Forums → WEPR → Is it OK to teach evolution in public schools?
| 364 | 121359 |
Many parents argue about schools teaching evolution. Creationalists do not support or believe in the theory of evolution. It goes against their beliefs. They do not believe it should be taught because it apposes many peoples' beliefs. Do you think that it should be taught?
Notes:
Lets try not point out certain religions. I am saying creationalists for a reason.
- 364 Replies
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!
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!
Do you accept human evolution? If so, how do you reconcile Jesus? Without original sin (Adam & Eve) there seems to be no need for him.
Do you accept human evolution? If so, how do you reconcile Jesus? Without original sin (Adam & Eve) there seems to be no need for him.
People have free will and need to be taught to exercise it properly. (NOTE: I am an atheist)
Please further explain what you mean by "reconcile Jesus"....?
Jesus died for all of our sins.
Jesus died for all of our sins.
So this means we can sin all we want but be forgiven anyway?
If we truly seek forgiveness and our mindset isn't "I CAN DO WHAT I WANT CUZ IMA GO TO HEAVEN ANYWAY"
If we truly seek forgiveness and our mindset isn't "I CAN DO WHAT I WANT CUZ IMA GO TO HEAVEN ANYWAY"
Is there a court system up there to deem if you truly seek forgiveness or not? Angels on the jury? Who wouldn't seek forgiveness even if they have a i can do what i want attitude? The alternative is hell. So they would beg for it anyway.
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.
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.
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.)
Very interesting that the various forms of Christianity can't even agree on what exactly Jesus died for.
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!
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.
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.
@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.
You must be logged in to post a reply!