Posted on 02/20/2006 5:33:50 AM PST by ToryHeartland
There's too many Huxley's for the Creationoids.
The Bible was written by a bunch of Bronze age, sandal wearing goat herders (your faith of course accepts it as more and I understand that but don't agree with it).
As a blueprint for morality it is above reproach, as a tome of scientific teaching it is unsatisfactory.
"Here are two theories that do not have the facts to support them: 1) Evolution; 2) The theory that public education benefits society."
I have to agree with you, at least partialy on # 2 but let me repeat the FACTS of EVOVUTION one more time:
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.
It's not science vs. religion, it's age old philosophy vs. philosophy.
spelling EVOVUTION" Evolution
Me, of course.
I don't know what the situation is in the US; in the UK, all schools include RE (religious education) which covers an introduction to the major religions of the world and their associated scriptures, with particular emphasis on Western Christianity. This is considered (and I happen to agree) a valuable prerequisite to the study of history and literature as well as a contribution to individual spiritual growth
Odd. I know for a fact we were taught the first life on Earth 'slithered out of the primordial ooze' in science class. As far as I know, no one was around to observe that.
By observable, I mean that we observe (and measure and categorize, etc.) things and draw conclusions from those observations. There is a linear path between the data points (observations) and the conclusions. There is a lot of dicussion and debate within the scientific community as to what that line looks like but those discussions are based purely on what is observed -- NOT external supernatural intervention.
Why not pull your kids out of public school - I did. If the public education is as bad as you think privately educated kids like mine will have superior life skills.
I do not like public schools or weather below 70degrees. So I live in Florida and the kids go to private schools.
pro-evolution (i.e. rationalistic)
there, fixed that for you!
> Or in the words of the famous evolutionist, George Gaylord Simpson, "Man is the result of a purposeless, and natural process that did not have him in mind."
Well, he's a "smart fool". He's like a scientist who knows how a snowflake is formed in the atmosphere, yet denies categorically that a higher being has had a hand in creating the forces that created the snowflake.
His selective blindness says nothing about the truth of the scientific way snowflakes are formed, and everything about his own personal spiritual poverty.
The spelling has evolved! ;)
(ps: I am on the Evo side, but it was sooo there!)
Nothing wrong with that. Most of the evolution supporters would probably agree. The conflict arises when folks want their literal interpretations of Genesis to supersede what's taught in science class. Science classes shouldn't be perverted by theology, and of course, vice versa.
I'm not Catholic so I don't pay much attention to what your leaders state. What I know is what the Bible states and it is NOT in agreement with evolution on ANYTHING.
Of which has NO scientific basis -- ONLY theory.
Of course research grants, the scientific community creating "fact" out of thin air, and it's "religion" of worshipping at the altar of 1950's science-fiction movies is a bit self-serving, isn't it?
Theories are not supported or explained by scientific facts. Theories explain the scientific facts. I'm sure this is a waste of time, but I tried :)
Thanks for your posting, but I'm not certainly I entirely understand your point. I have not seen 'evolution' presented as a religion, though I do understand that there are some who feel a conflict between their faith and modern science. But 'tolerance' and 'inclusiveness' are not, I think, particular attributes of science, at least not in the usual sense: I think the scientfic arena is much more about the competition of ideas, with those ideas that can present the better fit to the data carrying the day. Clearly, one argues about the 'fit' to the data, and new data can always bring about realignment in the credence one gives to any particular theory--that's how scientfic knowledge advances, and previous errors corrected over time. 'Inclusiveness' does seem meaningful to me in this context.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.