Posted on 08/02/2008 5:57:18 PM PDT by Kevmo
Posted on Saturday, August 02, 2008 8:44:19 AM by Soliton
don't remember when I first learned about the theory of evolution, but nowadays I find myself reading of it a great deal in the popular press and hearing it discussed in the media. As my daughter enters elementary school, I find myself anxious to discuss with her teachers what they will cover in science class and where in their curriculum they plan to teach evolution. OUR COUNTRY HAS LAWS THAT SEPARATE church and state. Public institutions like schools must be neutral on the subject of religion, as required by the Constitution's First Amendment. Our courts have mandated that creationism is not an appropriate addition to the science curriculum in public schools; yet supporters of intelligent design press to have antievolutionary discussions enter the science classroom. Creationists even advocate that, when leaching evolution, educators should add the disclaimer that it is "just a theory."
Let's consider why all of us as educated persons, scientists and nonseientists alike, should take note of what science is taught - and not taught - in our public schools. In common language, a theory is a guess of sorts. However, in scientific language, a theory is "a set of universal statements that explain some aspect of the natural world... formulated and tested on the basis of evidence, internal consistency, and their explanatory power."1 The theory of evolution meets all of these criteria.
(Excerpt) Read more at redorbit.com ...
(Excerpt) Read more at redorbit.com ...
No scientific theory can be proved. Not one!
***Interesting assertion. Is there some unbiased gold standard that we could both refer to on this issue? Because when I was in college, my biology grade depended upon the biology professor who just happened to say, “The Theory of Evolution was PROVEN when Darwin went to the Galapagos Islands.” He was obviously an authority on the subject, so how do we Freepers resolve this conundrum?
The implications of the theory of evolution are not evil.
***I disagree. Earlier you said “The problem is not the theory itself, but the implications.” I agreed with that statement, so in the spirit of ecumenism we should probably focus on our area of agreement. Recall that your next sentence was “Some folks object to the implications for religious reasons, and hence attack the theory using flawed science” and I challenged you to point out where the flawed science was in xjcsa’s post and you have not.
As an aside, I like the format you are trying here.
***Glad you like it. I do think the format works a tad better. Keep in mind that anyone is allowed to open threads using this approach.
I haven’t even been called a Nazi yet (but the day is still young).
***I’ve been called a fascist on this thread. Don’t say I never did nuthin’ for ya. And if anyone does call you a Nazi, I’ll be glad to be the first one to bring it to the mod’s attention.
Antagonism is not allowed on “ecumenical” threads.
Philosophers generally want nothing to do with the hard sciences; that’s why they became philosophers in the first place!
***Well, I suppose I share a low view of philosophers with you, but I still think this philosophy belongs in a philosophy class. It is well on its way to becoming a religion so it should probably be taught in the comparative religions class as well.
No, evolution is a science and belongs with other sciences no matter how much fundamentalists claim otherwise. Thankfully fundamentalists are not in a position to matter much to the sciences short of imposing a theocracy.
***I can’t speak for other “fundamentalists” & “creationists” but I can speak for myself and I am not interested in imposing a theocracy. I doubt they are as well. However, vouchers would render this subject pretty moot, and I’m definitely for vouchers — not only due to my creationist perspective but for several other reasons as well. Couple of questions: Why is it that here you say evo is a science but earlier you say it’s a theory? I do notice that you haven’t commented on why evolutionists insist that only evolution be taught in philosophy classes and not creationism — why?
I was not referring to anything xjcsa wrote. I was referring to creation "science" as a whole, from the "second law of thermodynamics" to "there are no transitionals" and all the rest. The "science" used to dispute the theory of evolution is frequently so silly that all one can do is laugh. I remember one post on this site that disputed the theory of evolution based on the "second law of thermal documents." That is what I mean by flawed science.
Evolution is a science, and is studied by a number of different fields of science. Science works with both facts and theories. Facts are observations. Theories explain those observations. Sciences are defined by adherence to the scientific method.
I do notice that you haven’t commented on why evolutionists insist that only evolution be taught in philosophy classes and not creationism — why?
I don't see any use in teaching evolution in philosophy class. Evolution is a science, and relies on the scientific method; both are beyond their field of expertise.
As for teaching creationism--it depends on how it is taught. If it is examined as one of a number of worldwide religious beliefs, subject to "critical analysis" (I love that phrase), then it would be appropriate. If creationism is taught as "God's TRVTH and you better believe it or you'll roast in hell" then that is preaching, and not appropriate.
And YEC, if studied at all, should be studied in abnormal psychology classes. How YECs can ignore and deny the vast amounts of information that contradicts their beliefs is definitely worth study.
Like leftists, without arrogance, condescension, and denigration of those with an opposing view,
evoatheists cease to exist.
How’s that for counter-antagonism...?
No, I don't think so. What this sordid affair is all about is whose religion is to be taught — to the exclusion of all others. We have already identified scientism as an ersatz religion. Atheism is a system of religious belief as well.
May I point out that creationism isn't a religion at all, it's a cosmology? And as such belongs firmly to philosophy?
Not only that, but, Jesus came to make ALL religion(s) Obsolete, AND DID?..
And produced the first metaphysical evolutionary cycle..
"You MUST be born again"- Jesus...
May I point out that creationism isn't a religion at all, it's a cosmology? And as such belongs firmly to philosophy?
Utter nonsense. All of it.
Why are you folks deliberately trying to confuse the clear lines between science and religion? Are you truly unable to perceive the differences?
Leave the thread.
Brilliantly put, YHAOS!
Yep, "nihilism" will not do as a descriptor of this phenomenon. Nihilism is the by-product of something more fundamental, and classical philosophy has a name for it: Nosos, which Plato said was a pneumopathological disorder, or a disease of the spirit. Of course, many of these same people deny there is any such thing as the human spirit.... So, no problem!
Cicero (were he alive today) likely would say these people exist in a state of aspernatio rationalis, which is the "refusal to apperceive" the reality that surrounds them. But then I've noticed many such thinkers tend to be rather self-absorbed, self-preoccupied....
Thank you so much for this GREAT essay/post, YHAOS!
Considering that creationism is part of fundamentalist Islam, as much as it is of Christianity, it certainly could be said to be part of a philosophy several religions have in common, rather than a religion in and of itself.
Just don't claim creationism is science.
My point is that "science vs. religion" is a false dichotomy to begin with. They are not commensurate. And you've been reading my posts long enough by now, Coyoteman, to know that I'm aware of the differences between them, and usually stress these differences.
Which is why I worry when they are being "blended": when scientific observations are endued with metaphysical elements so to produce a "world picture" or cosmology which is utterly materialistic, positivistic, deterministic, anti-God — and anti-Man — which is then embraced with full religious fervor by those who espouse this creed, or doctrine. And then clearly, it is literally "evangelized to the masses."
If you doubt that's true, then how do you account for Richard Dawkins' and Sam Harris' recent best-selling books?
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.