Evolution vs. Creation being taught in schools

[Alyxx Thorne]

Tastier food for thought:

How would Christians react to their entire religion being publicly disproved? I'd love to see the popes reaction.

To disprove something that cannot be proved would be a very incredible act in of itself.

[Axeldeath]

Tastier food for thought:

How would Christians react to their entire religion being publicly disproved? I'd love to see the popes reaction.

 

Isn't the pope a catholic?

[xxxxxxxxx]

Tastier food for thought:

How would Christians react to their entire religion being publicly disproved? I'd love to see the popes reaction.

 

Isn't the pope a catholic?

Apples and Oranges. They're both based on the same principles.

[Axeldeath]

Apples & Oranges

 

Post deleted for derogatory language.

 

This is a Warning.

 

Deleted for derogatory language... Yup because it sure had swearing in it. You don't agree with my post so you deleted it, yes?

Edited March 27, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[Bjossi]

To disprove something that cannot be proved

 

Science learned to use such words as 'cannot' carefully. It is like using god mode in games: an effective but a very cheap way that ultimately has no argumentative merit.

[puxlit]

If I could inject a little comedic relief... personally, my favourite quote is:

 

I would love to have the faith to believe that it took place in seven days, BUT... I have thoughts, and that can really f* up the faith thing... just ask any Catholic priest.

 

Ouch... but let's not shy away from the abhorrent acts of indecency enacted by some members of the priesthood. Remember it only takes a few rotten apples to spoil the barrel (or a bite if you're Adam to spoil it for the rest of us). Aren't religious institutions supposed to imbue the qualities of morality (that we atheists supposedly lack) amongst its followers? Or perhaps this "God" (who can supposedly churn out an entire planet in a week) is somehow powerless to prevent "Satin" from corrupting the very minions that do his ("God's") bidding? Or perhaps this "God" is testing the faith of children? I'll give you this: he's certainly testing my patience and faith (ha!) in humanity. To loosely quote Epicurus, "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"

 

I'll finish this post with another Lewis Black quote:

 

... and what this is, purely and simply, is a clinical psychotic reaction: they are crazy. [redacted] I can't be kind about this, because these people are watching The Flintstones as if it were a documentary.

Edited March 26, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[Michael Archer]

I stated something, you have to disprove it or you're assuming everyone, except me, is you. I know of no legitimate science that contradicts my original post, so please... Enlighten me to these decades of research.

 

From the looks of almost everything that you responded with, you're merely trolling.

 

What...seriously? That's your response? Ok...

 

The burden of proof is put on whoever makes the claim. This is basically the fundamental basis of all conversations. e.g. If I claimed that I could use the sheer power of my legs to jump to the moon, wouldn't you make me prove beyond all reasonable doubt that I could do that? In other words, a lack of proof is not proof.

 

And now you're calling me a troll i.e. you're insulting me and my intellengence. In those short sentences, you've not only shown that you don't know how a formal argument works by telling us that you think the burden of proof is on the negative side, using the fallacy of argument from ignorance multiple times, and are now using argumentum ad hominem to defend your point that you cannot prove.

 

Are we done here, or do you actually have proof for your argument? All you have right now is very tentative lack of proof for your opposing side.

 

I think even if evolution is possible, it seems likely it is not by random. That's just how I see it.

 

Yeah, it's not random and no one says it is, except for creationists who don't understand evolution. Random mutations do occur, but the mutations that survive and you see today are not randomly selected.

 

I respect that you used the term believe because that is what it comes down to, what you choose to believe in. There's no actual evidence for any of the theories so how someone can be right just because they find it more logical than the other is beyond me.

 

What you choose to believe in is very different than what actually is. Please stop saying there's no evidence for evolution; there are entire Ph.D. theses written on the subject. Just because you don't know what the evidence is, doesn't mean there is none.

 

There's creation, which you take entirely on faith, and then there's evolution: a theory created by science, backed by evidence, research and empirical studies; the theory is created on this basis which is also the basis of science. Reality is objective, even if you don't think so and that's what the theory of evolution is: a model of how to explain how things work in real life based on evidence gathered from the perception of reality.

Edited March 26, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[ajapam]

The thing about evolution is that it seems no matter how far back you go you can always ask "But where did that come from?" So if you say we are here because random particles happened to bunch together to create a being that eventually evolved into humans.... how did the particles come to be? I believe in the theory of evolution but it's impossible to trace everything back to it's very beginning. So yeah I think evolution should definitely be taught in schools. it could be useful to study religious texts as well, but all these things should be taught as theories. Whether or not you want to believe in evolution or creationism, it's good to know both sides. And you don't have to take religion literally anyway. There are good things to be learned from them even if they turn out to be totally false. Religion is more about Philosophy than Theology for me

[Michael Archer]

The thing about evolution is that it seems no matter how far back you go you can always ask "But where did that come from?" So if you say we are here because random particles happened to bunch together to create a being that eventually evolved into humans.... how did the particles come to be?

 

I have no idea.

 

But in this thread, we're talking about the theory of evolution: a scientific theory that explains the diversity of life. We're not talking about how life came to be.

 

If you want to know about the origin of life, you should read some articles on abiogenesis.

[Alyxx Thorne]

What you choose to believe in is very different than what actually is. Please stop saying there's no evidence for evolution; there are entire Ph.D. theses written on the subject. Just because you don't know what the evidence is, doesn't mean there is none.

 

There's creation, which you take entirely on faith, and then there's evolution: a theory created by science, backed by evidence, research and empirical studies; the theory is created on this basis which is also the basis of science. Reality is objective, even if you don't think so and that's what the theory of evolution is: a model of how to explain how things work in real life based on evidence gathered from the perception of reality.

Can't argue with that, you have a good point there.

 

But in this thread, we're talking about the theory of evolution: a scientific theory that explains the diversity of life. We're not talking about how life came to be.

I thought this thread was about evolution vs. creation being taught in schools, not discussing evolution exclusively?

[BTGBullseye]

But in this thread, we're talking about the theory of evolution: a scientific theory that explains the diversity of life. We're not talking about how life came to be.

I thought this thread was about evolution vs. creation being taught in schools, not discussing evolution exclusively?

It's about what is being taught in schools, and is definitely what Michael Archer has been successfully propaganda'd into believing.

[Average Internet Guy]

It's impossible to prove or disprove something that you cannot observe directly or indirectly (creation), that's why you see so few scientists trying to make sense of it.

 

Evolution, on the other hand, has effects that can be indirectly observed, and that's why scientists are able to understand it.

 

Public schools teach something called the Scientific Method, where we see two possible hypotheses to the origin of life, but as you can see, the Creation answer begins to fall apart at about step 3, since you cannot find any data to support a concept that cannot be indirectly observed. People who believe in evolution test their answer by collecting radiocarbon dating, genetic and fossil evidence, and by examining the data, but it isn't directly observed either.

 

Evolution is not yet proven, but all the evidence seems to suggest that it's the more likely scientific answer than Creationism. Schools choose to teach the more scientific answer.

 

/2¢

[Axeldeath]

But in this thread, we're talking about the theory of evolution: a scientific theory that explains the diversity of life. We're not talking about how life came to be.

I thought this thread was about evolution vs. creation being taught in schools, not discussing evolution exclusively?

It's about what is being taught in schools, and is definitely what Michael Archer has been successfully propaganda'd into believing.

 

So what have you been " Propaganda'd " into believing.

[BTGBullseye]

So what have you been " Propaganda'd " into believing.

I haven't. I decided myself based on what I've seen and felt.

 

On what my belief is, creationism.

 

On what I think should be taught in schools as what the beginning was, nothing at all until you get to religion classes. (evolution is a belief/religion until it has been proven as a fact)

[Axeldeath]

Meaning of Religion - Religion is a fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a group of people. These set of beliefs concern the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, and involve devotional and ritual observances. They also often contain a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

 

Meaning of a theory -

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

 

Evolution is NOT a religion

[Michael Archer]

But in this thread, we're talking about the theory of evolution: a scientific theory that explains the diversity of life. We're not talking about how life came to be.

I thought this thread was about evolution vs. creation being taught in schools, not discussing evolution exclusively?

It's about what is being taught in schools, and is definitely what Michael Archer has been successfully propaganda'd into believing.

 

Another ad hominum attack? *sigh*

 

If you're going to do that, the least you can do is come up with an attack that can't also be applied to you.

 

On what I think should be taught in schools as what the beginning was, nothing at all until you get to religion classes. (evolution is a belief/religion until it has been proven as a fact)

 

Scientists have developed a model that explains how things work in real life based on facts and empirical evidence; until we have something better, we're going with that.

 

Do you even know what science is and how it works?

[BTGBullseye]

It's about what is being taught in schools, and is definitely what Michael Archer has been successfully propaganda'd into believing.

 

Another ad hominum attack? *sigh*

 

If you're going to do that, the least you can do is come up with an attack that can't also be applied to you.

Why?

 

On what I think should be taught in schools as what the beginning was, nothing at all until you get to religion classes. (evolution is a belief/religion until it has been proven as a fact)

 

Scientists have developed a model that explains how things work in real life based on facts and empirical evidence; until we have something better, we're going with that.

 

Do you even know what science is and how it works?

That doesn't change the fact that it isn't fact. It is still not proven, is therefor a belief, and should not be treated as anything but, no matter the source.

[puxlit]

Allow me to engage in a bit of reductio ad absurdum. Can you prove that the events described in Harry Potter are false? Can you prove magic isn't real? Can you prove platform nine and three quarters doesn't exist? Can you prove that Hogwarts doesn't exist?

 

Science cannot completely disprove the existence of Harry Potter. What it can do is disprove the existence of Harry Potter beyond reasonable doubt. It is very hard to prove theories, but as rational beings, we can draw a line in the sand when we've ascertained substantial amounts of credible evidence in favour of a theory and no credible evidence to contradict the theory. Evolution is one such theory.

 

Science is objective. We start with a hypothesis, design reproducible experiments to test our hypothesis, and draw conclusions based upon our observations. If our predictions hold, it becomes a theory. If a subsequent experiment yields unexpected results, our theory is disproved, and we go back to the drawing board. We most certainly don't try and bend the facts to suit our theories, and anybody who does is not a scientist.

 

We no longer live in a world where we need to conjure up divine figures to explain our origins. As Stephen Hawking put it, religion is irrelevant. Religion was an adequate mechanism to instill a basic sense of morality and order amongst the masses thousands of years ago, but it's clearly past its use-by date. Flat earth, paedophile priests, and opaque financial records (avarice, much?) - how the pope can keep a straight face amidst these hypocrisies I cannot fathom. If you've read The Pardoner's Tale (part of The Canterbury Tales), you'll notice that Geoffrey Chaucer picked up on such hypocrisies over six hundred years ago.

 

So, if you think you're a rational being (and may I remind you that the ability to think rationally is a distinguishing characteristic that separates us from nearly all other animals), ask yourself this: is faith rational? By its very definition, of course not! So how much faith do you have? You might have faith in your partner's fidelity, but that's usually backed by some form of evidence. Would you walk onto a highway with your eyes closed, and place your faith in the hands of your God (or, more rationally, the drivers on the road)? I doubt you would. You might say it doesn't hurt to have faith in a deity, but I'm sure the victims of any religious crusade would beg to differ.

 

It doesn't take too much thought to come to the conclusion that science and technology have serviced humanity more than religion and faith ever will. Should religion be taught at school? I think it should, BUT ONLY FROM A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE, so that we learn from our past mistakes. Even then, I'd place it as a low priority.

 

TL/DR:

[Axeldeath]

Damn I was looking for that graph but I couldn't find it.

[Bjossi]

Do you even know what science is and how it works?

That doesn't change the fact that it isn't fact. It is still not proven, is therefor a belief, and should not be treated as anything but, no matter the source.

 

The answer is a 'No', then.