Creation vs. Evolution II

[redfern]

Actually there is a competing 'theory' based in science and logic. Anything that exhibits complex, functional design, may have been designed. Our universe may have a designer. Surely students should have the freedom to compare competing ideas.

But your competing ‘theory’ is for a specific designer – Your conception of the Christian God. Since we are talking science, let’s keep science in focus. Can you suggest how to teach the science that has your preferred designer changing sticks to snakes, female bodies to pillars of salt, guys living for days inside of fish, etc… those Biblical accounts that make a mockery of biology and of the conservation laws of physics, and of thermodynamics?

 

[MichaelCadry]

I committed my life to God 31 years ago, and as Jesus taught, I do my good works in secret without needing to announce them to the whole world....and I certainly don't need to have you judge me or my faith.

Dear Caino,

I'm not trying to judge you or your religion. I'm trying to find out why you have to add Aliens and UFOs to your story? And your Heady language {your intricate intellectual facades that happen nowhere's else}?

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Hey, I said I just wanted to stay off of this thread except to maintain it some. So that is what I am going to do. No more discussions from me, Caino. I don't want to get caught up in a frenzy anymore. You believe in whatever you want to believe in and any Christians or innocent minds you screw up with your Urantia dogma, God will exact that from you fiercely. I will check in each night to see how things are going. That's all. I'm sorry Caino. Anything you say, go for it if it works for you. I'm done and outta here.

Much Love, In Jesus Christ,

Michael

 

[6days]

Considering that evolution in itself doesn't rule out God or a 'designer' then you've actually manufactured a strawman of your own. If it's integral to your own personal belief system that the earth can only be a set amount of years old it's one thing. Plenty of Christians have no problem with an old earth or evolution whatsoever.

I said nothing about the age of the earth. I did say that a teacher or a student should have the freedom to discuss competing ideas. In fact, students do better when they taught how to think, as opposed to being told what to think.

 

[Caino]

Dear Caino,

I'm not trying to judge you or your religion. I'm trying to find out why you have to add Aliens and UFOs to your story? And your Heady language {your intricate intellectual facades that happen nowhere's else}?

Michael

I haven't added aliens, that's your mocking characterization in an attempt to discredit. Did an alien visit Mary or an angel named Gabriel????? Are angels aliens or just when you want to make fun of people? Did they make fun of Jesus, put a crown of thorns on his head? Dress him in a purple robe? Beat him and laugh at him? Did they mistreat the other prophets????

Also, you add UFO's, there are no UFO's in my theology, that's again added by people trying to discredit and undermine.

 

[6days]

*But your competing ‘theory’ is for a specific designer – Your conception of the Christian God.*Since we are talking science, let’s keep science in focus. Can you suggest how to teach the science that has your preferred designer changing sticks to snakes, female bodies to pillars of salt, guys living for days inside of fish, etc… those Biblical accounts that make a mockery of biology and of the conservation laws of physics, and of thermodynamics?

Usually your comments are intelligent Redfern, but this one was plain dumb...and like Arthur Brain, *you find it easier to attack a strawman you create. Nobody said anything about teaching Biblical accounts. *Nobody said that a female turning into salt was science...it isn't. You shouldn't be so afraid of teachers or students having the freedom to discuss opposing competing ideas in a classroom.*

 

[gcthomas]

Usually your comments are intelligent Redfern, but this one was plain dumb...and like Arthur Brain, *you find it easier to attack a strawman you create. Nobody said anything about teaching Biblical accounts. *Nobody said that a female turning into salt was science...it isn't. You shouldn't be so afraid of teachers or students having the freedom to discuss opposing competing ideas in a classroom.*

Teachers already have that freedom to discuss religiously inspired ideas, in comparative religion classes. Why isn't it enough for religion to be discussed in classes about religion? Why do you need religion to be discussed in science classes? Why is your faith not enough for you, such that you want the reputation of science to make you feel better about your faith? The reputation of science would be worth nothing in any case, if you had your way.

 

[Jose Fly]

If you establish the prior as facts.

Hey, whaddya know....Lon gets it! Yes, you do have to first establish your premises as true. And just a tip....simply saying "It's true, I know it" is not how you do that.

No, we are talking about creation at this point.

Since you absolutely refused to say what you mean by "creation", your above statement is meaningless.

Interesting. When I showed up, there He was.

What did God look like? What did God sound like? Did you touch God?

How long did you wait before you left?

What does it matter? Is there a time limit? Why would God behave so irrationally?

Sincerity is rather important on this particular. You didn't falsify nor could you. He found me. That ship has sailed.

Other people tell me, with as much conviction and sincerity as you, that they've had divine revelations about Mormonism being the one true path, about Islam being the one true path, and about Buddhism being the one true path.

Why should I believe you over them?

 

[Jose Fly]

Actually there is a competing 'theory' based in science and logic. *Anything that exhibits complex, functional design, may have been designed. Our universe may have a designer.

That's not a scientific theory in any way shape or form. It's been proven to be nothing more than a religious belief, dressed up in scientific language in order to sneak it into public schools. Further, no colleges are requiring incoming freshmen to be educated in anything like that, nor are employers looking for graduates to be familiar with it.

So from a legal, scientific, and academic standpoint there is absolutely no reason for science teachers to teach or even discuss this religious belief. And from a legal, scientific, and academic standpoint there are specific reasons not to.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I said nothing about the age of the earth. I did say that a teacher or a student should have the freedom to discuss competing ideas. In fact, students do better when they taught how to think, as opposed to being told what to think.

Well if you're a YEC then you can't believe in an old earth. For sure, there's nothing wrong with encouraging students to think for themselves but if your job is to teach evolutionary biology then science class isn't the place for it.

 

[Jose Fly]

Teachers already have that freedom to discuss religiously inspired ideas, in comparative religion classes. Why isn't it enough for religion to be discussed in classes about religion? Why do you need religion to be discussed in science classes? Why is your faith not enough for you, such that you want the reputation of science to make you feel better about your faith? The reputation of science would be worth nothing in any case, if you had your way.

That's a question that's always fascinated me. Why do creationists crave the credibility of science so much? Isn't their beliefs being in the "word of God" good enough for them? Why do they so desperately seek science's stamp of approval?

It's funny how creationists spend half their time bashing science, the peer-review process, and scientists themselves, and the other half of their time seeking science's approval.

 

[redfern]

Nobody said anything about teaching Biblical accounts.

Fascinating. 6days is rooting for including discussion of an intelligent designer of the universe in student’s studies, but when I focus on his specific God in that role, he flinches and wants to avoid that identifying of his God in that capacity. Last time I recall that happening was when Peter wimped out and opted to distance himself from being associated with the Christ as the crucifixion was nearing.

Nobody said that a female turning into salt was science...it isn't.

Correct, it isn't. Science is the study of matter and energy in the universe. A human female body changing into salt would be a primo example for science to study dealing with real matter and real energy. But as 6day’s says, it isn’t science. Science is concerned itself with matter and energy, but the lady to salt isn’t science … for the same reason Frodo’s ring of power isn’t science – it is fiction.

You shouldn't be so afraid of teachers or students having the freedom to discuss opposing competing ideas in a classroom.

But I did (and do) just that – discussed lots of options, both when I was a student and when I taught (teach). So is the “might be an intelligent designer for the universe” (but not the Christian God, we definitely want to avoid any hint that we want to get Him into the science classroom) all you are freaking out about? Anything more specific than that?

 

[6days]

*

*Teachers already have that freedom to discuss religiously inspired ideas, in comparative religion classes.

Great...and thats where religion should be discussed. However, we were talking about competing ideas in science.

GC..... its a bit funny that atheists are so willing to teach all types of beliefs... but the one belief that seems to frighten them is that an Intellience created. Few if any atheists would be opposed to discussing the idea that a hypothetical disc of dark matter disturbed a hypothetical gravitational field which caused the proposed Oort cloud to kick out a proposed comet which killed the real dinosaurs. *
http://www.sciencefriday.com/articles/did-dark-matter-kill-the-dinosaurs/

And yet atheists get frightened if a teacher wants to discuss a statement from an astrophysicist saying "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming" Paul Davies

Atheists seem to get testy...and not want statements from former atheists discussed such as, "it now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." Anthony Flew.


So, if secular scientists admit there is arguments for design....why does it frighten you that, that discussion might lead to a designer.

 

[6days]

*

Well if you're a YEC then you can't believe in an old earth. For sure, there's nothing wrong with encouraging students to think for themselves but if your job is to teach evolutionary biology then science class isn't the place for it.

I get the feeling you actually see your argument is illogical. I think you are agreeing its ok to discuss competing ideas in a science class....even in evolutionary biology.

For example if a student wants to challenge a teacher or professor that mutations and selection can't 'evolve' a microbe into a microbiologist... the prof. or teacher should have the freedom to mock that idea... or to explore it with the students.

 

[Jose Fly]

GC..... its a bit funny that atheists are so willing to teach all types of beliefs... but the one belief that seems to frighten them is that an Intellience created. Few if any atheists would be opposed to discussing the idea that a hypothetical disc of dark matter disturbed a hypothetical gravitational field which caused the proposed Oort cloud to kick out a proposed comet which killed the real dinosaurs. *

http://www.sciencefriday.com/articles/did-dark-matter-kill-the-dinosaurs/


And yet atheists get frightened if a teacher wants to discuss a statement from an astrophysicist saying "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming" Paul Davies*

The fact that you see no difference between those two in the context of setting science curricula is further evidence of your profound and deep ignorance of basic science.

Atheists seem to get testy...and not want statements from former atheists discussed such as, "it now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of*DNA*research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." Anthony Flew.

Flew was a philosopher. Other philosophers have looked at things and concluded that gods don't exist. But you don't want that included in science classes, do you? Of course not.

So, if secular scientists admit there is arguments for design....why does it frighten you that, that discussion might lead to a designer.

Sheesh, pay attention 6days.

It's already been proven that "design" is nothing more than a legal ploy to sneak creationist talking points into science classes.

No university requires incoming freshmen to be versed in "design", or anything like it.

No employers require new employees to have taken courses, or have an understanding of, "design".

Every scientific organization in the world that has weighed in on the subject has unequivocally stated that "design" is not only very wrong, but unscientific as well.

What other reason does anyone need?

The only reason you've given for including it at all is a vague appeal to "academic freedom", which leads to an obvious issue. Why not, on the exact same basis, teach astrology, geocentrism, or holocaust denial? Every argument you've made in support of including "design" applies just as much to those things.

 

[6days]

*Fascinating. 6days is rooting for including discussion of an intelligent designer of the universe in student’s studies

What I said is that teachers and students should have the freedom to discuss competing ideas.*

*

but when I focus on his specific God in that role, he flinches and wants to avoid that identifying of his God in that capacity.

No...I objected to your strawman argument about teaching Biblical accounts in a science class.*

*

Science is concerned itself with matter and energy...

Yes. It involves using the scientific method and being willing to follow the evidence...even if it leads you to a designer.

 

[gcthomas]

So, if secular scientists admit there is arguments for design....why does it frighten you that, that discussion might lead to a designer.

It is not science, so it can be discussed outside of science lessons. It is not frightening at all, and I am not frightened. In the UK it is fine to discuss creationism, but noone really can be bothered. If anyone wants it taught to their children they teach it themselves. What is it about YECs that they want other people to teach their children stuff?

You still haven't answered the question: why do you need the reputation of science to bolster your faith? Can't it stand on its own?

 

[Rosenritter]

I'm have no issue with the existence of God. I lean in neither direction there, and that has no bearing on whether evolution happens or doesn't.

I have seen the evidence myself. Not on computers, not in classrooms, but out there in person with knowledgable individuals explaining what this and that means geologically.

I know that since you likely haven't been walked through the evidence like I have that you think it's a bunch of guesswork, but you really couldn't be more wrong. The facts are that rock layers tell you a story, and if you know what to look for that story can be pretty detailed.

How do you think we look for oil?


And yes, our understanding of evolution has certainly helped us scientifically/technologically. We know that we have to create a new flu vaccine every year because it evolves at an insanely rapid pace. We've seen the rise of "super bugs" that result from natural selection in bacteria such as staphylococcus, making the surviving MRSA species much harder to kill

1. "Evolution theory" has nothing to do with looking for oil. Petroleum engineers and geologists can function from either Theist or Atheist camps.

2. I was under the impression that natural selection, in bacteria or anything else, actually SELECTS from existing DNA (omitting data that is not selected) rather than CREATING new DNA and producing a different creature.

 

[6days]

*It is not science, so it can be discussed outside of science lessons.

What is not science? I linked you to an astrophysicist who suggests that dark matter may have killed the dinosaurs. Are you saying that should not be allowed to be discussed?

*

It (discussing design) is not frightening at all, and I am not frightened.

You certainly seem frightened. You are advocating that kids should be taught 'what' to think, instead of 'how' to think.

*

In the UK it is fine to discuss creationism, but noone really can be bothered. If anyone wants it taught to their children they teach it themselves. What is it about YECs that they want other people to teach their children stuff?

Like others here, you seem unable to argue logically what has been said, so you create 'snowmen' to argue against. (-20 here). I said above that nobody wants creationism taught in public schools. *However, students should be taught whatever is in the ciriculum, while being able to discuss competing ideas.*

*
You still haven't answered the question: why do you need the reputation of science to bolster your faith? Can't it stand on its own?

This has been answered for you often GC. It is an exciting time for Christians as science helps reveal the truth of Scripture, and the majesty of our Creator. *Science can be a form of worship for Christians.*

 

[Rosenritter]

Which is more likely? That Genesis isn't supposed to be taken literally or that scientists all around the world have all misinterpreted the evidence around them?

Arthur, forgive me for forgetting where you stand here, but which is more likely? That Jesus wasn't supposed to be taken literally or that practicing Jews all around the world have misinterpreted the evidence around them?

It's far more likely that the humanist religion, claiming for itself the title of "science" and attempting to steal the accomplishments of others for its own status, has misinterpreted evidence about them, even willingly misinterpreted at times. Jesus took Genesis literally, and if Jesus did rise from the dead then his endorsement carries a certain weight that's far greater than someone who claims to be a "scientist" that can't even bring a lab rat back from the dead.