Evolution and Darwin against Religion and God

[edwest211]

Let’s get this out in the open:

Ed West is a stereotype. He obviously believes XYZ and is anti PQR. I never treat people as stereotypes. That’s the problem with “they must all be like that.”

Yes, yes, the sacred science classroom. I can’t say how many times I’ve shot this one down. I never wrote “every school should teach” the stereotype. Ed West is trying to muscle his way into the science classroom! He must be influencing school boards right now! Oh nooooss.

Please avoid using stereotypes.

 

[Techno2000]

Correct. Some bacteria can reproduce after as little as 30 minutes. How many fit human babies are born every day? How many mice are born? How many krill? A great many fit new offspring are born/budded/hatched/whatever every day and night.

I said new fit offspring as in a upgrade for survival.Humans produce more Humans, mice produce more mice.Thanks for… Keepin’ it vague

 

[Lion_IRC]

edwest211:

Where did I say God or any god should be in science books? I never said/wrote that.

Aren’t you saying that the science books should say that the universe and its subsequent development are part of God’s plan? And that God is the ultimate cause? And that “intelligent design” (i.e, creationism) should be taught in science classes? No? Did I miss something???

No, that sounds more like something I would say.

God SHOULD be at the centre of our studies.

There is nothing about God which detracts from our desire to learn about the world/universe. Quite the contrary. But to listen to some atheists, you’d think the mere mention of His name is some sort of medodological barrier to ‘doing science’.

Several years ago I was at a National Science Week Awards event watching high school students receive their respective awards for excellence - top grades - etc.

It was astonishing to see that overwhelmingly the majority of award recipients were wearing blazers with school emblems that included the word ‘Saint’, or ‘Trinity’, or ‘Holy’, and an image of The Cross.

Clearly, these Christian schools have no trouble excelling in studying science.

 

[Techno2000]

If evolution takes millions of years to do anything, then the first new transitional offspring’s new upgrade must be almost imperceivable . If it’s almost imperceivable how does it help in survival ?

 

[Lion_IRC]

The ironic thing about that awards ceremony was that one of the award categories was sponsored by “Australian Skeptics Society”.

Watching the atheist dude handing out science awards to Christian students. LOL

To God be the glory.

 

[rossum]

I said new fit offspring

I saw that. A newborn baby is new, obviously.

Did you mean to say “new species” or “new subspecies” instead? You need to ask clear questions to get clear answers. We can only answer the question you actually ask, not the question you meant to ask but didn’t.

 

[rossum]

If evolution takes millions of years to do anything…

I doesn’t. Galapagos finch beaks evolved to different shapes over a few years. The inhabitants of the Andes evolved adaptations to high altitude in less than 15,000 years.

Evolution can do some things in a much shorter timescale than your “millions of years”.

 

[Techno2000]

Did you mean to say “new species” or “new subspecies” instead?

I’m talking about the very first “fit” new transitional stage offspring that is on the road to becoming a new species.I seems that everything in this theory is only temporary fit for its environment.

How many environmental changes did it take for evolution to produce the 25,000 species of Orchids ?

 

[rossum]

I’m talking about the very first “fit” new transitional stage offspring that is on the road to becoming a new species.

In general terms “fit” comes down to the ability to reproduce and for those offspring to reproduce as well. In that general sense, most offspring of most species are fit. Whether or not it is the start of a new species only time will tell.

I seems that everything in this theory is only temporary fit for its environment.

Of course, because environments change. The environment in Europe was very different during the Ice Age, so different adaptations would have been needed then.

How many environmental changes did it take for evolution to produce the 25,000 species of Orchids ?

Ask a botanist. I do know that many of those species are geographically separated, which is one source of new species, see “allopatric speciation”.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Ed West is a stereotype. He obviously believes XYZ and is anti PQR. I never treat people as stereotypes. That’s the problem with “they must all be like that.”

Yes, yes, the sacred science classroom. I can’t say how many times I’ve shot this one down. I never wrote “every school should teach” the stereotype. Ed West is trying to muscle his way into the science classroom! He must be influencing school boards right now! Oh nooooss.

Please avoid using stereotypes.

I don’t try to stereotype anyone, but with this type of format (as I have said over and over) it’s impossible to capture the assumptions, nuances, etc. of anyone’s posts. There’s simply no space.

If you’re just talking about your private beliefs, then there is no debate. Your private beliefs = my private beliefs pretty much. But then I’m bemused: what have 1,030 posts been debating? I think I asked a similar question around post 270. I think this confirms why I almost always avoid these threads! I got sucked into this one only because of the original poster’s aggressive challenge to teaching evolution in schools.

If we go back to the original post:

Why has Darwin’s theory made it into all the catholic schools in Ireland confusing the minds of young people that we are related to apes and from experience puts doubts into the minds of young people about or origin!

The question was about evolution in schools “confusing the minds of young people…”

 

[Techno2000]

beaks evolved

A beak isn’t a completely new species of animal.

 

[rossum]

A beak isn’t a completely new species of animal.

Correct, but irrelevant to the error you made. You said:

If evolution takes millions of years to do anything…

Changing beak shape is one type of your “anything”. Your “anything” can include a lot more then just speciation.

Your “millions of years” is an error. Some things do take millions of years; other things can happen a lot more quickly. Evolution covers a vast range of changes, some fast and some slow. There is a lot of “anything” that can happen in a much shorter timeframe.

If you ask a vaguely phrased question, that “anything”, then you might not get the answer you are expecting. You might want to phrase your questions more precisely. We can only answer the question you type, not the question you meant to type, but didn’t.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Some things do take millions of years; other things can happen a lot more quickly.

To give two quick examples: most European tolerate lactose–they can drink milk and digest it easily. This ability only appeared about 10,000 years ago. White skin. Those people who came out of Africa 50-60,000 years ago were typical Africans–dark or black skin. But they transformed into blonde, blue-eyed, white-skinned people within that short period of time because of their environment.

Does that mean they are a new species? No, but those were certainly significant changes in the recent past. Clearly evolution at work.

 

[edwest211]

It can certainly confuse young people. Especially when it clearly says that humans are just walking bags of chemicals and no one made us. The media is promoting this line of thinking. I heard a character on a TV show say “no one made us” as if it were a statement of fact. The Church doesn’t promote that.

 

[edwest211]

Losing a function does not equal evolution at work.

 

[Techno2000]

Your “millions of years” is an error. Some things do take millions of years; other things can happen a lot more quickly.

What things exactly are taking millions of years, and what things are happening quickly ?

 

[Techno2000]

Clearly evolution at work.

Clearly microevolution at work.

 

[Bradskii]

It can certainly confuse young people. Especially when it clearly say that humans are just walking bags of chemicals and no one made us. The media is promoting this line of thinking. I heard a character on a TV show say “no one made us” as if it were a statement of fact. The Church doesn’t promote that.

Straw man. Evolution doesn’t deny God.

And ‘it’ doesn’t say anything. I’ve never heard any theory make a proclamarion on the relative value of any person. Maybe you’re thinking of someone who made that statement. Maybe a character on a TV show perhaps.

Perhaps you can produce it for us?

 

[edwest211]

You are now at +20 to dodge. Keep it up

 

[Bradskii]

You are now at +20 to dodge. Keep it up

So that’s a ‘no’ then. One wonders why you brought it up.

Any suggestions for the age of the earth instead?