More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
You know what. I think we should teach Creationism and Intelligent Design along with evolutionary theory. We should present the evidence for all three and let students decide which makes most sense.

There is a problem in the way we teach science to kids. They don't realize the incredible amount of evidence that needs to be gathered before a scientific theory is accepted. They don't realize the incredible scrutiny that a theory needs to undergo before it becomes as well established as evolution.

If we taught all three, many people would realize what complete nonsense creationism is and would eventually realize that everthing in the bible was complete nonsense. That would only make the world a better place in my opinion.


[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, but teach that crap where it belongs, in religion classes.

Teaching anything but science in science classes is preposterous and obviously partisan and driven by highly disreputable goals. It's a hijacking of the curriculum, and a kidnapping of people of all religions so that they can be forcibly indoctrinated by the religions of only some -- upon pain of failing the class.

I have nothing against religion classes -- there probably should be some, so all the believers lighten up a little. But pretending one particular religion is actually science an then shoving it down the throats of people with different religions while pretending to "educating" them is reprehensible and utterly selfish.

See how nice religion is? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Blarg]

Great job, Muarile. Although, predictably, it will do no good in convincing "true believers," because that type doesn't use logic as their native language. It's always a relief(a sadly rare one) to see people like Kopefire, though, who can both be evidently quite religious and yet not be close-minded. Thanks for helping bring open minded people on both sides together.

[Non_Comformist]

So is your objection over your belief that children are too stupid to be presented with both theories and allowed to decide for themselves?

[The once and future king]

You fail to mention natural selection. Even within a present species group there is massive differentation. If that species group is suddenly subjected to environmental change of some sort then any differentation that is advantagous will naturaly select itself.

I find most people who cant/wont accept evolution actualy have there real conceptual problem relating to exactly how old the world is.

Over time evolution is a given or all life would be extinct, its that simple.

[garyc8]

Creationism is not science. Hence, it should not be taught in science class. It's really rather simple.

[MaxPower]

I don't really think we should teach creationism in schools. My point was that if we did teach them side by side and really present the case for each, many more people would reject creationism than do now.

However, it is not the job of scientists to reconcile their theories with religious beliefs. That is for each individual to do.

[wacki]

I never understand why so many people don't get evolution.

I will keep this simple.

I have taken bacteria, and in 1 week, made it evolve (not genetically engineering) into an antibiotic resistant strain.

I have created a virus, from scratch, that was designed to inject lighting bug nucleic acid into the plant. The virus worked, and the tobacco plant started glowing.

I am currently evolving (not genetically engineering) a mushroom in the effort to find a cure for cancer. The project is running smoothly.

If that isn't proof of evolution, I don't know what is.

Evolution is easy, and amazingly fast.

[toots]

Better still:

You can't stop evolution from taking place by simply denying its existence, although it's possible you can stop your particular branch of life's tree from evolving any further.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Better still:

You can't stop evolution from taking place by simply denying its existence, although it's possible you can stop your particular branch of life's tree from evolving any further.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha! That is why we have this website.

www.darwinawards.com/

[12AX7]

So in any or all of these citations was an event such as a monkey becoming a man observed?

I think we can definitely say "natural selection" occurs and results in shifting characteristics of a population of a species that already exists. But has say, a monkey giving birth to a [censored]-sapien been shown somewhere? In a natural context. (With cloning techniques I'm sure that could happen artificially. :-) )

I'm not a creationist, but I do wonder how an evolutionist explains hoping over the specied divide.

I'm defining "species" here as meaning two of them can mate and have children. Granted that leaves out hermaphrodites and of homosexual acts etc. :-)

But consider hypothetically... we have a population of a so many monkeys that can breed.... one of them has mutation.... the first [censored]-sapien.... was it a male or female? Or more importantly, was a member of the other sex of that species also spawned somewhere? And how were they lucky enough to find each other and have spawn the third [censored]-sapien etc?

Or if there were "missing links" that I'n defining as, "could mate with monkey or [censored]-sapien and have viable offspring"... where are these in the fossil record?

Anyway, just curious if this "species jump" has been proven somewhere?

If so, I definitely would like to see where.