Well to start out i dont beleive in evoltuion so the fact that other things cant be taught really ticks me off but i just want to see what people think and why.
The last few pages are a bit of a dead end IMO. It seemed already abundantly clear that creationism itself cannot be supported by science as it relies on a set of premises separate from science, so I'm not sure what people are trying to acheive here, if not reasserting the strength of scientific evidence by presuming it (in calling scientific articles "unbiased".)
The last few pages are a bit of a dead end IMO. It seemed already abundantly clear that creationism itself cannot be supported by science as it relies on a set of premises separate from science, so I'm not sure what people are trying to acheive here, if not reasserting the strength of scientific evidence by presuming it (in calling scientific articles "unbiased".)
Which is why the majority of those who support creationism, and it's newer buzz-phrase "intelligent design," spend most of their efforts looking for ways to undermine evolution.
maybe god didnt want us all to be perfect because he didnt want us to rise against him and retaliate. idk why anybody would do that, just a thought...
I am not saying perfect. I am saying perfect body. What reason would He have for making our bodies a detriment to our health?
One attempt at reconciling this I've seen is in fact asserting that perfection would render the relationship between God and mankind pointless.
You can call that either question-begging or theological definition, depending on your premises. Regardless, don't get me started on the number of ways the body could go wrong for no apparent reason!!!
What do you mean, render the relationship pointless?
if people wanted to learn about theology in school they would go to private school... thus elaborating on my previous post
A lot of families cannot afford this. But I do agree that if they want to learn it in a science class, that it should be done outside of public school. Whether that be through church, family, etc.
Pseudoscience is not science either. Stringing together a bunch of science-sounding giberish does not make facts out of beliefs.
Boy have I got a study for you! =) I give you, the Dr. Fox Lecture. I highly recommend that you at least scan it. A well done and incredible study. I think it parallels quite well with the whole intelligent design scheme. Make it sound good, and they will buy it.
I am not saying perfect. I am saying perfect body. What reason would He have for making our bodies a detriment to our health?
Uh...hate to butt in here but you do realise "health" is a relative term here, and therefore so is illness and "detriment" right?
The reason I view the "imperfect body" as a weak criticism of Creationism overall is precisely because of my understanding of evolutionary principles: that living beings are merely dynamically optimising functional products, not purpose-built. "Imperfect body" however does halt poorly formed Creationist arguments in their tracks.
What do you mean, render the relationship pointless?
Insofar that mankind's raison d'etre is to "form a relationship with God", my understanding is that certain denominations further suggest that necessary to a relationship is a relative phenomenon, in this case imperfection versus perfection. If we were perfect we would not need any entity to perfect us, but we're imperfect.
Dr. Fox's topic was to be "Mathematical Game Theory as Applied to Physician Education." His source material was derived from a complex but sufficiently understandable scientific article geared to lay readers (5). One of the authors, on two separate occasions, coached the lecturer to present his topic and conduct his question and answer period with an excessive use of double talk, neologisms, non sequiturs, and contradictory statements. All this was to be interspersed with parenthetical humor and meaningless references to unrelated topics.
LOL
I think I may have been shammed by this Dr. Fox character before! :P
Nontheless this does play in at a rather editorial end of the scientific continuum since...well, this whole argument is about what constitutes 'education' and what doesn't.
Something created the universe, be it an explosion of intensely dense matter, or a supernatural being poofing us into existence. Evolution took over from there. It's foolish not to believe in evolution, at all. There is solid proof of evolution, the problem is when we try to use it to explain where we came from. There is not enough to say that humans evolved from this, only theories that say maybe this maybe that.
So I believe it's a combination of both Evolution and Creationism.
That's a fairly good summation, there's just a minor semantic quibble from me:
There is solid proof of evolution
I think you mean solid evidence.
Ok, so you firmly believe in Evolution, how about this: if you can find one website that gives absolutely solid proof of Evolution, I will agree that Evolution is the only thing that should be taught in schools. However, if you can't, you agree with me that both Evolution and Creation should be taught in schools, but if you don't want to look for a website, that is fine too.
if you can find one website that gives absolutely solid proof of Evolution
The reason I corrected Summon_Fiend above is because talking of proofs is not scientific in the strictest of senses. Therefore it is not so sensible to say "give me one source of evidence that will convince me this is proof" because the strength of that depends on how much evidence there is.
Nonetheless I'll start you off with one source, which relates to what I consider to be the easiest way in which to understand how evolution is applicable. This section details the genetic mechanisms of bacteria. The selection by environment of populations of bacteria depending on their genetic makeup conforms to the basic principles of evolution. The evidence for this is the changing dynamics of bacterial infections as well as the constant need for developing new antibiotics as resistance updates, otherwise 'superbugs' would have overrun the human population more than forty years ago.
I think that evolution is the most practical theory. But I'm not all against creationism, I believe that every idea should be explored until we get the right answer, and although more and more evidence is coming out for evolution, creationism should not be counted it until there is solid concrete proof.
Therefore it is not so sensible to say "give me one source of evidence that will convince me this is proof" because the strength of that depends on how much evidence there is.
So, there may not be so much evidence for Evolution (correct me if i was wrong on that, but that's just kinda how it sounded to me). Also, thanks for the link, and though Evolution could be applied in such an instance, could not Creation be applied also? Just the complexity of bacteria points to an all-powerful Creator. According to Evolution, the complexity of everything in the universe just happened by chance? Anyway, here's part of my point: Evolution and Creation are theories of how the earth began, nobody was there when the earth began, so we can't absolutely say for sure that Evolution or Creation is right. But science can give us a hint as to how the earth began. Instead of only putting the theory of Evolution into kids minds, why can't we teach both ways, and let them decide which one is fact and which one is fiction?
Also I have a question, according to evolution our world should be improving, we should be heading for a perfect world and humanity, our next evolutionary leap. But according to creationism our world is steadily heading for it's on destruction, were getting worse. Turn on the news...which one seems more likely.
