Proper Education Standards Prevail - Page 4 - 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 08-03-2006, 01:38 AM   #46
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 2,710
Local Time: 07:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Sorry? Homo Neanderthalis comes to mind as examples of homonids with morphological differences; the discovery of Homo floresiensis just two years ago also shows macroevolution of humans.

If you want to argue the point then why do we have a record of different and now extinct linneages of humans? Why do we see species radiation patterns that are consistent and why is the molecular evidence supportive of these observations? The morphological differences between human populations (races if you will) are a great example of macroevolution, not full speciation but variation by geographic and climatic condition.
Great post A_W.
__________________

__________________
Tania is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 08:33 AM   #47
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 220
Local Time: 11:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by u2popmofo
While I think intelligent design should not be taught in schools, I also think that teachers should not teach evolution as a way to "disprove the Bible or Christianity" as somehow unfairly seems to be more acceptable in a class room setting.
I have yet to meet a teacher who teaches evolution as a way to disprove religious views. Your claim that biology teachers somehow find that doing so is ‘acceptable in the class room setting’ is close to slanderous. I have the highest respect for biology teachers doing their jobs in a admirable fashion despite being forced to teach in the middle of a fight between scientific progress and dogmatic religion.

Quote:
As intelligent design can not (presently at least) be proven scientifically, evolution can also not spiritually or scientifically (presently at least) disprove anything taught in the Bible or religion. Both of these ideas are separate in my opinion, and I have problems with one form of "teaching" to somehow be acceptable while the other is not.
In the context of science it is surely immaterial whether evolution disproves anything written in the Bible, the Torah, the Qur’an, the Veddas, the Eddas, or any other religious text. Whatever conclusion you draw privately is your affair.

The crux of the matter is this: Intelligent design and creationism are not scientific theories because they cannot be disproved. They are based on the same initial claim: There is a divine maker. Unless you can come up with a way to disprove the existence of God then you cannot disprove either of these two otherwise entertaining philosophies. They therefore fail to meet the most basic demand for all scientific work: The demand for falsification formulated most clearly by Karl Popper.

If you disagree with this basic principle of science then I suggest you petition your local school board to discontinue science classes altogether.
__________________

__________________
silja is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 09:05 AM   #48
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
No it shouldn't: for the simple reason that in a curriculum the school can only allocate a limited number of resources to teaching science and things have to get covered quickly. By trying to "teach the controversy" you are presenting a skewed view of the state of the science (namely that ID is just not, there have been no peer reviewed and published papers in relation to biology) to the detriment of the students.

Teach the facts in the science classroom (namely evolution which is both a fact and a theory), demanding equal time in public schools is an abuse of young minds and tax dollars.
Willfully ignoring flaws in a theory is hardly the best way to teach. You don't need to "teach the controversy" (the backhanded way of bringing in ID). But you should pose tough questions like the mathematical probability (actual impossibility) that the first life could spontaneously begin.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 09:10 AM   #49
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 06:52 PM
Regardless of the inherent uncertainty in the scientific theory of evolution--just as there is inherent uncertainty in every scientific theory--it does not mean that intelligent design automatically deserves a place as a "competing theory." It has failed key scientific tests, not to mention that it makes many unverifiable claims that cannot be tested. It is an arm of religion, not science. As such, it has no place in a science class.

The fact that we're even debating this issue as a country shows how woefully lacking science education is in society.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 09:18 AM   #50
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Willfully ignoring flaws in a theory is hardly the best way to teach. You don't need to "teach the controversy" (the backhanded way of bringing in ID). But you should pose tough questions like the mathematical probability (actual impossibility) that the first life could spontaneously begin.
Impossibility that is a fallacy since life exists in the universe period, in dismissing out of hand the mere possibility for a natural cause you are essentially writing off the state of knowledge that is consistent and leaving behind unprovable contentions, the direct evidence for the first life may be lost forever but indirect lines of evidence can still be used in reconstruction and understanding that eliminates certain hypothesis.

The origin of life is a complex field of research, we have made strides in out understanding by looking at the common molecular evidence (for instance RNA World Hypothesis), it is unfair to say that we can explain the origin of life well because we are looking back billions of years but it would be even more unfair to introduce untestable contentions (such as the probability of life; given that we don't have a good understanding of the preconditions to create metabolising replicating nucleotides).

Even if we don't look at the origin of life then it is moot in relation to the theory of evolution which would act upon the first single celled organisms and would leave the evidence in the fossil record if the nucleotide arose from chance (given the size and timescale of the "lab" in which permutations of these chemicals were going on insignificantly probable assemblages would inevitably arise by sheer number) or if the first life was created by aliens as ID posits.

The origin of the first life is not an impediment to evolution, in fact a naturalistic origin would lead to higher forms strictly through the processes of natural selection on these replicating and variable metabolising nucleotide sequences.

It is not a fundamental flaw in the theory of evolution, there are dissagreements and debates about the nature of evolutionary mechanisms but not in the basic principle of variation and differential reproductive success, in no way shape or form do these scientific debates lend credence to ID or Creationism; ideas which have existed for over a century in opposition to Darwinism and have failed at every point to make a convincing case to the scientific community.

Disprove evolution and the highest accolades of science would be bestowed upon you.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 11:20 AM   #51
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,651
Local Time: 05:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


So, you knew that before LivLuv said anything about it?

Yes, and I don't appreciate your suggesting that I didn't.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 08-03-2006, 11:43 AM   #52
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 06:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic


I can't read Hebrew, really wish I could, but I've looked at it with several people who do, people I trust, people who've studied Hebrew their entire adult lives, people who have no reasons or unerlying motives for twisting these words around, people from a wide range of denominations and schools of theology (because I'm too much of a skeptic to take a single person's word at face value, or multiple people from the same school of thought), people who prefer to study the source rather than version upon version upon translation of the text. It's been great for me living just yards from a seminary.
I don't mean this to sound rude, but I don't know your friends from Adam, so I don't buy it that there's a second meaning that is akin to letting nature take over the creation process. I've never read it any commentary (and yes, the author of commentaries study Hebrew just like your friends), plus it would contradict other key passages in the scripture. For instance, if there was no Adam, no first man created by God, then Christ was a liar when he mentioned Adam and Eve specifically in the context of people who actually lived. And Paul would be a liar when he said that through one man, Adam, sin entered the world.

Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic
If you're going to challenge my religious beliefs based on what languages I've learned to date, I find that a tad rediculous and a tad more insulting. I'm not even old enough to be in seminary yet, how would I have learned Hebrew?! All I'm saying is that I don't generally look to Google for scholarly material, especially something so important to me personally.
BVS made that flippant remark about people around here not liking to go the original source, you agreed, and then later told me to go to the original source. And now you're surprised and insulted that I asked you if you have studied the Hebrew Bible and read Hebrew? The Hebrew Bible is the original source!
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 11:51 AM   #53
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 06:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Yes, and I don't appreciate your suggesting that I didn't.
You made a flippant and condescending remark and now you're turning it around and getting upset with me for actually asking you to back up your flippant remark?

BVS, think about it. You made a flippant remark about people not going to the "original source" around here. What I should have asked you is the same thing I asked LivLuv:

Have you read and studied the original source, the Hebrew Bible, and found a second meaning for "creation" that is akin to letting nature take over and complete the creation process?

If not, you have no business making fun of others for not "going to the source". That has been my point during my entire line of questioning.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 12:08 PM   #54
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 06:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


For instance, if there was no Adam, no first man created by God, then Christ was a liar when he mentioned Adam and Eve specifically in the context of people who actually lived. And Paul would be a liar when he said that through one man, Adam, sin entered the world.
huh? Wait, were you thinking I believe there was no Adam?!?!

PS. I don't care if you're not reading a Hebrew Bible, but I do find it funny that you'd use Google searches to try to prove a pretty loaded point.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 12:23 PM   #55
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 06:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic


huh? Wait, were you thinking I believe there was no Adam?!?!

PS. I don't care if you're not reading a Hebrew Bible, but I do find it funny that you'd use Google searches to try to prove a pretty loaded point.
Most people who believe in evolution do not believe in Adam. The Christians who believe in evolution usually say that Adam wasn't a real man; that he was symbolic.

I'm not using Google to prove a "loaded point". I said that since I had never herad of this second meaning, I looked it up on Google. What I am using to support my argument is that through all my years of reading the Bible and commentaries, I have never heard of a Hebrew word for creation that means letting nature take over the the creation process.

If you don't care that I'm not reading the Hebrew Bible, why did you agree with BVS's remark, and also tell me to go to the "original source"?
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 12:36 PM   #56
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 06:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
Most people who believe in evolution do not believe in Adam. The Christians who believe in evolution usually say that Adam wasn't a real man; that he was symbolic.
eh, if I may quote myself

Quote:
Also unfair = assuming that accepting evolution excludes genuine belief in ID.
I'm glad a few posts on the Internet have got me labelled "most people" and "the Christians who". I don't recall ever saying one word in this thread on Adam (or Eve).

I still think that using Google to look for scholarly info on the Hebrew creation narrative is like looking for an objective biography about George W Bush. If you're confident in what you've learned from study, fine, I'm not challenging it. I'm not looking for you to start spitting out proof. I don't agree, but it's merely finer points I don't agree on. At the end of the day, we're still both Christians that believe God created creation, and I think that's as far as it needs to go in this particular thread.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 12:43 PM   #57
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 220
Local Time: 11:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic

Also unfair = assuming that accepting evolution excludes genuine belief in ID.
I'm curious: How do you reconcile the two without either introducing a creator into evolution thus making it intelligent design or removing the ‘intelligence’ from ID thus making it evolution?
__________________
silja is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 12:57 PM   #58
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 06:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by silja


I'm curious: How do you reconcile the two without either introducing a creator into evolution thus making it intelligent design or removing the ‘intelligence’ from ID thus making it evolution?
God either can do things himself, or simply allow them to happen. The idea that it's only God-willed if God physically does something is confining God to our human concept of action/creation. I've always had issues describing God's properties based on human characteristics. I'd rather have a more omnipotent, creative, and mysterious God who truly transcends any concept found in human thought. I don't have any issues with accepting that God created life to be so mysterious and complex (and cool!) that it is within its nature to evolve on its own. Christians except most other scientific discoveries and theories, this one is no different.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 01:00 PM   #59
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 06:52 PM
The Bible is a nice book.

To discuss in a philosophy or religion class. Along with its various translations and so on.

I don't understand why ID/creationism proponents insist it be mentioned or taught or discussed in biology class. It's laughable and embarrassing.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 08-03-2006, 01:01 PM   #60
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 220
Local Time: 11:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic

Christians except most other scientific discoveries and theories, this one is no different.
__________________

__________________
silja 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 06:52 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