argexpat
Active member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 460
- Reaction score
- 8
- Location
- I was there, now I'm here
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
bryanf said:...the hypothesis that God can alter species, too.
bryanf said:It's getting old, and what gets me is that the arguments against intelligent design and creationism exist as character assassinations. They often focus more on discrediting the people than the evidence.
I don't understand most of your post. Are you saying that creationism is not based on religious beliefs?bryanf said:I don't get why people continue to attack creationism and intelligent design simply on the basis that they are religious in nature. The fact that humans can alter species themselves doesn't discredit the hypothesis that God can alter species, too.
It's getting old, and what gets me is that the arguments against intelligent design and creationism exist as character assassinations. They often focus more on discrediting the people than the evidence.
argexpat said:From Slate.com:
Eight families are suing to stop a Pennsylvania school district from teaching children "intelligent design," a theory that suggests a higher intelligence was necessary to create the world. The school district intends to present both evolution and ID as theories. Sunday's Washington Post featured the case as evidence of an antievolution "counteroffensive" by school boards around the country. One plaintiff told the Post that ID was "theocratic." But two years ago, when liberals thought ID was taking over Ohio, Slate's William Saletan debunked ID, exposing it as "a big nothing. It's non-living, non-breathing proof that religion has surrendered its war against science."
Gabo said:If schools were private, this wouldn't be an issue....
argexpat said:We do have private schools, and Christians who want to shield their children from enlightenment and modernity can send them there. But for those who can't afford private schools, there is a publicly funded system that guarantees an education to anyone regardless of socio-economic level, because an educated, informed populace is essential to a healthy democracy and thus benefits everyone.
Fantasea said:The dictionary definition of 'debunk' is: "to expose the sham or falseness of".
All else aside, in his article, William Saletan debunked nothing; he exposed nothing; he simply denied everything.
argexpat said:Weak: adj. - lacking force; feeble.
Rebuttal: n. - evidence or argument that rebuts.
Fantasea said:There are two competing theories, neither of which have been shown to be more than theories.
Fantasea said:Why can't the two theories be presented publicly, in parallel, noting the variances?
Yes.Fantasea said:Originally Posted by Fantasea
The dictionary definition of 'debunk' is: "to expose the sham or falseness of".
All else aside, in his article, William Saletan debunked nothing; he exposed nothing; he simply denied everything.
Is this response intended for my post? If so, I don't see the connection.
Fantasea said:If, on the other hand, it is and you are attempting to convey the idea that you believe he has presented some factual evidence to support his negative opinion, kindly cite it.
argexpat said:QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
There are two competing theories, neither of which have been shown to be more than theories.
Please see my post "The 'Theory' of Evolution vs. 'Creationism'" in which I went 15 brutal rounds with Bryanf on this issue. I believe we covered every possible argument pro and con in detail (and quite eloquently I might add). If there's a point you feel was not made, please post a reply and I'd be happy to respond.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Why can't the two theories be presented publicly, in parallel, noting the variances?
Again, we covered this in detail in the above-referenced post, but the short answer is that "creationism" is mythology, and evolution is science. It's comparing Adam's apples and oranges.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I read your first post in the series to which you referred and which I have excerpted below. In it, I find that you are advocating exactly what I suggested -- teach both theories.
"Saying evolution is a theory is like saying gravity is a theory. While technically true, the evidence for it is so great as to render it fact. That life evolves over time is an undeniable, observable fact. How that process works is where the debate lies. There are competing theories---such as “punctuated equilibrium’---to explain how evolution unfolds. But insisting that evolution is a theory is silly pedantry. And it gives ammunition to the anti-intellectual forces of ignorance who agitate for teaching “creationism” along side evolution, thus establishing a bogus comity with it.
“Creationism” could be taught in school---in a mythology class along with all the other creation myths: Hindu, Greek, Muslim, Buddhist, Navajo, et al. But it has absolutely no place in a science class."
Fantasea said:I read your first post in the series to which you referred and which I have excerpted below. In it, I find that you are advocating exactly what I suggested -- teach both theories.
“Creationism” could be taught in school---in a mythology class along with all the other creation myths: Hindu, Greek, Muslim, Buddhist, Navajo, et al. But it has absolutely no place in a science class."
Gabo said:Teaching evolution in school, however, is theory if they tell you that all the different stages (homo habilus, homo erectus, neanderthal, etc.) are interlinking to form a chain. Without specific evidence that flows gradually from one stage to another, they cannot claim it is fact.
When I read the Merrian-Webster's definition of the word, I don't mind having the theory of evolution taught alongside the theory of creationism, or higher intelligence -- or vice versa. Teaching them in the same class or in different classes is of no consequence. If someone comes up with another theory on the subject, add that one to the mix, as well.argexpat said:Not exactly. I said creationism, if taught at all, could be taught in a mythology class, because it's mythology, not scienctific theory, which is why it has no place in a science class. Please don't tell me you believe creationism is a theory.
Darn, and here I thought we were actually going to agree on something...
WOOHOO!Jufarius87 said:why must the government be cowardly about this issue? i would like to see public education abolished
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?