• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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.

Why teach the INVALID "theory" of evolution?

Shamgar

Banned
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
313
Reaction score
0
Why teach the INVALID "theory" of evolution? It doesn't comply with the scientific method.



Here is the Scientific method in flow chart form (click to enlarge on all images):



So beware of atheists and agnostics trying to say they have a valid reason to teach evolution when it is not even a theory according to the scientific method as it CAN NOT reach a valid conclusion.

 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

Shamgar

Banned
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
313
Reaction score
0
Simon W. Moon said:
Should we also beware of theists trying to say they have a valid reason to teach evolution?
Well any "Christian" who teaches evoution would be a wolf in sheep's clothing . . .
 

Shamgar

Banned
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
313
Reaction score
0
galenrox said:
Oh yeah, cause why go with the answer that all research points to, when instead we could just use the bible!
God made most of us not idiots for a reason.
The research that comes to an invalid conclusion? That is "logical" . . .
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Shamgar said:
Well any "Christian" who teaches evoution would be a wolf in sheep's clothing . . .
Apostasy abounds!
Do you have some other copy of the information contained in the jpgs you posted. I can't read them for some reason. W/o that I see is your few sentences fo rant.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Answers to "questions".
1) Actually yes. Evolution has been observed by looking at many sources.

2)Evolution is not observable by sitting and watching an animal and expecting it to suddenly evolve. It's a bit of a slower process.

3) Yes, a valid theory can arrive and has arrived. Especially since that theory has been shown to be replicated over and over and over on many species.

Of course, you haven't proved your claims with evidence, just wild accusations and biblical references. Since the Bible isn't a scientific source of information, it's easily excused.
 

Shamgar

Banned
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
313
Reaction score
0
shuamort said:
Answers to "questions".
1) Actually yes. Evolution has been observed by looking at many sources.
Which ones?

shuamort said:
2)Evolution is not observable by sitting and watching an animal and expecting it to suddenly evolve. It's a bit of a slower process.
So then there are no experminets nor observations which can validate the conclusion.

shuamort said:
3) Yes, a valid theory can arrive and has arrived. Especially since that theory has been shown to be replicated over and over and over on many species.
How without any observation or reproducible experiments?

shuamort said:
Of course, you haven't proved your claims with evidence, just wild accusations and biblical references. Since the Bible isn't a scientific source of information, it's easily excused.
No your irration unsubstantiated claims are iincohernet an illogical since there is no valid theory without observation or repoducible experimentation.
 

Shamgar

Banned
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
313
Reaction score
0
Simon W. Moon said:
Apostasy abounds!
Do you have some other copy of the information contained in the jpgs you posted. I can't read them for some reason. W/o that I see is your few sentences fo rant.
Nope. Obviously you are poisoning the well without hearing my argument so nothing is lost by you not seeing the info.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,172
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So how about this. What scientific creation theory would you have them teach?
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Actually, Shagmar, I heard a Christian argue that some parts of evolution are compeltely valid within a reinterpreted creation story. It was very intersting and it was NPR, want me to try and find it for you?
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Shamgar said:
Obviously you are poisoning the well without hearing my argument so nothing is lost by you not seeing the info.
If you're unwilling to debate with me, you may say so. No need to try and make my question about theists trying to say they have a valid reason to teach evolution into something it's not

ShamMol said:
Actually, Shagmar, I heard a Christian argue that some parts of evolution are compeltely valid within a reinterpreted creation story. It was very intersting and it was NPR, want me to try and find it for you?
We've already covered this. Since someone who thinks these things're compatable is ipso facto a "Christian" (w/ quotation marks) and "a wolf in sheep's clothing." Their opinions don't count because they're not True Scotsmen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Shamgar

Banned
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
313
Reaction score
0
ShamMol said:
Actually, Shagmar, I heard a Christian argue that some parts of evolution are compeltely valid within a reinterpreted creation story. It was very intersting and it was NPR, want me to try and find it for you?
So you are going to play devil's advocate with his info?
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Umm...Simon, that wasn't me saying that first quote.

And I knew that is what he would be attacked as, taht is why I just didn't bother looking it back up.
 

mikhail

blond bombshell
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
4,729
Reaction score
763
Location
uk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
ok then lets teach kids no explanation becuase i think they would come up with the theory of evolution on there own eventually.
 

Shamgar

Banned
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
313
Reaction score
0
mikhail said:
ok then lets teach kids no explanation becuase i think they would come up with the theory of evolution on there own eventually.
yeah about the same time the monkeys on the typing project were supposedly going to produce shakespear . . . . . in 1 millions years?
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
ShamMol said:
Umm...Simon, that wasn't me saying that first quote.

And I knew that is what he would be attacked as, taht is why I just didn't bother looking it back up.
Sometimes I'm even dumber. I'll email a mod and ask for DI.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,914
Reaction score
6,029
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Quote in question was edited per Simon's request.
 

V.I. Lenin

Active member
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
381
Reaction score
0
Location
NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Besides the Bible, where is the proof that your idea of God has all the answers?

Please, answer me, don't post a little cartoon card thing.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
V.I. Lenin said:
Besides the Bible, where is the proof that your idea of God has all the answers?

Please, answer me, don't post a little cartoon card thing.
Why start a new thread instead of continuing in ones that are already provided?
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
141
Reaction score
11
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Shamgar said:
Why teach the INVALID "theory" of evolution? It doesn't comply with the scientific method.

The observed phenomenon that the theory of evolution explains include: fossils (ie order, features, position,etc), DNA of living species (ie genes, non genetic markers, preserved mutations,etc), features of living species (ie form, vestigal structures, etc), geographical distribution of living species, observed genetic changes in modern species, etc.

Experiments/studies are done on fossils (ie comparisons, analysing features, "can it walk upright", etc) and equally experiments are performed on DNA (DNA sequencing + comparisons,etc). These experiments are reproducable (ie any scientist can repeat the methodology of the experiment to see the same results).

Many of these experiments demonstrate the truth or falseness of various hypthesese concerning evolution (ie are chimpanzees more closely related to us than gorillas, are whales closely related to hippos, etc)
 
Last edited:

nope

New member
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Location
Austria
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Who writes this unrefined, silly cartoon card things?

But they show One thing. Most people who say Evolution is wrong dosen't have no Idea what they are talking about.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent


Flying Spaghetti Monster

Creation

His Noodlyness decided,in his great wisdom, to make stuff. His first task was easily the most difficult. On the first day, he made a mountain, trees, and a midget. The midget took the greatest time, as He had to create a small human, having never even created a human before. At the end of that day, it was so, at which point, He spent the next 3 days making everything else, including the first 3-day weekend, resting on the 5th, 6th and 7th day.

He initially created cave men with the intention of making a race that could be looked down upon by humans, but upon offending Him greatly, they were destroyed.



All Fridays Are Holidays
Unlike God, the dirty, Christian liar, the Flying Spaghetti Monster was honest with His subjects and admitted to taking 3 days of rest after getting the universe done in 4 days. As such, His Noodlyness deemed that Friday, Saturday AND Sunday be days of rest, with special emphasis on Friday.
 

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,226
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Since Shamgar once again deigns himself learned and wise enough to declare Creationism as the singular evolutionary truth, I am again compelled to respond. While there is nothing inherently wrong in beholding Creation theory as a valid hypothesis, excluding other theories out of hand does nothing but create a tension that is superficial, artificial, and contrived.

This artificial tension rests on the cornerstone that modern evolutionary science and religious dogma are mutually exclusive. The disagreement here concerns two conflicting views of the nature of truth and reality, on where one ought to look for authoritative truth about the world. One way to summerize this subtle and complex debate is to look at it in the context of Galileo's famous description of scripture and nature as being two different texts revealing God and His works... providing truth about the universe.

Galileo insisted that science should always take precedence over scripture (or more broadly metaphysical insight) in all matters that were susceptible to scientific inquiry. His reasoning was that the meaning of scripture was open to interpretation by humans, and therefore vulnerable to error. Science, on the other hand, dealt directly with nature which, he said, is its own interpreter. The Book of Nature, Galileo said, is written in mathematics, for which there is always an unarguably correct interpretation. In other words, in a very real sense, nature was constructed of numbers, and therefore subject to final and definitive understanding by mathematics-based science.

The tension of evolution is thus redacted to a philosophical perch and the false assumption that evolutionary science erodes religious authority. The silent and underlying core problem is that there is no place for moral values in a purely mathematical world. Morality, in a religious view, ought to be at the core of inquiry and understanding, not tacked on somehow at the periphery and as an afterthought. In this view, the universe operates according to moral, as well as mathematical precepts. This is precisely what Shamgar fails to comprehend with his absolutist viewpoint.

What science does is to build models of nature and examine those. To mistake the models for the reality of nature as God has made it, is to mistake the map for the territory. Science cannot force necessity on God, and presume that its models are the only valid explanations for the workings of the world. In turn, the scripture of God cannot be interpretated as the literal description of what He has wrought.

If someone reads Genesis and parses it literally, then you can't accept evolution. The Book of Genesis was clearly intended as a magnificent hymm to the Sabbath. The Sabbath is even bigger than God... not even God can create the universe without being finished by Friday evening. It's not that the world was really created in any set of six days. It was created in six days so that God could rest on the Sabbath. Genesis I is a divine message for the sanctity of the Sabbath. That's what the person who wrote it meant. Evolution helps you to see that Genesis I should have been read metaphorically all along. Since at least the beginning of the last century, the church has read Genesis I more metaphorically and more accurately. Why? Because the argument for evolution had too much evidence, so they had to find another way to view the Bible. Once you do that, you don't get locked into a fight between the fundamental and literal interpretation.

The Biblical writers told magnificent stories. Before the Enlightment, people always knew the difference between literal fact and metaphorical fiction, but they also had a far greater capacity to take a story seriously and accept it programmatically. After the Enlightenment, we took these stories too literally and thus created our own problems.

The basic problem endemic to religions is in deciding what is metaphorical and what is literal in their sacred texts. That is the central problem that makes fundamentalism so dangerous: the fundamentalists take literally what was intended metaphorically, or they take as permanently relevant what was temporarily valid.

The tension in this debate also revolves around the notion that science will one day have all the answers and that when that day comes... religion will become obsolete. I find this to be complete nonsense. First, science will never have all the answers, nature is much smarter than we are. Second, science is not designed to address the spiritual needs filled by religion. Humans are spiritual creatures, who search for Gods to become better than they are. To the atheist, this God may be nature and its mysteries, or the belief that there is a rational explanation to everything.

Science is a language, a narrative that describes the world we live in. It is an evolving process, constantly corrected by new knowledge. It is limited by its very structure, based as it is on empirical validation. There are certain questions and issues that simply don't belong to science, at least not science as we understand it nowadays. Questions of moral choices, of emotional loss, even events that cannot be quantitatively tested or observed methodically. Equations cannot replace someone's need for faith in the divine. This is precisely the general perception, that science is a replacement for religion. That is not what science is about.

Believers should accept the fact that one does not need religion to be a moral person. On the other hand, one should always have the choice to believe, as long as this belief does not infringe on the freedom of others not to. Unfortunately, religious dogma often has a blinding effect, rendering the faithful unable to understand and respect the other, or to listen and learn from science. Until the blinds are lifted and difference is not perceived as threat, the artificial schism embraced by the Shamgar's of the world will remain.

My apologies for the length of this post, but the subject demands a certain body of substance and clarity of articulation.

Shalom,
Tashah


 

nope

New member
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Location
Austria
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Every religion teacher should be bound to teach this. My religion teacher did so but it would be much more important in countries like Amerika, Iran, Pakistan ... .
In Austria religous people are very rare in the younger generation and fundamentalists hardly exist in any generation, afaik.

Tashah, you should have help cardinal Christoph Schönborn with his article in the New York Times.
 
Top Bottom