“There’s a profound disconnect somewhere when even most evos recognize most scientists are Christian and therefore believe in an intelligent designer, and then turn around and say science is either too stupid or too disconnected from this reality to understand this or realize it. Again, it better explains origins and the complexity of life than evolution which is built upon the foundation that all just happened without design, for no good reason, by sheer happenstance.”
—I don’t know about most, but yes, quite a few are Christian – and I’m glad to see you recognize that so many scientists are Christian. I was beginning to think that you didn’t think that hardly any scientists were Christian with the way you were equating Darwinism and evolution with being “godless”. Darwinism is a theory that describes what occurs via the laws of nature. For those that believe that God created the laws of nature, they believe evolution has a purpose – for those that believe the laws weren’t designed, they believe it doesn’t have a purpose. It’s the same as with every other theory in existence.
I’m not sure why you would say that an intelligent designer is a better explanation than evolution when there’s nothing about evolution that says there isn’t an intelligent creator. You just got done saying that most scientists are Christian, which makes that comment even more confusing – unless you meant “Intelligent Design” (which the vast majority of those Christian scientists are vehemently against).
And actually, if a teacher said something like “all just happened without design, for no good reason, by sheer happenstance” he/she’d likely be in some hot water.
“I’ve said all along I’d be more than happy with simple recognition that intelligent design is a theory (I suspect that despite the godless efforts, many children already know this anyway.)”
—Neither ID nor “intelligent design” are theories (I’m not sure which one you meant there) as neither are falsifiable. I have no idea what children think theories are, but one of the purposes of science class is to teach that there’s a difference between a belief and a scientific theory, and teaching them that some people believe “ID” and therefore it’s a theory doesn’t help. I have a lot of beliefs that don’t qualify as theories and have no place in science class.
“Uh, noooooo the PC way is the libeal way which sues opponents into silence because their sensibilites are more important than children getting an education. Multiple hang-ups with God leading to squashing all debate simply isn’t education and the results are more than proof of godless liberal failure.”
—Teaching the scientific method and the leading theories isn’t getting an education? And what “hang ups with God” are you referring to?
(me) “And, of course, evolution doesn’t say anything occurred “just because” – as with every other scientific theory, it proposes that things occur because of the laws of nature…”
(you)“That absolutely makes no sense whatsoever and sounds like so much cultish parroting. This reminds me of the commericals where even little kids know they’re being BS’ed.And I suspect this is exactly how most kids would respond when being told evolution just is, and people are simply to ignore why it is and how it came about.”
—My understanding of Darwinism/evolution comes from reading books, journals, and science magazines written by scientists spanning the time from Darwin to today. Where does your understanding of the subject come from? And why would someone ignore something just because it isn’t relevant to evolution? There’s more to life than what’s relevant to evolution (in fact, evolution is relatively unimportant).
“Engineers don’t go building bridges willy nilly over stretches of water without taking soil samples, looking for evidence of seismic activity beneath the bedrock, and investigating the very reason the bridge is being built in the first place!”
—Do the engineers concern themselves with how the laws of nature came about before building the bridge?
“It is ESSENTIAL to understand origin when talking about origins of species, etc. Besides it appears you’re another one that didn’t get the memo...Bezerkly University makes origins of life evolutions business and relvenat to the discussion in evoluton 101 right at the beginning of the course! I suspect they’re not alone.”
—I mentioned nothing about origin of life, I only mentioned the origin of the laws of nature. But yes, I saw the link to that site. This is really a different subject to anything I was talking about here, but yes, I would say the origin of life is also irrelevant to the theory of evolution. Of course, we NEED there to be life in order for there to be biological evolution, but I can’t really imagine anything we could discover about the origin of life that would affect the theory of evolution. Let’s say tomorrow we found definitive proof that life got here naturally via the laws of nature, or that it was ET that formed the first cell on earth, or that God snapped his fingers and the first cell appeared, or that it was Papa Smurf – what effect would this have on the theory of Darwinism? I can’t think of anything.
Of course, it’s only natural if the teacher says “it’s believed that evolution started about 3.8 billion years ago with the first lifeform…” to have students ask about where and how that lifeform got there, so many places will give a brief (very brief) overview on the various theories of life’s origin, and THEN jump into the subject of evolution/Darwinism.
Of course many places don’t bring up the subject at all: “Origin of Species” doesn’t mention the origin of life – even in passing – because it’s completely irrelevant to the theory.
Let’s say we traveled back in time and convinced Darwin that life got here, say – via panspermia. What edits would he need to do to his book to stay consistent with the new knowledge? Nada.
Again, evolution is like every other theory. The theory of gravitation concerns itself with how mass attracts other mass. How did the mass get there? Doesn’t matter.
“I have no idea what you’re talking about with Peltzer, it would seem you’re simply making my point for me....life, snowflakes, yes without God to create and design them, we wouldn’t be talking about them.”
—Wait, you really don’t believe that snowflakes form naturally? Wow, I certainly didn’t expect that. So are the scientists who are trying to figure out how snowflakes form godless liberals who are wasting their time? I guess we need to put a sticker on the page of textbooks that talk about snowflakes. So do you believe each snowflake form ex nihilo? Are there other things you believe form this way?
(Of course, by “naturally” I don’t mean without God, I simply mean that the snowflakes form because of the laws of nature, which Pelzer and many other scientists would say were designed by God to carry out that job. Pelzer, however, says that the laws of nature do not permit the formation of life – and I was trying to make the point that his arguments as to why that is could be applied to snowflakes, assuming that you believed that snowflakes do form naturally i.e. by the laws of nature, but I guess that point is now lost! heh)
(me)“No, I described how science should be taught. The scientific method and the leading theories should be taught. I can’t imagine what else a “science” class would be for.
(you)But this isn’t what’s occuring and this is the entire point! Ignoring it won’t make it go away!”
—In what way isn’t it occurring?
“Oh, I see. Most scientists belive evolution is fact, so why not change it to The Law of evolution then? Evolution IS special...it can not and will not tolerate dissent. And scientists and the NEA sensibilites and so forth trump the proper education of children!”
—Because theories don’t become laws. The reason the “germ theory of disease” is not the “germ law of disease” is not because of lack of evidence. Theories and laws are two different things, not two rungs on a ladder of a scale of certainty. The theory of evolution actually *contains* laws, e.g. Dollo’s law.
What’s not being tolerated is not the “dissent from evolution” – what’s being objected to is the corruption and twisting of what’s science. By throwing in some pet ideas people have, it distorts what science is – how can a teacher explain what the scientific method is, what a theory is, what the leading theories are, if stuff like Creationism or ID is included? It gives the message that whatever a group of people happen to believe - is science!
I have a lot of beliefs that aren’t science. I believe most of what Dawkins says, but I don’t believe that his books are appropriate for science class. His books contain a lot of personal beliefs, philosophizing, conjecture, etc that – although I happen to believe most of it – are not “scientific”, and therefore don’t belong in science class.
I don’t care about evolution – if it were disproven tomorrow, I’d be thrilled to live through such an interesting scientific revolution – I even hope it happens. What I care about is science. And that’s what most of the people (most of whom I believe are Christian) are fighting for when they fight against those trying to put Creationism and ID into science class – and that’s what all those Christian scientists fighting against the ID movement and Creationism are fighting for as well.
(me)“Are you seriously asking why not just present “anything” in science class? I guess you really wouldn’t have a problem with a science teacher that just talks about last night’s baseball game every science class.”
(you)The only reason someone responds this way is out of fear, fear of having your sensibilites and multiple hang-ups with God being exposed like a raw wound; because you know we’re focused on ID and not baseball. Your liberalism is showing!”
—I was discussing the standards of what ought to be presented in science class. What you said previously was “shouldn’t it be strong enough therefore to stand up beside ID/creationism or pretty much anything?”. The reason why not just “pretty much anything” is presented in science class has nothing to do with what evolution is “strong enough” to “stand up to”, it has to do with what’s science. ID isn’t science; baseball isn’t science; “pretty much” most things aren’t science. If an actual theory of ID were formulated, and it became a theory commonly believed by scientists, than by all means it should then be presented in science class – even if I don’t believe it.
“Sounds good to me and alot like my experiences as well, so the obvious question is, why wouldn’t you want to keep it that way? Why is it if a student puts their hand up and asks about ID should they be threatened, attacked and ridiculed like the example I gave you just recently occuring to my nurse friend, just because some insecure liberal has multiple hang-ups with God???”
—Did I say something that makes you think I would want any teacher behaving like that? Like I said, get the ACLU on him and get the bum out of there. (Oh wait, I just realized you’re probably talking about a university/college. That would be a bit harder).
Yes, but as I pointed out, it's not the scientists that concern me, rather the NEA and ACLU and other godless liberal types that have hijacked the theory to their own ends. After all, how many godless libs do you know that support or embrace creationism? But yes, Darwinism describes what occurs in nature, but it doesn't do a good job of it, especially in explaining how or why all this occurs.
I’m not sure why you would say that an intelligent designer is a better explanation than evolution when there’s nothing about evolution that says there isn’t an intelligent creator.
Ok, so put your money where your mouth is and show me where evolution in public school textbooks supports an intelligent creator then. And for that matter, show me where "intelligent and design" are even used in a modern public school text PERIOD.
Neither ID nor “intelligent design” are theories (I’m not sure which one you meant there) as neither are falsifiable.
So what? Neither are multiverse theory, string theory and probably other examples.
I have no idea what children think theories are, but one of the purposes of science class is to teach that there’s a difference between a belief and a scientific theory, and teaching them that some people believe “ID” and therefore it’s a theory doesn’t help. I have a lot of beliefs that don’t qualify as theories and have no place in science class.
Except that you overlook you have to have faith that we came from the same ancestor as apes, since there's absolutely no evidence that we did. Evolution is as much if not more so faith than ID/creationism.
My understanding of Darwinism/evolution comes from reading books, journals, and science magazines written by scientists spanning the time from Darwin to today. Where does your understanding of the subject come from? And why would someone ignore something just because it isn’t relevant to evolution? There’s more to life than what’s relevant to evolution (in fact, evolution is relatively unimportant).
All kinds of books have been written about lot's of things by many people...and for the contemporary scientific issues global warming comes immediately to mind. (As well as stem cell research and pharmaceutical trials and claims.) Book writing doesn't make it true. Thanks for making my point for me that there's more to life than evolution, which begs the question why does it need lawsuits to be propped up? Why can't it compete with the scientists via the science alone? Why must it rely on multiple lawsuits and lawyers and secular humanist liberals to merely survive? And btw, continual denial of this reality only re-enforces this very point further.
—Do the engineers concern themselves with how the laws of nature came about before building the bridge?
Again, do bridge builders ignore the expanse they're bridging, as well as the make-up of the soil, etc., along with the purpose for building the bridge in the first place? And asking an unrelated question is no answer of this question. Of course I understand your desperate need to ignore the question. I really do.
—I mentioned nothing about origin of life, I only mentioned the origin of the laws of nature.
Silly semantic games...origin of species pertains to life, not "nature".
but yes, I would say the origin of life is also irrelevant to the theory of evolution.
Well OK, suit yourself but it's very illogical to ignore the very subject that's indespensably being studied in the first place; but again, I really and truly do understand the desperation.
– I even hope it happens. What I care about is science. And that’s what most of the people (most of whom I believe are Christian) are fighting for when they fight against those trying to put Creationism and ID into science class – and that’s what all those Christian scientists fighting against the ID movement and Creationism are fighting for as well.
Uh-huh...OK. I'm sure there's someone you can sell some swamp land to, but it won't be me. If you care about the science then where are all your posts combating man-made global warming, string and multiverse theory? Or how about the tax-payer funded scientific studies over the effects of prayer, etc.?
Of course, we NEED there to be life in order for there to be biological evolution, but I can’t really imagine anything we could discover about the origin of life that would affect the theory of evolution.
And the only way a person can make such an absurd statement is to conclude the results before ever hearing the arguments. In actuality, if one concludes that the origins of life is due to an intelligently designed creation, evolution, in it's current form as a vehicle to promote shameless dishonest liberal secular humanism simply dissolves for the most part. So again, I do understand the hand waving and desperation.
The reason why not just “pretty much anything” is presented in science class has nothing to do with what evolution is “strong enough” to “stand up to”, it has to do with what’s science. ID isn’t science; baseball isn’t science; “pretty much” most things aren’t science. If an actual theory of ID were formulated, and it became a theory commonly believed by scientists, than by all means it should then be presented in science class – even if I don’t believe it.
Then if this is true, evolution along with string theory, multiverse theory and so on should all be removed from science class. And again, the ignoring and hand-waving merely illustrate the various problems I'm addressing: the blatant hypocrisy, the double-standards, the disconnect of acknowledging a creator via ignoring Him, indoctrinating as opposed to educating children and so on.
Wait, you really don’t believe that snowflakes form naturally? Wow, I certainly didn’t expect that. So are the scientists who are trying to figure out how snowflakes form godless...
Where'd you get that from?
What’s not being tolerated is not the “dissent from evolution” – what’s being objected to is the corruption and twisting of what’s science. By throwing in some pet ideas people have, it distorts what science is – how can a teacher explain what the scientific method is, what a theory is, what the leading theories are, if stuff like Creationism or ID is included? It gives the message that whatever a group of people happen to believe - is science! I have a lot of beliefs that aren’t science. I believe most of what Dawkins says...
All of this is simple projection about what's going on in public schools with "twisting" and "pet ideas", ignoring that no one appointed godless secular humanist liberals to have the keys to science, or the gate-keepers to what is or isn't "acceptable" science. It just didn't happen, NO ONE appointed them to a damn thing. And frankly science flourished before all the godless liberals hijacked science and stomped God out of the textbooks and the discussions with their multiple God hang-ups and various lawsuits, speaking of "twisting". And Christians for the most part are bitterly clinging to what's left of our society across the board now, not just in science class but pretty much the entire culture. We're not trying to inject or introduce anything, but rather preserve what little bit of rationality and sanity is left.
—Did I say something that makes you think I would want any teacher behaving like that?
Well, ignoring that it happens sure doesn't do you any favors!
Like I said, get the ACLU on him and get the bum out of there. (Oh wait, I just realized you’re probably talking about a university/college. That would be a bit harder).
Well DUH not to mention the ACLU is complicit! You sound a little like Ron Paul when people ask him what happens when maritime vessels are hi-jacked by pirates on the open seas and he just supposes someone merely picks up the phone and calls the "pirate police". Who this mytical pirate police is, is anyone's guess, but most likely the other end of the line is somewhere in Somalia! But the point is that in reality it's our own standing navy that polices the seas, the same navy that he wants to "mind our own business" and dismantled greatly!
And I can't count how many times I've seen right here on FR the ACLU is referred to as the Anti-Christian liberties union, but I'd be willing to bet you've somehow managed to either ignore this or miss this completely as well.