Unintelligible Redesign

quote:

---

Originally posted by GregP618:

There is an uproar when a creationist viewpoint is taught in schools,

---

I was taught the 'creationist viewpoint' in school. It was in a
religious studies class ... not mis-represented as science.The RS teacher even pointed out the evolutionary progression
of forms matching fairly closely the order given in Genesis.She left US to make our own conclusions on what that meant.

quote:

---

Originally posted by GregP618:

and yet evolution in my opinion, is every bit as much a religious viewpoint as creationism, and yet no-one bats an eyelid when it is forcefed to our children!!

---

Evolution is not a religous viewpoint at all, and it is NOT forced
upon anyone. As with ANY science teaching, it is presented as a
current theory ... and the evidence is examined (to a varying
level depending on the level of the class). I KNOW
this is the case in the UK having been through the school system
taking biology at both O and A level. Eviolution wasn't even touched
upon in O level (about 15-16year olds) biology in my day, and at A level (17-18 year olds) the THEORY was explained, and supporting
evidence detailed.NO science teacher I have ever been taught by, or met (and some
of my friends ARE science teachers) would ever presume to present
scientific theory as FACT. At best we have compelling evidence
FOR a theory if there are no data/observations which refute it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by GregP618:

Evolution is a religious philosphy and a worldview. It is a belief system about the past based on the words of people that weren't there trying to explain the evidence in the present. Creationism is the same - a religious philosophy.

---

Again ... No its not. Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory which attempts
to explain observed data. If new evidence does NOT fit the theory
the theory (or part of) will be revised or rejected.In comparison ... provide some snippet of evidence against a
creationist view and the view remains the same ... but the
evidence is refuted. 'Oh it's not really that old because
atomic decay happened at a different rate back then' or
'radiometric dating techniques don't work' or 'the earth got
sucked into a white hole thingy so time went slower here than
in the rest of the universe' or ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by GregP618:

I personally believe, (and I know many of you will shoot me down demanding evidence I can't give) that it takes more faith to believe in big bangs, dark matter or abiogenesis, than it does to believe in an all powerful creator God who put us here.

---

You may believe whatever you wish ... but I don't BELIEVE in
abiogenesis, dark matter, or the big bang (only one of several
universe creation senarios) ... I have read about the theories,
looked at reports of evidence/experimentation and concluded for
myself that they are promising theories.

quote:

---

Originally posted by GregP618:

Our children should be taught the FACTS at school, and then be allowed to decide for themselves whether to believe the creationist or evolutionist worldview.

---

So you agree that creationism shouldn't be taught in schools,
since there are no FACTS concerning creationist views.

quote:

---

Originally posted by GregP618:
We shouldn't be biasing their opinions, we should be allowing them to make up their own minds. Right across the country, schools are encouraging children to change their religious beliefs in order to accept evolution, and this goes by virtually unchallenged!! A small minority of schools decide to stand up for a creationist view, and look at the uproar!!

---

Evolution does NOT threaten religous belief ... it only threatens
the power of the church over its flocks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by GregP618:

Remember that Copernicus was ridiculed when he said that everyone was wrong to believe that the Earth was the centre of the universe. He had the boldness to stand up and say that the Earth was moving in an orbit around the sun.

---

A belief emanating from the Christian Church at the time.Are we evolutionists not in Copernicus' position ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by GregP618:

Give science enough time and it will eventually catch up with the Bible.

---

What scientific knowledge is contained within the Bible that requires
'catching up with' ? I'm not aware of any scientific principles
being expressed within the Old Testament.

I know school standards are dropping in the UK, and GCSE's
are much less comprehensive than the old O levels, but
I'm curious about about two things from your post ::1) In what way was the teaching of Evolution presented as fact
in your biology classes ?2) If you don't consider evolution to have happened then the
concept of it as fact was NOT impressed upon you, so I don't
see your problem.I know there's a whole thread on 'Evolution is Religion' here,
but it seems the basic creationist stance is 'Evilocean is
religion because it is.'If I give you a hypothesis that if I release a hammer from a great
height it will make a hole in the soft ground below.Then show you a hammer embedded in the mud at the bottom.Is it a religous belief until I see the hammer drop and embed ?Perhaps that's too simplified, but essentially Evolution is NOT
religous for one very good reason::It is presented in scientific circles as a theory of diversity of
life.Data has been accumulated that is compatible with the theory.
No data has been uncovered which is contrary to the theory.Belief doesn't even come into it. It's a matter of credibility.Ignore the bible and evolutionary theory
then look at any of the major evidences given
for evolution (even at the rudimentary levels of education).
If they don't imply progression, what do they imply ?Creationism is founded in religion for one simple reason.
Take away the bible and look at the evidence, and there is nothing
in the evidence that would lead you to conclude a single point
of creation.As the many evolution supporters on this site have shown, there
is an abundance of data which can be interpreted in a manner
compatible with evolution WITHOUT producing elaborate scenarios.
Evolutionary scenarios are simple, and that for me makes them
compelling.By contrast evidence interpreted in order to support special
creation is interpreted through extremely complex, previously
unobserved physical manifestations.As for transitionals ... take any three sequential members of the
proposed human evolutionary tree ... the middle one is a
transitional between the other two!As for missing links ... the conept only even arose out of the
misinterpretation of Darwin's work that said we evolved FROM
apes rather than that moderm man and apes have a common
ancestor.