Let's Have No More Monkey Trials - To teach faith as science is to undermine both

Time Magazine ^ | Monday, Aug. 01, 2005 | CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

[durasell]

Again, it's an act of incredible futility to try and chance peoples opinions online.
Silly to get emotional about it.


I never used to believe that, but you've convinced me otherwise.

[Selkie]

To many posters it would appear otherwise.

Read too many posts using evolution as a tactic to refute any possibility of a God.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Note that on page 10 of your (.pdf) reference, your man, Dr Collins, says: "From my perspective as a scientist working on the genome, the evidence in favor of evolution is overwhelming." He then proceeds to give two strong arguments.

It's good to see creationists endorsing the views of scientists who strongly support evolutionary theory.

[b_sharp]

Keep up the fight. I'll check in tomorrow to see if you've all kept your sanity. Later.

[WildTurkey]

I have an education thank you very much. I also know the difference between a THEORY and a FACT, and evolution is only a THEORY. Yet every current textbook teaches it as if it were fact.

Only a theory! That means it is back up by the evidence, thank you.

Please show me ONE textbook that teaches evolution as fact, not theory.

[Vive ut Vivas]

This does not solve the larger question of the place of that biological science within the whole of what we as individual humans or as a society do.

Do you know how disturbingly postmodernist this sounds?

[durasell]

Psssst! Here's the silver bullet.

In any field of scientific study progress is made by challenge and revision. Do the creationists want their belief system inserted into the arena of biology (science)where their children will be asked to defend it against challenge in a fair exchange and possibly revise their beliefs in light of new evidence?

[Doctor Stochastic]

I did later when mpi fell into the trap of posting another link. Sometimes I think the creationists don't even read their own propaganda.

[Selkie]

Ive been following FR threads on evolution and creationism before I was even a member.

An interesting thread invariably devolves into an argument with both sides acting snide.

There've been plenty of times evolutionists have slagged on the notion of God.

And plenty of time creationists have come off sounding stupidly judgemental.

Both sides need to temper their emotional outbursts and just discuss the fascinating possible theories of how life arose.

[WildTurkey]

Dr.Francis S. Collins, physician, geneticist and a proponent of evolution ...

[JeffAtlanta]

To many posters it would appear otherwise.

Only to creationists who see science as a threat. Read too many posts using evolution as a tactic to refute any possibility of a God.

Could you point them out as I have been following these threads for months. I have yet to see a post that says anything like "There is no god and evolution proves it" - to the contrary, almost everyone on the evolution side of the aisle points out that evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive.

Are you sure you're not confusing this with something your pastor said about evolutionists?

[BykrBayb]

It didn't take long for the poorly educated to prove my point for me.

[WildTurkey]

Both sides need to temper their emotional outbursts and just discuss the fascinating possible theories of how life arose.

Anything other than "God created man in his own image" doesn't work for the creos.

[durasell]

DOWN WITH THE WICKED STRING THEORISTS!

[WildTurkey]

It didn't take long for the poorly educated to prove my point for me.

You accept the help of the poorly educated, we accept the help of the educated in promoting our side.

[Matchett-PI]

"It's good to see creationists endorsing the views of scientists who strongly support evolutionary theory."

It's the religion of Scientism promoted by the likes of these two that I don't support:

Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins

[spunkets]

A fact is a simple, or complex truth, either self evident, or derived. Facts are used as evidence, or are elements of logical construction.

A hypothesis is a logical construction, that attempts an explanation of relationship, which usually includes causal relationship between facts. A hypothesis is a construction w/o proof.

A theory is a proven hypothesis, or series of hypothesis. The total weight of the proof determines how closely the logic of the theory is fact. It's the weight of the proof that determines the weight of it's claim as fact.

Fact normally carries an essentially zero probability of being incorrect. In intellegence theory though, it simply carries some finite probability of being true. Facts in theory are called tokens.

[WildTurkey]

Read too many posts using evolution as a tactic to refute any possibility of a God.

This thread is almost 700 posts long. Please show ONE example to back up your post.

[WildTurkey]

You evaded the issue. Does that mean you support Dr. Collins' views on evolution?

[WildTurkey]

A hypothesis is a construction w/o proof.

To be a hypothesis, it must be testable, otherwise it is just a guess.