Dorothy, Toto and Darwin - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-05-2005, 11:53 AM   #16
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 01:00 PM
Melon,

I've been going through the different 'articles' that usenet posters have 'written' over the years to rebut Icons of Evolution, and I am intrigued by some of them.

For example, this one on the embryo stuff:

Quote:
In the case of Haeckel, though, I have to begin by admitting that Wells has got the core of the story right. Haeckel was wrong. His theory was invalid, some of his drawings were faked, and he willfully over-interpreted the data to prop up a false thesis. Furthermore, he was influential, both in the sciences and the popular press; his theory still gets echoed in the latter today. Wells is also correct in criticizing textbook authors for perpetuating Haeckel's infamous diagram without commenting on its inaccuracies or the way it was misused to support a falsified theory.
__________________

__________________
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 12:02 PM   #17
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 01:00 PM
I guess what's really afoot here, is they need to change the textbooks to be more accurate, more current, eliminating much of the 'established' but yet flaky science supporting the theory.

FREE YOUR MIND!
__________________

__________________
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 12:07 PM   #18
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 12:00 PM
Do we have evidence of what issues we have with the textbooks of today.

I'm asking because it's been about 14 years since I've talked about evolution in school.

I was taught it was theory nothing more. I was taught the slight variations of some of the theories. And I was taught that there is a school of thought that none of this existed and we arrived in a week.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 05-05-2005, 12:32 PM   #19
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by pax
I've often wondered why we, as people of faith, can't acknowledge the change and development of species over time in response to the environment--which is all the theory of evolution says, really--while at the same time ascribing ultimate responsbility for creation to God. Why is it not possible that evolution is a system "designed" as it were by God for the flowering of creation? As the all-powerful and all-knowing, God surely could have done this/be doing this.

I find this easy to believe. Other people, I guess, not so much.
My guess is that if you got everyone in a room together (save the tiny minority of young earth folks), you could get an agreement that species change over time, whether by random chance, natural selection or by the hand of God.

The underlying current that influences these discussions is the origin of life question - was life spoken into existance by God or did it materialize from ??.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 12:39 PM   #20
War Child
 
MaxFisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 776
Local Time: 06:00 PM
My 8th grade science teacher was very pro-evolution. Whenever he was faced with a question about evolution that he couldn't answer he would say, "Well only God knows and He/She isn't telling us."

It would really piss me off. I wanted him to explain evolution without using God as a cop out. If the theory really is based on observable fact than it should be able to be presented and explained without bringing God into the mix.
__________________
MaxFisher is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 12:39 PM   #21
War Child
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 787
Local Time: 11:00 AM
The number one questioners of scientific theories are...............drumroll...................scientists.

Scientific theories need evidence to support them. Any questions as to the validity of a theory are considered a hypothesis. Valid experiments are required to test the hypothesis, and if a hypothesis is supported and the experiments conducted to test the hypothesis can be independantly repeated, the hypothesis slowly begins gaining strength. Eventually the hypothesis may become considered a scientific theory if enough evidence is gained.
__________________
jay canseco is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 03:02 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
if we must refer to Evolution as a theory, and tack on so many disclaimers, can we then refer to intellgent design and creationism as "not even theories"?
That is about what I was thinking


Evolution - evidence supports that this is a reasonable "theory"


Intelligent design and creationism - evidence supports what? This is only a "belief" system, the same as any other religious belief. It does not belong in science classes.

Should we petition that “evolution” be presented in churches, as a public good, to improve people’s intelligence?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 03:09 PM   #23
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 01:00 PM
intelligent design and creationism belong in theology classes.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 05-05-2005, 03:13 PM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


My guess is that if you got everyone in a room together (save the tiny minority of young earth folks), you could get an agreement that species change over time, whether by random chance, natural selection or by the hand of God.

The underlying current that influences these discussions is the origin of life question - was life spoken into existance by God or did it materialize from ??.

So where does this leave the people that say they take the Bible as The Inerrant Word of God.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 03:32 PM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 06:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by pax
I've often wondered why we, as people of faith, can't acknowledge the change and development of species over time in response to the environment--which is all the theory of evolution says, really--while at the same time ascribing ultimate responsbility for creation to God. Why is it not possible that evolution is a system "designed" as it were by God for the flowering of creation? As the all-powerful and all-knowing, God surely could have done this/be doing this.

I find this easy to believe. Other people, I guess, not so much.
This is basically what I believe. Evolution is such an amazing thing that only God could be responsible for it, and I think He is.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 03:40 PM   #26
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris
I guess what's really afoot here, is they need to change the textbooks to be more accurate, more current, eliminating much of the 'established' but yet flaky science supporting the theory.

FREE YOUR MIND!
I agree, and we can add the very solid scientific evidence for evolution that has been unraveled through advances in genetics, the more recent paleontological discoveries of transitional forms and our current understanding of the hadean earth as well as the cambrian explosion.

Evolution is a scientific fact ~ it happens, selective pressures on a sexually reproducing organism will create changes in the population, we have the fossil record showing some of the life that has existed on the planet and we can see connections and simmilarities. Now it is also a scientific theory, a scientific theory is a model that can explain the evidence in the best way, theories can have different levels of confidence but evolution is probably the highest confidence one. New discoveries about life on our planet not only conform to the theory, they fill in gaps about our knowledge. Evolution is a fact just like the fact objects fall down ~ Evolution by means of Natural Selection is a theory just like Newtons law of universal gravitation or Einsteins general relativity are theories about gravity.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 03:45 PM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 01:00 PM
Dobzhansky:

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 05-05-2005, 04:13 PM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris
I guess what's really afoot here, is they need to change the textbooks to be more accurate, more current, eliminating much of the 'established' but yet flaky science supporting the theory.

FREE YOUR MIND!
Creationism and intelligent design are not scientific theories. They have no place in science textbooks. Period.

As for the textbooks themselves, I agree that they should be current on how *evolution* changes. The textbook industry suffers mostly from the fact that they have become corporate-generated drivel that are subject to huge error. That article that you dismissed as "Usenet" conceded one point: that the diagrams of the embryos were indeed disproven and should be removed. But for anyone to even remotely imply that science textbooks should insert any creationist or intelligent design ideas into textbooks as "alternative theories," they should be laughed at. Creationism and ID are not scientific theories. They are religious ideas that belong in church, not in science.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 05:21 PM   #29
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 760
Local Time: 06:00 PM
What A_Wanderer said! (Evolution is a scientific fact; Darwin's Theory of Evolution is just that...a theory.)
__________________
Judah is offline  
Old 05-05-2005, 05:28 PM   #30
Refugee
 
Muggsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: I live in colombia, with a box of watercolors and butterflies in my tummy
Posts: 2,033
Local Time: 01:00 PM
I need you to explain me why do you discuss about this topic... I mean, I know that there's a conflict among the theories of live and evolution, but I don't know why is so important for you...

I'm asking you this cuz I'm not from the USA and I don't understand what is important for you about that topic. I was educated in a catholic school and I learned about darwin too, but we never discussed the diferences between the christian vision of life and the cientific research about the origin of it.
__________________

__________________
Muggsy is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com