Evolution vs. Creation being taught in schools

[danielsangeo]

"Meaning", to me, is something we create for ourselves. I don't see a necessity for the universe to have meaning and it's extreme egoism and arrogance to suggest that the entirety of the universe was created just for human beings.

[Eedo Baba]

^I agree.

[Alyxx Thorne]

Is it more arrogant than saying those who believe in God are stupid and ignorant?

[danielsangeo]

I never said that. If you wish to believe in God, more power to you. I just see no evidence for it. But, do you find it a bit odd, the claim that billions of galaxies with billions of stars each would be created for a species of animal that only existed on a rock flying around one of those rather ordinary stars for a very short time?

[Alyxx Thorne]

I actually believe that we aren't the master species or anything or the only species in the universe. I believe God has created all life, yes, but not that we are in the middle of everything. I think the bible we have only tells the story about our world. I don't think it's impossible that God has created similar worlds with different life and with different purpose even. As I said in an earlier post, it's all very incomprehensible anyway.

Edited April 28, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[danielsangeo]

If that's your belief, that's groovy. I see nothing wrong with it.

[Alyxx Thorne]

But that's the thing, it's a belief. It's nothing I can prove. So I cannot call creationism a scientific theory at all. For me the evidence just lies in how everything works like it does, how all the life on earth lives in a symbiosis. I'm a person who doesn't believe in coinscidences or that things do not have a purpose. But all of that is just faith, it's not science at all.

 

I cannot disprove evolution, and I cannot prove creationism. What it comes down to is what I believe.

[danielsangeo]

Do you mind if I just ask you a question? And bear with me, please; I don't mean to insult or anything like that.

 

Let's take this fable (stolen from Douglas Adams, RIP): A puddle of water becomes sentient. It looks around itself and remarks to itself, "My, what a splendid hole I'm in. Look at the contours of that hole. It fits my body perfectly. That little piece that I have jutting out of me on the right side fits snugly into that depression over there. How serendipitous! It's like this hole was created perfectly...just for me. I mean, the chances of any other hole fitting my contours so perfectly must be truly astronomical. It couldn't have happened by chance that a hole would be this perfect for my body."

 

Do you understand the meaning behind this little fable?

[Alyxx Thorne]

Yeah, I do. And it's a very good fable too. And really puts into perspective how small we are relative to the universe.

 

But all of us are more than sentient puddles of water and the earth is more than just a hole. Even it's small, and even if we are small too, I still think it's a miracle, and life itself is a miracle.

[danielsangeo]

I think what the fable is trying to say is that the Earth wasn't really created for us but we grew into the planet's environment. Again, if you believe that God did it, I applaud you. However, it isn't science and should not be taught as such in schools. Do you agree?

 

Oh, by the way, I don't believe in coincidences either.

Edited April 28, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[Doom Shepherd]

That's a good post, now I want to say if you believe that monkeys magically turned into humans

 

Nobody believes this. First off, it's not "magic," because the proccess of evolution is essentially understood, as the cumulative effects of mutations plus natural selection plus a couple other minor factors. We KNOW the basics of how humans arose. No belief is required, just an understanding of facts and the capacity to apply logic and reason.

 

Secondly, monkeys did not "turn into" humans. Monkeys and humans share a common ancestor, further back but in the same way that it has been shown (via studies of mitochondrial DNA) that blacks, whites, asians, et. have common ancestors, despite looking quite different.

while there is no human-monkeys today (middle step between humans and monkey)

There aren't any middle steps today for essentially the same reason there aren't any native speakers of Classical Roman Latin or Old English today. They were supplanted. But there is enormous evidence of an abundance of in-between steps on the ladder, another fact only still denied by those in the "a wizard did it" camp.

because he died some billion years ago (precisely)

What?? You mean millions, or possibly less in the case of Neanderthal. Recent studies show most humans (except Africans, whose ancestors never left) have 3-5% neanderthal genes, from interbreeding (in places where the distinction between species and subspecies is blurred.)

Do you believe in Auras? Soul? Prophets?

Or do you reject "magic" overall.

I generally reject "magic" (as opposed to stage magic, which I know is tricks.) The only "auras" I believe in are the electrical ones that have been photographed around the human bodies. I don't belive they are the manifestation of anything spiritual. I doubt that souls exist, and if prophets or psychics existed, I'd expect to see a LOT more lottery winners.

Edited April 28, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[Alyxx Thorne]

I think what the fable is trying to say is that the Earth wasn't really created for us but we grew into the planet's environment. Again, if you believe that God did it, I applaud you. However, it isn't science and should not be taught as such in schools. Do you agree?

I think both should be taught in school, and we as sentient beings should be allowed to choose for ourselves what to believe and respect each other's philosophies. Peace comes from mutual understanding, and I think having a good moral compass is what keeps us from going to war with each other. I'm not going to write too much more in this topic though, I've shared my opinion and that's all I can do. I'm not here to convert anyone or force my views on others.

[Eedo Baba]

I think what the fable is trying to say is that the Earth wasn't really created for us but we grew into the planet's environment. Again, if you believe that God did it, I applaud you. However, it isn't science and should not be taught as such in schools. Do you agree?

I think both should be taught in school, and we as sentient beings should be allowed to choose for ourselves what to believe and respect each other's philosophies. Peace comes from mutual understanding, and I think having a good moral compass is what keeps us from going to war with each other. I'm not going to write too much more in this topic though, I've shared my opinion and that's all I can do. I'm not here to convert anyone or force my views on others.

 

Ha, I have a paradox for you. Do you respect my belief that we should not all respect each other's beliefs?

lol, that's not entirely what I believe, but it's an interesting question.

[Alyxx Thorne]

Ha, I have a paradox for you. Do you respect my belief that we should not all respect each other's beliefs?

lol, that's not entirely what I believe, but it's an interesting question.

*backs away and quietly leaves*

[danielsangeo]

I think what the fable is trying to say is that the Earth wasn't really created for us but we grew into the planet's environment. Again, if you believe that God did it, I applaud you. However, it isn't science and should not be taught as such in schools. Do you agree?

I think both should be taught in school, and we as sentient beings should be allowed to choose for ourselves what to believe and respect each other's philosophies.

 

I think the big problem with teaching "both" is that it's not just two options ("God" and "Evolution"). There are literally thousands, if not millions of "alternative theories" of creation and how we came to be and if we taught ALL of them, it'd take the rest of our natural lives to scratch the surface. Case in point: The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

I don't believe that school should be teaching these kinds of philosophies as science because, well, it's not science. Science should remain in science class and you can put philosophy in the philosophy class.

[Alyxx Thorne]

I think what the fable is trying to say is that the Earth wasn't really created for us but we grew into the planet's environment. Again, if you believe that God did it, I applaud you. However, it isn't science and should not be taught as such in schools. Do you agree?

I think both should be taught in school, and we as sentient beings should be allowed to choose for ourselves what to believe and respect each other's philosophies.

 

I think the big problem with teaching "both" is that it's not just two options ("God" and "Evolution"). There are literally thousands, if not millions of "alternative theories" of creation and how we came to be and if we taught ALL of them, it'd take the rest of our natural lives to scratch the surface. Case in point: The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

I don't believe that school should be teaching these kinds of philosophies as science because, well, it's not science. Science should remain in science class and you can put philosophy in the philosophy class.

I agree with you there. I just don't think you should remove philosophy and religion from school. But I agree it would be wrong to teach it as science.

[Doom Shepherd]

I think what the fable is trying to say is that the Earth wasn't really created for us but we grew into the planet's environment. Again, if you believe that God did it, I applaud you. However, it isn't science and should not be taught as such in schools. Do you agree?

I think both should be taught in school, and we as sentient beings should be allowed to choose for ourselves what to believe and respect each other's philosophies.

 

I think the big problem with teaching "both" is that it's not just two options ("God" and "Evolution"). There are literally thousands, if not millions of "alternative theories" of creation and how we came to be and if we taught ALL of them, it'd take the rest of our natural lives to scratch the surface. Case in point: The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

I don't believe that school should be teaching these kinds of philosophies as science because, well, it's not science. Science should remain in science class and you can put philosophy in the philosophy class.

 

Exactly. SCIENCE should be taught in science class, and non-scientific creation guesses (they still aren't theories) should be taught in Comparative Religion or Philosophy.

 

(I never had a Comparative religion course, and I wish I had, I had to do it all on my own, and that was a lot of work. I did get Philosophy in college, though.)

Edited April 28, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[Alyxx Thorne]

Well, there we have an agreement then. Keep religion and science in separate classes.

[ProHypster]

Nice, atheism is scientific but monotheism isn't. When I get home prepare to be bombed by arguments.

[danielsangeo]

Atheism is the lack of belief in deities. It isn't a science. It also isn't a philosophy. It's not anything. It's the lack of something.

 

Let's get back to those monkeys, though.