Posted on 11/20/2008 6:38:37 AM PST by mnehring
Darwin's book was on the origin of species, not the origin of life.
Do you know the difference between organic and inorganic material? Does your daughter realize that there is no difference?
Even Darwin admitted he didn't know the "origin" of life, even though that is what his book allegedly explained.
Can you show where Darwin's book explains or allegedly explains the origin of life? I will let you in on a little secret, it doesn't.
Also, the mathematics don't work. Ask a statistician what are the odds and he must admit it is impossible.
Actually the math is very sound, it is just that you creationist misapply the odds. For example, if you throw 12 dice the chance that all 12 are 6 is around 2.2 billion to 1, but if you re throw every dice that isn't a 6 you can reach a dozen sixes in about 72 throws. Evolution is simply multiple throws of the dice.
But yes, abiogenesis is an entirely different subject than evolution through natural selection of genetic variation. This is no more a “weakness” of the theory than the fact that the theory of universal gravitation of mass doesn't address the origins of matter.
A couple of things -
first, there’s a hillarious, but very crude (south park) video floating around where a teacher sarcastically teaches evolution (”I think it’s a bunch of crap but I have to teach it to you”). It may be on youtube, but if you’re a hardcore Ephesians 5 person, don’t bother.
We homeschool - our kids are prepreschool, but we’re already into it. We’re teaching the infallibility of God’s Word, and don’t care who complains about it or criticizes us for it.
One thing I’ve toyed with teaching is some “meta-learning”. I’m going to prepare them to pass a class where what they’re being taught is totally bogus nonsense, and still keep the truth unpolluted in their own minds.
I respect your resolve but do you think it’s wise to teach a child that, instead of skeptical resolve and debate, going with the flow to avoid challanging your belief is a good stratagem? Faith can survive challenge and examination - you should encourage that. My kids and grandkid can argue all day long the merits of science and religion and still hold themselves firm in their faith and trust in God.
Sure, make the stand, defend the faith when you can,
but when faced with a teacher that can and will fail you if challenged, spit back at them what they want to hear in order to get the grade, remaining firm in your own beliefs.
However, if the prof is intellectually honest instead of authoritarian, there’s always room for witnessing.
1 Peter 3:15
But make sure in your hearts that Christ is Lord. Always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks you about the hope you have. Be ready to give the reason for it. But do it gently and with respect
Teaching a subject without given all the possible views is not teaching! It is indoctrination, dare I say “preaching”!
Can I assume that everyone here took Geometry in high school (or at some point in time of their life)? Remember you were taught the difference between postulates and theorems. What if we were taught that postulates were all you needed to do Geometry? You would fail when you needed to use the subject later in life. Instead you were shown how one builds on the other!
In science class we are taught that the postulate on the beginning of life is all we need when nothing could be more FALSE! Think about this: without Judaism/Christian religions, we would have never developed the sciences that we have today! Remember, until this type religion came along, things like life, wind, rain, storms, etc... were all attributed to Gods and therefore could not be second guessed. Once people were lead away from this belief, they were free to begin to form ideas and ultimately prove what we have today. So, just like in Geometry, one builds off the other!
Squashing possible ideas is NOT progressive; it is censorship. Even worse, this is censorship disguised as “separation of church and state!” Let us not forget that history teaches us that “religious” and “intelligent” people KNEW the world was flat, while the “ignorant” and “blasphemous” people BELIEVED it was round. Have we come full circle on this subject?
Kudos - well spoke.
Anyone sounds good when quoting the Word of God... :)
Glory to Thee, not to me.
I have NOTHING against teaching evolution. I think evolution can be proven by simply looking at my children who EVOLVED from the combining of mine and my wife’s genes!
The problem is that the books and the teachers do not leave the “origin of life” out of my child’s science class. In some states a disclaimer was added to the cover of science books that stated and I am paraphrasing: evolution is one of many theories about the origin of life and that other theories included the big bang and ID. These books were challenged as religious paraphernalia. The way left leaning people on this subject are not willing to concede that it is only a theory!
If the teacher and the books simply stated that the origin of life is not known and therefore will not be broached then I would be fine with the subject of evolution (, i.e., survival of the fittest, etc...).
The problem is that most science teachers and books (at least the ones that I had/used) teach this subject as the “origin of life” and fail to mention any other possible theories! That is censorship!
If you look at most FR threads on evolution vs ID, they end up 1500 posts and nothing but name calling for the most part. At some point, you either have your "Come to Jesus" moment, or you don't. If you don't, then you will still support the murder of babies, support the destruction of marriage, and think your anus is your love muscle. Without ID, everything is ok, even murder because you have no Superior. The Great "Designer" must be removed for utter depravity to rule. Choose sides wisely.
You would lose : )
but I have been on FR long enough to know it's a waste of time to try and change someone's religion.
I don't believe in religion or prophecy, so yes it would be hard to change my religion.
If you don't know organic from inorganic then it's hopeless.
The organic vs. inorganic was settled back in 1910 when they discovered atoms. Everything is made of electrons and quarks.
Life is a miracle, and can't be duplicated.
It gets duplicated every second.
God, or whatever Intelligent Designer, is the only source of life.
Do you have a shred of evidence that this God exists?
If you don't, then you will still support the murder of babies, support the destruction of marriage, and think your anus is your love muscle.
I don't agree with any of the above. That is just evidence of how deluded you are.
Without ID, everything is ok, even murder because you have no Superior.
God doesn't endorse killing? Do you read history at all?
When you teach science, you present scientific views. At the high school level you do not present all failed ideas and hypotheses going back to the beginning; you teach the current scientific hypotheses and theories.
The "weaknesses" that we hear so much about are not scientific. They are objections cooked up by folks who--for religious reasons--can't accept some of the findings of science. That does not give them scientific legitimacy, nor does it constitute a reason to include them in science classes.
In science class we are taught that the postulate on the beginning of life is all we need when nothing could be more FALSE! Think about this: without Judaism/Christian religions, we would have never developed the sciences that we have today! Remember, until this type religion came along, things like life, wind, rain, storms, etc... were all attributed to Gods and therefore could not be second guessed. Once people were lead away from this belief, they were free to begin to form ideas and ultimately prove what we have today. So, just like in Geometry, one builds off the other!
Actually it was science that showed that lightning, thunder et al. were not caused by gods.
Squashing possible ideas is NOT progressive; it is censorship. Even worse, this is censorship disguised as “separation of church and state!” Let us not forget that history teaches us that “religious” and “intelligent” people KNEW the world was flat, while the “ignorant” and “blasphemous” people BELIEVED it was round. Have we come full circle on this subject?
I'm not all that worried about being progressive, thank you.
And the ideas that are not included in science classes have not earned their way into those classes! You seem to be advocating a type of affirmative action for religious ideas in science classes, and I can't agree with that at all.
Can't you agree that science should be taught in science classes and that religious views on origins should be taught in their proper venues?
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.