Gaps in Evolution

[josie_L]

Way to skip the points .

Dude you claimed I.D. would not dilute science. How do you expect me to react?

I’m not a dude.

 

[josie_L]

Sorry but thats because you dont understand science, or the scientific method.

Do you understand the meaning of the word “discussing”? I mean are you guys so fearful of ID that even the mere mention of it in a classroom is tantamount to undermining Evolution. Honestly, if something is true than it won’t be untrue just because other points of view are presented. I really do believe it would allow kids to appreciate science more as it would stimulate debate and have kids asking questions of major importance. God bless.

 

[josie_L]

fella’s, god is completely tangential to evolution- evolution may be evidence that creation myths are wrong (Christians arnt the only folks with them either), but being wrong on one thing doesnt imply that its wrong on all things (like the existence of god or just plain old how to be a good person). cant you take it to a different thread and focus on the lack of evidence or that the evil actions of the old testament god make him unworthy of worship even if he does exist?

Did you ever read the Bible? I mean all of it. And furthermore, what kind of characteristics do you expect God to have if you consider the old testament God (which by the way is the same as the NT God) evil or unworthy of worship?

 

[josie_L]

What does the bible have to do with it, why should i believe that over accounts of zeus? Now do you see the problem with pascal’s wager?

Firstly, if you accept that there is a God (deist) than you need to do be led into truth by prayer and diligent searching. Secondly, Pascal’s wager is only relevant with regard to whether or not God exists hence the 50% probability of you or me being right (so there is nothing wrong with pascal’s wager except your understanding of it). Furthermore, Zeus is pure mythology as in there are no records of him by historians having entered space and time. Jesus existed and was recorded not only in the Bible but by other historians (Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus. . . ). In fact, the consensus amongst historians is that Jesus was real, now find me one that believes Zeus existed?

P.S. You know there are atheists who have become believers so it’s not impossible.

 

[curioosbadger]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5435980#post5435980

enjoy

so anyone have anything else on the subject of evolution?

 

[StAnastasia]

Do you understand the meaning of the word “discussing”? I mean are you guys so fearful of ID that even the mere mention of it in a classroom is tantamount to undermining Evolution. Honestly, if something is true than it won’t be untrue just because other points of view are presented. I really do believe it would allow kids to appreciate science more as it would stimulate debate and have kids asking questions of major importance. God bless.

Science teachers are not fearful of excluding ID from the biology classroom than chemistry teachers are fearful of alchemy for excluding it from the chemistry lab. Neither thing is science, and neither has a place in the science curriculum. Curricula are already very full, and though it would be interesting to look at the history of each science, there really is time to waste on it in science classes.

If you want to examine intelligent design, do so in a social studies or religion class, depending on the nature of the school.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Firstly, if you accept that there is a God (deist) than you need to do be led into truth by prayer and diligent searching. Secondly, Pascal’s wager is only relevant with regard to whether or not God exists hence the 50% probability of you or me being right (so there is nothing wrong with pascal’s wager except your understanding of it). Furthermore, Zeus is pure mythology as in there are no records of him by historians having entered space and time. Jesus existed and was recorded not only in the Bible but by other historians (Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus. . . ). In fact, the consensus amongst historians is that Jesus was real, now find me one that believes Zeus existed?

P.S. You know there are atheists who have become believers so it’s not impossible.

“Pascal’s wager is only relevant with regard to whether or not God exists”

Which god? Because depending on which god the outcome is different. If i believe in and worship Zeus will i go to heaven?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Do you understand the meaning of the word “discussing”? I mean are you guys so fearful of ID that even the mere mention of it in a classroom is tantamount to undermining Evolution. Honestly, if something is true than it won’t be untrue just because other points of view are presented. I really do believe it would allow kids to appreciate science more as it would stimulate debate and have kids asking questions of major importance. God bless.

Should we also teach the world is flat in science class? Or that the earth is at the center of the universe?

I.D. is NOT science and it has NO place in the science class.

 

[StAnastasia]

Science teachers are not fearful of excluding ID from the biology classroom than chemistry teachers are fearful of alchemy for excluding it from the chemistry lab. Neither thing is science, and neither has a place in the science curriculum. Curricula are already very full, and though it would be interesting to look at the history of each science, there really is time to waste on it in science classes.

If you want to examine intelligent design, do so in a social studies or religion class, depending on the nature of the school.

Correction: I meant that biology teachers are “no more fearful…”

The point is, so-called “intelligent design” has nothing to do with science. Time in science classes is short enough without being taken up by treating extra-scientific ideas. For that matter, no science class should include a Dawkinsian philosophical claim: the atheistic claim that “evolution is an unguided process” should not be included either, since “unguided” is neither more nor less a philosohpical claim than is “intelligently guided.”

StAnastasia

 

[josie_L]

Correction: I meant that biology teachers are “no more fearful…”

The point is, so-called “intelligent design” has nothing to do with science. Time in science classes is short enough without being taken up by treating extra-scientific ideas. For that matter, no science class should include a Dawkinsian philosophical claim: the atheistic claim that “evolution is an unguided process” should not be included either, since “unguided” is neither more nor less a philosohpical claim than is “intelligently guided.”

StAnastasia

I’m not trying to insist it should be treated as a core feature (on the contrary), and although I believe that evolution is correct (minus the atheistic implications applied to it) is evolution ever questioned (flaws that might exist in the theory)? This is why I say why not have a discussion on what is lacking or possible objections to it (can they be explained so that evolution can be better understood)?

 

[josie_L]

“Pascal’s wager is only relevant with regard to whether or not God exists”

Which god? Because depending on which god the outcome is different. If i believe in and worship Zeus will i go to heaven?

Pascal’s wager was never meant to answer those questions. A God either exists or he doesn’t (this is mathematically viable) If you come to believe that God (a grand architect of the universe) does exist then through diligence and prayer will you come to the answers you are searching for (or you may very well remain a deist with no religious attachments).

 

[josie_L]

Should we also teach the world is flat in science class? Or that the earth is at the center of the universe?

I.D. is NOT science and it has NO place in the science class.

I’m not trying to state that ID is correct, however, do we allow for objections/flaws of evolution to be spoken of in the classroom?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

I’m not trying to state that ID is correct, however, do we allow for objections/flaws of evolution to be spoken of in the classroom?

No, thats no how science works. School kids are not qualified to raise or discuss objections. If you have objections then you raise them in the academic area, to do this you must first become an academic.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

A God either exists or he doesn’t (this is mathematically viable)

No, its not.

 

[buffalo]

No, thats no how science works. School kids are not qualified to raise or discuss objections. If you have objections then you raise them in the academic area, to do this you must first become an academic.

LOL

 

[StAnastasia]

I’m not trying to insist it should be treated as a core feature (on the contrary), and although I believe that evolution is correct (minus the atheistic implications applied to it) is evolution ever questioned (flaws that might exist in the theory)? This is why I say why not have a discussion on what is lacking or possible objections to it (can they be explained so that evolution can be better understood)?

Josie, if you’ve ever been in a science class, or a science department in a university, or if you’ve ever attended a conference of science professionals, you’ll know that raising possible objections is what the scientific method is all about. Science is a self-correcting process of open inquiry; young graduate students are falling all over themselves to disprove established theories.

However – and this is important – you must know that time in a semester class is limited, and that teachers simply don’t have time to entertain all objections students might raise. Foe example, my nine-year-old asked me yesterday how we know that the world is spherical rather than flat, because when he’s out walking it looks flat. He’s been to a lot of places, including mountain tops, and from the top of every hill or mountain the earth looks flat. How much time should a geography teacher spend entertaining his objection? (My father remembers a student in a high school physics class who asked “Why couldn’t you have a square wheel”? The teacher was not amused.) A short response in one class is legitimate, but spending a significant portion of the curriculum on so-called “intelligent design” would be a waste of the teachers and the other students’ time, and therefore wrong.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

No, thats no how science works. School kids are not qualified to raise or discuss objections. If you have objections then you raise them in the academic area, to do this you must first become an academic.

Charles Darwin, I take it from your response that you’ve not taught school kids. Your approach would be a pedagogical nightmare.

 

[akoso]

Before adding to this conversation any more, I’m curious as to how ID is taught in a biology classroom. I’m not American and don’t know how it is presented within a scientific framework. Please don’t reply to this by bashing evolution or ID… I’m just curious as to how it is taught (in places where it is).

Thanks.

 

[josie_L]

Josie, if you’ve ever been in a science class, or a science department in a university, or if you’ve ever attended a conference of science professionals, you’ll know that raising possible objections is what the scientific method is all about. Science is a self-correcting process of open inquiry; young graduate students are falling all over themselves to disprove established theories.

However – and this is important – you must know that time in a semester class is limited, and that teachers simply don’t have time to entertain all objections students might raise. Foe example, my nine-year-old asked me yesterday how we know that the world is spherical rather than flat, because when he’s out walking it looks flat. He’s been to a lot of places, including mountain tops, and from the top of every hill or mountain the earth looks flat. How much time should a geography teacher spend entertaining his objection? (My father remembers a student in a high school physics class who asked “Why couldn’t you have a square wheel”? The teacher was not amused.) A short response in one class is legitimate, but spending a significant portion of the curriculum on so-called “intelligent design” would be a waste of the teachers and the other students’ time, and therefore wrong.

StAnastasia

No, I wouldn’t want that either. I am more concerned with students having the ability to object or raise questions about evolution (concerning flaws) as I have never been one to accept things at face value.

 

[josie_L]

No, its not.

There are only two options Charlie.