Vote for Creationism or Evolutionism or Both for Schools to Teach?

Vote for Creationism or Evolutionism or Both for Schools to Teach?

  • Vote for Schools to continue teach Evolutionism

    Votes: 10 35.7%
  • Vote for Schools to NOT teach Evolutionism

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Vote for Schools to teach Creationsim (Intelligent Design)

    Votes: 6 21.4%
  • Vote for Schools to NOT teach Creationism (I.D.)

    Votes: 2 7.1%
  • Vote for Schools to teach Both Creationism (Intelligent Design) or Evolutionism

    Votes: 8 28.6%
  • Not so sure ??

    Votes: 2 7.1%

  • Total voters
    28
Status
Not open for further replies.
Reba said:
That seems pretty "hit or miss". Whole races of people or species of animals could die out before they "hit" it just right. It makes more sense to put the people and animals in climates that suit them.
Whole species and sub-species have died out.

Reba said:
How come all the penguins didn't die from starvation prior to getting their ability to dive for food? Waiting a few thousand (million?) years for the next meal would make some pretty skinny birds.
Because they weren't penguins - they were some other ancestral creature of which some had natural genetic mutations which suited them well to diving and swimming, and over many generations these mutations were bred and refined as the animals migrated. Some that were poorly suited did not survive - we find them all over the place in the fossil record. In our own lifetime the Staffordshire Terrier has been selectively bred to increase aggressiveness and jaw strength.

Reba said:
Creationism doesn't have to "explain away" anything because Creation existed first. The theory of evolution is the newcomer on the block, and its proponents are trying to "explain away" Creation.
You're right - Creationism doesn't HAVE TO explain away evolution, but many people who call themselves Creationists DO attempt to explain away observable reality because it does not fit with a narrow, Biblically-literal world view. Evolution is not new, and neither is discussing it or acknowledging it. Evolution exists as a natural process that has occured from the very origin of the Earth. That the origin of the Earth and its inhabitants could be a loving creator is neither confirmed nor denied by science since it is not the particular concern of science to try to describe the supernatural. The many disciplines of science which relate to the concepts of evolution do not attempt to explain away a creator - they are neutral on this because it is not pertinent to the observance of the natural world eg. the sky is blue whether there is or isn't a God.

Reba said:
It's true that many people don't realize how belief in evolution supports acceptance of abortion, euthanasia, racism, and denial of man's sin nature. After all, man is just another "animal".

It is purposeless to debate this. Christianity has lead to all manner of horrible acts, but as a Christian, I don't expect to be held responsible for what 10th century Catholics did, or what Tim McVeigh did just a few years ago in the name of Christ.
 
Good grief.
Science is the new kid on the block, Reba?
Don't get me started.
 
Reba said:
Of course, I previously pointed out that Adam and Eve carried all the hair color gene combinations possible for all their descendants, so hair color doesn't prove evolution.
MorriganTait said:
Do you also feel this is the case for eye color? Yes? No?
Reba said:
Yes, all physical characteristics.

Ok, so apparently what you are saying that the characteristics of genetic inheritance have changed since the time of Adam and Eve, which in-and-of itself is your admission of evolution. I say this because of what we know, specifically, about the genetics of eye color, and the way eye color is inherited. It's really quite difficult to explain, so I won't try to, except to say, that no modern human being can carry the genes for ALL eye colors all at once, but I will encourange you do go here:
http://www.athro.com/evo/inherit.html
http://www.athro.com/evo/gen/inherit1.html#uncertainty
 
Reba said:
That seems pretty "hit or miss". Whole races of people or species of animals could die out before they "hit" it just right. It makes more sense to put the people and animals in climates that suit them.

Whole races of people or species of animals would not die out before they hit it right. If a particular mutation was unsuitable for the environment, that person or animal died. If that mutation was better for the environment than the original version, they would likely survive and propogate that mutation, thus leading to the species or breed at large being better suited to that environment.

Reba said:
How come all the penguins didn't die from starvation prior to getting their ability to dive for food? Waiting a few thousand (million?) years for the next meal would make some pretty skinny birds.

Nothing says they would have starved. See the above. The ancestors of the penguin were not as efficient at diving and catching fish as the modern penguin is. They could do it, at varying degrees of efficiency, getting less and less efficient going further into the past, ultimately culminating in the modern penguin.

Reba said:
Creationism doesn't have to "explain away" anything because Creation existed first. The theory of evolution is the newcomer on the block, and its proponents are trying to "explain away" Creation.

Creationism is not and has never been a scientific theory. Evolution does not attempt to "explain away" Creationism, because Creationism is not a scientific theory.

Science exists to explain how the world works as best as we with our limited knowledge and power can, not to refute religion. Some religious people make the mistake of thinking scientists are trying to refute religion because science has explained something new that they already have dogma about.

When Galileo said that the earth revolves around the sun rather than the other way around, the Church, which accepted its dogma that the sun revolved around the earth as fact, punished him. The Church didn't kill him simply because Galileo was good friends with the Pope and the Pope would not allow him to be sentenced to death, but they did put him under house arrest for the rest of his life.

Evolution is just the new thing you're fuming about. Scientists make new discoveries, do experiments, prove something new. You're up in arms about it because you take everything in your holy book literally and it doesn't agree with it 100%.

In a few hundred years, people like you who refuse to accept logic and reason will not exist anymore, like the people that thought the sun revolved around the earth before you. Evolution at work.

Reba said:
It's true that many people don't realize how belief in evolution supports acceptance of abortion, euthanasia, racism, and denial of man's sin nature. After all, man is just another "animal".

I don't see how believe in evolution and natural selection supports any one of those things. Care to explain?
 
Reba said:
That seems pretty "hit or miss". Whole races of people or species of animals could die out before they "hit" it just right. It makes more sense to put the people and animals in climates that suit them.

While it seems "hit or miss", I personally think the so-called evolutionary "mistakes" did indeed have a purpose...they teach us about what works and what doesn't in nature. I personally think God wants us to learn and understand the world in which He has placed us, in full--and that is why I think He allowed those "mistakes".

Or God made certain lizards with the ability (and right parts) for swimming.

Why is He any less responsible if He did it in one day or over the course of millions of years with a series of tiny changes one after the other? I don't see why that sort of range and degree of precision is beyond the Almighty God.

Creationism doesn't have to "explain away" anything because Creation existed first. The theory of evolution is the newcomer on the block, and its proponents are trying to "explain away" Creation.

Only a problem with a completely literalist view of the Bible or conversely a complete denial of all things spiritual.

It's true that many people don't realize how belief in evolution supports acceptance of abortion, euthanasia, racism, and denial of man's sin nature. After all, man is just another "animal".

We are physically animals--but I do think we have something more to us, that when God breathed life into Adam, that is the moment in which He first awoke the soul of one of the creatures He had created. Billions of years of His dedicated work led to that moment. Evolution as moral philosophy can and does lead to the conclusions you suggest--look at Nietzsche. Evolution as God's mechanism to create does not. I have very, very deep respect for His craftsmanship--perhaps even more now that we are starting to get a sense of the scale and precision with which He did His work. With said respect for craftsmanship comes the same need to respect the works of His hands.
 
Rose Immortal said:
While it seems "hit or miss", I personally think the so-called evolutionary "mistakes" did indeed have a purpose...they teach us about what works and what doesn't in nature. I personally think God wants us to learn and understand the world in which He has placed us, in full--and that is why I think He allowed those "mistakes".



Why is He any less responsible if He did it in one day or over the course of millions of years with a series of tiny changes one after the other? I don't see why that sort of range and degree of precision is beyond the Almighty God.



Only a problem with a completely literalist view of the Bible or conversely a complete denial of all things spiritual.



We are physically animals--but I do think we have something more to us, that when God breathed life into Adam, that is the moment in which He first awoke the soul of one of the creatures He had created. Billions of years of His dedicated work led to that moment. Evolution as moral philosophy can and does lead to the conclusions you suggest--look at Nietzsche. Evolution as God's mechanism to create does not. I have very, very deep respect for His craftsmanship--perhaps even more now that we are starting to get a sense of the scale and precision with which He did His work. With said respect for craftsmanship comes the same need to respect the works of His hands.
E
 
MorriganTait said:
Whole species and sub-species have died out.

Because they weren't penguins - they were some other ancestral creature of which some had natural genetic mutations which suited them well to diving and swimming, and over many generations these mutations were bred and refined as the animals migrated. Some that were poorly suited did not survive - we find them all over the place in the fossil record. In our own lifetime the Staffordshire Terrier has been selectively bred to increase aggressiveness and jaw strength.

You're right - Creationism doesn't HAVE TO explain away evolution, but many people who call themselves Creationists DO attempt to explain away observable reality because it does not fit with a narrow, Biblically-literal world view. Evolution is not new, and neither is discussing it or acknowledging it. Evolution exists as a natural process that has occured from the very origin of the Earth. That the origin of the Earth and its inhabitants could be a loving creator is neither confirmed nor denied by science since it is not the particular concern of science to try to describe the supernatural. The many disciplines of science which relate to the concepts of evolution do not attempt to explain away a creator - they are neutral on this because it is not pertinent to the observance of the natural world eg. the sky is blue whether there is or isn't a God.



It is purposeless to debate this. Christianity has lead to all manner of horrible acts, but as a Christian, I don't expect to be held responsible for what 10th century Catholics did, or what Tim McVeigh did just a few years ago in the name of Christ.


excellent response! :applause: :thumb:
 
Teresh said:
In a few hundred years, people like you who refuse to accept logic and reason will not exist anymore, like the people that thought the sun revolved around the earth before you. Evolution at work.

Right on! :thumb: :applause:
 
MorriganTait said:
Ok, so apparently what you are saying that the characteristics of genetic inheritance have changed since the time of Adam and Eve, which in-and-of itself is your admission of evolution.
No, that is not evolution. God created Adam as fully developed Man; there was no intermidiary species, no trial and error stages. Some have brown eyes, some have blue, but they always were, and are, full human beings.


I say this because of what we know, specifically, about the genetics of eye color, and the way eye color is inherited. It's really quite difficult to explain, so I won't try to, except to say, that no modern human being can carry the genes for ALL eye colors all at once, but I will encourange you do go here:
http://www.athro.com/evo/inherit.html
http://www.athro.com/evo/gen/inherit1.html#uncertainty
Don't forget, Adam and Eve didn't "inherit" anything; God designed them with specific characteristics. God put into them what was necessary for all the generations to follow.
 
Reba said:
Don't forget, Adam and Eve didn't "inherit" anything; God designed them with specific characteristics. God put into them what was necessary for all the generations to follow.

Do you regard Adam and Eve to be biologically identical to modern humans, with all important biological traits being substantially similar? because what you are sying about them each having "all the genes" necessary for future human generations does not match what we now know about the human genome, and what we know about how genetic traits are passed on. This would essentially have required Adam and Eve to have several different sets of DNA each, and this would make them remarkably biologically different from modern man - we have only one set of DNA each.
 
I just vote. Interestin' thread !
 
Boult said:
Watch this show: Cracking the code of Life
Cracking the code of Life's main page:

Thank you - I watched this when it was first on. My father worked with some of the forerunners of this project, and now invents some of the technology they used to crack the code. :)
 
MorriganTait said:
Thank you - I watched this when it was first on. My father worked with some of the forerunners of this project, and now invents some of the technology they used to crack the code. :)
awesome! notice about the fruit fly and banana!? :D
 
Intelligent Design Debate Arrives in Germany

Intelligent Design Debate Arrives in Germany

While a US court this week ruled that evolution must be taught as a fact in Pennsylvania schools, a small group in Germany is trying to advocate alternatives. It believes that an "intelligent designer" created life.

Did God create mankind or are we derived from apes? This question has caused a stir ever since Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution in "The Origin of Species" in 1859. For scientists, the answer is simple: our planet is the result of billions of years of evolution.

"Evolution is a documented fact," said Ulrich Kutschera, a professor at the University of Kassel and one of Germany's leading evolutionary biologists. But a small group of skeptics is claiming that evolution is not the scientific explanation for our planet's existence.

Intelligent design (ID) is a movement that has become considerably popular in the United States in the past several years and is now gaining ground in Germany, too. ID supporters believe that an "intelligent force" played a role in the development of the universe, as opposed to it being the result of random natural selection as argued by Darwin.

The ID theory states that nature could not have developed in such a complex manner without the work of a designer -- who is unnamed -- or higher being. It differs from creationism in that it does not advocate taking the Bible literally.

"Neo-creationist propaganda"

The leading ID proponent in Germany is Wort und Wissen (or Word and Knowledge). The society, based in the small town Baiersbronn in the Black Forest, organizes lectures and publishes evolution-critical books and pamphlets for adults and children.

Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: ID theorists see a connection to creationist beliefs

The Munich microbiologist Siegfried Scherer, who heads Wort und Wissen, said that it was "not entirely unthinkable" from a biologist's perspective that all humans derived from Adam and Eve.

"You could consider that there were tiny populations in the distant past, which spread out to become humanity," Scherer told German public television ZDF.

Scherer and fellow Wort und Wissen secretary Reinhard Junker are the authors of the controversial work, "Evolution - a critical textbook". Using pseudo-scientific terminology, they outline a model in which organisms developed from basic types created by an intelligent being.

Scientists, though, strongly criticize the theory. "If perfectly created species existed, then the perfect human wouldn't get slipped discs, or die of cancer and dinosaurs wouldn't have become extinct," said biologist Kutschera. He added that the book was "a successful piece of German neo-creationist propaganda", which conveyed a biased view of evolution.

ID supporters want alternatives taught

Although Wort und Wissen has existed since the early 1980s, public and media interest in its work has only developed recently. Kutschera said it is because people have only now "woken up" to the problem.

"The Internet is infested with this creationist rubbish," Kutschera said. Books such as Scherer and Junker's are donated to school libraries across the country.

According to Wort und Wissen, though, the book is solely "additional informational material for teachers and students, who want to deal with scientific arguments critical of evolution or alternative interpretations of biological data". Wort und Wissen said that it did not seek to introduce creationist theories into biology lessons and that these should remain in religious education.

"However, the society wants scientific criticism of evolutionary teachings to be adequately explored," it said in a statement. This also belonged in biology class, it said.

German schools will stick to evolution

Wort und Wissen said it would not take legal steps to force ID or creationist theory in schools, as is the case in the United States. Last month, the Kansas Board of Education approved new public school science standards that cast doubt on the theory of evolution. On Tuesday, though, a US court in Pennsylvania ruled it was unconstitutional to teach schoolchildren the intelligent design theory of life as an alternative to evolution.

Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Darwin's work still causes controversy today

German education officials said they didn't expect the debate to become a major issue.

"This development will not reach Germany," said Sylvia Schill, spokeswoman for the Kultusministerkonferenz, the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the German Länder.

"Evolution is taught in biology class in all German schools," Schill said. References to creationism, on the other hand, are made in religious instruction at school.

"There are no endeavors to change this, nor will there be in the foreseeable future," she said.

Better education about evolution necessary

But, ID theories, it seems, are likely to find a willing audience in Germany. A recent survey by the research group Weltanschauung in Germany fowid showed that 38 percent of the population disputed evolution. Of this, 13 percent believed God created life as written in the Bible. A further 25 percent were convinced that life was created by a higher being, and then followed a process guided by this being.

In comparison, a Gallup poll released last month in the United States showed that 53 percent of American adults agreed with the statement that God created humans in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it. Thirty-one percent stood by the ID stance, while only 12 percent said humans evolved from other forms of life and "God has no part".

According to Kutschera, education is the best tool to counteract movements such as ID.

"More emphasis is necessary on biology in German schools in order to counteract the lack of knowledge about evolution," he said. "A literal interpretation of biblical creationist myths no longer suit our times. Geology and life sciences have made enormous progress, and this cannot simply be ignored."

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1829644,00.html
 
Fishapod fossil: suck on this, Creationists!

snagged from Boing Boing: Fishapod fossil: suck on this, Creationists!:

Xeni Jardin:
Darwin's posse just got mightier with the discovery of a prehistoric critter that represents a missing link in the evolutionary chain. "Fishapod" (Tiktaalik roseae) was highly trained in martial arts and once vanquished ten Intelligent Design proponents with a single wu-shu thwack from his mighty tail!
fish0405.jpg
The fossils of the approximately 9-ft. long creature, which are, described in two Nature articles released today, were dug out of rock formations on Ellesmere Island, in the Canadian Arctic, by paleontologists from the University of Chicago and several other institutions. Its nickame, for reasons that will become clear, is "fishapod"; it's more formally called Tiktaalik ("large fish in stream," in the local Inuit language). Fishapod dates from about 383 million years ago. It had the scales, teeth and gills of a fish, but also a big, curved rib cage that suggests the creature had lungs as well. The ribs interlock, moreover, unlike a fish's, implying they were able to bear fishapod's weight—an unnecessary trait in a fish. It had a neck—most unfishlike. And, most surprising of all, its pectoral fins included bones that look like nothing less than a primitive wrist and fingers.
Link to TIME coverage, Link to Nature's coverage (there's a podcast, too), here's something in the Guardian, and here's a NYT article. Update: The BBC opened their TV news last night with a a great segment that's now available on their site. Link, Click on "See the fossilized fish - Video" in upper right hand corner. (Thanks, John Brockman, John Parres, Jake, and everyone else!) Image: Kalliopi Monoyios / University of Chicago.

Reader comment: Michael Reeve says,
The podcast in Nature's coverage, would that be a tetrapodcast? I'm sorry.
Reader comment: Eli Laztanguren says,
Xeni wrote "(Tiktaalik roseae) was highly trained in martial arts and once vanquished ten Intelligent Design proponents with a single wu-shu thwack from his mighty tail!" The fact is that nobody knows about Tiktaalik roseae having a tail or not. They just found the front part of the fossil. They might need now another six years in the artic ice to recover, if lucky, some rear part of it. Anyway, it actually vanquished ten Intelligent Design proponents with a single wu-shu thwack from his mighty... JAW.
 
What I haven't liked about some of the coverage of this (as I commented in the thread in the news forum) is that some article writers assume that the only two options are an atheistic evolution or "creation science".

I don't see why God couldn't have done this, why He could not have designed the universe over a long period of time with all these steps. It's certainly not beyond the power of an omnipotent, omniscient God. This stance is called "theistic evolution", which is a whole different thing not ever to be confused with "creationism".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top