Darwin as theory now parish policy
 

The cancer of Darwin is being poured in our children's ear and the people doing it are very proud of what they have done. They think they are ahead of the curve.
Isaac

Link to column : http://www.thenewsstar.com/apps/pbcs...611300322/1002

And people wonder why I will homeschool my kids.

am I to understand that you all are against the teaching of the theory of evolution in Louisiana public schools ?

This is my take on the subject. The controversy surrounds the word "theory" as in "Darwin's theory of evolution" as opposed to proven scientific fact. Do you want evolution taught as theory or as fact?

Speaking for myself, I believe in micro-evolution as proven fact, but I still believe that macro-evolution (Darwin) is still a theory. There seems to be no solid evidence but only scattered pieces that lend support to a theoretical puzzle, but no conclusion beyond a doubt.

Personally I do not see it as very "scientific" to believe that "evolution" and "creation" are mutually exclusive of each other. In the famous words of Forest Gump, "Maybe they are both happening at the same time". Yes "Darwin Evolution" might be mutually exclusive of creationism, but maybe that in itself means that Darwin overextended his projections and assumptions all the way back to single cell live in the ocean.

Theory
 

I don't think I've ever heard anyone that is both in favor of teaching creationism and able to successfully explain what the word "theory" means. Most seem to think it means "guess" or "idea" instead of its actual definition: Explanation that is supported by the underlying science. Evolution is a theory, creationism is an idea.

Other popular theories that creationists don't seem to have a problem with:

Gravity
Quantum mechanics
Lister's germ theory
Pretty much every other concept in the history of science

F=MA E=MC2 X=1/2AT2 etc. All these can be demonstated and proven.

But I can no more prove that we were created by a superhuman being that you can prove that we slithered out of the ocean millions of years ago. The same holds true for other beliefs like we were transplanted here or genetically engineered by aliens. History only goes back so far, and the rest is relatively unknown and therefore theorized upon by man.

But a faith in science should not preclude anyone from believing in God, and a faith in God should not preclude anyone from believing in science. I believe that each can actually help to explain the other. Both are taught at the school my children attend.

Yes quite right rhertz
 

But a faith in science should not preclude anyone from believing in God, and a faith in God should not preclude anyone from believing in science. I believe that each can actually help to explain the other. Both are taught at the school my children attend.

I could not agree more ! In fact science does prove the Bible correct and the talking heads that are the leaders of big churches would not hear of such but it is true that this planet is millions of years old.
Isaac

I spent some time today watching the tv show "Mysteries of the Bible" on History channel, and yes sometimes science seems to offer explanations of biblical events. (and sometime not) Maybe we need to have room to choose our beliefs rather than be served indisputable "proof" on a silver platter. How else do we demonstrate our faith to God if none is required?

Well, I suppose until they can prove what happens to your soul after you die, we still got that goin' for us :)

For your consdiration
 

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2005/db051218.gif

We as humans need both God and science.
 

I would agree that we need God and science. God created science. Science proves God. The idea that evolution exist ? Would there not be a human in every phase of evolution at this time ? well maybe there is :-)
Isaac

Funny comic strip. But it appears to reinforce my point. TB evolves into a stonger TB, not into a dog, cat, or man. At least that is what science tells me.

Evolution is a theory, creationism is an idea.
 

Joepole do you think you evolved from a monkey ? What about that poor monkey did he come from a single cell in puddle of water ? Just a theory. If we did not have a creator or God would we make one ? I think maybe a golden calf would do in a rush. This question of infinity and who created God has made man crazy for a long time. I am sure we will all get our answer when the great leveler comes a calling. I will stick with my faith in Christ ! Every man for him or her self on that flight final. Creationism is a idea that takes that leap of faith. Red pill or blue pill for you ?
God Bless
Isaac

Is that air you think your breathing ?

I believe that an early primate of some kind.. came down out of the trees.. learned to walk upright, so as to see over the high grass plains..
At some point learned the use of "tools", then learned to harness the power of fire.. once he was able to cook his meat, and spend his time sitting around the ol' camp fire.. the sky was the limit, just took some time.

now what caused that first primate to come down out of the trees.. I don't know.. divine intervention ? aliens from outer space ?

Then the existence of "missing links" spoken of by scientists doesn't bother you? I would say it takes a kind of "faith" to believe something over and above that which scientists still ponder.

Hey just some "food for though" there RR. I'm not a heavy holy roller. :) But I am scientifically minded yet I believe in a one living God. So this is JMO is all. Wouldn't it be something if we solved the mystery of man right here on shreveport.com? :D

Is there a second Lucy ?
 

Gary Larson found the second Lucy and besides that I have not seen Lucy ?
Isaac

Does this chart help any?

Does this chart help any?
 

Yes it does ! Now I know where computer programmers come from !
Isaac

I sometimes sit at my computer naked in my underwear, but I ain't no programmer! And I probably don't look as good either! :eek:

I sometimes sit at my computer naked in my underwear
 

Now there funny guy your avatar has a pug look to it. Do you know rhertz ?
Isaac

It is good to wear underwear while "sitting" at your computer saves a lot of clean up later :D

Alright. Sorry it took so long to reply after that first post.

I am against teaching A) Marco-evolution B) teaching theories as something undoubtedly true.

Macro-evolution is not proven at all. There is absolutely zero evidence for one species evolving into another. It doesn't happen now, we have no proof it happened in the past, so why the belief that it has/willdid happen? If it did happen in the past, what caused it to cease?

We have plenty of proof that Micro-evolution exists and still happens today. I am not at all disputing that.

First, gravity is a law, not a theory. I am a religious person (Roman Catholic), but let's leave that out of this. Logic requires that there must be an unmoved mover (God, higher power, creator, whatever) in the beginnings of the universe. The absence of one leaves a few options.

One could say that the universe just happened. How did it just happen? What caused the action of suddenly becoming? If it has always been, you fall into the problem of infinite regression.

I do not confirm nor deny that there was a "big bang", but the big bang had to start from something. If there was a "bang", was it a chemical "bang"? An explosion? From where originated the elements which exploded? Something must have created those elements.

In conclusion, my problem with public education is the very great and very real tendency to indoctrinate based on opinions and theories (things unproven) rather than educate and encourage critical thinking through discussion .

I think it is safe to say that I don't know that cat! :D But welcome aboard FunnyGuy!

There is no technical and specific difference between a scientific law and a theory, but in general something described as "a scientific law" is subject to less scrutiny and proof than something described as "a scientific theory." A scientific law is an idea that we say "let's assume this is true because it seems simple and universal enough." A theory is an idea that we say "this is the explanation that the evidence supports."

Gravity is an excellent example. For the longest time Newton's explanation of gravity was accepted as scientific law. In the last 100 years, however, general relativity has provided a much better explanation, proving the "law" wrong.

encourage critical thinking through discussion
 

I like that idea. Independent thinking by all. Joepole you sound like a PHD or something in higher learning and I liked what you wrote. Matty you too sound as if you are from higher education (Master or better) I just have a BA so bear with me but I find it hard to think I came from a monkey or any other animal as far as that goes. God is real and evolution dose not have a unbroken thread it just does not exist on the scale of which we speak. I do think genetics change generation to generation but I have not seen anybody in the last ten thousand years that looked like a monkey. Joe you have some very valid points as far as man knows at this time but always a but the answer to this is in the mind and heart too. Lucy does not exist. I do not mean to disrespect either of you I enjoyed you post.
Snow Man :cool:

>Lucy does not exist.

Then who is:

http://www.scienceclarified.com/imag...06_img0296.jpg

?

Aw, I've seen the dude, man!
Yeah, man! I played with that cat last year!
That cat didn't know ANY tunes, man!

Then who is: Joepole
 

That would make a great avatar for you joe. You know those ape bones do not fill in the gap. In order for evolution to be true it would have to be going on today and in years to come and granted there are some strange people running around here I still do not see some of them in trees and some of them walking on all four and yet some of them walking upright. Good try though. I see you have evolved to the point of using google :D Joe your a smart guy ? Could a human sperm and monkey egg ever make a baby ? Some people say they come from apes ( not me) do you think you did ?
Isaac

>You know those ape bones do not fill in the gap.

1. Those are not ape bones.

2. I didn't say anything about filling any gaps. You said there was no Lucy so I posted a photo of her remains.

2. I didn't say anything about filling any gaps
 

I stand corrected on #2. and I agree that that is a photo of what someone has called Lucy. So there joepole what is your take on the nonstop chain of evolution ? I know these are questions have been on the mind of man for the
longest time. I still will walk on the side of creation by God. I know analytical
minds have a hard time with walking on faith and I can respect that Joe.
Isaac :D

I found an article on google regarding laws, hypotheses, and theories. I'm not a scientist by any means, but I think there exists a flaw in using the phrase "theory of evolution", which encompasses A) Micro-evolution, something that has been observed and generally accepted B) Macro-evolution, something that is merely hypothesis and not at all proven.

Gravity (according to this article) is considered a law, or something generally accepted to be true and universal. If I am standing in my kitchen and I drop a coffee mug, it will fall to the floor.

I don't know about any new technologies or relativity etc., though I would like to learn more.

Evolution vs creationism AKA "The Monkeymen vs The Bible Thumpers"
 

The two need not be mutually exclusive.

Newtonian gravity is, indeed, considered a law, but that doesn't mean it's true, just that it's accepted as correct for most purposes. It certainly doesn't hold up a quantum scales. If it did none of us would be here.

LOL, isn't that where "Dark Matter" comes into play ?

No. General relativity and Newtonian physics are at odds with each other at nucleus-level scales..

Dispelling The Top 10 Myths About Evolution
 

You all should just love this :cool:

Dispelling The Top 10 Myths About Evolution

Dispelling The Top 10 Myths About Staff Writers
 

[quote=Bob]You all should just love this :cool: [quote]

I found it funny....

Their first sentence is a total contradiction in and of itself. They start off by establishing that the US is a world leader in science and technology. This is fact. Then they go on to express an opinion that contradicts that fact, and indeed insults "the leader" with no explanation of how their contradiction makes any sense.

This statement is equally true:
This lack of knowledge in the face of overwhelming scientific, historical and biblical evidence, springs from a number of negative influences in contemporary society: Poor historical education in some regions of the country, misinformation in the mass media (especially Staff Writers), and deliberate obfuscation by supporters of Atheism and Macro Evolution.

This topic is all about opinion and rhetoric, or else someone can simply lay out the proof by creating life from scratch in a laboratory out of "chemical soup". Until such an experiment can be demonstrated, then the notion that man evolved from a "chemical soup" into a single cell creature then into a humanoid is simply the expression of an unproven opinion at best, or the expression of a political agenda at worst. In other words an unproven "theory".

I suppose their point being.. that the "U.S." as you point out is a world leader in science and technology.. HOWEVER, when you get down to Joe Blow on the street.. they state:
that was my take on it anyways.

:gosaints:

Education still has a long way to go
 

Recent surveys have revealed that only about half of Americans realize that humans have never lived side by side with dinosaurs. Half of all Americans do not have the IQ to know if they read the book. There still good people just never had a chance to learn. Just think what the third world people have in the way of education it is sad real sad. I agree with Late Night.
Snow Man :cool:

A few different conversations here
 

ok. for starters, i'm not all that a religious person.. don't attend church. I do consider myself a spiritual person however..

I'm just wondering what different levels of evolution we are talking here. and what do others believe.

I know some people say, "Humans didn't evolve from no monkeys" or the like..

I guess the question I want to ask.. is who here believes that we homo sapiens.. DID evolve from earlier species.. such as homo ergaster ?

Did we not evolve from earlier species.. who didn't yet master the making of tools.. only used say rocks for certain things.. then after 1000's of years, learned to place sharp rocks on the end of sticks to create spears.
Then Harnessed the power of fire.. etc..

What I want to ask, is there anyone here who does not believe this ?

now I know, if you want to go back farther, back to simple primates/monkeys, or go farther back to a lifeless planet, and ask the question HOW DID ALL START ? personally I'd buy several explanations.. GOD for one, Aliens for another, a meteorite crashing into the primordial oooze that was laced with bacteria or something that got life started.. these are the answers I don't know, and will except multiple explanation, but in my heart, I accept the evolution of man from a much more primitive creature, to what we are now.

Something had to get it all started...had to create something where there was once nothing...thats "God", "The Prime Mover", or "The Force", whatever ya choose to call it. The concept of "Intelligent Design" points to a creator...this is the intersection where evolution, or science, meets up with creationism. As I said earlier, the two theories need not be mutually exclusive. This intersection is called "Theistic Evolution"!