Darwin's Theory Of Evolution

[Fantasea]

Darwain's theory hasn't been disproved yet and lots have tried and failed. So, unless you want to tell me that the earth is 6000 years old...well, you get my point.

Those who believe in God understand that He is eternal; He always was and He always will be.

Yes, we all know that the earth is millions of years old. We all know that the universe is even older. We all know that creatures existed millions of years ago. We all know that creatures with human form but without many human attributes existed millions of years ago.

Perhaps Darwin erred when he took the modern translations of The Book of Genesis literally with respect to seven consecutive days constituting one week. Can anyone say with certainty that there is not confusion on that point?

If one reads the first verses of Genesis, one sees that the formation of the universe, earth and its development and population by the various species of flora, fauna, and marine life followed a pattern that has been confirmed by modern minds, but which could never have been imagined, much less understood, by the scriveners of the Old Testament.

Today, we accept as fact that these things occurred not in rapid succession as we understand the term, but over a span of eons, which in terms of eternity, however, is perhaps, the equivalent of rapid succession, nonetheless.

Then, finally on that day, some six thousand years ago, God was ready to complete the lengthy 'project' and gave stewardship over all to Adam, His creation of the first intelligent man.

Had Darwin looked at it this way, there'd be nothing to discuss.

Book of Genesis
Chapter 1​

1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

1:2
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

1:3
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

1:4
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

1:5
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

1:6
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

1:7
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

1:8
And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

1:9
And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

1:10
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

1:11
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

1:12
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

1:13
And the evening and the morning were the third day.

1:14
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

1:15
And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

1:16
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

1:17
And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

1:18
And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

1:19
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

1:20
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

1:21
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

1:22
And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

1:23
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

1:24
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

1:25
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

 

[ShamMol]

So, Fant, let me ask you this. Do you believe in the seperation of church and state? And if you do, how could you allow religious teaching into schools?

Oh, and two things wrong with your post...it is billions of years, billions with a b...and the fact that they want to teach strict darwainism, not this washed down version you are preaching (which honestly is the correct one to teach if you have to teach it at all).

 

[Fantasea]

So, Fant, let me ask you this. Do you believe in the seperation of church and state? And if you do, how could you allow religious teaching into schools?

Oh, and two things wrong with your post...it is billions of years, billions with a b...and the fact that they want to teach strict darwainism, not this washed down version you are preaching (which honestly is the correct one to teach if you have to teach it at all).

I think of California, where the politically correct solution for kids whose native language is not English is to teach them in whatever that language happens to be. I don't remember the count, but at one point, it seems to me, that about fifty languages were being accommodated. Tower of Babel? :lol:

That's what I see happening if religion was to be introduced in the public schools. Just another form of insanity.

However, those who subscribe to the 'Big Bang' theory of creation should give consideration to the fact that there had to be a hand to set the charge and light the fuse. :lol:

What's wrong with teaching that we understand how the earth evolved over eons (which each equal a billion years), but that while we don't know with absolute certainty, there are two widely accepted theories of the advent of intelligent man, the secular and the religious. I don't see this as 'teaching' religion, but simply acknowledging something that is accepted by the majority(?) in the US.

Other than this, I don't think that public schools are the place for religion to be taught. However, neither do I think that public schools should treat religion as some sort of pariah.

After all, religion is a fact of life, and letting kids know about the facts of life is popular in public schools today, whether they practice them or not.

 

[ShamMol]

I think of California, where the politically correct solution for kids whose native language is not English is to teach them in whatever that language happens to be. I don't remember the count, but at one point, it seems to me, that about fifty languages were being accommodated. Tower of Babel? :lol:

That's what I see happening if religion was to be introduced in the public schools. Just another form of insanity.

However, those who subscribe to the 'Big Bang' theory of creation should give consideration to the fact that there had to be a hand to set the charge and light the fuse. :lol:

What's wrong with teaching that we understand how the earth evolved over eons (which each equal a billion years), but that while we don't know with absolute certainty, there are two widely accepted theories of the advent of intelligent man, the secular and the religious. I don't see this as 'teaching' religion, but simply acknowledging something that is accepted by the majority(?) in the US.

Other than this, I don't think that public schools are the place for religion to be taught. However, neither do I think that public schools should treat religion as some sort of pariah.

After all, religion is a fact of life, and letting kids know about the facts of life is popular in public schools today, whether they practice them or not.

I don't agree with accomodating every language, btw, but this is the wrong thread for it. I think that the top three is plenty enough and that saves money as well and is fiscally responsible. The other 48 languages are minimal at best and the rule is to accomodate but not at extreme cost-so, that would be extreme cost in my opinion...but back to the question at hand.

I don't think that schools treat religion as a pariah, but honestly, if it is taught in school, it cannot be religion. Pure and simple-that is the law. If the tax payers pay their taxes to the government, the government in turn cannot use that money to promote, advocate, or even teach with it. That isn't treating religion as evil, just as nonexistent. What the schools could do however is acknowledge that there are other beliefs that are out there while not mentioning them. While that doesn't satisfy most people, that is the most legal thing to do considering it doesn't bring in religion. What could be said is there are several other possiblities and then list them and describe them briefly with no mention of GOD or religion (slippery slope but it theoretically is permissible).

Hate to burst your bubble, but just because the majority of Americans are religious that doesn't mean that they accept creationism. Mostly, that is the right wing/conservative sides of the Churchs IMO.

 

[Fantasea]

I don't agree with accomodating every language, btw, but this is the wrong thread for it. I think that the top three is plenty enough and that saves money as well and is fiscally responsible. The other 48 languages are minimal at best and the rule is to accomodate but not at extreme cost-so, that would be extreme cost in my opinion...but back to the question at hand.

The only thing that is accomplished is that children are held back from learning the one language that will enable them to compete on an even footing in the US. It's politically correct insanity.

I don't think that schools treat religion as a pariah

When the starting five can't join hands in the gym and offer a prayer that neither they nor their opponents will be injured, that's treating religion as a pariah.

but honestly, if it is taught in school, it cannot be religion. Pure and simple-that is the law. If the tax payers pay their taxes to the government, the government in turn cannot use that money to promote, advocate, or even teach with it. That isn't treating religion as evil, just as nonexistent. What the schools could do however is acknowledge that there are other beliefs that are out there while not mentioning them. While that doesn't satisfy most people, that is the most legal thing to do considering it doesn't bring in religion. What could be said is there are several other possiblities and then list them and describe them briefly with no mention of GOD or religion (slippery slope but it theoretically is permissible).

God is not a secret. The word appears in historical documents which are taught and in the 'pledge', too.

Hate to burst your bubble, but just because the majority of Americans are religious that doesn't mean that they accept creationism. Mostly, that is the right wing/conservative sides of the Churchs IMO.

You're right. It's simply your opinion. Unfounded, at that.

 

[ShamMol]

The only thing that is accomplished is that children are held back from learning the one language that will enable them to compete on an even footing in the US. It's politically correct insanity.

When the starting five can't join hands in the gym and offer a prayer that neither they nor their opponents will be injured, that's treating religion as a pariah.

Actually, I don't know if you know this, but people can pray at school. Did you know this? They can say grace, they can pray by themselves or with others int he lockerroom, but not when they are out on the court. Why? Because then they are representing the school and thus a show of prayer might break the seperation of church and state. I know it is a slippery slope, but that is the law.

God is not a secret. The word appears in historical documents which are taught and in the 'pledge', too.You're right. It's simply your opinion. Unfounded, at that.

Yours is unfounded as well-show me proof that the majority of Americans believe in creationism. I put imo for a reason, you state yours as fact. You know my thoughts on those words in the pledge. They were put in in the 50's to fight communism-they serve no purpose now, take them out.

Oh, and just because the name is in historical documents doesn't mean that those documents can't be taught as history. We are talking about science. It is idiotic to say we can't teach the 100 years war because it was about religion-that is history and cannot be changed. It is in the Magna Carta-does that mean that we can't teach it as fact and source of some common law, no it doesn't. That is why I support the Ten Commandments in the lobbies of Justice builings along with other sources of law (even though I don't like it).

 

[teacher]

Neither should they teach creationism. These are topics definitely to be addressed by parents. As father of four replies by childless lack credibility. I know those without kids hate to hear from those with when we say you just don't understand until you have a child but it is true and us parents don't like to use it but......you just don't,couldn't possibly understand. Sorry.

 

[Busta]

Darwin himself admitted that his theory of evolution could not be true:
Using the human eye as his example, he said that it is not possible for the human eye to posses lesser, uninvolved forms. These more primitive forms of the human eye would not serve a function or perpouse and would be "naturally selected for elimination".
Darwin did not endorse his own theory. He debunked it.

 

[Alex]

I voted yes. The definition of a scientific theory is not the same as it is for a general theory. A scientific theory is based on evidence. Darwin did not just come from nowhere and say natural selection existed. He collected evidence and then stated his scientific theory from that evidence. Intelligent Design is not based on evidence. To teach it in schools would not be presenting students with facts. Evolution is becoming more and more provable everyday, especially with genetics. It is those facts that must be learned by students so they can further the known knowledge and continue to discover scientific truths. Teaching religious explanations of where we came from is wasting valuable time and resources. It is not provable, and time and time again has been disproven.

 

[Busta]

I'll say it agene.....
Darwin himself admitted that his theory of evolution could not be true: Using the human eye as his example, he said that it is not possible for the human eye to posses lesser-evolved forms. These more primitive forms of the human eye would not serve a function or perpouse and would be "naturally selected for elimination".

Darwin did not endorse his own theory. He debunked it.

Yes, Darwin assembled evidence to prove his theory. Since he could not make his evidence conclusive and absolute, DARWIN ABANDONED HIS THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

On a different note: The theory of evolution is religious in nature. It is Humanism in nature. I agree with you that we should not allow religious teachings in public schools. So we should not teach the theory of evolution nor creationism.

 

[Busta]

Oh and one more thing.
Before you go busting on other people who practice a religion, remember, Darwin was Catholic.

 

[Provita]

Well, it really depends, the three main theories i creationism, evolution, and intelligent design. In private schools, IF one is taught, all three should be taught, but in public school, which rules out one theory, the other 2 must be ruled out. All or none.

 

[Alex]

I'll say it agene.....
Darwin himself admitted that his theory of evolution could not be true: Using the human eye as his example, he said that it is not possible for the human eye to posses lesser-evolved forms. These more primitive forms of the human eye would not serve a function or perpouse and would be "naturally selected for elimination".

Darwin did not endorse his own theory. He debunked it.

Yes, Darwin assembled evidence to prove his theory. Since he could not make his evidence conclusive and absolute, DARWIN ABANDONED HIS THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

On a different note: The theory of evolution is religious in nature. It is Humanism in nature. I agree with you that we should not allow religious teachings in public schools. So we should not teach the theory of evolution nor creationism.

Provide reliable proof of this.

I'll amuse you for a moment though. Lets say that Darwin did state his theory of natural selection is wrong. It does not matter. Darwin did not have the resources to effectively prove the theory back then, but guess what? We do now and it has been shown to be a legitimate scientific theory. Something as big as trying to decide where humans come from cannot be accomplished in a single lifetime. It is an ongoing process where parts of the theory will be proven or disproved. That is what science is all about; continuing the process of finding scientific truths using previous evidence and strengthening those truths whether that means reestablishing parts of the theory or keeping them the way they are. That is why science works and religion does not. Religion will not allow continuous processes to seek the truth. It believes it has the ultimate truth already. The problem with this is that the evidence grows for science while religion is stuck too far below. Evolution is not religious in nature because it is based on empirical evidence.

 

[Alex]

Oh and one more thing.
Before you go busting on other people who practice a religion, remember, Darwin was Catholic.

If he was, so what? I love the irony. A Catholic who began the long journey of discovering where we came from is amazing. That does not mean that evolution does not happen.

Gregor Johann Mendel was a monk. Guess what he did? His work with showing there was inheritance of traits in peas plants prompted the foundation of genetics. Another religious person assisting in the proof of evolution. I love the irony. Does being discoverd by religious people mean that things in science do not exist? No! It means that these were open-minded religious people who had a hunger for scientific truths.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel

 

[Busta]

Thou I do not remember the name of either the text book nor my 11th. grade teacher that taut this (its been @12 years), I can give you this link which presents good research.
http://www.lloydpye.com/

There it is agene: "If he was, so what? I love the irony". You insist that the existence of religious people who engage in the scientific method is ironic. That's just plain ignorance.

The existence and understanding of genetics does not further evolution. I mean, come on, Humans shear 25% of our genetic make up with bananas. Are you now going to tell me that I have a Banana ancestor?

Humanism is a religion + Evolution is a humanistic idea = Evolution is a religious idea.
I suppose the same reasoning could be made with Scientology (also a religion).

You remind me of my diehard Atheist sister. She cracks me up every time she calls me a religious zealot while b***hing me out for believing in God.

She won't talk to me for days when I point out that her passionate Atheist insistences make her as much of a religious zealot as she accuses me of being.

 

[jakurus]

I voted Yes, and was thinking "OF COURSE."

It's not like scientists all decided this was the only theory that existed to explain why animals are the way they are now.

Science dictated TO THEM that this was the only valid theory and they HAD TO ADOPT IT. For scientists, it's a matter of what the results are, not what they believe themselves.

As for teaching religion, I don't see how you can seperate religion from philosophy. Pretty much every philosophical principle has its place somewhere is some religion and some ONLY in religion.

As long as they teach is academically and not evangellically, and based on the determination that this specific religious beleif is so important that it had to be in the curriculum, I don't see the problem.

Many universities offer classes on many religions and it's obvious that they are not try to preach to the kids. In fact, a well-rounded person should know at least the summary of every major religion.

That doesn't mean teach creationism, but if creationism were as important as, say... the golden rule, then reading a book about it wouldn't be a problem, even if a public school.

Imagine if a public school forbid its teachers from teaching their students anything about different philosophies of government. People would be having a conniption fit, but most political philosophies can be extended from religion. There is little material difference.

Imagine if a school for really smart kids who wanted to learn more than expected taught them about every major subject imaginable. Would it be right of them to leave any mention of religion out of it? Of course not.

All that preaching about how religion studies academically isn't so bad, and it's positively not, I do think that most religions are invalid and irrational and I think it's wrong for any adult to tell a child that one religion is automatically valid while all others are bunk. If you were to raise your child and they happened to never get asked what religion they believed in, you could easily make up a fake name for some moral philosophy you devised yourself and they might turn out just as moral as a devout christian, but without the worship of god.

 

[nkgupta80]

Science is science, and whatever is accepted in the science community is what should be taught. Religion should have no part in the introductory science courses taught in schools. I think the closest religion should come to science is in the fields of ethics and maybe religious anaysis in philosophy.

Theory of evolution is what binds genetics to the general fields of biology. No other theory comes close to giving such an encompassing view of biological phenomena. So its important to understand this theory in order to understand many mechanisms biology.

And like jakurus said, scientists don't believe in this through faith. Natural selection itself is irrefutable, and evolution has tons of supporting evidence. The only thing that keeps people from accepting it is not enough proof (which itself is relative) and disbelief due to contradiction with other beliefs. There are no phenomena in nature that completely debunk this theory, or provides loopholes.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

I'm absolutely amazed that 10 people voted no!

 

[puck]

For years religious people have opened schools to teach their children their own beliefs. OK by me.

Will we have to follow their example and open private schools, to keep magic and superstition out of the classrooms?

 

[Nemo]

Mark Twain said that man was made at the end of the week’s work when God was tired. Charles Darwin held out hope that man would evolve into a more perfect species, but feared that he was doomed to self-destruction before getting there. Twain, who was an astute observer of human nature, had some doubts about Darwin’’s theory of evolution by natural selection, and was of opinion that if man descended from the apes that the apes were the “higher animals.” Either way you want to present it in the schools, we don’t come out looking very good.

 

[tanenger]

Fools. Evolution is happening before your very eyes and you're too blinded by your religeous beliefs to see it. Of course if you're less than 40 years old or so it isn't so obvious, but those of us who are older can see it happening.
One case in point; how many "Bubba" type Negros do you see now, as compared with 50 or 60 years ago? Damn few, that's how many. Look at the very old movies of Negros and study their facial features alongside what they are now. Only the religiously blind cannot see it happening.

 

[nope]

I'm sure that non of the voters who voted no, does really know what Darwin's Theory says.
How can someone say, creationism and evolution are equal. Creationism has no proof and creationism as a theory isn't important for us (, because it's wrong). Without the Theory of evolution it would be hard for the research in AIDS or other deseases.

 

[Busta]

Do not confuse evolution with adaptation. The two are not the same thing.
It is adaptation, not evolution, which has happened before our eyes. H.I.V. adapts and mutates, it does not evolve.
If Black people have changed their general body type in the last 40 years, that is adaptation. That is not evolution. The taller, more slender build has less surface area and does not absorb as much ambient heat.
Eskimo's have over double the amount of capillaries in their hands and feet. This is so that they can retain use of their Extremities while in the cold. Only Eskimo's who live in a cold climate have this adaptation.
If these things were evolution, then all humans on the planet would have taller, more slender builds and over twice the number of capillaries in their hands and feet.
These examples are only regional adaptations.
Only a change that effects the entire species is evolution.
Some of you are starting to water down this thread with blind accusations and rhetoric.
Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that they are "blinded by religious beliefs" or ignorent.
I voted "no" and I understand perfectly what the theory of evolution says and I how it works.
I voted "no" and am not a religious person.
I voted "no" because I fined the scientific proof for creationism more convincing then that for the theory of evolution.
I do not base by assertion that creationism is correct on the bible or any other holy text.
I did not learn of creationism in a church nor by a "Religious" person.
If you must know, I learned of creationism from an Atheist teacher who believed that this planet was seeded by extraterrestrials.
I'm not an Atheist and I don't buy into the planet being seeded by extraterrestrials. But I do buy into Creationism, just like my Atheist teacher.

 

[tanenger]

"If Black people have changed their general body type in the last 40 years, that is adaptation."

And to what are they adapting?

"If these things were evolution, then all humans on the planet would have taller, more slender builds and over twice the number of capillaries in their hands and feet.
These examples are only regional adaptations."

Science believes that dinasours evolved into birds. All reptiles did not evolve into birds.

"I voted "no" and I understand perfectly what the theory of evolution says and I how it works."

Or maybe not.

 

[shuamort]

I voted "no" because I fined the scientific proof for creationism more convincing then that for the theory of evolution.

There is NO scientific proof for creationism.