The "Theory" of Evolution vs. "Creationism"

[Caine]

Though I think you took my comment about removing both from the curriculum a little too seriously. A better way to do things would be to teach them both, personaly however I believe that creationism is a religous tale that was invented to explain human existence and that if a religion wants it taught they should teach it themselves. I was under the impression that church was established for that very reason.

Yes, exactly, Evolution is a 'SCIENCE' so, lets see, where should it be taught? I don't know... how about a 'SCIENCE' class? Hrm.. Imagine that.

"Creationism" is nothing more than giving the biblicaly stated origins of life and the earth a scientific sounding name, in order to allow it to gain popularity for teaching it in the schools. Its absurd. If parents want thier children to learn the theory of "creationism" they should teach their kids the bible themselves, or send them to church or a Religious Private school.

 

[steen]

I am also a firm believer in evolution. (Key word, believer.) I "believe" that it is a theory with a very firm scientific grounding.

So you are not accepting the actual evidence, you merely 'believe" in science, as if it was some Godly revelation? I find that odd and contrary to what science is all about.

However, what I believe is not the question. It is what the chrisitians believe. Chrisitianity is a religion, and like the followers of any religion christians don't have a lot of room within them for conflicting beliefs.

Again, that is irrelevant. What is taught in science class is exploration through the application of the Scientific Method.

Unless you can work through it through the application of the Scientific Method, it is not science and instead belongs somewhere else, like in philosophy or comparative religions.

I am beginning to believe that the entire argument of which should be taught in schools is no longer a question of whether people think evolution is true or creationism is true. It has reached the poing where this is all a power struggle betwean science and religion, neither side wanting to concede.

Not at all. You can, in my opinion, teach religion all you want, as long as it is not done in Science class. The American youth (and the parents as well) are ignorant enough about science as it is, without further murkying the waters through pushing of nonscience as factual alternatives to actual data.

I don't think that it is really about beliefs any more. Though I think you took my comment about removing both from the curriculum a little too seriously. A better way to do things would be to teach them both,

And exactly how would you teach creationism in science class?

 

[nope]

A better way to do things would be to teach them both, personaly however I believe that creationism is a religous tale .

Exactly if they want to teach creationism then do it in Relgious Education.

And exactly how would you teach creationism in science class?

That's actually the point and if you wouldn't teach evolution then you also mustn't teach everything about DNA, functions of cell, miose, mistose, .... I think you have to stop teaching biology because everything has to do with evolution. A teacher can't tell you anything about viruses or trisomie 21 because how shall you teach it without evolution.

 

[Chevalier]

Exactly if they want to teach creationism then do it in Relgious Education.

That's actually the point and if you wouldn't teach evolution then you also mustn't teach everything about DNA, functions of cell, miose, mistose, .... I think you have to stop teaching biology because everything has to do with evolution. A teacher can't tell you anything about viruses or trisomie 21 because how shall you teach it without evolution.

As a Christian who recognizes God's action in the on-going creative process called evolution, I feel compelled to offer a correction to the thread. The theory of evolution is just that, a scientific theory. Many scientists operate on the assumption that evolution is scientific law, as we do with many scientific theories, but in fact there is absolutely no way of demonstrating the cosmic process of evolution in a replicatable experiment. That is not to say evolution did not occur, rather it is saying we are still trying to understand the complexities of God's creation, all the insults (thrown at my faith in this thread) aside.

I did with sadness notice how quickly the so-called "objective" people in this thread demeaned people on the other side of the fence, the clear belief that their view is so markedly superior, let me suggest that when you come up with a workable model, not simply mathematical, but workable for the scientific Big Bang, even then you will not understand the complexities of existence, because you lack adequate categories of understanding. And this deficit cannot be overcome because you reject one category that even Einstein embraced: intuition. And what is quantum theory of superstring, reaction at a distance, but an intuitive leap of faith? Even Feyenmann can say, in Quantum we can't "know" anything except probability.

Let's be honest about this debate, it comes down to which epistemological categories you want to put the emphasis of your faith in. Science places rationalism and empiricism above intuition and direct knowledge. Science will not win that argument. There is simply a point beyond which we cannot go without a step of faith. You must at some point believe in conjecture and educated steps beyond reason. And on the other side, faith will not win the argument, because science thinks they alone define the categories. There is a point at which we too must step out in faith.

You know the real reason this debate is heating up? The Democrats know intolerant their tactics lost them the White House, the Congress, and if the trend keeps up the courts. Their faith teaches that they lost because the American electorate is dumb instead of losing because they offered no compelling vision of the American future. The democrats are left with one last bastion to perpetuate their ideology: the schools. And so the battle being lost in the public arena, the academic endeavor to teach faith out of existence is intensifying. And listen to science's proponents ridicule their opponents intellect. They have learned the wrong lessons from the failed Democratic party.

You move from a false assumption about evolutionary theory. You have to begin understanding evolution is still an unobserved process at the level of actualization, but a valid hypothesis explaining the origin of species.. Mitosis and Meiosis are not necessarily about evolution, they are merely one suspect of the evolutionary process. They are about the function of reproduction and that CAN have evolutionary implications, but it need not have. There has been no direct observation of the causitive factor of evolution, which is the alleged limit science imposes on itself. You are confusing biology's legitimate study of evolutionary theory with biology itself.

That biology can teach us about mitosis and meiosis for example is not contingent upon evolution being proved right, or wrong. Function of cells or DNA likewise are not contingent upon evolutionary theory being right or wrong. These functions and viruses, etc exist and are observable, and I believe God is continuing to work in a creative way through those processes. Thus I am a proponent of Intelligent Design and fully support teaching evolutionary theory because in turn you are learning about God's process whether you call it that or not.

But one comment you made I have to say then is this, religious education should be allowed in school as per your first statement in an elective fashion, and part of that education should be comparative understandings of cosmology. I am glad to hear that you are open-minded enough to see that is an appropriate response to shutting any discussion of faith or ethic out of science, and there is now a curriculum produced nationally that I hope you will be taking to your local school board for implementation. Can we count on your vote for that? I thought rather not. See it's a one way street where tolerance is concerned with you isn't it?

 

[Chevalier]

I would like to bring up bacteria, specificly the ones that cause desease. The cures that we were using 50 or 60 years ago do not work today. Now this implys that the bacteria have changed over time to this new threat on their survival. Now no doubt the ones that could not adapt to the cures we used died off. This leaves only the ones that did adapt to this. Now I think that this is a good example of evolution, granted it did not take millions of years, However in my defense bacteria reproduce at rates much higher then multicelled creatures, like us. This means that many thousands of generations of bacteria have come and gone in a realitive short time.

This is more proof for evolution and is there any intelligent deign proof that measures up to this??

Absolutely, and you just offered it. You also demonstrated how human efforts backfire because we are initially corrupted. Thank you.

 

[Chevalier]

Your claim is false. The existence of Evolution is a FACT. It has been directly observed, there is scientific, accurate, specific data sets proving its occurance, just like there is specific data sets proving the existence of Gravity.

My friend, no such direct observation has occured at the level of change has it? Evolution is theory, good, demonstrable hypothesis. As is ID. Neither is on the level of Gravitation, that being a scientific Law. All the evidence you are talking about is direct observation of the consequence of change, not the change itself. As a Christian who believes evolution is God's process of creativity observed, I recognize as does much of the scientific community, that as compelling as the evidence is, there is a point we have not figured out yet. And when we do figure it out, it will merely be disclosure of God's activity.

 

[nkgupta80]

That biology can teach us about mitosis and meiosis for example is not contingent upon evolution being proved right, or wrong. Function of cells or DNA likewise are not contingent upon evolutionary theory being right or wrong. These functions and viruses, etc exist and are observable, and I believe God is continuing to work in a creative way through those processes. Thus I am a proponent of Intelligent Design and fully support teaching evolutionary theory because in turn you are learning about God's process whether you call it that or not.

wrong. you downplay how important evoliution has been not only in discvoering these maany many functions and processes, but also understanding and using that knowledge. Evolution is essential in biological and medical research. Go into any respectable research laboratory...and the guys will tell you that the consequences of evolution are what drives their predictions and their conclusions. It is what lets them understand why the cells are the way they rae, why certain complexities may arise in certian situations, and so on.

 

[nkgupta80]

My friend, no such direct observation has occured at the level of change has it? Evolution is theory, good, demonstrable hypothesis. As is ID. Neither is on the level of Gravitation, that being a scientific Law. All the evidence you are talking about is direct observation of the consequence of change, not the change itself. As a Christian who believes evolution is God's process of creativity observed, I recognize as does much of the scientific community, that as compelling as the evidence is, there is a point we have not figured out yet. And when we do figure it out, it will merely be disclosure of God's activity.

you can't put id at the level of evolution. Introducing the this intelligent creator force completely stops all scientific inquiry. Why? Because I can use that same idea in any field of science. Come on now. Why can't I just say that black holes work because of God's power, and end our research right there. why can't I say that aobut all astronomical researhc, particle physics and so on. When they see strange phenomena in physics, why not just attribute it to the workings of an intelligent force and be done with it...
Why can't I do that? Because its unusable knowledge... its impractical, and frankly it doesn't get us anywhere.

Same with evolution, it has an evergrowing amount of evidence, it is reproducible at smaller levels, it has proven unbelievably useful in biology and genetics. Basically, not only the evidence, but also the practicality of this theory proves its validity.

 

[Chevalier]

wrong. you downplay how important evoliution has been not only in discvoering these maany many functions and processes, but also understanding and using that knowledge. Evolution is essential in biological and medical research. Go into any respectable research laboratory...and the guys will tell you that the consequences of evolution are what drives their predictions and their conclusions. It is what lets them understand why the cells are the way they rae, why certain complexities may arise in certian situations, and so on.

Perhaps I did not adequately articulate what I meant. I do not downplay evolutionary theory. I merely argue for evolution to be put in proper perspective. You state my point excellently, "Go into any respectable research laboratory...and the guys will tell you that the consequences of evolution are what drives their predictions and their conclusions." That is exactly what I am saying the function of evolution is. But what I am also saying is that no DIRECT observation of the evolutionary process, i.e. watching the exact moment of that evolutionary change on the sub molecular level to witness the process itself. It's execution remains, as Darwin said, "a black box" we cannot fully peer into. Is that saying it doesn't work or is somehow a lie? NO! I would not say that in the least.

It works, but we have not explored fully how it works. That was my point. Science still has work to do to discover how God works in evolution.

 

[Rhadamanthus]

To Chevalier: You are refreshingly open minded. I will be the first to include myself in the group of people who feel biased toward evolution. However I am so far gone that I won't listen to an intelegent voice when I hear one.

To Steen: I "believe" the evidence given for evolution. If I did not "believe" in it why would I recognise it as a sound scientific theory? I hardly believe that the "exploration" you are talking of is quite so rigorous as you make it seem. Maybe when you were taking the class you and your classmates undertook wearing scientific "explorations". I can tell you first hand however that there is currently very little exploration in biology class. The scientific method, to which you seem so atached, is hardly used in the context you seem to think. It is merely a series of steps you are expected to memorise, regurgitate, and then discard. I don't believe I said it had to be taught in science class.

 

[Chevalier]

you can't put id at the level of evolution. Introducing the this intelligent creator force completely stops all scientific inquiry. Why? Because I can use that same idea in any field of science. Come on now. Why can't I just say that black holes work because of God's power, and end our research right there. why can't I say that aobut all astronomical researhc, particle physics and so on. When they see strange phenomena in physics, why not just attribute it to the workings of an intelligent force and be done with it...
Why can't I do that? Because its unusable knowledge... its impractical, and frankly it doesn't get us anywhere.

Same with evolution, it has an evergrowing amount of evidence, it is reproducible at smaller levels, it has proven unbelievably useful in biology and genetics. Basically, not only the evidence, but also the practicality of this theory proves its validity.

My friend, here you are not hearing what I am saying. I am saying, in effect, God wants us to strive for this knowledge. I'm not saying stop studying cosmology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, or biology, I am saying that the study of these things is in fact necessary. Why on earth would God give us rationality and a thirst for empirical knowledge if not to stretch out and understand. You misunderstand intelligent design I think. That God works in the weak and strong nuclear force, or through superstring undestanding of reaction at a distance is not a call to stop studying the process. I affirm the scientific process and for me that process has been a means of growing closer in relationship with God.

Let me explain from my past. I was a student of physics and chemistry focused on cosmology (not the philosophical concept but the study of the universe) six weeks from graduation when it occured to me in 30 years I would be "the prof." It was a profoundly intuitive moment. I left and switched majors, much to my parents' chagrin. At that point, my faith in science had not left me, I just understood science as a tool of knowledge, not and end in itself.

But that is the end of the process. I was working in the astronomy/cosmology studies at the beginning of the inquiry into Superstring Theory
http://www.superstringtheory.com/

the String theory actually developed out of the EPR paradox which had origins in Heisenberg uncertainty. The question, given standard Newtonian Laws of Motion, can we know certainly the momentum of one object after two objects collide by measuring the momentum of the other? In Newtonian physics, you can know.

In EPR of course this particle is sub-atomic in nature, there has been a collision of two electrons and we know the momentum of one. Can you know the momentum of the other? By implication, can we know where the particle is? According to Heisenberg, you cannot. The why is simple, by observation, you affect the conditions of the experiment, so in measuring the one particle after collision, one of two things must happen.

First, either the universe compensates for the uncertainty in such a way that energy taken from, or added to, one particle affects the momentum of the other particle in kind, or the particle at a distance is measureable and therefore Quantum's foundational principle is wrong. Actually the case is still being debated.

Some of the interesting testing that is being done creates some interesting results. They used spin in sub-atomic particles as the determining object of the test. In two rooms, they have a control set of particles they do nothing to, in the other room they manipulate the particles magnetically affecting polarity and causing the particles to shift spin. At the same time, the particles in the other room, that had not been acted upon, shifted spin. This demonstrates so-called "reaction at a distance" where particle response in one environment causes an equal and opposite reaction in the other.

My friend, this is cosmic relationality on the sub-atomic level. To me, this demonstrated purpose and plan, a "being-ness" operating in the universe, though I fully understand others will not see that or jump to that conclusion. Relationality is not relativity, though it offers one explanation. My only frustration is that people often imply that faith involves checking the brain at the door and I do resist that.

 

[nkgupta80]

^really interesting stuff

 

[tecoyah]

My friend, here you are not hearing what I am saying. I am saying, in effect, God wants us to strive for this knowledge. I'm not saying stop studying cosmology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, or biology, I am saying that the study of these things is in fact necessary. Why on earth would God give us rationality and a thirst for empirical knowledge if not to stretch out and understand. You misunderstand intelligent design I think. That God works in the weak and strong nuclear force, or through superstring undestanding of reaction at a distance is not a call to stop studying the process. I affirm the scientific process and for me that process has been a means of growing closer in relationship with God.

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose.

My confusion comes from the obvious understanding you have of base level Physics, and the percieved need to use religion in its definition. While much of what you posted above is accurate Data gained thru the scientific method, I do not see how one can apply those same methods to verify a creator/intellectual entity that directs the flow.

And PLEASE, if you reply....do not refer to me as "My Friend", as I find it condescending and inflamatory.

 

[Canuck]

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose.

My confusion comes from the obvious understanding you have of base level Physics, and the percieved need to use religion in its definition. While much of what you posted above is accurate Data gained thru the scientific method, I do not see how one can apply those same methods to verify a creator/intellectual entity that directs the flow.

And PLEASE, if you reply....do not refer to me as "My Friend", as I find it condescending and inflamatory.

you have put forth a question ,and encapsulated it in a strawman

you cant reconcile science with religion
each answers a different set of questions they do not correlate
one asks how the other asks why
to attempt to answer your question would be futile

untill such time science takes a leap of faith or religion gives up some of its devinity we can only postulate with theories

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

One problem of intelligent design is that it tries to posit that evolution is impossible because the organisms are "irreducibly" compex, which is a bogus Kent HOvind argument.

 

[tecoyah]

you have put forth a question ,and encapsulated it in a strawman

you cant reconcile science with religion
each answers a different set of questions they do not correlate
one asks how the other asks why
to attempt to answer your question would be futile

untill such time science takes a leap of faith or religion gives up some of its devinity we can only postulate with theories

Perhaps I am dense but, I fail to see the "Strawman" in my question. I was simply asking how one can understand the scientific theory, and attempt to use it in defining a creator. There is , in my opinion, no Data availible other than scripture to test, and scripture is suspect in its accuracy by definition.
In short....you cannot use science to test faith.

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

<snip>
Let me explain from my past. I was a student of physics and chemistry focused on cosmology (not the philosophical concept but the study of the universe) six weeks from graduation when it occured to me in 30 years I would be "the prof." It was a profoundly intuitive moment. I left and switched majors, much to my parents' chagrin. At that point, my faith in science had not left me, I just understood science as a tool of knowledge, not and end in itself. <snip>

And in that thirty intervening years it would never have occurred to you to do something useful with the knowledge; to have fun playing with it; or to advance it? The purpose of tools is only to make more tools? It is probably just as well that you decided not to clutter up the scientific landscape. :applaud

 

[steen]

As a Christian who recognizes God's action in the on-going creative process called evolution, I feel compelled to offer a correction to the thread. The theory of evolution is just that, a scientific theory.

As are ALL Scientific Theories. I hope you know this is different than "only a theory," that it is the actual end-product of the process of the Scientific Method?

Many scientists operate on the assumption that evolution is scientific law,

That would be a fixed mathematical constant relationship. I don't know of any who see the Scientific Theory of Evolution as such.

as we do with many scientific theories, but in fact there is absolutely no way of demonstrating the cosmic process of evolution in a replicatable experiment.

Cosmic? The Scientific Theory of Evolution doesn't deal with the Cosmos!

I did with sadness notice how quickly the so-called "objective" people in this thread demeaned people on the other side of the fence, the clear belief that their view is so markedly superior, let me suggest that when you come up with a workable model, not simply mathematical, but workable for the scientific Big Bang, even then you will not understand the complexities of existence, because you lack adequate categories of understanding.

What does the Big Bang have to do with the Scientific Theory of Evolution? Their mechanisms alone are separated by more than 10 bill years.

And this deficit cannot be overcome because you reject one category that even Einstein embraced: intuition.

I must have missed where Einstein or any other Scientists proposed intuition as valid evidence of anything?

Let's be honest about this debate, it comes down to which epistemological categories you want to put the emphasis of your faith in.

Nope, it has to do with what the data shows.

You know the real reason this debate is heating up? The Democrats know intolerant their tactics lost them the White House,...

Yadda, yaddda, yadda. Science has nothing to do with the politics. Are you really claiming that Republicans are anti-scientific?

The democrats are left with one last bastion to perpetuate their ideology: the schools. And so the battle being lost in the public arena, the academic endeavor to teach faith out of existence is intensifying.

That claim is downright STUPID, as Science doesn't do any such thing. That you so misrepresent science, downright lying about it, that is rather disturbing for your credibility.

You move from a false assumption about evolutionary theory. You have to begin understanding evolution is still an unobserved process at the level of actualization,

Another lie. Evolutionary processes have been directly observed and documented. Your claim is false, your accusation is false, and your knowledge and truthfulness about science in general and evolutionary processes in particular, they are appalling.

but a valid hypothesis explaining the origin of species..

Your claim again is a lie. Actual evolutionary processes have been witnessed. The Scientific Theory of Evolution is a Scientific Theory, not a Scientific Hypothesis. Just about EVERY ONE of your claims here are outright lies. You should be ashamed of yourself for so bearing false witness. Do you really believe that there are brownie points in Heaven for LYING FOR JESUS?

Mitosis and Meiosis are not necessarily about evolution,

Nobody claimed so, but their processes are involved.

they are merely one suspect of the evolutionary process. They are about the function of reproduction and that CAN have evolutionary implications, but it need not have.

Certainly. Nobody claimed otherwise.

There has been no direct observation of the causitive factor of evolution,

Another false claim. You are big on making false claims. Are they out of ignorance or out of deliberate deception?

That biology can teach us about mitosis and meiosis for example is not contingent upon evolution being proved right, or wrong.

Certainly. But neither do they contradict. And if you actually get into the details of the processes, then the meiosis mutation rates directly are related to Evolution. You can not deny this without lying.

Function of cells or DNA likewise are not contingent upon evolutionary theory being right or wrong.

As evolution is about changes in populations, yes. So?

These functions and viruses, etc exist and are observable, and I believe God is continuing to work in a creative way through those processes.

That's nice. Do you have evidence? Or is this just another creationist "because I say so" postulation?

Thus I am a proponent of Intelligent Design

Really? ID specifically denies any evidence of God.

and fully support teaching evolutionary theory because in turn you are learning about God's process whether you call it that or not.

So I am glad that you actually support teaching the actual science that you so tried to disparage up above.

But one comment you made I have to say then is this, religious education should be allowed in school as per your first statement in an elective fashion, and part of that education should be comparative understandings of cosmology.

Sure. All you want. As long as it is not in Science Class where SCIENCE is taught.

I am glad to hear that you are open-minded enough to see that is an appropriate response to shutting any discussion of faith or ethic out of science,

Anything explored through the Scientific Method is appropriate in Science Class. Just show me where Faith or ethics are explored through the Scientific Method, and we will gladly enclose the results in the Science curriculum.

 

[steen]

My friend, no such direct observation has occured at the level of change has it?

Yes, certainly. It is directly observed that the distribution of alleles in a population has changed from one generation to the next.

Evolution is theory, good, demonstrable hypothesis.

Your claim is an outright lie. A Scientific Theory is the END PRODUCT of the Scientific Method. A Scientific Hypothesis is the starting point. To compare the beginning with the end shows either ignorance or outright dishonesty.

As is ID.

A lie.

Neither is on the level of Gravitation, that being a scientific Law.

Another lie. The mathematical relationship of gravity is a fixed relationship and thus is a natural law. However, the process and mechanism of gravity is not a law. It is explained through a Scientific Theory. You seem terribly confused about science and what hypotheses, theories and laws are in natural science. None of your claims make sense, indication that you have no clue of the relationship between these.

All the evidence you are talking about is direct observation of the consequence of change, not the change itself.

Another lie. The change itself at the genetic level has been documented as well. Why must you continue to lie about this?

As a Christian who believes evolution is God's process of creativity observed, I recognize as does much of the scientific community, that as compelling as the evidence is, there is a point we have not figured out yet.

Agreed.

And when we do figure it out, it will merely be disclosure of God's activity.

Rather, this is what you BELIEVE. To portray this as a fact is dishonest. As dishonest as so many of your claims about scientific processes and the Scientific Method, as is evident in your latest posts.

 

[steen]

But what I am also saying is that no DIRECT observation of the evolutionary process, i.e. watching the exact moment of that evolutionary change on the sub molecular level to witness the process itself. It's execution remains, as Darwin said, "a black box" we cannot fully peer into.

Your claim is false. This has specifically been evidenced and documented. Go read about the nylon bacteria. We know exactly what specific frame-shift mutation changed the bacteria's digestive abilities and thus opened up the new niche without competition.

It works, but we have not explored fully how it works. That was my point. Science still has work to do to discover how God works in evolution.

Again, Science works on the Scientific Method, withch is unable to deal with anything not being outright proven. Hence, the Scientific Method doesn't deal with supernatural things such as God, and your insistence of such an evaluation again shows either ignorance or outright dishonesty.

 

[steen]

To Steen: I "believe" the evidence given for evolution. If I did not "believe" in it why would I recognise it as a sound scientific theory?

Because it is about the data and evidence, not about beliefs.

I hardly believe that the "exploration" you are talking of is quite so rigorous as you make it seem.

Your ignorance of the Scientific Method is not my fault.

Maybe when you were taking the class you and your classmates undertook wearing scientific "explorations". I can tell you first hand however that there is currently very little exploration in biology class.

Because the exploration occurs in the Scientific Research, not in the teachings of the basic concepts. How advanced was your education in biology that you are qualified to speak to the quality of the research?

The very fact that you talk about "belief" in science indicates that you are woefully ignorant of even the basics of science.

It is great that you want to discuss science. But you damn well owe us the respect of actually knowing what science is before starting to criticize it. The insulting platitudes you have served up so far does nothing else than anger those who know what nonsense you are spewing. So stop your insulting behavior and show that you know what you are talking about, that your background is in you knowing what you are talking about rather than just some belief that science is wrong. Because that is to insulting.

The scientific method, to which you seem so atached,

Rather, the Scientific Exploration and research is.

is hardly used in the context you seem to think. It is merely a series of steps you are expected to memorise, regurgitate, and then discard.

I find it odd that you find the mechanics taught in basic science class to be the equivalent to the foundations of the actual research.

That would be the same as claiming that mathematical proof is not rigorous because you are not given the very full proof when you are taught that 2+2=4.

I don't believe I said it had to be taught in science class.

Good for you.

 

[Chevalier]

That claim is downright STUPID, as Science doesn't do any such thing. That you so misrepresent science, downright lying about it, that is rather disturbing for your credibility.
Another lie. Evolutionary processes have been directly observed and documented. Your claim is false, your accusation is false, and your knowledge and truthfulness about science in general and evolutionary processes in particular, they are appalling.
Your claim again is a lie. Actual evolutionary processes have been witnessed. The Scientific Theory of Evolution is a Scientific Theory, not a Scientific Hypothesis. Just about EVERY ONE of your claims here are outright lies. You should be ashamed of yourself for so bearing false witness. Do you really believe that there are brownie points in Heaven for LYING FOR JESUS?

You are big on making false claims. Are they out of ignorance or out of deliberate deception?
Certainly. But neither do they contradict. And if you actually get into the details of the processes, then the meiosis mutation rates directly are related to Evolution. You can not deny this without lying.
As evolution is about changes in populations, yes. So?

My friend, you are the one lying. First I have in no way demeaned science. Secondly, read Einstein's book Out of My Later Years and you find his advancing intuition as an epistemological category. As my first degree was in Physics and cosmology, I have applauded science as a tool, not an end in itself. To help you understand, if science has directly observed evolution, which it has absolutely not, let me ask you to explain the exact process of evolution according to science and not simply the consequence. Tell me exactly the causitive factor in evolution, not the consequential factor evidenced in meiosis and mitosis. I am not denying meiosis is how God brings about mutation, I am denying that science explains how the evolutionary process works and I am saying even if it did it would merely be proof of how God works. Your arguing from consequencial evidence, science needs to answer the causation of evolution. The question in ID is not whether evolutionary consequences occur, it's what is behind the consequence. Causation is what science must prove and demonstrate to turn evolution from theory to law. Demonstrate causation Steen.

You should be ashamed of yourself for so bearing false witness. Do you really believe that there are brownie points in Heaven for LYING FOR JESUS?


This is just religio-phobia, Steen. Knee-jerk liberal religio-phobia. I in no way misrepresent science as a tool in the least. In no way have I asserted science should not be taught, unlike the witch-hunt against religion in the academic world these days. You must not have any understanding of faith to say these things. I am for, and my post was advocating for, the fact that science and religion are compatable.

 

[Chevalier]

Your claim is false. This has specifically been evidenced and documented. Go read about the nylon bacteria. We know exactly what specific frame-shift mutation changed the bacteria's digestive abilities and thus opened up the new niche without competition.
Again, Science works on the Scientific Method, withch is unable to deal with anything not being outright proven. Hence, the Scientific Method doesn't deal with supernatural things such as God, and your insistence of such an evaluation again shows either ignorance or outright dishonesty.

You still cling to outcome and ignore causation Steen. And theory/law is something you need to look back at in the process of scientific methodology. natural law is the end-goal of the scientific process. You absolutely refuse or are unable to explain a process of evolution. You get the resultant side well, but you utterly miss the point that made my explanation of the Big Bang relevant. Then at the end you throw the gratuitous insults at me because I dug deeper than you were prepared to go. You see, we can know the mutation occured as you cited about the bacteria, but we do not know the mechanism. My worldview doesn't negate science it affirms it, but you find it offensive because it is a Christian worldview. My insistence was a self-disclosure of how I came to this understanding, why do you see ignorance or lie in that unless you are a religio-phobe?

 

[nkgupta80]

You still cling to outcome and ignore causation Steen. And theory/law is something you need to look back at in the process of scientific methodology. natural law is the end-goal of the scientific process. You absolutely refuse or are unable to explain a process of evolution. You get the resultant side well, but you utterly miss the point that made my explanation of the Big Bang relevant. Then at the end you throw the gratuitous insults at me because I dug deeper than you were prepared to go. You see, we can know the mutation occured as you cited about the bacteria, but we do not know the mechanism. My worldview doesn't negate science it affirms it, but you find it offensive because it is a Christian worldview. My insistence was a self-disclosure of how I came to this understanding, why do you see ignorance or lie in that unless you are a religio-phobe?

ur world view just states that there is a possibility of a higher force...whatever that may be. That doesn't help in any practical application of science. Especially at the level taught in highschool. Evolution does. Thats simply end of story. we teach the basics, the stuff they will need a good understanding of in higher education. Evolution is extremely important when you get into later biological studies in universities. It is simple to learn, so it is not something that should be left out of the high school biology curriculum.

 

[nkgupta80]

My friend, you are the one lying. First I have in no way demeaned science. Secondly, read Einstein's book Out of My Later Years and you find his advancing intuition as an epistemological category. As my first degree was in Physics and cosmology, I have applauded science as a tool, not an end in itself. To help you understand, if science has directly observed evolution, which it has absolutely not, let me ask you to explain the exact process of evolution according to science and not simply the consequence. Tell me exactly the causitive factor in evolution, not the consequential factor evidenced in meiosis and mitosis. I am not denying meiosis is how God brings about mutation, I am denying that science explains how the evolutionary process works and I am saying even if it did it would merely be proof of how God works. Your arguing from consequencial evidence, science needs to answer the causation of evolution. The question in ID is not whether evolutionary consequences occur, it's what is behind the consequence. Causation is what science must prove and demonstrate to turn evolution from theory to law. Demonstrate causation Steen.

uhh of course science proves evolution. Its like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Every discovery in biology, animal biology, genetics, microbiology, and so on and so on has somehow helped support evolution. Its little pieces like these that keep fitting together forming an idea that more and more resembles the theory of evolution.