not see evolution and God as contridictory concepts in the slightest...

God created the universe in such a way that the universe itself (matter) becomes conscious individuals capable of love for one another...and capable of loving Him as well.

He created the universe in such a way that the phenomenon of love can spontaneously (given enough time) appear anywhere in the universe.

What a beautiful thing!

 

Love cannot spontaneously appear anywhere in the universe. Love is a chemical recation that only emerges from sentient lifeforms. IF humans are teh only species with brains capable of such emotion then love will only "exist" where humans exist.

Having said that, the only contention I have with the "God created and used evolution" hypothesis is that I can find no use for it. There is nothing that requires "God" to explain.

 

Well, I'm going to be less livid and less aggressive about expressing my beliefs as some of you seem to be (you know who you are).

I am a Christian - some of you may already be aware of that fact. I do believe that Creationism should be taught in schools. I don't think it should be taught in science class.

You're probably scratching your heads but I believe that if anyone is going to believe in the same things I do that they should come to the same conclusions I have through their own efforts and perusal (which can involve asking me what I believe). People can CHOOSE to believe in Creationism if it's taught in RE, but they don't have to. That's the beauty of this reality, I can choose what I do and do not believe. I believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and just/loving God. People can spout their biological jargon all they want because it won't matter one bit (not like I'll understand it anyways).

Anyways, back to what I'm trying to address in regards to this topic - I do believe Creationism should be taught in schools, but it shouldn't be taught in science class. If you're curious about it, then look into it (I'm happy I did), but it shouldn't be required though.

 

Cryo Mantis: But which Creationism should be taught? The one where everything turns out to be supported on a giant turtle? The one where the Earth Mother fecunds the world? Or did you have some other eternal belief in mind? Will there be multiple Creationism classes to accomodate various beliefs? Or will only your own belief be taught? Will it be taught as Science? Folklore? Mythology? Superstition? Or should it just be served in the cafeteria with the Mysterious Lasagna?

 

I am going to go out on aw limb here and assume that I am the one you are refering to when you charge that some here are being "livid" and "aggressive". If so then I have a little challegne for you which always proves entertaining when this sort of charge pops up against the skeptics and whatnot who hold dissenting views(from the theistic or creationist).
It is a simple challenge. Simply find the passage or statement that indicates aggression on my part and quote it here so that we can take a look at what I said and the context adn all that.

The reason I am asking for you to do this is because it is fairly common that theists charge that we are being "livid" adn "aggressive" in these debates. What is NOT common is substantiation of said charges. You see 99 times out of 100, what happens is that a theist(or creationist or what have you) states a belief or claim. Something along the lines of: "I believe that God did (*this*) or (*that*) because of (*this reason*)." or sometimes even "It is obvious that (*positive assertion about reality such as "you cannot prove X" or "You cannot disprove X"*)".
Then the skeptic or atheist replies with "Not so fast! You CAN prove X/disprove X if you look at it this way..." or "But that is not a compelling reason from the skeptical/logical POV to believe that because (*rational counter-argument*).

Two more theists/creationsits then join in adn offer two more challenges each to the atheist/skeptic adn since he is the only one bothering to argue the atheist/skeptic POV, he responds to each.

The first theist/creationist then notes that the atheist/skeptic has made numerous posts with lengthy arguments and none of them agreeing with anyone else. It registers in the theist's mind that this indicates a general disagreeableness/bitterness/crankyness on the atheist's part adn we all know that cranky/bitter/disagreeable people are volitile/aggressive and "livid" about their beliefs, right?

Thing is that disagreement itself, no matter the quantity or frequency, does not indicate aggressive or livid attitude.

I think atheists and skeptics are subject to this mischaracterization WAY more than others for the simple fact that our positions are usually the 'negative' positions(negative in the philosophical sense of not being an assertion but instead a response).

As for teaching creationism in schools. I disagree(surprise!), for the reasons Cernak stated aove. I would add that, if we start teaching your personal mystical/spiritual beliefs in school then we have NO GROUNDS to deny teaching EVERYONE's personal spiritual/supernatural/metaphysical beliefs. Not just variations of creationism but the belief that genies create volcanos by farting beneath the earth's crust or that wooden houses can be dismantled with wolves' breath(thus endangering the pigs who live in them). No matter how silly these would be to YOU, we must teach them if we can find one person who claims they are important to him.