Should evolution be taught in schools?

[afro-elf]

Should we give equal valence to Flat earthers and ether theories?

If they come up with some compelling evidence they will be taken more seriously.

[afro-elf]

Oops and there are less than optimal designs also.

[Lizra]

In reply to Rian.....The field is always fair for me. That is why I don't get where you are coming from with the "if evolution hit a serious flaw why would you still keep it" point. I wouldn't! Who would insist on believing something that had been discredited with real evidence. not me! But this hasn't happened of course. I treat all theories equal, I have no special fondness for evolution other than it's the most reasonable scientific theory to date. It makes sense,(to me) much more so than anything else out there. I've considered the options, and I'll take evolution.

[Rían]

sorry, I'm just taking a quick peek while finishing preparing dinner - what does "swifting" mean?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by afro-elf
Yes, Robert could be an actor named John pretending to be a guy named Robert. . But in the above example I do not believe that nature is attempting to deceive us on purpose.

Robert could just be a figment of my mind. There are more

I understand the cow example. I am aware that science is not perfect however I know of no other endeavor that has been as "useful"

Nature doesn't have to be tricking us on purpose for the example that I have above stated to take place. If you think about my example, you'll see that that's true. Nature doesn't have to be tricking you simply because you observe a cow when the animal is actually a horse. You've been tricked because you didn't have all of the evidence which pointed to something else. And if you did notice a piece of evidence, you might have simply adapted your theory to cope with that too. For example, you might simply change your theory because of the new evidence and say "Okay, this is a cow with a mane." Thus, even with this glimpse of the bigger picture, you've made it so that you still don't know that there is a man riding the horse.

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
But science is a wonderful thing, leading us on to truths about our own planet, about the universe and about life itself. It can be fascinating for Christians and nonChristians alike.

I already said that science, even with its errors is certainly a wonderful thing. I'm in agreement with you about that. Whether there has never been so useful an endeavor, that depends upon how you define "useful." Since we're already basically in agreement on that one, though, I won't bother with quibbling as to whether it's the most useful thing. I'm sure you'll agree with me that there isn't any point.

[afro-elf]

Nature doesn't have to be tricking us on purpose for the example that I have above stated to take place.

I was refering to MY Robert example not the cows.

[Lizra]

What's for dinner?

[mirial]

I don't care,


*SORRY FREAK OUT MOMENT*

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Actually, Lief, I think I just misinterpreted YOUR post - *sigh* - looking back, I think you didn't say that I necessarily believed it, but that the classic creation theory based on the creation story in the Bible wasn't necessarily an appropriate theory - is that right?

That is correct. I wasn't accusing anyone of anything, simply giving my opinion.

Originally posted by afro-elf
I was refering to MY Robert example not the cows.

I'm aware of that. But what does that have to do with it? Science is science, whether you're giving one example or another. Why should your example work in one instance and mine only in another? In the circumstance you're using, we're being tricked, and Robert is an illusion by purposeful intent. In mine, trickery doesn't have to be by purposeful intent.

If you are swifting to ID. MY question is how intelligent is this
"Creator"?

There are several "design flaws" in Nature

Are you going to use anthropic arguments?

I'd like to hear some of these flaws. I've read about one of them, an insect that lives a rather (from human standpoints) disgusting, awful and brief existence.

We're assuming that the Creator is very, very intelligent. So go ahead and take potshots at his way of creating, if you like. But remember that you're only a human, and he is God. Job once challenged God in the Bible as to why he was doing things the way he was. It was a different topic, but I think the answer might be applied to this question as well.

I am not sure what domain you are using realms in but you seem to be begging the question that such "realms exist"

Scientifically you cannot prove that such realms exist. Once you come to God, evidence is given that these realms are very real, and then you have to use the methods RÃ*an mentioned to discover more about them. Please explain how you mean that she's begging the question.

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
[B]One thing I am trying to do at this point is get th. of ev. people to think out the implications of "all data fits my theory, because it can be infinitely adjusted" idea. I think that most people now agree that if ANY theory's basic tenents are past adjustment, INCLUDING the th. of ev., then the theory needs to be discarded and a new one formulated. Am I right, people?

You are right, Rian, but as people have said, small changes don't necessarely mean the whole theory must be thrown out. I suppose that if somehow there is evidence that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, the theory of evolution would have to be seriously looked at, because there would not be enough time for organisms to evolve. But I really don't think that that is going to happen in the future.

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
[B]I'd like to hear some of these flaws. I've read about one of them, an insect that lives a rather (from human standpoints) disgusting, awful and brief existence.

We're assuming that the Creator is very, very intelligent. So go ahead and take potshots at his way of creating, if you like. But remember that you're only a human, and he is God. Job once challenged God in the Bible as to why he was doing things the way he was. It was a different topic, but I think the answer might be applied to this question as well.

If He (the creator) created the whole universe, with all its wonder and intricancies, I would think He would be very intelligent. I can think of several design flaws. Animals have defects that are passed on to their young to thier detriment. Animals have parts of the body not used (for example the appendix in humans). This points to evolution.

[Cirdan]

ID is a philosophy that is beyond scientific proof so there is an "apples and oranges" problem with dragging this into a discussion about what to teach in a science class.

Problems with ID? How about infantile cancer? Just can't be a problem of sin now can it?

EDIT: yeah, I'm days behind on responses to long posts. Too busy reading Tolkien.

[afro-elf]

I'm aware of that. But what does that have to do with it? Science is science, whether you're giving one example or another. Why should your example work in one instance and mine only in another? In the circumstance you're using, we're being tricked, and Robert is an illusion by purposeful intent. In mine, trickery doesn't have to be by purposeful intent

Why should ALL examples lead to the same result?

They were two examples where our knowledge could be faulty.
One from mal-intent the other not.

I am failing to see your point here. Is there only ONE way to be wrong?

By the way Afro elf, it is possible, on a sidenote, to show you methods in which you might be wrong in your proof that Robert exists.

I was just offering ONE example to show were I was could be wrong.

But remember that you're only a human, and he is God. Job once challenged God in the Bible as to why he was doing things the way he was.

You are assuming the antecedent again

You state God exist but where is your tangible "proof"

If I say the Invisible Pink Unicorn has spoken to me and has said she is real. And that all other faiths are false you would not believe me. Why should I believe you.

I am not saying believers are liars but are "sidetracked" by the need to believe.

How you tell the difference between a neutral net transient that can example via neuro-science and and supposedly inner knowing?

Scientifically you cannot prove that such realms exist.

And without tangible evidence I find faith in the preternatural to be empheral.

Please explain how you mean that she's begging the question.

as above with your quest about god, you assume god exist she assumes "realms" exist

but you have not given evidence tangible evidence that what you believe is real

when someone mentions you just gotta have faith it means that the idea can not stand on its own.

as for design flaws the panda's thumb, the human eye, human appendix etc

your response about only being human again assumes that there is a creator. If I lowly human can see the design flaws then something is wrong

[barrelrider110]

I really don't understand the great amount of passion that this topic evokes.

There is no conflict between faith and science. Science is the process of observation, questioning, hypothesizing, experimenting, and observing. Scientific theories have given us such wonderful things like space travel, cellphones and computers, on and on. Science is what we can see. It serves our purpose while we are here on earth. Faith, on the otherhand, does not require us to see, but to follow what we believe.

Christian faith tells us that our faith on Earth will serve us after we have finished our time on earth. They are two different paradigms of thought.

Natural Selection and other theories of Evolution are just that, scientific theories. They should be taught in the science classroom as such. Competing theories about the origins of man that are derived from religious teachings, or intended to reconcile the truth of religious teachings with the natural world or are simply not science, and should not be taught in the science classroom.

Scientific truths are truth, religious truths are also truth. We are not always wise enough to reconcile them.

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by Lizra
What's for dinner?

Wednesday's chilli (mmm, nicely matured) and a lovely bottle of Wolf Blass Yellow Label I've been saving.

That reminds me of the Douglas Adams theory of cultural evolution: all societies progress through three phases of intellectual enquiry. These are the what, why and where phases. This is best illustrated re: food

1) what are we going to eat? Once this practical issue is settled, we can evolve to stage 2.

2) why do we eat? Inevitably, this leads to a lot of bloodshed and a crisis point is reached at which the society either blows itself up or evolves to the next stage, namely

3) where shall we have lunch? Having discarded circular and self-referential argument as tiresome, we retire to a jolly nice restaurant and consume some fine food and wines.

Accordingly, this debate resides firmly at stage 2. Can we evolve it to the next level?

Just kidding...

[Methuselah]

Originally posted by Dunadan
My problem with religion as ontology is that revelation is essentially private knowledge (whether direct spiritual revelation or mediated by interpretation as a text) made authoritative. That is, I have my revelation which I impose on the rest of you. Throughout history, has there been a greater source of conflict and suffering than "my revelation vs yours"?

One thing that differentiates what we call scientific knowledge is that it is transparent, reproducible and testable. As Cirdan said, science CAN disprove things (beyond reasonable doubt) and, unlike dogma, is capable of wholesale reinvention when a theory is shown to be incompatible with observations.
d.

One can opine that science CAN disprove things, but not with the rigor that is in mathematics. Since you use the term reasonable doubt as is used in a courtroom, let’s continue the analogy. A jury hears the prosecutor’s evidence and believe beyond reasonable doubt that the verdict is clear. It is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Then they hear the evidence of the defense, and all of a sudden, they find they do have reasonable doubt. Hence, it seems one must hear the case against as well as the case for something before making a judgment that something is proved beyond reasonable doubt. But suppose the person making the case against a verdict is a poor defender and the jury opts for the prosecutor. Is the reasonable doubt case satisfied? Or suppose the defender is a good defender, but didn’t have all of the evidence at his disposal? Or suppose one lawyer has a $30 million dollar budget and the other lawyer has a $1000 budget?

For at least the past 4000 years prior to the last few hundred years, everybody could see beyond reasonable doubt that the sun rose in the morning, moved through the sky, and set in the evening. But now the case against that theory appears much stronger. What scientific models do have is utility for making sense and order of phenomena that we observe. The theory that the sun rises and sets has utility. The theory of gravity and Newtonian physics has greater utility. But what is the confidence that we have in a theory? "Beyond reasonable doubt" is a subjective measure of collective belief that has a bad historical track record. Is there some way to put a metric on whether a theory can be believed beyond reasonable doubt? Don’t quote statistics to me. I know about statistics. Statistics can validate whether measurements are consistent with a theory, but it doesn’t prove the theory.

One thing that I cannot tolerate is the argument: Would God deliberately deceive us by making things other than how our senses and observations perceive things? (I don't accuse you of saying this.) The problem is not that He would contradict His own universal laws (whatever they may really be), but that He really is not constrained to make everything simple for us to understand. The sun doesn’t move (except relative to the galaxy), it is we that move. But we don’t see ourselves moving, and we do see the sun moving. If we use Newtonian physics, we can say that if we move in a certain direction long enough we will reach a specific distant galaxy. However, if you really do head in that direction, you find that you miss the galaxy because the light from the galaxy bends due to the motion of our own planet (general relativity). So would God make the world different from what our senses tell us? I guess the answer is yes. It is not because he creates a grand delusion, however. It is because He speaks through His creation as a professor, and not as a kindergarten teacher.

Now dogma is a topic I heartily agree with you on. However, this is not a problem with religion as much as it is a problem with all political institutions. In order to be persuasive, you must argue from points of reference that you and your audience believe. Hence, if you want an argument to be accepted by many people, you must simplify your argument and also make many generalizations that aren’t necessarily true. There are reasons why most politicians sound rather dumb. It is because their arguments are tailored scientifically to reach and persuade as large an audience as possible. All human truth institutions will have their priests who decide the more difficult issues and their dogma for motivating the masses. Twentieth century Europe (and especially Germany) was about as far from religious belief as we have seen historically. They were home to many of the most notable scientists and philosophers. Yet this did not protect them from wars based upon dogma held in common by the masses (genetics and race for example). It is better to listen to God as you would listen to a professor. Don’t look for God in dogmatic assertions. Don’t judge Christianity by the Christian with the loudest mouth.

[Methuselah]

A number of people in the evolution debate seem to think that we can tell (scientifically?) the difference between chance and design with regard to our origins. I wonder if you can tell whether this sequence of numbers is the result of chance or design. I will accept the view that if the sequence is generated by a random number generator (a distinct possibility), then it is the result of chance. I can give you more numbers if you like. I can generate a lot of them. It also suffices if you can tell me how you would go about figuring out the answer.

By the way: I don’t like the answer to the related question that if there are imperfections, then we can conclude that there is no design. That’s like saying that there is no design in creation because man sins. It isn’t very convincing.

Here is the sequence:
82148086514428810975724587006633057270369833673362 00056812714201995661150244594555982534904380952572 05574857242858361603593313677026782354781321165344 98164706001454776241682796797660674427862946576407 84962524517686838689443904512440168427394150760694 79009714909542858444703742007318191197939567945208 00306803844100550810623055876317229109816671113699 08932261854233260972918093773442131449576665573092 53348850346700237877663432858780990796547938971311 1853061422897692656726171196377622247715

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by Methuselah
Don’t look for God in dogmatic assertions. Don’t judge Christianity by the Christian with the loudest mouth.

I wouldn't dream of it. Having been raised in a strongly Christian environment, I have a great deal of respect for its ideals, especially:
1) thou shalt not kill, and
2) love thy neighbour as thyself

The problem I have is with the large number of rather prominent and self-professed Christians who seem quite at ease with leaving these ethics for Sunday and going around smiting infidels and generally being obnoxious to their neighbours left, right and centre, Monday to Saturday.

You're right about mathematics, of course. But this is purely because it is a contrived, closed system. The real world is composed of innumerable shades of grey, and needs a system of establishing "reasonable doubt". Science is open and explicit about this process, providing a means of acknowledging and exploring different views; revelation is private and obscure, and therefore ultimately dogmatic. Whether or not we believe that revelation provides absolute truth, it is a different type of knowledge and does not belong in the science class.

cheers

d.

[Cirdan]

Actually if you go in the direction of the oblect in space you would pass along the same space-time curves due to the gravitational lenses that the light passed through. You would of course have to adjust for relative motion.

Whatever god may have intented by creating a world in which physical evidence contradicts some aspects of a literal interpretation of the bible has little bearing on it's relation to scientific thought.

Your sequence is by design. There are no random numbers in a computer. This is a known. A random number generator is still an algorythm with a predictable output.

barrellrider is the closest to a rational conclusion to this topic. Everything else is an emotional pitch to one strongly desired, but logically faulty conclusion. Yes, it is ultimately impossible to disprove design, but there is not physical evidence for it.

[Lizra]

Originally posted by barrelrider110
I really don't understand the great amount of passion that this topic evokes.

There is no conflict between faith and science. Science is the process of observation, questioning, hypothesizing, experimenting, and observing. Scientific theories have given us such wonderful things like space travel, cellphones and computers, on and on. Science is what we can see. It serves our purpose while we are here on earth. Faith, on the otherhand, does not require us to see, but to follow what we believe.

Christian faith tells us that our faith on Earth will serve us after we have finished our time on earth. They are two different paradigms of thought.

Natural Selection and other theories of Evolution are just that, scientific theories. They should be taught in the science classroom as such. Competing theories about the origins of man that are derived from religious teachings, or intended to reconcile the truth of religious teachings with the natural world or are simply not science, and should not be taught in the science classroom.

Scientific truths are truth, religious truths are also truth. We are not always wise enough to reconcile them.

That was very neat barrel rider. The last line loses me though!

I'm not sure I get your point Meth. I like to distill things down till they are uncomplicated and clear. (Is this what you call "dumbing down?" indeed! ) I feel I am concerned with what "is". You seem to be elaborating on what "might be". Since I do not have your "faith", the "what might be" comes off as just one of many possibilities that really don't matter to me. Yes, this could be and that could be, but until there's proof I'm not putting much credence in it. If something comes along to disprove (in a big way) the theory of evolution, I'll be right there, listening to every word with delight. Barrelrider's remark is very good for me. You know, if you don't have religious faith, you just don't have it! You really can't pretend! There are way too many religions for starters! I think your son is a doll!

[Methuselah]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Your sequence is by design. There are no random numbers in a computer. This is a known. A random number generator is still an algorythm with a predictable output.

If the numbers were generated by a random number generator, you would be correct. Of course, you would not be able to tell from the few numbers that I gave you. That is why I said I would accept that numbers from a random number generator as being chance. But I never said that this sequence came from a random number generator. Maybe I just pulled them out of a hat with paper slips for each number. Are you saying that it is impossible for me to generate numbers by chance, but that the world can generate chance outcomes? Are you saying that it is easier to tell whether life evolved out of chance than it is to tell whether my sequence comes from chance or design? The real question is: how do we know something is chance or not. The answer is that we can't tell. We can only tell that it is design if we know the design. If we don't know the design, then it can (and often will) appear as chance. Hence, the question of design or chance is a rather moot argument from a scientific perspective. It seems to belong to the realm of faith.

Yes, it is ultimately impossible to disprove design, but there is not physical evidence for it. [/QUOTE]

I agree. If God gave clear proof that everything was created by design, then people would not have to come to God by faith. They would come to God by sight. That is inconsistent with the Bible. If you say that you won't believe anything unless it can be proven to you first (the infamous reasonable doubt argument), then you rule out any possibility of spiritual revelation. It is true that science works that way, but I wouldn't be my soul on that process as the only way of determining truth.

As to evolution, I have no problem with it as a scientific theory except that I think it is a little primitive. The process of evolution sounds to me like attemting to go from a primary grade reader to a Tolkien trilogy by just changing a few letters at a time with the requirement that each step make sense. Actually, I think evolution requires faster steps, more along the way that great works of literature are created. That may to many imply design, but if you assume that human mental processes evolved out of chance, you would readily see that it does not imply design. However, I don't see any contradiction between the basic theory of evolution and biblical creation. Actually, one can take the biblical creation as: first verse: God created heaven and earth. That is all that is said about the creation of galaxies and the rest of matter. The rest is about the creation of life, and especially human life. The seventh day, God rested, is about man's completion -- that we can enter into God's rest. I can expound later if you like. Basically, theology can evolve (or change, although I like the word evolve) just as science can evolve. It is all a study in understanding truth. The simplest interpretation of the bible is not necessarily the winner -- nor is the simplest scientific model the winner.