Evolution In The Classroom

[pzona]

Ed,

I understand your disagreements with such statements as “Stop listening to the Church or your Minister. Listen to science! Science will heal you, guide you, and let you do all those things religion says are sinful! Join Science and live!”

However, this isn’t science, not by a long shot. This is aggressive atheism, and it’s a shame people see statements like this and assume that the scientific community stands behind them. Atheism is simply defined as the belief that there is no God, or even simply a lack of belief in a god. Trying to say that science has all the answers is just as bad as saying the same thing about anything else. No one group has all the definitive answers about everything, as evidenced by the arguments going on here. But to say that science as a whole is out to undermine religion is just like saying all priests are out to molest children. Generalizations can be very dangerous, and I hope you realize that statements like these do not represent the views of all scientists, or even a majority of them.

 

[buffalo]

Microevolution- changes within a species that enhance the species ability to survive
Macroevolution- when some or one of the aforementioned changes renders one part of the species unable to produce viable offspring with the other, in effect creating a new species.

I would also add a directional arrow to this.

 

[edwest2]

Ed,

I understand your disagreements with such statements as “Stop listening to the Church or your Minister. Listen to science! Science will heal you, guide you, and let you do all those things religion says are sinful! Join Science and live!”

However, this isn’t science, not by a long shot. This is aggressive atheism, and it’s a shame people see statements like this and assume that the scientific community stands behind them. Atheism is simply defined as the belief that there is no God, or even simply a lack of belief in a god. Trying to say that science has all the answers is just as bad as saying the same thing about anything else. No one group has all the definitive answers about everything, as evidenced by the arguments going on here. But to say that science as a whole is out to undermine religion is just like saying all priests are out to molest children. Generalizations can be very dangerous, and I hope you realize that statements like these do not represent the views of all scientists, or even a majority of them.

Trust is the issue. Most Leading Scientists Still Reject God.

stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Wouldn’t you say that those leading scientists, which, in days past, like so many other authority figures, were looked up to, are now being looked up to? If one of these leading scientists says the evidence shows there is no God, what would you, as a scientist, think? He’s wrong? I think that because of his stature in the scientific community, you’d be inclined to believe him.

I’ll put it to you another way. On another forum with mostly non-Christians, someone replied to a comment like this, “We no longer want to feel ashamed or guilty or sinful again.” The ones who make them feel this way? Christians, or so they are told. You see, they are being manipulated too. They are told they are victims. The Church is the enemy. They will tell these people, the Church tells you that doing something is wrong when all you want is permission from someone, anyone, that what you want to do is right. Science will give you that permission. Scientists will testify for you. They will produce what they call evidence. And everything will get done because science will give you what you want. Forget those religious nuts – they’re out of touch.

I’m against generalizations as well, but it’s quite clear that science and scientists will be called to testify to sin, and the promotion of sin. It’s all good. No right and wrong. And no, not all scientists will go along. I’m not saying that. All you need are a few to convince a judge.

Peace,
Ed

 

[pzona]

Trust is the issue. Most Leading Scientists Still Reject God.

stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Wouldn’t you say that those leading scientists, which, in days past, like so many other authority figures, were looked up to, are now being looked up to? If one of these leading scientists says the evidence shows there is no God, what would you, as a scientist, think? He’s wrong? I think that because of his stature in the scientific community, you’d be inclined to believe him.

The only inclination I would feel after reading arguments by Gould, Dawkins, etc. would be to do some of my own research on what they’ve said. I can see what you’re saying though, as many people, scientists included, do accept the word of leading scientists. Gould is undeniably one of the most well known biologists out there, and here’s my view of the usefulness of his arguments against God. The guy clearly knows what he’s talking about, science-wise. He wouldn’t have gotten to his position if he didn’t. So when he comes up with evidence against God, I assume there is some merit to what he is saying, at least from a logical standpoint. But he’s basically just submitting his theory. As a scientist, it’s my responsibility to check the validity of what he’s saying. Anyone who reads The Structure of Evolutionary Theory and accepts it with no further proof is no better than the “blind faith” Christians. But that’s just my opinion.

 

[cassini]

By this logic, we have no idea whether or not the U.S. government was behind 9/11, whether or not we actually landed on the moon, whether or not the Pope is the anti christ, or whether or not you exist.

No, these things are not in the realm of empirical science.

 

[liquidpele]

No, these things are not in the realm of empirical science.

And neither is proving evolution 100%, so the comparison is good. Nothing can be proven 100%, and both your request for it, as well as the assumption that 100% of a very large number of people could be convinced of any one thing, is frankly absurd.

 

[tjm190]

No, these things are not in the realm of empirical science.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism

So we can throw out modern astronomy?

 

[tjm190]

I would also add a directional arrow to this.

hmmmm?

 

[edwest2]

The only inclination I would feel after reading arguments by Gould, Dawkins, etc. would be to do some of my own research on what they’ve said. I can see what you’re saying though, as many people, scientists included, do accept the word of leading scientists. Gould is undeniably one of the most well known biologists out there, and here’s my view of the usefulness of his arguments against God. The guy clearly knows what he’s talking about, science-wise. He wouldn’t have gotten to his position if he didn’t. So when he comes up with evidence against God, I assume there is some merit to what he is saying, at least from a logical standpoint. But he’s basically just submitting his theory. As a scientist, it’s my responsibility to check the validity of what he’s saying. Anyone who reads The Structure of Evolutionary Theory and accepts it with no further proof is no better than the “blind faith” Christians. But that’s just my opinion.

I think everyone needs to realize how they reach their conclusions/opinions. First, opinions aren’t worth much unless they are goal oriented. People have opinions on lots of things but eventually, these opinions get turned into beliefs and are acted upon. Some people literally learn what is true (as far as they can tell) from their friends and/or TV. Logic is not always recognized. Sometimes, people just go along with the crowd.

I’ve known people who were great in their chosen profession but had mixed up ideas about other things. I hope you can understand why I’ve grown very skeptical of evolution theory. It does not appear to work as advertised. I’m leaning toward a form of Intelligent Design at present since the Church supports design in nature and because, to me, living things that appear designed are designed.

Peace,
Ed

 

[acts1711]

Evolution is unprovable, it is a mathematical impossibility, there are no transitional forms, (look at the quotes from the Museum of Natural History in London) It is a theory that man uses to make himself unaccountable to G-d. It goes against our 6th sense, common sense, but the biggest issue is it calls G-d a liar. acts1711

 

[Drigandi]

evolution is not a fact

it is possible(however unlikely) to design an experiment to prove it wrong

it has falsifiability, and human being have not tested it under every single circumstance, making it impossible for it to be a fact

Oh? Have you performed this experiment? If not, you haven’t shown that it is not a fact. Also, I think you are confusing facts with laws. Newton’s laws were factual before they were even thought up. Is your existence a fact? Has it been tested under every possible circumstance? Think, my friend.

And as for the people that have a problem with evolution, read Genesis. Take a good look at the order of the animals. It works, with some animals, obviously, not being mentioned because there was no need to mention them yet. How many of the ancient Hebrews, after all, were about to dig down into the ground however far to find dinosaur bones and know what they are? And what need was there to tell them how they developed? That wasn’t exactly a pressing question at the time.

 

[tjm190]

Evolution is unprovable,

Few things are truly provable.

it is a mathematical impossibility,

I can think of atleast one actuarial science major who disagrees with you.

there are no transitional forms, (look at the quotes from the Museum of Natural History in London)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

It is a theory that man uses to make himself unaccountable to G-d.

How so?

It goes against our 6th sense, common sense, but the biggest issue is it calls G-d a liar. acts1711

Just because it’s complex doesn’t mean it’s outside the realm of common sense, and when did God say evolution is false?

 

[acts1711]

What came first, your blood or your veins? Or maybe your heart evolved first. If it was not all created at the same time you could not survive. You would not be here. Use your 6th sense. Look at the complexity of your brain, your skin, your eyes your ears. If you hold a pen in your hand you know that it had a creator and a designer yet it is so simple compared to mankind. But your 6th sense tells you it had a creator.

We have been rebelling against G-d from the time of Adams sin. If we can make ourselves believe that that there is no G-d then there is no judgment at the end, we came from nothing and that is how we will end up. We try to avoid accountability.

Read Genesis 1: 24-28 G-d created according the their own kind.

What a mighty G-d we serve who can take an evergreen tree with a black trunk and cause it to cast a blue shadow on white snow. Shalom

 

[tjm190]

What came first, your blood or your veins? Or maybe your heart evolved first. If it was not all created at the same time you could not survive. You would not be here. Use your 6th sense. Look at the complexity of your brain, your skin, your eyes your ears. If you hold a pen in your hand you know that it had a creator and a designer yet it is so simple compared to mankind. But your 6th sense tells you it had a creator.

Hmmm… I’m not in a googling mood, so this is uninformed guess work- Well blood is a way to transport nutrients and oxygen, so I would suppose that came first. Methods of transporting blood would have come next as multicelluar organisms became bigger, followed by a pumping mechanism as the distance blood had to travel increased.
Evolution does not say humans simply came into existence- but rather first there were organism that were too small to make use of blood, then grew and developed blood, then blood vessels, then pumping mechanisms, and so on with all other systems until voila- humanity.

We have been rebelling against G-d from the time of Adams sin. If we can make ourselves believe that that there is no G-d then there is no judgment at the end, we came from nothing and that is how we will end up. We try to avoid accountability.

Read Genesis 1: 24-28 G-d created according the their own kind.

What a mighty G-d we serve who can take an evergreen tree with a black trunk and cause it to cast a blue shadow on white snow. Shalom

The bible also states that the Earth has ‘pillars’, meaning of course that the Earth is flat. Was God lying there?

 

[reggieM]

What came first, your blood or your veins? Or maybe your heart evolved first. If it was not all created at the same time you could not survive.

True. Also, if you had a heart and blood, but no blood-clotting system then you would not survive either. So, if blood clotting evolved only after there was a heart pumping blood in an organism, then organisms would not have survived long enough to evolve any blood clotting mechanisms (which are extremely complex).

Use your 6th sense. Look at the complexity of your brain, your skin, your eyes your ears. If you hold a pen in your hand you know that it had a creator and a designer yet it is so simple compared to mankind. But your 6th sense tells you it had a creator.

That is all very clear and true – but sadly, the 6th sense has been confused and dulled by disuse and materialistic-imaginations and many cannot see what should be blatantly obvious to all.

If we can make ourselves believe that that there is no G-d then there is no judgment at the end, we came from nothing and that is how we will end up. We try to avoid accountability.

Very good thoughts.

 

[liquidpele]

True. Also, if you had a heart and blood, but no blood-clotting system then you would not survive either. So, if blood clotting evolved only after there was a heart pumping blood in an organism, then organisms would not have survived long enough to evolve any blood clotting mechanisms (which are extremely complex).

That is all very clear and true – but sadly, the 6th sense has been confused and dulled by disuse and materialistic-imaginations and many cannot see what should be blatantly obvious to all.

Very good thoughts.

Oh come on, you couldn’t take 5 minutes to google?

Evolution of the heart:
pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/evolution-of-th-5.html
and blood vessels:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3954607
and clotting:
youtube.com/watch?v=4K_WrqNiQoU

My “7th sense” tells me evolution is real.

 

[acts1711]

G-d says they will choose to believe a lie.

How did male and female evolve at the same time at the same place with all the rights parts necessary to reproduce? Chance?

Look up pillars in the blue letter bible

 

[liquidpele]

G-d says they will choose to believe a lie.

How did male and female evolve at the same time at the same place with all the rights parts necessary to reproduce? Chance?

Look up pillars in the blue letter bible

The bible also said a lot of other stuff. Perhaps you shouldn’t take it all literally.
freethought.mbdojo.com/stupidbible.html

You’re asking how male and female evolved? Sigh. I get the impression you’re thinking of fully formed humans already. Forget Genesis for a second, and look through my lens. We weren’t human at the point where a lot of our attributes evolved. For example, think of something like a microscopic worm… the founding species of the animal kingdom perhaps. You think the differences between male and female were really that big at that point? Sure, they’re big now, but it’s been about 2 billion years so a lot of evolving has been going on. In fact, it didn’t even have to be that simple of an original species… some animals can even change back and forth (findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n9_v137/ai_8784789/), and how in the world do you explain hermaphrodites?

 

[tjm190]

(which are extremely complex).

Amazing how the complexity argument has suffered well documented defeats with respect to the wing, flagella, and eye but still appears valid to the creationist.

 

[tjm190]

G-d says they will choose to believe a lie.

How did male and female evolve at the same time at the same place with all the rights parts necessary to reproduce? Chance?

Look up pillars in the blue letter bible

More and more I feel like I’m being trolled…