Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Is it OK to teach evolution in public schools?

Posted Jan 31, '14 at 1:01am

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,667 posts

Knight

I'm a Christian, not an idiot. Evolution has obvious evidence, God probably added it as a built-in feature for the first forms of life.
To anyone who takes the entire Bible to a completely literal level, I call BS!

Considering the bone headedness I've been dealing with on this front lately. ((hugs))

Please further explain what you mean by "reconcile Jesus"....?
Jesus died for all of our sins.

The general thought behind this is that Jesus's death was to wipe clean the original sin that is claimed we all carry. That would be the one Adam and Eve committed. As such without Adam and Eve actually being real Jesus's death to wipe away the sin they left everyone becomes rather pointless.

 

Posted Jan 31, '14 at 1:03am

FishPreferred

FishPreferred

1,501 posts

Jesus died for all of our sins.

This cliche would be excuseable if it weren't entirely wrong.
According to the Roman Catholic authorities, he allowed himself to die as a demonstration of his humility, kindness, and absolute forgiveness, the idea being that true divinity was not displayed by power, rage, or tyrrany, as was generally believed to be characteristic of gods. His death could be regarded as being "for the salvation of the faithful from their sins", because of the establishment of Christianity, but not simply for or because of sins.

 

Posted Jan 31, '14 at 3:51am

MacII

MacII

1,369 posts

Jesus died for all of our sins.

Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine -- Patti Smith

(Jesus died for his own sins, not mine -- Crass.)

 

Posted Jan 31, '14 at 1:18pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,667 posts

Knight

Very interesting that the various forms of Christianity can't even agree on what exactly Jesus died for.

 

Posted Jan 31, '14 at 1:33pm

themastaplaya

themastaplaya

609 posts

This very interesting when you consider that evolution is a biased, racist religion. Yes that's right, evolution originally taught that African-Americans were closer relatives to apes than Caucasians. If course they had to reinvent their asinine and bigoted religion when racism went out of style.
Alright, let they emotion backlash begin, brainwashed youngsters!

 

Posted Jan 31, '14 at 2:04pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,667 posts

Knight

This very interesting when you consider that evolution is a biased, racist religion.

No it's not a religion, it's both fact and theory.

Evolution; The change in allele frequency in a group from one generation to the next. or simply put decent with modification in a population.

Fact; An objective, verifiable observation. That can be, and has been, verified many times.

Evolution has been verifiability observed occurring many times.

Theory; A scientific explanation of related observations or events based on hypotheses and verified multiple times by different independent researchers.

Evolution offers explanation of the observed diversity of life on this planet. This has been verified independently multiple times.

Religion; An organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.

Beliefs in science are irrelevant, or as the meme goes "Science, doesn't really care able your beliefs." (said nicely for the sake of the forum) This would automatically rule it out as a religion.
It does not encompass the entirety of an individual or society's knowledge or point of view, as such it is not a world view.
It has nothing what so ever to do with cultural systems. 
As such it fails at being a religion on every level.

"Yes that's right, evolution originally taught that African-Americans were closer relatives to apes than Caucasians."

No it didn't, people misunderstanding an trying to use evolution as an excuse to be bigots said this.
"Evolution thus is merely contingent on certain processes articulated by Darwin: variation and selection." -Ernst Mayr

If you want to get into social Darwinism, that has nothing to do with evolution and Darwin but in name only.

"If course they had to reinvent their asinine and bigoted religion when racism went out of style."

Changes and refinements to the theory that were made were the same as how we change statements such as the shape of the earth being round to it being an oblong spheroid. It's a refinement of the theory based on new information, which is exactly what science is suppose to do.

 

Posted Jan 31, '14 at 2:22pm

Minotaur55

Minotaur55

1,226 posts

Knight

This very interesting when you consider that evolution is a biased, racist religion.

Evolution isn't biased, nor racist. And it is not a religion. It's science. Evolution only states proven facts and expands in theoretical ways, theories that can be proven in the principles of science itself. There is no subjection in this in a bias manner.

 

Posted Jan 31, '14 at 4:51pm

FishPreferred

FishPreferred

1,501 posts

@themastaplaya; you do not appear to have a sufficient understanding of the meaning of evolution...or phylogeny...or religion...or science...or indoctrination...or the word "ape".

Evolution does not make any such claim related to race. Suggesting that any subgroup of a species is more near or distant in relation than another subgroup is absurd. It's as reasonable as saying your twin sibling is more related to your cousin than you are.

I'd like to know what you think Creationism's initial view of African people was? There was a time when anyone even resembling an African was considered a sub-human or look-alike species. Strangely enough, this was the consensus long before the birth of Darwin or Wallace.

Also, as you seem a bit confused about the term, an ape is a member of a group of primates which are characterised by the absence of a tail. One subgroup is that of "great apes" (hominidae), which consists of gorillas, chimps, ourangutans, and humans. Therefore, every human, including yourself, is an ape. Creationism and evolution have no say in this.

 

Posted Feb 1, '14 at 11:02am

Wishful_

Wishful_

3 posts

Wait what? How is it NOT OK to teach this in public school? It is like not teaching about freaking science because someone doesn't believe in gravity, even though it has been proven it does exist.

 

Posted Feb 1, '14 at 11:52am

HahiHa

HahiHa

4,942 posts

Knight

Evolution does not make any such claim related to race. Suggesting that any subgroup of a species is more near or distant in relation than another subgroup is absurd. It's as reasonable as saying your twin sibling is more related to your cousin than you are.

Knowing where to separate different genera or species is important in biology (even though smaller units like subspecies don't make much sense to me). But genetics are crystal clear on one point: there is no evidence for different races in humans. As an example, two random African individuals will statistically have a bigger genetical difference than you'll find between the average African and European. Genetically we're exactly the same.

How is it NOT OK to teach this in public school?

It challenges the world views of many people that are not ready to accept that their notions are not immutable truths, and they worry about their progeniture learning this in school.

 
Reply to Is it OK to teach evolution in public schools?

You must be logged in to post a reply!