• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Darwin's Theory Of Evolution

Should schools teach Darwin's Theory of Evolution?


  • Total voters
    75
I'd just to add to this argument an excellent post made earlier in another chat.

KBeta said:
A very good friend who was my roommate while he was working on his PhD in theoretical physics once told me that one of the unwritten laws of physics is, “That which is not expressly forbidden is compulsory.” In other words, unless there is a damned good reason why something will not happen, probability demands that given enough time it will happen. That’s evolution in a nutshell. All you need is a lot of time, and a lot of time has passed on this rock we call earth. As James Hutton, the father of modern geology, famously said of the earth, it shows “no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end.”

The earth formed 4.56 billion years ago (Ba). During its accretionary period the earth was being bombarded with a large number of meteorite and comet impacts. Those impacts have continued with decreasing frequency to this day. It has been discovered that some basic amino acids exist in comets. Therefore, the basic building blocks of life have existed on earth virtually from the very beginning.

Below there are 4,560 lines. Each line represents one million years. I’ve color coded them to correspond to important periods or instants of time.

IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII

No noticeable life.
Non-cellular life only.
Prokaryotic cells (cells w/o a nucleus).
First indication of sexual reproduction.
Eukaryotic cells (cells with a nucleus) and multicellular organisms and invertebrates.
Vertebrates.
Age of dinosaurs.
Mammals dominant.
First primates.
Most recent ice age. Homo Erectus.

To look at what we call history, you need only consider the very last line. The last line has been split up into the lines below. Each one of these lines represents 1,000 years.

IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII

Fire harnessed.
Neanderthal.
Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Neanderthal goes extinct.
First signs of agriculture.
First cities.
Iron Age begins.
Greek civilization rises/falls, Roman civilization rises/falls, Christ born.
Pretty much everything else you can think of.



I think this goes a long way of putting things in perspective. Please remember creationist only believe in the existance of the last 6 lines of the expanded chart.
 
I was with you all the way until the last line.
"Please remember creationist only believe in the existence of the last 6 lines of the expanded chart."If you replaced "Creationists" with "Orthodox Religious members" then this would be accurate.

In order to illustrate my point I will have to quote from the Bible. Please understand that I am not preaching nor am I trying to convert you. I will keep the quoting to a minimum.
I think that you will be surprised at what I have to say.

Genesis 1:1-2
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters"
Where to begin....
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
The very first line of the story of creation starts us off with a fully formed sky and a rock. The Bible has not told us how long it took for the sky and rock to form, so if you have a workable theory that says it took billions of years, the Bible and Christianity can not contest it.

"Now the earth was formless..."
This suggests that the crust of the earth was in some way pliable and flexible; kind of like it was still hot enough to move like paste, yet not molten.

"...and empty..."
We already have a cooling clump of miscellanies elements and compounds, so "empty" would be referring to organic life. This only means that single cell organisms haven't formed yet.

"...darkness was over the surface of the deep..."
This is one of my favorites.
The sky, which would include the sun, was already finished. So if there was "..darkness over the surface of the deep", this would mean that the sun and the earth were not placed together yet.
This would be consistent with the scientific ages of the earth (@4.5 Billion years) and the sun (@4 Billion years). By scientific standards, the earth is half a billion years older than the sun it orbits. This lone 8 word passage covers over 500 million years of time.

Do you love me yet?

"...And the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."
At this point there were oceans.
So here we have a sentient intelligence about to mold a creation to fit a purpose.

As Genesis goes on to outline what was made and in what order, keep in mind that the Hebrew word that was used for "day" was also used too mean month, year, millennium, eon, dynasty and ruler-ship. Also, the English word "day" that is used in the Bible does not always come from the same Hebrew word and thus could mean a different measurement of time.
 
Aside from all that, the people who wrote that fairytale believed the world was a flat piece of terra-firma where if you rode too far, you'd fall off its edges.
They also believed in witches, dragons, the devil, spells, and evil cats...which, incidentally, a lot still believe in up until this day.
 
I can not begin to express how mis-lead that opinion is.
Your hate comes through your post loud and clear. I'm sorry you are burdened with it.

To which "fairytale" do you refer? The books Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy are under constant scrutiny from the Jewish community because it is these 4 books that make up the Torah. These 4 books have 5 different authors, 2 of whom cannot be identified.
Given that you know their personal beliefs on Dragons and such, you must know their identity. Please sher this with me.

Irreligious, even Atheist scalers, historians and archaeologists use the Bible for reference because it is the most accurate and most complete record of ancient times.

In 400 a.d. when the Coptic Christian Church finalized the list of 65 books that would make up the collective works known as the Bible, their scholars knew that the earth was round. They knew a grate deal about celestial bodies and the movement of the sky, including how to chart Precession.
It was this knowledge of the stars that allowed the Magi to predict the birth of Jesus 3,000 years before it happened.

-As for Witches, I used to be one.

-As for Dragons, I think that ancient Mia, Egypt, Europe and the modern countries of Japan and China would disagree with you.

-The Devil? As in the great dark Lord? Buddhists, Muslims and Nativ'Americans sher the belief of the fallen Morning Star's existence; Yet they put no faith in the Bible.

-As to spells, I used to cast them. Fire balls are only seen in movies and R.P.G.s., But summonings, charms end curses are quite real.

-I have no problem with the idea that an animal could be just as malicious and vile as any Human child rapist.

I hope that you can learn to express your anger in a constructive way. Someone must have really hurt you.
I'm sorry that it happened.
 
look all we know is that evolution DOES help understand many biological and genetic mechanisms in ways that creationism doesn't and never will. Dig deeper into any biological or genetic research and you'll end up touching upon evolutionary theories along side other physical and chemical theories.

The processes of creating the primordial soup are still hazy, but scientists are working to prove it. The only argument against the formation primordial soup is mathematical probability. However by understanding and discovering structural properties of molecules, scientists are beginning to increase these numbers, making life more mathematically probably.
 
Many persons have difficulty accepting what they cannot understand. Perhaps what we are discussing is akin to the "chicken or egg" discussions of old. Accidents happen; but are happenstances accidental?

Even proponents of the "big bang" theory must wonder whether there was a hand which set the charge and lit the fuse.

Hence the rise in the theory of "Intelligent Design" among those who, while they can't quite accept Creationism, they can't quite dismiss it either. This provides them with some 'wiggle room'.

A stimulating report on the subject has been published by the magazine of the Museum of Natural History. No doubt it has caused a stir.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

Fantasea said:
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.
 
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.

Many people believe that "was" is actually BECAME in the Hebrew scriptures and that the earth was 're-created'. We would be in the second world age after a mighty destruction. The first world age would have been the dinosaur era. Thus the destruction caused a rebirthing evolution from a soup of DNA that already existed.
 
All I'm saying is that until evolution is no longer a theory but has ben conclusively proven to be the way our origins actually happened, no one should represent evolution as an absolute.

Take the *theory of evolution and the *belief of creationism and let the students fight it out in class.

Do not take only one or the other and teach it as the only truth.
 
"Many people believe that "was" is actually BECAME in the Hebrew scriptures and that the earth was 're-created'. We would be in the second world age after a mighty destruction. The first world age would have been the dinosaur era. Thus the destruction caused a rebirthing evolution from a soup of DNA that already existed."

Yes, my Bible also shows that possibility in the foot notes.
This would be consistent with the Mi'an belief of "The 7 worlds of God", in that we are in the 4th. world now and about to advance to the 5th. world on December 21st. 2012 (when the Mian calender ends).
 
As I read everyone's posts I think about how a classroom would actually conduct a factually based educational debate on evolution and creationism.
I remember that in my Life Science, U.S. History and Social Studies classes we made reports called Current Events.
I have an evolution-vs-creationism Current Event to sher:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45377

I think that after reading this brief article, people will be more reluctant to say that only religious people are agents evolution; or that people who disagree with evolution do not grasp the concept and generally do not know allot about science.

Reading this article would also help our conversation in this thread.
 
Busta said:
All I'm saying is that until evolution is no longer a theory but has ben conclusively proven to be the way our origins actually happened, no one should represent evolution as an absolute.

Take the *theory of evolution and the *belief of creationism and let the students fight it out in class.

Do not take only one or the other and teach it as the only truth.
Given the complexities of both, over which learned men have been fighting for as long as we can remember, just what will unsophisticated teen-agers fight over in class?

As with adults, those of faith will not be shaken; those without faith will not be swayed. Those without firm conviction will swing as pendulums. Pretty much as we see right here in this forum.

Bothering to teach either or both seems to me to be a waste of time and effort. The vast majority of humans really do not care today, nor have they ever cared. Those who do have an interest in researching the question have plenty of material available for their perusal.

The questions posed by "The Origin of Species" are simply an academic exercise. Let it remain in the realm of scientific academia where it will continue to be investigated by those minds which are best equipped to do so in a meaningful fashion. From time to time pronouncements will be made as theories are refined.

However, what is the possibility of a definite outcome which will effect anything, anytime, anywhere?

All of the believers and the non-believers who have come and gone no longer have to question anything, do they?

Folks still promise to get word back to us. However, we're still waiting.
 
Fantasea said:
However, what is the possibility of a definite outcome which will effect anything, anytime, anywhere?
There are five theories proposed by this article about the future outcomes of evolution:
Unihumans: Biologists say that different populations of a species have to be isolated from each other in order for those populations to diverge into separate species

Survivalistians: Catastrophes ranging from super-floods to plagues to nuclear war to asteroid strikes erase civilization as we know it, leaving remnants of humanity who go their own evolutionary ways.

Numans: scientists find new genetic and pharmacological ways to improve performance.

Cyborgs: the rapid pace of cybernetic change has led some experts to worry that artificial intelligence may outpace Homo sapiens’ natural smarts.

Astrans: If humans survive long enough, there’s one sure way to grow new branches on our evolutionary family tree: by spreading out to other planets.

It's obviously hard to successfully predict what will happen in the future. Letters to other parts of the planet used to take weeks if not months, now with email, the letter is instantaneous.
 
"Given the complexities of both, over which learned men have been fighting for as long as we can remember, just what will unsophisticated teen-agers fight over in class?"

What will they fight over? Their opinion of what they believe.

Teenagers today were not alive for all the years that learned men have been debating evolution. This subject in the classroom would be their turn to have a go at it and to exorcise & develop their knowledge and reasoning abilities.

I doubt that the average high school student would make a meager impact on the issue in general, but adding to one side or the other would not be the point of such a coarse.

The point would be to assist the student in reaching an understanding about both the theory and the belief, allow the student to express what makes more sense to him/her and to teach the student how to explain their view.
 
Busta said:
Previously posted by Fantasea
Given the complexities of both, over which learned men have been fighting for as long as we can remember, just what will unsophisticated teen-agers fight over in class?"
What will they fight over? Their opinion of what they believe.
Opinion of a belief based upon what?
Teenagers today were not alive for all the years that learned men have been debating evolution. This subject in the classroom would be their turn to have a go at it and to exorcise & develop their knowledge and reasoning abilities. I doubt that the average high school student would make a meager impact on the issue in general, but adding to one side or the other would not be the point of such a coarse.

The point would be to assist the student in reaching an understanding about both the theory and the belief, allow the student to express what makes more sense to him/her and to teach the student how to explain their view.
If one wishes to teach debating, there are many subjects to examine which, at least minimally, can produce a result.

The only points of view which could be expressed on this subject must be based upon beliefs. One side is faith based, the other is is not. Other than empty rhetoric consisting of the recitation of unfounded opinion, what else can be expected, especially when the faith based belief most likely won't even be allowed to be expressed in a secular environment?
 
When one deals with Science, one is allowed to disagree and have original thought. That article that Busta Posted is great. It show some real thinking.

The theory of Evolution as proposed by Darwn in the 19th century no longer exists. it has been enhanced, argued over, advanced with new evidence, changed with new ideas and evidence. Science is question and requestion. It is looking for, finding, and examining evidence. My hope is that there are thousands of scientists questioning Darwin and Modern versions of Darwin. It keeps us young and healthy. The search for truth should always be going on.
 
Yeah!!!! We Got The Taliban Out Of Afghanistan !!!! Now They Are Here !!!!! I Always Wanted My Kid To Go To Taliban School!!!! Wooohoooooo


Down With Commons Sense Truth And Science Long Live Ignorant Religious Oppression!!!!!!

I Love A Society Where Your Not Welcome To Think Outside The Doctrine To Be Pushed On Me!!!


Wooohooo Lets Celebrate!!!
 
Evolution should be taught & ethics should be taught.
As for religion... how long do you want tell kids there's a Father Christmas... uh.. sorry a God I mean.
 
robin said:
Evolution should be taught
Why? It's simply a relatively recent theory from which many scientists are already fleeing.

& ethics should be taught.
Who shall determine what is ethical? Shall we have an "ethics police"? If so, shall it be politically correct, or politically incorrect?

As for religion... how long do you want tell kids there's a Father Christmas... uh.. sorry a God I mean.
With the thousands of 'religions' practiced these days, it's best left to the parents; to do themselves, or to send their kids to schools where religion of their particular stripe is taught.
 
shuamort said:
Fantasea said:
Many scientists? I am going to call you on that statement.

Four hundred seems like many to me. How about you?

Excerpt from: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45377

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EVOLUTION WATCH
400 scientists skeptical of Darwin
Theory 'great white elephant of contemporary thought'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 21, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

More than 400 scientists from all disciplines have signed onto a growing list of skeptics of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life, according to the Seattle-based Discovery Institute.

"Darwin's theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought," said David Berlinski, a mathematician and philosopher of science with Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, or CSC. "It is large, almost completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe."
 
Here's a list of the scientists in PDF format. The wide majority of them aren't even in biology. This is a typical argumentum ad verecundiam
While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is inappropriate if:
I the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject,
II experts in the field disagree on this issue.
III the authority was making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being serious
Obviously scientists of high energy physics, chemisty, mathematics, and toxicology are pretty easy to discount on that basis.

Moreover, your claim that it's "simply a relatively recent theory from which many scientists are already fleeing" is false as that is not the crux of what these random scientists signed.

Also, Discovery.org is not a scientific website. It's a mythological affront to freethinking folks. Articles such as: Former Atheist Says God Exists is quite apparently not a scientific article but a propaganda piece for malarky.

Now that's all fun and good, but let's go through a couple of the name's on the pdf list. First off, Henry Schaefer.
Let me preface these brief remarks by noting that I think the scientific evidence that God created the universe 13-15 billion years ago is good. My first concern is that, with the collapse of the Miller-Urey model, there is no plausible scientific mechanism for the origin of life, i.e., the appearance of the first self-replicating biochemical system. The staggeringly high information content of the simplest living thing is not readily explained by evolutionists. Second, the time frame for speciation events seems all wrong to me. The major feature of the fossil record is stasis, long periods in which new species do not appear. When new developments occur, they come rapidly, not gradually. My third area of reservation is that I find no satisfactory mechanism for macroevolutionary changes. Analogies between a few inches of change in the beaks of a Galapagos finch species and a purported transition from dinosaur to bird (or vice versa) appear to me inappropriate.
First off, there is no scientific evidence that God created the universe. There is evidence, indeed, that the universe is 13-15 billion years old. But there is not, and cannot be, scientific evidence for God having anything to do with its creation. Second, he invokes the common fallacy of equating abiogenesis with evolution. Thirdly, he appears ignorant of punctuated equilibrium, which is a theory aimed specifically at the observation of long periods of stasis followed by rapid periods of change and speciation within the fossil record. Finally, he resorts to changes in "kind" as an argument against macroevolution. Yet, the fossil record is pretty claer regarding his very wexample of the dinosaur-bird transition (and yes, it involved more than just Archaeopteryx). So, unfortunately, a stereotypical creationist (albeit an "old earther") as regards his undersatnding of evolution.

Now, Dr Fred Sigworth:
The second witness was Dr. Fred Sigworth, a molecular biochemist from Yale University. Sigworth called evolution a fact but said he distinguishes between microevolution and macroevolution. He doubts that macroevolutionary theory can adequately account for the development of the major groups of organisms. He said that, like evolution, "Intelligent Design" does a good job of explaining the data of biology and paleontology.

Again, he draws the distinction between macroevolution and microevolution, again based on an incomplete understanding of the the two processes. He is, in essence, a Behe-clone, and Behe has been shown to be incorrect and mistaken numerous times here and elsewhere.


Now who said scientists can't be wacky and make fun of the fools who believe in creationism?

The American Association for the Advancement of Science's has 120,000 members. Another organizantion, the NCSE, has circulated a countermanifesto asserting that "There is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occured or that natural selection is [the] major mechanism...." As a tongue-in-cheek tribute to the late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, they signed up only scientists named Steve. At last count they had 528.
 
Are we merely shooting the messenger? Discrediting the author of the message? Or, have we come full circle.

My post #81 contains everything I have to say on the subject.
 
the problem with post #81 is that it may follow the evolutionary process somewhat, but it definately doesn't seem to follow the general process of "creation" in the universe. According to that passage from Genesis, trees were on the earth before the stars are created. Scientific evidence completely disproves that. Its good to sometimes reevaluate what the bible says according to modern scientific thought, but it still creates problems. That is why I look at the creation story as nothing more than a myth, maybe with some nice morals underlying it.

As to the 400 scientists, you know that I can call myself a scientist when I get a degree. All I need is a degree in any remotely scientific field and voila. Hell, I coulda been called a scientist when I was interning in a research lab last summer. Just cause they are 400 skeptical scientists doesn't mean that they have an authority in the greater scientific community. Any scientist holds validity in his claims when he provides indisputable evidence. From the birth of Darwin's theory, there have been constant revisions due to thousands of scientists who made VALID criticisms. The theory has evolved since, and is evolving. But those who merely shout out that the theory is wrong without having evidence cannot be taken seriously.

No good scientist or researcher should take the theory of evolution for granted. However, from understanding this theory, research has taken great strides in biology, genetics, and medicine.
 
nkgupta80 said:
look all we know is that evolution DOES help understand many biological and genetic mechanisms in ways that creationism doesn't and never will. Dig deeper into any biological or genetic research and you'll end up touching upon evolutionary theories along side other physical and chemical theories.

The processes of creating the primordial soup are still hazy, but scientists are working to prove it. The only argument against the formation primordial soup is mathematical probability. However by understanding and discovering structural properties of molecules, scientists are beginning to increase these numbers, making life more mathematically probably.
Who needs to know what an Atom is, but how it got there! :mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom