How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism II

[Curubethion]

Hey, didn't you see the " "? I'm joking, Lotesse

[Lotesse]

Oh, O - KAY.

[Spock]

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

(repeat from the other evolution thread) More likely, cartoons like this are clear evidence that most reasonable people realise that the idea of mandating creationism to be taught in schools, in a country that is supposed to separate church and state, is so laughable it is quite often difficult to take seriously.

(I'll repeat my answer )

In my book of definitions, "reasonable people" don't use insults to make their points. They don't need to, nor do they desire to.

Part of why I started the thread in the first place (which unfortunately got merged and swallowed up in another thread ) was that it fascinated me to see and analyze the TYPE of words flying around from both sides. From what I saw, the people against the Kansas City changes in the curriculum were the ones that resorted to playground insults. I didn't see the childish insults, like "pinheads" (!), coming from the other side. I found that fascinating, and very illuminating, because in my experience, the side that has to retort to insults first is the one with less substance on their side.

By the way, exactly what is an "uber-evolutionist?" Now, THAT's funny!

What I"m trying to do here is to be polite to the people that hold views opposite to mine here on Entmoot. As considerate and intelligent people like Gaffer have pointed out, using generalizations is impolite, as well as typically WRONG, and I know from personal experience that it is painful to be automatically lumped into a group and insulted, regardless of what you've actually SAID on the subject. I am a creationist, for example, but I don't quote-mine, and I am open to evolution being true, which sets me apart from many creationists. But when creationists are wholesale insulted, like in that cartoon, it naturally hurts me. So I try to modify my statements about evolutionists by either "most evolutionists", or "some evolutionists" or "uber-evolutionists", because I know not ALL evolutionists are obnoxious and insulting and close-minded, and not ALL of them resort to bullying, playground tactics (thank goodness, the vast majority of them here do NOT do those things!!) And frankly, I"d appreciate if others would do that, too, when talking about groups (especially ones I"m in! ).

I think we're a pretty cool community here. Some of my best friends here are atheist evolutionists And I try to be considerate to them by not making wholesale assumptions and statements about atheists or evolutionists when I post. I think we should all do that - it would make things a lot nicer, IMO.

So, to answer your question, IMO an uber-evolutionist is someone who is obnoxious, close-minded, and insulting, among other unpleasant things, when it comes to discussing evolution/creation/ID. Not all evolutionists are like that, thank goodness.

I don't know - I guess I just don't care for humor that tears people down, especially your friends. This kind of thing can just go on and on, and get worse and worse. There's all sorts of cartoons out there making fun of liberals, etc., that are very insulting. And I think they have MORE than a grain of truth in them! But I just don't think it does any good to post them. But that's just me.

(ps - and did you see where I asked someone on "my side" to not make wholesale statements about liberals?)

[Rían]

Maybe I'm just an old-fogey dinosaur, and I should just ignore the cartoons ...

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

(repeat from the other evolution thread) More likely, cartoons like this are clear evidence that most reasonable people realise that the idea of mandating creationism to be taught in schools, in a country that is supposed to separate church and state, is so laughable it is quite often difficult to take seriously.

Lotesse, I can't believe you just submitted cartoons as evidence that reasonable people don't believe in Creationism. The flaws in this logic are astoundingly huge.

I really enjoyed the cartoons; I thought they were pretty funny. But cartoons do not equal science or proof. I expected someone who subscribes to the Theory of Evolution to employ better science than that.

Unless you were kidding..?

Anyway, I do agree that there shouldn't be a mandate to teach creationism in schools. I do think it would be a good idea to teach it in a religious studies class, along with beliefs from other religions. This is better than wedging all that into Social Studies, which is how the curriculum currently stands in British Columbia. With a Religious Studies class, you could explore everything in more detail.

Edited to add: RÃ*an, I was going to add that "evolutionist" isn't a word, but apparently it is!

Originally Posted by Dictionary.com

Main Entry: evo·lu·tion·ist
Pronunciation: -sh(&-)n&st
Function: noun
: a student of or adherent to a theory of evolution

Oh noez!

edited for spelling

[brownjenkins]

how do you feel about theistic evolution RÃ*an?

Theistic evolution is the proposition that God is in charge of the biological process called evolution. God directs and guides the unfolding of life forms over millions of years. Theistic evolution contends that there is no conflict between science and the Biblical book of Genesis.

from this essay here (which is pretty interesting to read)

[Nurvingiel]

Theistic evolution is cool. I don't know where I stand on it. On the one hand, I do believe in Theistic evolution, and on the other hand my belief in God and my belief in the ToE are separate.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Theistic evolution is cool. I don't know where I stand on it. On the one hand, I do believe in Theistic evolution, and on the other hand my belief in God and my belief in the ToE are separate.

what do you mean by that? i'm not sure i understand you correctly,

I don't understand how you can believe in both ToE and God, I have found them to be somewhat mutually exclusive; the ToE leaves no room for a god of any kind, in fact evolution is man's way of explaining away God, but i won't get started on that

[Nurvingiel]

My comments about Theistic evolution and ToE were just that I'm confused about some of the finer points of my world view. These things take a lot of thinking.

ToE does so leave room for God. What on Earth made you think otherwise? ToE makes absolutely no comment at all about God. Therefore it does leave room for it. The existence, or lack thereof, of God does not affect the contents of ToE.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

My comments about Theistic evolution and ToE were just that I'm confused about some of the finer points of my world view. These things take a lot of thinking.

if its not too personal a question, what would you categorize your world view as at this time? don't answer if thats too personal, i'm just curious

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

ToE does so leave room for God. What on Earth made you think otherwise? ToE makes absolutely no comment at all about God. Therefore it does leave room for it. The existence, or lack thereof, of God does not affect the contents of ToE.

well, that is debateable, but what your saying is what most theistic evolutists (in my experience) seem to believe, i have found NO room for God in evolution (in my experience mind you) not that i didn't think it possible, but it last time i researched it, they're evidence was pretty weak

The theory of evolution is one of the tools used by humanist to try to disprove God's existence, of course trying to disprove something is quite hard scientiffically, but some do try.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Edited to add: RÃ*an, I was going to add that "evolutionist" isn't a word, but apparently it is!

Oh noez!

yeeessSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!


*pumps fist in air*

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

how do you feel about theistic evolution RÃ*an?

Am in too much of a hurry to answer well (houseguests in 35 minutes - what am I doing MOOTING?!?!?!) but basically I'd say if I wanted to turn on a light, I'd just walk in and turn it on, not construct some hit-and-miss mechanism. But that's a VERY hasty answer, and I'll have to elaborate on it in the next few days sometime.

That link looks interesting - scanned it briefly and will read it carefully later thanks!

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

I don't understand how you can believe in both ToE and God, I have found them to be somewhat mutually exclusive; the ToE leaves no room for a god of any kind, in fact evolution is man's way of explaining away God, but i won't get started on that

I disagree, like Nurv. Evolution has no regard to religion. The theory of evolution makes no claim to either disprove or prove the existence of diety. Whether there is a god or twenty of them or none at all doesn't matter for the theory. Which is, IMO, one of its scientific strengths.

[rohirrim TR]

evolution to some is just like a religion and they believe in it as strongly as extremist muslims believe in blowing up all other religions. evolutionist have a similar goal, they would like to eliminate the other theory.

evolution has played a big role in history, perhaps darwin did not intend to stir things up like he ended up doing, but he did, both communisn and nazism were very much influenced by the teachings of darwin, and "survival of the fittest" leading to the lack of morals during the holocaust and during stalins reign, after all they thought it was only "natural selection", that the stronger kill the weaker so they did

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

if its not too personal a question, what would you categorize your world view as at this time? don't answer if thats too personal, i'm just curious

I started answering this question here, but I was derailing the thread. I have responded to this in Theology.

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

well, that is debateable, but what your saying is what most theistic evolutists (in my experience) seem to believe, i have found NO room for God in evolution (in my experience mind you) not that i didn't think it possible, but it last time i researched it, they're evidence was pretty weak

My beliefs are definitely compatible with Theistic evolution; I have no issue there. While I'm not entirely sure what to believe, I realize there are a number of ways to believe in Theistic evolution (not to mention Christianity, evolution, creationism, the best way to make grilled cheese sandwiches, or anything at all).

However, what is it in ToE that leads you to believe that there is no room for God in the theory? When I took cell biology, we spent a fair amount of time on evolution theories (the Urey-Miller experiment, the theory about how multi-celled organisms could have evolved from symbiosis between two single-celled organisms, etc.). Nothing in the class ever caused me to think, "How can I subscribe to this theory and at the same time believe in God?"

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

The theory of evolution is one of the tools used by humanist to try to disprove God's existence, of course trying to disprove something is quite hard scientiffically, but some do try.

What do Humanists believe? (I have never heard of this before in any detail - it sounds interesting. )
If someone didn't believe in God, they could point to ToE to show that it's possible to logically not believe in God. This is because God does not have to exist in order for the ToE to be a valid theory.
However, you should also take into account, that God can exist and ToE can still continue to be a valid theory. This is because ToE makes no comments about God's existence - neither positive nor negative.

[Nurvingiel]

I cross-posted with you there Rohirrim TR. (Since I was typing that Theology post at the same time - go check it out. )

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

evolution to some is just like a religion and they believe in it as strongly as extremist muslims believe in blowing up all other religions. evolutionist have a similar goal, they would like to eliminate the other theory.

First of all, I think it's dangerous to compare people who think ToE holds all of life's answers to the minute proportion of Muslims who believe that violence is acceptable against non-Muslims. (Most Muslims believe that the jihad is a spiritual battle, and violence is unacceptable.)
Let's not forget Godwin's Law people! For those of you unaware, Godwin's Law states that the longer an internet debate goes on, the more the probablility of someone comparing the other side to Hitler approaches 1. This person would then lose all credability, since they had to resort to a hyperbole.
I think comparing people who think ToE is the absolute truth to religious extremists is a hyperbole.
ToE is not the truth. ToE is science, and science exists to rationally and objectively offer explanations of the world around us. Only a few things in science are laws. One could say scientific laws are truths, eg. gravity is a law, and it is true that gravity exists. Needless to say, there are not many laws.

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

evolution has played a big role in history, perhaps darwin did not intend to stir things up like he ended up doing, but he did, both communisn and nazism were very much influenced by the teachings of darwin, and "survival of the fittest" leading to the lack of morals during the holocaust and during stalins reign, after all they thought it was only "natural selection", that the stronger kill the weaker so they did

Bzzzzz. You have violated Godwin's Law! Return to square one. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.
(I actually had not read this part of your post when I explained Godwin's Law earlier.)

I can't believe you just blamed ToE for Nazism and, of all things, Communism! The incredible fallacy in this logic astounds me. Allow me to address these points individually.

1. Nazism and ToE. Belief in 'survival of the fittest' (one aspect of ToE) had no influence whatsoever in Hitler's beliefs and his heinous crimes. In fact, Hitler's ridiculous idea that the "Aryan race" was somehow better than the rest of humanity is in violation of ToE, but that is neither here nor there.
Hitler's main influences, as far as I can tell, were:
a) extreme economic hardship in Germany and the vulnerability and desparation of the German people
b) good oratorial skills and the ability to manipulate others
c) extreme racism and bigotry
d) the ability to suspend all logic (for example, Hitler was not a member of his beloved Aryan race, being brown-haired and brown-eyed, and in fact, he had a Jewish grandmother).
e) a number of complex social factors about which I know very little

2. Communism was a social ideal first proposed by the likes of Karl Marx. Legitimate criticisms of Capitalism were made.
Communism was later exploited in, most notably, the U.S.S.R. by dictators such as Stalin - whose actions would have absolutely appalled Marx.
This is a very, very simplified version of the history of Communism, but as you can see, it has nothing whatsoever to do with ToE.

Your above quoted statement has led me to believe that you know absolutely nothing about a) ToE b) World War II and c) Communism. A thoughtful, well-supported response to my post will certainly rectify this belief. I'm sorry to be insulting, but... ToE has influenced Nazism and Communism (which, it should be mentioned, also have nothing to do with each other)!?

Anyway, please to not let this rather harsh rebuttle of your post put you off discussing our world views in the Theology thread, and I would really like to continue this discussion as well. (I will try to not be so mean next time around. )

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Merriam webster

Humanism: a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially : a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason

thats what the dictionary says of humanism,

let me correct myself here on my original post i am refering to secular humanists, because i realize there are more than one kind of humanist

heres a drawing that outlines the belief of secular humanists, on the right side of the pic i think click here

[Nurvingiel]

Looks like we cross-posted again Rohirrim TR. Don't forget my post right before this one!

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

thats what the dictionary says of humanism,

let me correct myself here on my original post i am refering to secular humanists, because i realize there are more than one kind of humanist

heres a drawing that outlines the belief of secular humanists, on the right side of the pic i think click here

Interesting, thanks for the explanation. I think I have heard about humanism before. If you want, we can talk about humanism and/or secular humanism in the Theology thread as well. (Probably doesn't quite fit in this thread.)

[rohirrim TR]

Nurvingiel-
#1 i did not compare anyone to hitler, hitler is his own person and i have NEVER compared anyone to him
#2 comparison of evolution to islam is very fitting, extremist muslims are very rare, extremist evolutionist are very rare, i'm not saying they are all like that, broad generalisations about large groups of people are bound to be wrong
#3 the works of darwin did influence, not cause, but influence communism and stalin, and hitler, there are other reasons for both leaders actions but their moral philosophy influenced by evolution and insanity led to that evil this is an informative article
#4 Karl Marx was quite enamored with the works of darwin and the concepts that darwin wrote about, again darwins work influenced, him and his philosophy not caused it
#5 i'm glad you don't hate me, i don't hate you either, if there are more points for me to explain i'll have to do it later