Darwinism in schools?

[Et_Cetera]

My main issue with putting ID in science classes is that is not consistently agreed upon and it just doesn’t have the backing or proof that evolution does. It is not a science, per se. It seems more like a religious supplementation to science. If parents or private schools want to teach it, then I guess I would have to support that in theory. Evolution is a scientific subject that can stand on its own; the Catholic church even supports it. To me, putting ID in science class is kind of like trying to incorporate exercise into a math class. Math and gym are two different subjects. Evolution is well agreed upon by scientists, and it fits within a science curriculum. Any supplementary ID education should not be done in the public tax-funded schools. If ID is put in the classes, then how many other “theories” will they have to take? Science education at the public level is already pretty dire in most districts. If we are to progress as a country with our scientific knowledge, I don’t think we can afford to detract from our science classes.

 

[johnnyjones]

Yes, that is adaptation. But you must concede that I did get from one species to another, if we take horses and donkeys. They cannot produce fertile children, so they are different species. Adaptation is what it’s all about.

Secondly, I think you are mistaking science for religion with your comments on Darwin.
In a religion like Christianity, you have somebody say something (in the Bible, for instance), and then people decide that that’s true, and spend centuries making arguments on why the first thing that was said was right.
In science, the concept develops (one might even say it evolves). Darwin could have been wrong about 95% of what he wrote, and it wouldn’t make much difference. Darwin gets credit for getting the idea rolling, but that doesn’t mean Origin of Species must be definitively true, and that all subsequent work must fit its parameters. Darwin got an idea rolling, which has been developed, enhanced, and refined through 150 years of other scientists.
The fact that Darwin included problems with his own theory for future work (by himself and others) shows a level of honesty. The process of including future work and unanswered questions is common in scientific papers. It’s not that Darwin couldn’t believe it, it’s that he didn’t understand everything when he wrote the book. Again, I think you’re conflating science and religion.

So now, about gaps in the fossil record, I alluded to it in the post above, but I didn’t point it out specifically, so allow me to do so now.
Do me a favor and pretend evolution is true just for a few sentences.
I think you’ll agree with all these statements, but if I’m wrong, please let me know where you feel I have gone wrong.
Evolution happens slowest when there is no impetus to change. That is: if there is no trait that increases an individual’s likelihood of breeding, there is nothing to cause natural selection to select.
By that token, evolution happens fastest when there is the most pressure on a system. As with my sheep example above, there was very little change, perhaps for a few hundred thousand years. Then a drought occurred and suddenly there is evolutionary pressure. Within the space of a few thousand years now, there is a significantly large phenotype change (change in physical characteristics). During these times, there are also, necessarily, fewer creatures, because the odds of survival are so reduced (by definition of the increased evolutionary pressure).
But once they have adapted to that new scenario, the differential survivability of phenotypic changes are decreasing relative to the population at large. There would then be hundreds of thousands of years where these species continue creating genetic diversity from their close cousins, but with minimal phenotypc changes.

What this means, regarding the probability distribution is that, if we find a random skeleton, the periods of rapid transition are just that:rapid. They represent only a few percent of the timeframe. They also had less individuals in them. Therefore, it makes sense that we see fewer transitional species fossils than fossils of creatures living on the plateaus.

Additionally, we HAVE found a large number of transitional fossils. But the idea that we will find transitional fossils for every branching everywhere is silly to expect.

You also said I only discussed how life alters, not how life began. That was intentional, since that is not in the scope of evolution. I’m not saying it’s not in the scope of science, just that it’s not what evolution deals with (much like applying etymology to the electrons on a tungsten atom is not applicable).

I’m sure you do like what C. Everett Coop said. I like a lot of things a lot of people have said, too, especially people who said things that support what I already believed. Those people rule.
And yes, I always admit that I can learn more.

I think I got everything.

Edit: certain things read in negative ways that I didn’t intend, I am trying to change the wording to reflect that.

I like to keep things simple. I can get deep and I’ve been down that road but lets stick to some minor probing. Do you embrace as a fact (not idea) that all complex life forms came from one cell that of itself has an improbable origin.? Now even if we take that leap. We then have to take the leap that simultaneously or at least quasi simultaneously duplicate cells were “evolving” (male , female). I also want to touch on something you got heavy into.

If giraffes experienced too much competition for food, so that they had to stretch their necks even higher to reach the top most leaves of trees, then, ultimately, if all generations stretched their necks, the necks of descendents would get longer. It’s sometimes called Lamarckianism. Question: would parents who who work out with weights everyday automatically pass the development of large muscles to their children?

Lets take it even further. Would having a leg amputated cause a man to have legless children.? I mean, even if every father in every generation was so unfortunate as to have his leg amputated, would the children be legless? The parents DNA cells are not effected by such things but the giraffe and almost every other species is. This is a simple illustration of what the core of the evolutionary process is. We don’t even need to go to God yet.

 

[LJH_80]

I like to keep things simple. I can get deep and I’ve been down that road but lets stick to some minor probing. Do you embrace as a fact (not idea) that all complex life forms came from one cell that of itself has an improbable origin.? Now even if we take that leap. We then have to take the leap that simultaneously or at least quasi simultaneously duplicate cells were “evolving” (male , female). I also want to touch on something you got heavy into.

If giraffes experienced too much competition for food, so that they had to stretch their necks even higher to reach the top most leaves of trees, then, ultimately, if all generations stretched their necks, the necks of descendents would get longer. It’s sometimes called Lamarckianism. Question: would parents who who work out with weights everyday automatically pass the development of large muscles to their children?

Lets take it even further. Would having a leg amputated cause a man to have legless children.? I mean, even if every father in every generation was so unfortunate as to have his leg amputated, would the children be legless? The parents DNA cells are not effected by such things but the giraffe and almost every other species is. This is a simple illustration of what the core of the evolutionary process is. We don’t even need to go to God yet.

Are you trolling?
It would seem that the only way to be this specifically wrong were if it was deliberate.
Lamarkianism is an almost-entirely discredited theory. There have been some Lamarkian-esque things that have shown up recently in the field of epigenetics, but they are largely systemic effects due to the methylation and chromatin restructuring (I don’t think this is where you were going, so I’ll stop here).
The example of the giraffes stretching their necks out is exactly the type of thing that would** not** transfer genetically…

Lamarkianism is NOT evolution. Since you like to keep things simple, let me set out the differences directly:
Lamarkianism: A giraffe is born. This giraffe stretches its neck to reach the leaves, and this stretching effort is passed on to its children. This doesn’t happen.
Evolution: Multiple giraffes are born, some are born with genes that will make them have longer necks than others (much like humans come in a variety of heights, even among siblings). The ones who have the longer necks can reach more food, and are more likely to survive long enough to pass on their genes to their kids. When these tall giraffes have kids, the taller ones of those kids will reach even more food, and thus will be more likely to have taller children.
Now, the longer the neck works, the more the heart has to work to pump the blood. At some point, the amount of food the giraffe could reach by being a little taller is not worth the extra heart trouble. At this point, the plateau is reached, and the necks stop getting longer.

Regarding the origins of life, from a single cell to multi-cell organisms, yes. I agree it is incredibly improbable. In fact it’s so improbable that it would probably have taken an entire planet of single cells billions of years for it to start happening.
Caution, math ahead:
Fortunately, if we assume that a cell could divide 1,000 times a year (about 3 times a day), and that in the prehistoric oceans, there may have been 10^24 cells at any one time (there are about 10^13 in a human body, and about 10^10 humans on the planet, I made us 10% of the prehistoric biomass, a very conservative estimate). Then if we give these cells a billion years to do their thing, we end up with 10^36, or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cell divisions. Thus the formation of good polycellular organisms is allowed to be improbable, since it had a lot of time to happen, and it really only had to happen once.

As far as me embracing it as a “fact.” my definition of “fact” and yours may be off. But for my definition, I do take it as that.
(my definition being the event that, given current evidence, has a significantly higher probability of actuality than any other proposed theory I am aware of).

 

[principio]

There are many things out there that challenge and tempt me to doubt my faith, Darwinism and evolution is not one of them.

It seems faith in God and evolution can be easily reconciled. Curious though how this is a source of serious conflict, bringing out the worst on both sides… which leads me to believe Darwin was correct and we did evolve from monkeys.

 

[Hokomai]

Firstly why, if species have decended from other species by insensibly fine gradations do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?

The fact is that shared DNA means that species have evolved one from the other. The ‘how’ is about theory. Evolution is an observable fact. If you really want to be persuaded about ‘transitional forms’, just Google ‘ring species’. Species are not well defined. Dogs and wolves and coyotes can interbreed.

 

[johnnyjones]

Are you trolling?
It would seem that the only way to be this specifically wrong were if it was deliberate.
Lamarkianism is an almost-entirely discredited theory. There have been some Lamarkian-esque things that have shown up recently in the field of epigenetics, but they are largely systemic effects due to the methylation and chromatin restructuring (I don’t think this is where you were going, so I’ll stop here).
The example of the giraffes stretching their necks out is exactly the type of thing that would** not** transfer genetically…

Lamarkianism is NOT evolution. Since you like to keep things simple, let me set out the differences directly:
Lamarkianism: A giraffe is born. This giraffe stretches its neck to reach the leaves, and this stretching effort is passed on to its children. This doesn’t happen.
Evolution: Multiple giraffes are born, some are born with genes that will make them have longer necks than others (much like humans come in a variety of heights, even among siblings). The ones who have the longer necks can reach more food, and are more likely to survive long enough to pass on their genes to their kids. When these tall giraffes have kids, the taller ones of those kids will reach even more food, and thus will be more likely to have taller children.
Now, the longer the neck works, the more the heart has to work to pump the blood. At some point, the amount of food the giraffe could reach by being a little taller is not worth the extra heart trouble. At this point, the plateau is reached, and the necks stop getting longer.

Regarding the origins of life, from a single cell to multi-cell organisms, yes. I agree it is incredibly improbable. In fact it’s so improbable that it would probably have taken an entire planet of single cells billions of years for it to start happening.
Caution, math ahead:
Fortunately, if we assume that a cell could divide 1,000 times a year (about 3 times a day), and that in the prehistoric oceans, there may have been 10^24 cells at any one time (there are about 10^13 in a human body, and about 10^10 humans on the planet, I made us 10% of the prehistoric biomass, a very conservative estimate). Then if we give these cells a billion years to do their thing, we end up with 10^36, or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cell divisions. Thus the formation of good polycellular organisms is allowed to be improbable, since it had a lot of time to happen, and it really only had to happen once.

As far as me embracing it as a “fact.” my definition of “fact” and yours may be off. But for my definition, I do take it as that.
(my definition being the event that, given current evidence, has a significantly higher probability of actuality than any other proposed theory I am aware of).

Why the sarcasm? Your drifting into that seething hostility that always seems to develop when the religion of evolution is questioned. Is it the duty of “science” to defend the theory of evolution and stick by it to the bitter end, no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers? You accept that random processes could have constructed a reality of which the smallest element, a functional protein or gene, so complex beyond intelligence, is somehow embraceable. Sounds similar to what the God concept is called. Yes, the likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is all that math and more you gave me.That alone is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory.

But if it were not random one could argue purpose. Back to the giraffes. Why should a giraffe have any kind of neck, short or tall at all? Your answer may lie in theory, not actual science. Science can be demonstrated. Remember N.H. Nilsson, the famous Botanist, how he stated his experiment to demonstrate evolution carried on for more than 40 years had completely failed. Thats the kind of honest approach that needs to be taken to the evolution argument. You make a strange statement. You take evolution as “fact” yet you know it to be a theory.

Science mixed with speculation does not provide all the relevant answers. The magic formula of random mutations and natural selection is a tautology. You believe and support evolution, I get it. Hundreds of well educated scientists do as well. But not all.The same could be said of the religious world. How could a PHD believe in God?

How do you teach origins in a secular world? Evolution. You can’t teach God in the public school system, so the working theory of evolution is presented side by side with geology, physics and some form of paleontology. Even you admit much assuming is involved to explain evolution. As much assuming I would submit as the God concept might take.

 

[rossum]

Your drifting into that seething hostility that always seems to develop when the religion of evolution is questioned.

I find it interesting that when you seek to criticise evolution you call it a “religion”. Are you implying that “religion” is less important than “science”? Evolution is normally assigned to the latter category.

Is it the duty of “science” to defend the theory of evolution and stick by it to the bitter end, no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers?

No. Science seeks the best available answers. Evolution provides the best available answers to certain questions in biology. If you have better answers, and the experimental evidence to support those answers, then science will adopt those answers.

You accept that random processes could have constructed a reality of which the smallest element, a functional protein or gene, so complex beyond intelligence, is somehow embraceable.

Your understanding of evolution is faulty. Evolution includes both random mutation and natural selection. By omitting natural selection, which is not a random process, you are showing your lack of knowledge.

Yes, the likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is all that math and more you gave me.That alone is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory.

Again, you are showing your lack of relevant knowledge. Darwin called his book “On the Origin of Species”. He did not call it “On the Origin of Life”. Evolution does not deal with the origin of life, that is a separate scientific subject, called abiogenesis. You might be interested in what Darwin wrote about the origin of life:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. (emphasis added)

Source: Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 6th edition, Chapter 15

Why should a giraffe have any kind of neck, short or tall at all?

Because a giraffe’s ancestors had necks.

You can’t teach God in the public school system

There is more to the world than the USA. In the UK it is legal to teach God in the state school system.

rossum

 

[johnnyjones]

The fact is that shared DNA means that species have evolved one from the other. The ‘how’ is about theory. Evolution is an observable fact. If you really want to be persuaded about ‘transitional forms’, just Google ‘ring species’. Species are not well defined. Dogs and wolves and coyotes can interbreed.

The words that you just responded to were Charles Darwin’s, not mine (Origin Of Species first edition reprint page 205, 2nd paragraph from chapter “Difficulty with theory”) Take it up with him (or the publisher since hes dead). As well, similar DNA is not equal DNA.

 

[johnnyjones]

I find it interesting that when you seek to criticise evolution you call it a “religion”. Are you implying that “religion” is less important than “science”? Evolution is normally assigned to the latter category.

No. Science seeks the best available answers. Evolution provides the best available answers to certain questions in biology. If you have better answers, and the experimental evidence to support those answers, then science will adopt those answers.

Your understanding of evolution is faulty. Evolution includes both random mutation and natural selection. By omitting natural selection, which is not a random process, you are showing your lack of knowledge.

Again, you are showing your lack of relevant knowledge. Darwin called his book “On the Origin of Species”. He did not call it “On the Origin of Life”. Evolution does not deal with the origin of life, that is a separate scientific subject, called abiogenesis. You might be interested in what Darwin wrote about the origin of life:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. (emphasis added)

Source: Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 6th edition, Chapter 15

Because a giraffe’s ancestors had necks.

There is more to the world than the USA. In the UK it is legal to teach God in the state school system.

rossum

#1 Criticize doesn’t equal religion. A religion is a system of belief, you discount that?
#2 Science can seek all the answers it wants and it demonstrates. Evolution does not demonstrate, it hypothesizes. My better answer is purpose, not a random mess that is admittedly unfathomable by many in its own camp.
#3 Oh boy , ya got me, I omitted another needed process. Your starting to show your emotions over this theory.
#4 I know there are differences between Darwin and evolution and have said so. It’s really irrelevant at this point.
#5 What are you trying to tell me with the quote, that Darwin believed the world was created by a deity?
#6 And if you fully embrace it, a giraffe was once a frog.
#7Yes I was speaking of the US.

 

[rossum]

#1 Criticize doesn’t equal religion. A religion is a system of belief, you discount that?

Science requires evidence; belief does not require evidence. Science is not a belief.

#2 Science can seek all the answers it wants and it demonstrates. Evolution does not demonstrate, it hypothesizes.

All science hypothesises. Hypotheses that are not confirmed are rejected. Science is constructed from the survivors. Evolutionary hypotheses have generally survived. Every time an insect evolves resistance to an insecticide an evolutionary hypothesis is supported: the insect population is adapting to its changed environment.

My better answer is purpose, not a random mess that is admittedly unfathomable by many in its own camp.

Where is your evidence?

#3 Oh boy , ya got me, I omitted another needed process. Your starting to show your emotions over this theory.

Thank you for admitting your error.

#4 I know there are differences between Darwin and evolution and have said so. It’s really irrelevant at this point.

The difference between abiogenesis and evolution is not irrelevant, different processes are involved. Evolution has indeed changed since Darwin’s day: Mendelian genetics, DNA and other ideas have been incorporated into the theory.

#5 What are you trying to tell me with the quote, that Darwin believed the world was created by a deity?

To inform you as to Darwin’s opinion on the origin of life.

#6 And if you fully embrace it, a giraffe was once a frog.

Again you misunderstand evolution. You were not once your cousin, it is just that you and your cousin share common ancestors: grandparents. A giraffe and a frog share a common ancestor, but that ancestor was neither a giraffe nor a frog. Similarly, neither you nor your cousin are your grandparents, though you are both descended from them.

#7Yes I was speaking of the US.

OK.

rossum

 

[LJH_80]

Why the sarcasm? Your drifting into that seething hostility that always seems to develop when the religion of evolution is questioned. Is it the duty of “science” to defend the theory of evolution and stick by it to the bitter end, no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers? You accept that random processes could have constructed a reality of which the smallest element, a functional protein or gene, so complex beyond intelligence, is somehow embraceable. Sounds similar to what the God concept is called. Yes, the likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is all that math and more you gave me.That alone is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory.

But if it were not random one could argue purpose. Back to the giraffes. Why should a giraffe have any kind of neck, short or tall at all? Your answer may lie in theory, not actual science. Science can be demonstrated. Remember N.H. Nilsson, the famous Botanist, how he stated his experiment to demonstrate evolution carried on for more than 40 years had completely failed. Thats the kind of honest approach that needs to be taken to the evolution argument. You make a strange statement. You take evolution as “fact” yet you know it to be a theory.

Science mixed with speculation does not provide all the relevant answers. The magic formula of random mutations and natural selection is a tautology. You believe and support evolution, I get it. Hundreds of well educated scientists do as well. But not all.The same could be said of the religious world. How could a PHD believe in God?

How do you teach origins in a secular world? Evolution. You can’t teach God in the public school system, so the working theory of evolution is presented side by side with geology, physics and some form of paleontology. Even you admit much assuming is involved to explain evolution. As much assuming I would submit as the God concept might take.

I agree, some assumptions are necessary for Evolution.
I also agree that some assumptions are necessary for history. Can you prove to me that Abraham Lincoln was our 16th president, scientifically? Can you create a whole bunch of little United Stateses (I don’t think I’ve ever pluralized that before), and then show that Abraham Lincolns tend to be the 16th president in a reproducible fashion? Of course not. That’s absurd. We go back, and take the best evidence that exists.

God is not contradicted by evolution. I’m not even saying He didn’t guide evolution. But whether or not God guided evolution is not the subject for science class. Likewise, when a physics class teaches the equations of gravity, it’s unnecessary to say “And God made the gravitational constant to be…” The gravitational constant is 6.67x10^-11, and if you believe that God made the universe, then you believe God made it that way. And you can even believe that God made it that way for a purpose, like you can believe God created evolution for a purpose.

You have obviously read a lot about this subject, but I don’t believe you have actually read any works that support it. All the questions you raise are easily dismissed with even a cursory study of the science from the perspective to actually understand it. I have read anit-evolution books, and find that 90% of their content is tripe. There are occasional issues they point out I cannot quite explain by current understanding, but the same exists in many other fields.

The big issue is the idea that God is a “God of the Gaps.” That there needs to be things that we don’t understand in order for God to have a place. I think that cheapens the idea of God. For me, the more I find out about the universe He created, the more impressive He seems. For you, the more we know about the universe, the less mystical it is, and therefore the less “Godly.”

If you want to learn the science, look for evidence of it being true (things like drug-resistant bacteria). Think about what you would have to see for it to be true, and look for those things. Always ask yourself what would need to be seen to disprove your current theory.

There are many things out there that challenge and tempt me to doubt my faith, Darwinism and evolution is not one of them.

principio:

It seems faith in God and evolution can be easily reconciled. Curious though how this is a source of serious conflict, bringing out the worst on both sides… which leads me to believe Darwin was correct and we did evolve from monkeys.

What I believe is the real reason for those who hate evolution is not what it says about our past. It’s what it says about our future.
If evolution is true in its entirety, that would mean that humanity is just another intermediate species that may well become something else, when evolutionary pressures are altered. But religion is appealing because it teaches that humans are the pinacle of creation, made special by God. But if evolution is true, then there might be something better than you later on.
For some people, that’s tough to take, and insulting.

I personally find it hopeful.

 

[LJH_80]

Also, johnnyjones, there is another aspect of education I feel obliged to pass on.

Now, you may disagree with this, because it is rather controversial, and is really just a theory, but I feel obliged to put it forward.

“YOUR” is not the same thing as “YOU’RE.”

Now, again, I don’t want to interfere with your beliefs, if you’re set on believing them (you see what I did there?).

Silliness aside, anybody who wants to come off as the most educated person in a discussion does lose credibility for grammatical/spelling errors. This will help out the next time you get into this argument.

 

[johnnyjones]

Science requires evidence; belief does not require evidence. Science is not a belief.

All science hypothesises. Hypotheses that are not confirmed are rejected. Science is constructed from the survivors. Evolutionary hypotheses have generally survived. Every time an insect evolves resistance to an insecticide an evolutionary hypothesis is supported: the insect population is adapting to its changed environment.

Where is your evidence?

Thank you for admitting your error.

The difference between abiogenesis and evolution is not irrelevant, different processes are involved. Evolution has indeed changed since Darwin’s day: Mendelian genetics, DNA and other ideas have been incorporated into the theory.

To inform you as to Darwin’s opinion on the origin of life.

Again you misunderstand evolution. You were not once your cousin, it is just that you and your cousin share common ancestors: grandparents. A giraffe and a frog share a common ancestor, but that ancestor was neither a giraffe nor a frog. Similarly, neither you nor your cousin are your grandparents, though you are both descended from them.

OK.

rossum

Evolution extrapolates from science-molecular evolution is not based in scientific fact. It therefore fits the second definition of religion: a specific system of belief, worship etc.

Adaptation to a degree can be demonstrated. Science becomes verifiable, the particular phenomenon had been hypothesized.

I do not misunderstand evolution. Parroting other scientists doesn’t make the assertions any more feasible. Evolution is taught because of the dominance of Atheism in academia. That being said, not all have accepted it. Fear of ostracism keeps many “in the game”.

Yes Darwin recognized the beauty and complexity of our universe. He proposed a theory to explain the nature of things. A theory that languished over. Read Difficulty Of Theory in Origin.
Evolution needs time. God doesn’t.

 

[rossum]

The big issue is the idea that God is a “God of the Gaps.” That there needs to be things that we don’t understand in order for God to have a place. I think that cheapens the idea of God. For me, the more I find out about the universe He created, the more impressive He seems. For you, the more we know about the universe, the less mystical it is, and therefore the less “Godly.”

An excellent point. Many years ago there used to be a gap called, “What causes thunder and lightning?” At the time, that gap was filled by Thor, Zeus and various others. Science has since closed that gap, reducing Thor and Zeus to something a lot smaller than they were.

Science works on filling as many gaps as possible. What gaps do exist are made smaller over time as more is discovered about the universe. Trying to fit God into a gap in science is a recipe for a diminishing God; not a wise thing to do in my opinion.

To quote Dietrich Bonhoeffer on God of the gaps: “We are to find God in what we know, not in what we do not know; God wants us to realize his presence, not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved.”

rossum

 

[johnnyjones]

Also, johnnyjones, there is another aspect of education I feel obliged to pass on.

Now, you may disagree with this, because it is rather controversial, and is really just a theory, but I feel obliged to put it forward.

“YOUR” is not the same thing as “YOU’RE.”

Now, again, I don’t want to interfere with your beliefs, if you’re set on believing them (you see what I did there?).

Silliness aside, anybody who wants to come off as the most educated person in a discussion does lose credibility for grammatical/spelling errors. This will help out the next time you get into this argument.

Grammar can make you look bad, that’s correct. If you apply that to this forum, wow, a lot of people can “look bad”. So, go easy on words like “your” . Many are typing fast as you know. Correct me on words like deuterocanonical . Spell check even makes it appear wrong. It isn’t.

 

[LJH_80]

JohnnyJones,

I think we’re done here. You’ve made your case, we’ve made ours.
It’s been made exceptionally clear that at least one of us is unable to see the logic of the other side.

If others want to know which side to take, they are free to look at the boards, see which argument makes the most sense, and which side is simply scratching at straws to save a failed theory. They can then do their own independent research and come to the most logical conclusion available.

Thank you for letting everyone see what the case against evolution consists of.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Evolution extrapolates from science [so it] is not based in scientific fact

Is this supposed to denigrate evolution? It does not. That’s because all science is an extrapolation of observations. For example, we have no direct evidence of what elements our sun is composed of. No one has ever gathered a sample of solar material directly from the sun to examine it here on earth. But science nevertheless determines what those elements are from optical spectra emitted by the sun. If evolution is not based in scientific fact then neither is solar chemistry. In fact there are quite a lot of scientific conclusions that even you would accept that are based only on extrapolation from known observations. So how can you demonstrate that evolution is fundamentally not science without destroying a lot of other good science that you do accept?

 

[johnnyjones]

JohnnyJones,

I think we’re done here. You’ve made your case, we’ve made ours.
It’s been made exceptionally clear that at least one of us is unable to see the logic of the other side.

If others want to know which side to take, they are free to look at the boards, see which argument makes the most sense, and which side is simply scratching at straws to save a failed theory. They can then do their own independent research and come to the most logical conclusion available.

Thank you for letting everyone see what the case against evolution consists of.

I appreciate the civility. Although I did not have others posting in agreement with me at this particular time as you had, lets add on that this is a small thread, and readers would not find all their answers right here. This is not an exhaustive examination of the subject. Thank you as well for sharing the current views on evolution.

 

[edwest2]

Evolution is one of the most supported scientific theories out there. A scientific theory is often defined as something with much evidence to support it. It’s a shame that people put down God’s power by saying evolution is impossible.

The greater problem is a theory that does not allow for a causal role for God in the development of life. By itself, as taught, we are the end result of a series of accidents and chemical interactions.

Peace,
Ed

 

[johnnyjones]

The greater problem is a theory that does not allow for a causal role for God in the development of life. By itself, as taught, we are the end result of a series of accidents and chemical interactions.
You may want to visit a thread I started called non-evolutionist (or non- theist evolutionists) Catholics. I don’t know if you are one but I like the point.

Peace,
Ed

You may want to visit a thread I started called NON evolutionists (or non-theistic evolutionists) Catholics. I don’t know if you are one but I like your point.