If you support this, please justify it.

Beforehand, be sure to understand the difference between the scientific definition of "theory" and the layman's usage of the term.

And you know some alien race didn't create life on this planet because?
and you know what happened one nanosecond BEFORE the Big Bang how?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 11:02:33 AM
If you support this, please justify it.

Beforehand, be sure to understand the difference between the scientific definition of "theory" and the layman's usage of the term.

Thanks for the kind warning. We'll all study up and be on our best behavior. Just for you.

Quote from: mdgiles on June 12, 2012, 11:06:48 AM
And you know some alien race didn't create life on this planet because?
and you know what happened one nanosecond BEFORE the Big Bang how?

So not knowing that giant monkeys from Mars didn't create you and alter your "parents' " memories to make it seem as though you were biologically born is an excuse to teach it in public science schools now?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 11:21:44 AM
So not knowing that giant monkeys from Mars didn't create you and alter your "parents' " memories to make it seem as though you were biologically born is an excuse to teach it in public science schools now?

I have no idea of first causes, and neither do you. I notice that you ridiculed my questions, but you didn't answer them.

Quote from: mdgiles on June 12, 2012, 11:23:36 AM
I have no idea of first causes, and neither do you.

That's bullshit.  Evolutionary theory is accepted as both a theory and a fact in the scientific community.  There is mountains of evidence supporting it; fossil records, genetic links, related vestigial organs, scientifically induced evolution, etc.

Similarly, there is a slightly smaller mountain of evidence supporting Big Bang Cosmology.

There isn't even the slightest bit of scientific proof or even common sense behind a literalistic interpretation of Genesis.

QuoteI notice that you ridiculed my questions, but you didn't answer them.

Actually, I did.  Your argument is basically "we don't know if this idea isn't true...so let's teach it in school!'  First off, this isn't scientific in the slightest, which doesn't mesh with the desire to teach it in a Science classroom.  Second, this can be applied to every ridiculous conspiracy theorist's wet dream.  After all, we don't know if Abraham Lincoln wasn't a vampire hunter; should we teach it in public history classes?

The biggest problem with this argument will always be the uncomfortable -- to some unthinkable -- mingling of church and state. In the society we've constructed, the education establishment is overwhelmingly state-run and/or taxpayer-funded. And the subject of creation vs. evolution is just chock full of religion, which is, of course, the exercise of faith, even in the absence of proof.

Teaching the theory of Intelligent Design (and I'm sure, SFF, you're rushing to the keyboard to instruct me that it's not a proper scientific theory) presents a problem to those who worship what is falsely referred to as the "Separation Clause." (No such clause has ever existed.) Teaching the theory of evolution -- as lib/progs want to do it -- is a direct affront to Christians, Jews, even Muslims because accepting the theory -- again, as lib/progs want to present it -- necessarily requires the rejection of Genesis, and by extension the rejection of God as Creator. There could hardly be a more direct assault on Christianity, among other faiths, and it's easy to argue that teaching evolution in government-controlled schools is a textbook in-your-face violation of the literal wording and proven intent of the First Amendment, much more direct than any so-called "Separation Clause" issue.

As an aside, I've always yearned for a logical explanation of how the theory of evolution can explain the development of a species -- mankind -- that could (in some cases can and has done so) counter the very operation of the theory. Profoundly retarded humans, dogs with two legs, eagles with broken wings, and so many more beings that evolution would automatically and ruthlessly remove from the planet live successfully to a ripe old age and in many cases even reproduce.

There's little doubt, I think, that the teaching of evolution in the public schools is a seminal cause for the rise of home schooling, voucher systems, and parochial schools. Perhaps it's an issue best just left alone in the education establishment. A public classroom may not be the best place to address the issue in the first place.

Quote from: tbone0106 on June 12, 2012, 11:54:50 AM
The biggest problem with this argument will always be the uncomfortable -- to some unthinkable -- mingling of church and state. In the society we've constructed, the education establishment is overwhelmingly state-run and/or taxpayer-funded. And the subject of creation vs. evolution is just chock full of religion, which is, of course, the exercise of faith, even in the absence of proof. 

Evolution is not a religion.  Evolution is a science.  Genesis is not a science.  It is a religion.  You do not teach evolution in bible study.  You should not teach the Genesis in Science class.

Quote
Teaching the theory of Intelligent Design (and I'm sure, SFF, you're rushing to the keyboard to instruct me that it's not a proper scientific theory) presents a problem to those who worship what is falsely referred to as the "Separation Clause." (No such clause has ever existed.) Teaching the theory of evolution -- as lib/progs want to do it -- is a direct affront to Christians, Jews, even Muslims because accepting the theory -- again, as lib/progs want to present it -- necessarily requires the rejection of Genesis, and by extension the rejection of God as Creator. There could hardly be a more direct assault on Christianity, among other faiths, and it's easy to argue that teaching evolution in government-controlled schools is a textbook in-your-face violation of the literal wording and proven intent of the First Amendment, much more direct than any so-called "Separation Clause" issue.

1. You can be Christian without accepting intelligent design.  The Vatican, for example, has done this.  You just can't be a fundie.

2. Mormons believe something about there being some sort of civilization in central America and Christ preaching there...history textbooks explicitly contradict this.  Should we teach an alternative theory just to placate the mormons? 

But wait!  How about various Native American religions that believe X and Y?  Or the followers of the ancient Greek gods?

Quote

As an aside, I've always yearned for a logical explanation of how the theory of evolution can explain the development of a species -- mankind -- that could (in some cases can and has done so) counter the very operation of the theory. Profoundly retarded humans, dogs with two legs, eagles with broken wings, and so many more beings that evolution would automatically and ruthlessly remove from the planet live successfully to a ripe old age and in many cases even reproduce.

???

It's rather unusual for one to argue against Evolutionary theory on the basis of natural selection being bunk.  I mean, this is just common sense, for pete's sake; if you lack the tools to survive in real life, you will die.  Conservatives love to apply this to business, I fail to see why it would not apply to the even more inhospitable nature.

Quote
There's little doubt, I think, that the teaching of evolution in the public schools is a seminal cause for the rise of home schooling, voucher systems, and parochial schools. Perhaps it's an issue best just left alone in the education establishment. A public classroom may not be the best place to address the issue in the first place.

In a Science classroom, you teach science.  Evolution is an accepted scientific theory.  You therefore teach it, just as you would teach gravity, which a large percentage of Americans still believe is god's hand pushing you down to the Earth.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 12:03:39 PM
Evolution is not a religion.  Evolution is a science.  Genesis is not a science.  It is a religion.  You do not teach evolution in bible study.  You should not teach the Genesis in Science class.

1. You can be Christian without accepting intelligent design.  The Vatican, for example, has done this.  You just can't be a fundie.

2. Mormons believe something about there being some sort of civilization in central America and Christ preaching there...history textbooks explicitly contradict this.  Should we teach an alternative theory just to placate the mormons? 

But wait!  How about various Native American religions that believe X and Y?  Or the followers of the ancient Greek gods?

???

It's rather unusual for one to argue against Evolutionary theory on the basis of natural selection being bunk.  I mean, this is just common sense, for pete's sake; if you lack the tools to survive in real life, you will die.  Conservatives love to apply this to business, I fail to see why it would not apply to the even more inhospitable nature.

In a Science classroom, you teach science.  Evolution is an accepted scientific theory.  You therefore teach it, just as you would teach gravity, which a large percentage of Americans still believe is god's hand pushing you down to the Earth.

While some fundamentalists Christians may be conservatives (and not all are...especially in the Hispanic population), the vast majority of conservatives are not fundamentalists.  If you live in an area where such groups are the majority then (to borrow a phrase from evolutionists) ADAPT.  Tell your kids that it is not your belief, school them to pay attention to the evoutionary portion of the curricula and move on.  The same goes, btw, when man-made global warming is presented.  If you wish (and I do) tell them to take such "proven scientific fact" with a massive grain of salt.  Stop trying to bend everybody to your way of thinking.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 12:03:39 PM
Evolution is not a religion.  Evolution is a science.  Genesis is not a science.  It is a religion.  You do not teach evolution in bible study.  You should not teach the Genesis in Science class.

I think I said that, but thanks for beating us over the head with it.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 12:03:39 PM1. You can be Christian without accepting intelligent design.  The Vatican, for example, has done this.  You just can't be a fundie.

"Fundie" is a pejorative slur, and you know it. I am not a fundamental Christian, but I take offense because the term is offensive to fundamental Christians, who have every right, legal and moral, to their beliefs, and are as entitled as anyone to basic respect. I'm also not black, but I would still be revolted if you referred to someone as a "nigger." I'm not gay either, but I take reflexive offense when anyone uses the term "faggot" or "fag." Yep, I'm aware that it's used on this board. Many things are said on this board that offend me. I don't have the right to be never offended, but I do have the right to tell you that your use of the word "fundie" offends me.

My point was that the way lib/progs want to present evolution requires the rejection of the concept of God as Creator. Full acceptance of evolution completely negates even the possibility of creation; the two completely cancel one another out, at least as the public schools teach on the subject today.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 12:03:39 PM2. Mormons believe something about there being some sort of civilization in central America and Christ preaching there...history textbooks explicitly contradict this.  Should we teach an alternative theory just to placate the mormons? 

But wait!  How about various Native American religions that believe X and Y?  Or the followers of the ancient Greek gods?

???

I love hyperbole! Hyperbole is cool! I wax hyperbolic every now and then. It's useful when I can't come up with a sensible thing to say. Explain to me in precise, provable terms how I evolved from primordial ooze.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 12:03:39 PM
It's rather unusual for one to argue against Evolutionary theory on the basis of natural selection being bunk.  I mean, this is just common sense, for pete's sake; if you lack the tools to survive in real life, you will die.  Conservatives love to apply this to business, I fail to see why it would not apply to the even more inhospitable nature.

I made no argument whatsoever, either way. My commentary was meant to illustrate the natural, inescapable conflicts that arise in any debate on this subject. I think that it's interesting that evolved humans have reached the point where they can effectively stop the natural effects of evolution. Eventually, perhaps, mankind can control evolution completely. If a particular species can accomplish that, then evolution is by definition controllable and, further, subject to elimination and... (get ready) CREATION.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 12:03:39 PM
In a Science classroom, you teach science.  Evolution is an accepted scientific theory.  You therefore teach it, just as you would teach gravity, which a large percentage of Americans still believe is god's hand pushing you down to the Earth.

We wax hyperbolic again. In all my years walking the earth, I have never met a human being who thought gravity was God's hand. My late father was a Baptist fundamentalist, and my mom still worships in that church. My religious beliefs are not relevant at this point, but I can tell you that in the 57 years I've known those people, I never heard gravity described as God's hand.

Yes, in a science class you teach science. Duh. But it's simply not possible to avoid conflict when a scientific theory diametrically opposes a basic premise of Christianity. I don't think there's much doubt that evolution occurs; my appendix is a pretty good chunk of evidence that species evolve over time. But again, explain to me in precise, provable terms how I evolved from primordial ooze. Please show me in precise, provable terms, how evolution -- or any other theory -- can be extended back in time beyond fossil records.

Quote from: tbone0106 on June 12, 2012, 12:59:40 PM
I think I said that, but thanks for beating us over the head with it.

"us" and "I" is the key distinction here.

Quote
"Fundie" is a pejorative slur, and you know it. I am not a fundamental Christian, but I take offense because the term is offensive to fundamental Christians, who have every right, legal and moral, to their beliefs, and are as entitled as anyone to basic respect. I'm also not black, but I would still be revolted if you referred to someone as a "nigger." I'm not gay either, but I take reflexive offense when anyone uses the term "faggot" or "fag." Yep, I'm aware that it's used on this board. Many things are said on this board that offend me. I don't have the right to be never offended, but I do have the right to tell you that your use of the word "fundie" offends me.

Sorry.  Fundamentalist Christianity and Evolutionary Theory are incompatible.  That doesn't mean the latter, supported by facts, isn't true.

Quote
My point was that the way lib/progs want to present evolution requires the rejection of the concept of God as Creator. Full acceptance of evolution completely negates even the possibility of creation; the two completely cancel one another out, at least as the public schools teach on the subject today.

That isn't necessarily true.  Just interpret the bible in a more allegorical manner.

Furthermore, it's really too bad.  Science isn't a matter of reaching the "truth" that is convenient for the largest amount of people.  The universe does not alter its history based on the desires of humans.

Quote
I love hyperbole! Hyperbole is cool! I wax hyperbolic every now and then. It's useful when I can't come up with a sensible thing to say. Explain to me in precise, provable terms how I evolved from primordial ooze.

The very fact that you find my analogy to be hyperbole proves my point; you don't apply this "let's teach everything in Science class, just as a compromise!" view consistently, only when it is convenient.

Quote
I made no argument whatsoever, either way. My commentary was meant to illustrate the natural, inescapable conflicts that arise in any debate on this subject. I think that it's interesting that evolved humans have reached the point where they can effectively stop the natural effects of evolution. Eventually, perhaps, mankind can control evolution completely. If a particular species can accomplish that, then evolution is by definition controllable and, further, subject to elimination and... (get ready) CREATION.

Congratulations!  You can play word games.   

Although I would point out that past evolution, and most of modern evolution, is not yet controlled by humans, and is therefore not yet intelligent creation.

Quote
We wax hyperbolic again. In all my years walking the earth, I have never met a human being who thought gravity was God's hand. My late father was a Baptist fundamentalist, and my mom still worships in that church. My religious beliefs are not relevant at this point, but I can tell you that in the 57 years I've known those people, I never heard gravity described as God's hand.

Well, I've also never met an American who can't identify the US on a world map, but Miss South Carolina told us that it was true.  Polls aren't entirely accurate, but this doesn't affect my argument in the slightest.

Quote
Yes, in a science class you teach science. Duh. But it's simply not possible to avoid conflict when a scientific theory diametrically opposes a basic premise of Christianity.

Of course it will create conflict.  It already has.

QuoteI don't think there's much doubt that evolution occurs; my appendix is a pretty good chunk of evidence that species evolve over time. But again, explain to me in precise, provable terms how I evolved from primordial ooze. Please show me in precise, provable terms, how evolution -- or any other theory -- can be extended back in time beyond fossil records.

...if you don't mind me asking, why?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 01:07:43 PM
Sorry.  Fundamentalist Christianity and Evolutionary Theory are incompatible.  That doesn't mean the latter, supported by facts, isn't true.

Apology accepted. Yes, they're incompatible. That's what I said. I did not even try to allude that evolutionary theory is not true, and actually stated the opposite. Do you read these posts all the way through before you start picking them apart?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 01:07:43 PM
That isn't necessarily true.  Just interpret the bible in a more allegorical manner.

What if I don't want to, or what if my religious belief means that I can't without violating my faith? Are you saying that I should have to anyway? Is that what secular state-funded education is all about? (I already know the answer to that one.)

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 01:07:43 PMFurthermore, it's really too bad.  Science isn't a matter of reaching the "truth" that is convenient for the largest amount of people.  The universe does not alter its history based on the desires of humans.

The universe also does not conveniently dispense its history in every detail. There was a time when Roman gods and Greek gods and even Aesop's fables were used to explain things. Today we have backers of the evolution theory presenting it as yet another "truth." Maybe, maybe not. Again, trace my lineage back to primordial ooze and prove it.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 01:07:43 PMThe very fact that you find my analogy to be hyperbole proves my point; you don't apply this "let's teach everything in Science class, just as a compromise!" view consistently, only when it is convenient.

I didn't advocate any such approach. I specifically opined that perhaps it's a matter best not addressed at all in public schools. In a previous post in this thread, I said this: "Perhaps it's an issue best just left alone in the education establishment. A public classroom may not be the best place to address the issue in the first place." I have not presented or advocated any other position.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 01:07:43 PMCongratulations!  You can play word games.   

Yep. Explain to me how, if a given species can modify or negate evolution, the same species or a different one could not promote -- or create -- the same process.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 01:07:43 PM
Although I would point out that past evolution, and most of modern evolution, is not yet controlled by humans, and is therefore not yet intelligent creation.

Let's not be silly; evolution of the past, like all things of the past, are beyond our control. Are you admitting that there is the possibility that Intelligent Design exists? Are you saying that human control of the process of species development is possible? It is, demonstrably, but are you saying so?

The concept of God is the mind of man writ large. The concept of evolution completely deletes the mind of man and the existence of God. It's not hard to see why one has the appeal of traditional religion, and why the second requires the rejection of traditional religion -- to be replaced with the secular version. Evolution may be the history of mankind. I don't know and neither do you. But it's a rather demeaning version of reality, don't you think?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 01:07:43 PM
Well, I've also never met an American who can't identify the US on a world map, but Miss South Carolina told us that it was true.  Polls aren't entirely accurate, but this doesn't affect my argument in the slightest.

I'm not sure what you gain by referring to the current Miss Teen USA candidate from South Carolina -- an obvious airhead. You'll note that she didn't mention -- as hundreds of millions of Americans don't mention -- the "hand of God" as being responsible for gravity. Newton proposed that gravity was proof that God exists, but that was in 1692. Newer theories are available, and most make better sense, hence my characterization of your comment as "hyperbole."

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 01:07:43 PMOf course it will create conflict.  It already has.

As you say, it already has, and it always will. I merely attempted to explain why.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 12, 2012, 01:07:43 PM

...if you don't mind me asking, why?

Because unless and until you can provide me with a clear, irrefutable explanation of how I morphed from a single-cell critter in a mud puddle a few million years ago to the accomplished and talented typist I am today, I'm going to tell you every day that you're full of shit. And of course, eventually we'll get to a discussion of who created the evolution process... or is it just the law of the universe? And who created the law of the universe?

Quote from: tbone0106 on June 12, 2012, 02:17:12 PM
Apology accepted. Yes, they're incompatible. That's what I said. I did not even try to allude that evolutionary theory is not true, and actually stated the opposite. Do you read these posts all the way through before you start picking them apart?

Really?  Every time I quote a section of your post that contradicts the above, I'll put a * at the front.

Quote
What if I don't want to, or what if my religious belief means that I can't without violating my faith? Are you saying that I should have to anyway? Is that what secular state-funded education is all about? (I already know the answer to that one.)

Science does not cater to what you really wish were true.

Quote
The universe also does not conveniently dispense its history in every detail. There was a time when Roman gods and Greek gods and even Aesop's fables were used to explain things. Today we have backers of the evolution theory presenting it as yet another "truth." Maybe, maybe not. Again, trace my lineage back to primordial ooze and prove it.

* Your analogy applies more to intelligent design than evolution.  Both ID and your stated examples cater to the "god of the gaps" fallacy.  Evolution doesn't do that; evolution features mounds of scientific evidence and support.  Do any of your examples feature this quality?

The "Science isn't always right!" tautology is commonly used by those who perpetuate pseudo-scientific beliefs.  Yes, scientists can be wrong.  But they are proven wrong by detailed analysis, not by waving the possibility that they may be incorrect around and hoping it will happen to be true.

Quote
I didn't advocate any such approach. I specifically opined that perhaps it's a matter best not addressed at all in public schools. In a previous post in this thread, I said this: "Perhaps it's an issue best just left alone in the education establishment. A public classroom may not be the best place to address the issue in the first place." I have not presented or advocated any other position.

So we should just keep kids ignorant, and in the dark, of what by your own (inconsistent) admission is the truth, simply do appease those who believe in something that is demonstrably false?

Like, this is precisely why our education system is failing, and precisely how liberty dies; when you censor truths you don't like.

Quote
Yep. Explain to me how, if a given species can modify or negate evolution, the same species or a different one could not promote -- or create -- the same process.

I never said that we couldn't.  In fact, we already have for a long time, in the form of cross breeding.

Quote
Let's not be silly; evolution of the past, like all things of the past, are beyond our control. Are you admitting that there is the possibility that Intelligent Design exists? Are you saying that human control of the process of species development is possible? It is, demonstrably, but are you saying so?

  No, I was indicating precisely the opposite. 

Wait; you're contradicting yourself again.  You say that evolution and religion are irreconcilable, yet you yourself are attempting precisely this right now.

Quote
The concept of God is the mind of man writ large. The concept of evolution completely deletes the mind of man and the existence of God. It's not hard to see why one has the appeal of traditional religion, and why the second requires the rejection of traditional religion -- to be replaced with the secular version. Evolution may be the history of mankind. I don't know and neither do you. But it's a rather demeaning version of reality, don't you think?

* Firstly, one can be a Christian and believe in evolution.  Secondly, I don't find evolution much demeaning at all.  Thirdly, the universe doesn't care if you find reality inconvenient.

<snip; analogy to hand of god was merely referring to fallacy of appealing to popularity>

QuoteAs you say, it already has, and it always will. I merely attempted to explain why.

I don't disagree on you with this.  But I still hold that we shouldn't teach our children something that, by your own admission, is false.

Quote
Because unless and until you can provide me with a clear, irrefutable explanation of how I morphed from a single-cell critter in a mud puddle a few million years ago to the accomplished and talented typist I am today, I'm going to tell you every day that you're full of shit. And of course, eventually we'll get to a discussion of who created the evolution process... or is it just the law of the universe? And who created the law of the universe?

* Appealing to your own incredulity isn't an argument.  And nobody created the evolution process.  It's entirely a natural result of logic; more successful species will survive (duh), and some will learn to reproduce (duh), and those that reproduce will survive, and somewhere along the line sexual reproduction for many organisms became favorable and they survived, etc.  There is no intelligence needed here.

And I don't see how "who created the law of the universe" is relevant to the origin of life.

Perhaps Sci-Fi-Fan should take his own advice and read up on what the nature of a theory actually is..

"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation which disagrees with the predictions of the theory"

-Stephen Hawking: A Brief History of Time

-Dr Watt

Quote from: Dr_Watt on June 12, 2012, 06:53:49 PM
Perhaps Sci-Fi-Fan should take his own advice and read up on what the nature of a theory actually is..

"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation which disagrees with the predictions of the theory"

-Stephen Hawking: A Brief History of Time

-Dr Watt

Dude, the appeal to ignorance argument has been made millions of times before, and it's stupid as fuck.  Clearly, you don't understand what Dr. Hawking meant; he does not imply that a lack of absolute certainty gives one the mandate to regard every possible "theory" with equal weight, but rather to always be open to modification and consideration of a current theory if new evidence gives light to holes in it.

By your line of reasoning, we should teach Ancient Greek creation theory in schools as well.