Darwinism in schools?

[edwest2]

Intelligent design is not a science (when a divine creator is introduced the subject begins to deal with religion), and tax-funded schools should teach science in science class. Private schools are different. America is in big trouble with regard to math and science, and yet people want to take away from it even more. I am concerned for the future of this country. And anyone who has studied evolution extensively at the university level (or even through self teaching) should be able to understand how necessary it is as a foundation for further learning in the Biological sciences.

Please provide evidence that America is in big trouble with regard to math and science. The theory is not foundational for further learning in Biology.

uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-do-we-invoke-darwin/

Peace,
Ed

 

[catholictiger]

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

why does it need to do this, it is a science not a theology.

Evolution looks at the history of the earth and species and such and says hey look it looks like Human developed from apes and monkey like creates. So they come up with a Scientific Theory that explains what they observed. They then take that and they start to apply it to other animals, and maybe even to the universe when Astronomers start to get a hold of it. OR maybe some chemisty element to it, and so on and so forth.

But again evolution doesn’t have to deal with the God question it is dealing with the Why question.

Its a misinterpretation of the science to assume that evolution=no God.

God could have created it in a way that to us looks random, or as you call it a series of accidents, but it wouldn’t be random to him.

Think about this analogy you are playing a game of blackjack, it would seem pretty random as to how the cards cam tout, but if you have full knowledge of how all 52 cards were arranged then it wouldn’t be random to you.

God knows what the 52 cards are human don’t so it appears random.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The greater problem is a theory that does not allow for a causal role for God in the development of life.

If you believe that then you have a very limited concept of God. There are plenty of people who have no difficultly believing that God caused the development of life and accepting the proper conclusions of evolution. Now there are also plenty of people who do not believe in God and who use evolution to support their case. But they are misrepresenting evolution for their own purposes. You can’t blame the theory for that.

 

[LJH_80]

The argument is the same as
Bob: “Hey, what makes the hands on my watch go around?”
Steve: “Why, the watchmaker does.”
Bob: “Very good. I will believe that, then.”

Later…

Sarah: “Bob, did you know there are gears in your watch.”
Bob: “No there aren’t. There is an invisible man, called The Watchmaker, who follows me around at all times, moving the hands of the watch. The idea of gears means that there is no way that there could possibly be a watchmaker, and then I would be all alone and life would have no meaning! AUGH!” (Bob does tend to be a little over-dramatic).

What Sarah says next is the point we’ve been making.
Sarah: “Maybe the watchmaker set up a system where the gears can function independently, and will still produce the desired result.”

Not that that has anything to do with anything. I just like telling stories about watches.

 

[rossum]

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.

So, are we to understand that your God had no role in setting up what those chemical interactions would be? What a small God.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

If you believe that then you have a very limited concept of God. There are plenty of people who have no difficultly believing that God caused the development of life and accepting the proper conclusions of evolution. Now there are also plenty of people who do not believe in God and who use evolution to support their case. But they are misrepresenting evolution for their own purposes. You can’t blame the theory for that.

This is not yet a settled matter.

usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-04-12-pope-evolution_N.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This is not yet a settled matter.

usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-04-12-pope-evolution_N.htm

First of all, the pope is not a scientific authority. When he makes statements about what is or is not scientifically valid he is as fallible as any other person. Now if he were to make a statement about what scientific theory is compatible with Catholic doctrine, then he might be teaching with authority. But you will notice that nowhere in that article did he say anything about evolution being incompatible with Catholic doctrine.

Secondly, USA Today is not a scientific journal. It is a popular publication that picks it’s stories according to how much popular interest there might be in them.

Thirdly, the inability to conduct controlled experiments that duplicate evolution is not unique to evolution. Anyone who says evolution is not substantially settled would also have to say that the fall of the Roman Empire is also just a theory, since we cannot go back and observe it ourselves. We accept it as fact on the basis of testimony that has been handed down through many generations. We form a level of confidence in those facts based on how consistent they seem with other facts that we accept.

And lastly, no scientific theory is ever definitively proven. It is always open to falsification based on new evidence. Any scientist worth his salt must always be open to admitting that he was wrong when new evidence shows something that contradicts what he once held to be true. In the last century science had to accept some corrections to Newtonian physics when experiments showed that Einstein’s theories were more accurate than Newtonian theory. And some day Einstein’s theories may be replaced by something else. Real science is quite fluid. So when you say evolution is not a settled matter, you are right. But neither is any other scientific theory.

 

[Et_Cetera]

Edwest2, you are aware that the Pope himself said that it’s okay for Catholics to support evolution? If the Pope can reconcile the two, then I think you can as well.

 

[johnnyjones]

You disagree with the current Pope’s statements on evolution. Got it.

 

[johnnyjones]

Edwest2, you are aware that the Pope himself said that it’s okay for Catholics to support evolution? If the Pope can reconcile the two, then I think you can as well.

Theistic evolution. Creation was not denounced. It’s good that we are able to disagree with that position when he’s not speaking Ex Cathedra.

 

[buffalo]

Intelligent Design should be taught alongside evolution! We should teach all the theories.

This is why we should also teach that aliens (not the Egyptians) built the pyramids! We can’t prove conclusively that they didn’t! It’s just a theory!

We should also teach that diseases are caused by an imbalance of humors and require leeches. Germ theory is just that: a theory!

Teach that all life but 2 of every animal (no plants) was wiped out 4,000 years ago (despite the fact that no other culture seemed to notice)!

We should also teach, as the Australian Aboriginees believe, that the Sun Mother created man to hide her shame from the Father of All Spirits, after she let the animals pick their own shapes, and one chose to be the platypus.
Teach all the theories!

We must teach all the theories!

Note: As per normal, my disagreement is not on a particular stance, but against a particular argument.
The argument “teach all the theories,” if taken literally, would involve teaching a bunch of stupid stuff. What you mean to say is “teach the theory I happen to believe is right.”

If you want ID to be taught, make a case for its correctness over (or equivalent to) other stances.

Maybe you should take a look a this thread.

 

[buffalo]

Intelligent design is not a science (when a divine creator is introduced the subject begins to deal with religion), and tax-funded schools should teach science in science class. Private schools are different. America is in big trouble with regard to math and science, and yet people want to take away from it even more. I am concerned for the future of this country. And anyone who has studied evolution extensively at the university level (or even through self teaching) should be able to understand how necessary it is as a foundation for further learning in the Biological sciences.

Here is ID the science.
Is intelligent design a scientific theory?

                                      Yes. The scientific method is commonly described  as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments,  and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that  intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI).   Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it  will contain high levels of CSI.  Scientists then perform experimental  tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and  specified information.  One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible  complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally  reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of  their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity  in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

Here is ID the philosophy - IDvolution

 

[buffalo]

It would help in these debates on CAF if we kept to a common set of meanings for words. ‘Evolution’ means that species arise from descent, one from another. This is a fact. There is no other possible explanation for the fact that DNA, which is passed on by descent, is shared by different species. ’

What???

 

[buffalo]

Edwest2, you are aware that the Pope himself said that it’s okay for Catholics to support evolution? If the Pope can reconcile the two, then I think you can as well.

My bottom three signatures are the Pope’s quotes:

 

[Et_Cetera]

My bottom three signatures are the Pope’s quotes:

Those are some quotes that certainly deal with evolution, but didn’t the Pope recently say that it was okay to believe in? I’m not above admitting when I’m wrong. By the way, I am a believer in evolution.

 

[johnnyjones]

“Design” is used often in evolutionary circles. Since when does a design not have a designer?

 

[buffalo]

Those are some quotes that certainly deal with evolution, but didn’t the Pope recently say that it was okay to believe in? I’m not above admitting when I’m wrong. By the way, I am a believer in evolution.

Source?

The modern synthesis is crumbling as we speak. We have learned so much recently.

Gone is junk DNA, Natural Selection is now understood to be a conservative process not a creative one, genetic entropy, tree of life has fallen, HGT, epigenetics, complexity of the cell, knowledge that DNA actively fights against mutations, convergent evolution, protein folding, the complex and multidimensional language of DNA, facilitated variation, chimp human differences at 80%, rapid adaptation, ATP synthase motor, the fossil record, etc…

Pope Benedict’s Easter Homily - Creative Reason

 

[johnnyjones]

Source?

The modern synthesis is crumbling as we speak. We have learned so much recently.

Gone is junk DNA, Natural Selection is now understood to be a conservative process not a creative one, genetic entropy, tree of life has fallen, HGT, epigenetics, complexity of the cell, knowledge that DNA actively fights against mutations, convergent evolution, etc…

Yes, evolution often needs to be tweaked.

 

[buffalo]

** Programming of Life video **

Recommended! More good material. Denying design is most difficult nowadays.

Thanks to the Programming of Life folks the full video is available online. Teachers, look it over and ask the tough questions.

 

[buffalo]

Yes, evolution often needs to be tweaked.

Tweaked??? It is now religion.