Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!







Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 7th, 2006, 06:26 PM   #21
DuffMan
Your Message Here
 
DuffMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: The Ile of Grosse
Posts: 5,831
iTrader: (11)
I was taught Darwinism by a Franciscan Nun.

She didn't see any conflicts between Darwin and Christianity. Her perspective was that science explains the mechanics (i.e. Darwinism, astrophysics, nuclear physics, etc...) of how things came to be the way they are, but at the same time it doesn't preclude the existence of a higher power behind it all.

Just because we can explain the method doesn't mean there's not a force behind it. Darwinism peacefully co-existing with Christianity.
__________________
This is the Pub. Leave common sense at the door.
DuffMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2006, 11:34 AM   #22
Kawierider
Senior Member
 
Kawierider's Avatar
 
Join Date: 01-29-06
Location: Livonia
Posts: 1,531
iTrader: (2)
I kinda beleive a combination of intelligent design, darwinism, and creationism. There are too many holes and what if's in each individual theory.

I agree with what KA pointed out......evolution is a FACT. Take taller humans than 100 years ago or animals with eyes that can no longer see because they live in the dark.

At the same time....sound reasoning lends merits to the others as well. It's just at which point you make the leap of faith that differs.
Kawierider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2006, 04:44 PM   #23
Guitardrumr
Senior Member
 
Guitardrumr's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-17-05
Location: Romulus, MI
Posts: 1,815
iTrader: (2)
Send a message via AIM to Guitardrumr
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeyevil
Evolutionism is the biggest blown out of proportion theory ever. I can't beleive they actually teach it as the "only" theory about creation in school.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an itelligent design sackrider... but there has to be something else to let kids think for themselves *lol*
You know why it's the only theory taught in school? Because it's taught in Science. Creationism and Intelligent Design do not fall under that designation, and since religous classes have more or less been banned in public schools (could be wrong there), it's not taught.

I have a text file somewhere of an old post someone made regarding the subject of Intelligent Design and being taught in schools, let me dig it up...

Ok, this is gonna be kinda long, so feel free to skip it. I thought this guy had a few good points though.

Quote:
So, I get home Friday night from getting the crap pounded out of me in Kung Fu. I'm tired, I'm hungry, I'm just about to start making dinner, and there's a knock at my door. I open it.

On the opposite side of said door stands a young woman in her mid-to-late 30's, blonde hair, wearing a long, dark trenchcoat; along with a young man in roughtly the same age bracket. He was wearing a toque, so I don't know what colour his hair was. They were both standing there looking awfully self-righteous, and I immediately thought: "aw, crap. Not again."

"Excuse me, sir, we were wondering if we could borrow a few minutes of your time."

"That depends; how are you planning on giving them back?"

"Pardon?"

"Never mind. What can I do for you?" I replied, deciding on the spot that they apparently had no sense of humour.

This was gonna be fun.

"As I'm sure you're aware, the Dover area School Board has made Intelligent Design a part of its science curriculum as an alternative evolutionary theory. We were wondering if you would support a motion to make similar changes to Calgary's public school curriculum."

"Well, public schools do not generally have religion classes..."

"No, we would like to include it in the science curriculum."

"Really?"

"Absolutely, sir. Evolution is a theory (and you could actually hear him stress the word) whose time has passed. It is time to consider alternatives." The man told me.

I glanced down at my watch. I decided that I could spare a few minutes, so I said: "very well, I'll hear you out. Please explain to me the scientific theory of Intelligent Design."

"Intelligent Design suggests that as opposed to a Big Bang..."

"Wait a minute," I held up my hand, "back up a second. I thought you were talking about Intelligent Design as an alternative to Evolution. Why are you discussing the Big Bang?"

"Well, Evolutionary theory (and yes, he stressed it again) states that the universe began with the Big Bang and..."

"No it doesn't."

"Excuse me?"

"Evolution is a biological concept; the idea that we developed and became more complex organisms over a process of mutation and propagation of beneficial genes. The Big Bang is a cosmological concept; the idea that all energy of the universe once occupied a single point in space. Two very different concepts. So, are you suggesting that Intelligent Design is an alternative to Evolution, or an alternative to the Big Bang?"

"Both."

"But you just said that you wanted to teach it in the science curriculum as an alternative to Evolution. Since I have never read any textbook on evolution which claims to have all the steps between the Big Bang and an Otter, I think it's somewhat silly to be talking about the Big Bang in terms of Evolution. To the best of my knowledge, there is no cosmological theory of Evolution, and I've yet to read a textbook on evolution which even mentions the Big Bang."

"But sir, don't you think that students should..."

"Tell you what, how about we start somewhere where Evolution and Intelligent Design actually have a common ground: say, the first appearance of life on earth."

He seemed a little flustered now, and I couldn't help but note that the blonde hadn't spoken since she asked if she could borrow a few minutes of my time, she was just standing there looking pious. "Well, Intelligent Design theory suggests that a supreme being (for some reason, throughout this conversation, he avoided actually mentioning God) created all life on earth approximately 6000 years ago and that life has been unchanged since that time."

"Okay, explain the scientific approach you used to develop this theory," I told him, "start with your falsifiable hypothesis, and move on from there."

"Well, we merely suggested an alternative explanation to the existing data..."

"Oh, so what predictions does Intelligent Design make about future observations?"

"Excuse me?"

"Well, the whole point of a scientific theory is to make reasonable and evidence-supported predictions about what we will observe in the future. That's what makes science a continuous process. Each question we answer raises more questions. So what unanswered questions does Intelligent Design leave?"

"None. It's a complete system which explains everything."

"Then it's not a scientific theory."

"What?"

"The whole point of a scientific theory is that it doesn't have all the answers; it's a jumping off point for people to add to or modify that theory. As such, the theory of evolution has been tested quite possibly more than any theory in scientific history."

"Well the Intelligent Design theory (and notably, he didn't stress the word this time) doesn't have that problem."

I shrugged, "it's not a problem. This is how science is done. We make observations about the world around us, we provide an hypothesis which explains those observations, then we perform experiments to determine if our hypothesis is supported by further data. So, by your own admission, you don't have a scientific theory here; the absolute best that you can claim is that you have a hypothesis, and considering that it requires the action of a Supreme Being, it may well not be falsifiable; which, by your own words, makes Intelligent Design theory unscientific; ergo, it has no place in a science course. When you have performed some kind of experimentation which supports that hypothesis, then I'll most definitely support a motion to permit the teaching of intelligent design in science class. Until then, I'm sorry, but no. If you want to have it taught in some kind of comparative religion class, on the other hand, that's a different matter."

"But sir," he held up a hand before I closed the door, "do you really want our children to be taught as fact that we descended from monkeys?"

"Apes."

"Pardon?"

"Apes. We descended from apes, not monkeys; and if you're going to lecture people on biology, you should at the very least know that distinction."

"But my point stands, sir. Do you want our children to learn that we descended from apes?"

"You prefer the idea that we descended from dirt?" I shrugged.

"Excuse me?"

"So in addition to an ignorance of the scientific process, biology, and the theory of Evolution, you also lack an understanding of the book of Genesis; the very documentation you're offering as an alternative?"

"But sir..."

"Thank you for your time. I'm hungry and I need to make dinner." I closed the door.

I stood there for a few minutes to see if they would knock again. They didn't.

I tell you, I was in the absolute best mood for the rest of the evening...
Guitardrumr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2006, 02:15 PM   #24
amc78cj7
Senior Member
 
amc78cj7's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-07-05
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,341
iTrader: (8)
I was looking through an old text book I have and wanted to point out that the education system IS teaching that life began with a single organism and EVOLVED to man through diverging species (I do not agree that the science has inequivically demonstrated this, but it IS what the schools teach without making reference to any other theories of the beginning of life).

From "Molecular Biology of the Cell, Third edition"

"Living cells probably arose on earth about 3.5 billion years ago by spontaneous reactions between molecules in an environment that was far from chemical equilibrium. From our knowledge of present-day organisms and the molecules they contain, it seems likely that the development of the directly autocatalytic mechanisms fundamental to living systems began with the evolution of families of RNA molecules that could catalyze their own replication.

"the amino acid sequence of the same type of enzyme in different living species provides a valuable indication of the evolutionary relationship between these species."

"Comparisons of highly conserved sequences, which have a central function and therefore change only slowly during evolution, can reveal relationships between organisms".

So here is my theory as a biochemist. It is fact that DNA and proteins and structure can be highly conserved between species. This could result from:

1) Evolution from a common ancestor as this text book implies

or

2) God had a good idea and stuck with it. In fact, it was so good he put it in more than one animal.

Tell me how anyone could conclude theory 1 is more correct than theory 2. However, the education system has thoroughly invested in theory 1. It's blind faith on their part.
__________________
I'm not quoting idiots who promote unsafe recovery strap techniques anymore. :miff:
amc78cj7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:53 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Cracker Enterprises - Powered by Linux
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=
Page generated in 0.18357 seconds with 20 queries