Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,923 Year: 4,180/9,624 Month: 1,051/974 Week: 10/368 Day: 10/11 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Unintelligible Redesign
GregP618
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 33 (7535)
03-21-2002 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by fleeming
03-20-2002 12:09 AM


quote:
Originally posted by fleeming:

According to scientists, teachers, and civil libertarians, the Taliban has invaded Ohio. Creationists have devised a theory called "Intelligent Design" (ID) and are trying to get Ohio's Board of Education to make sure it's taught alongside Darwinism. Unlike creationism, ID accepts that the Earth is billions of years old and that species evolve through natural selection. It posits that life has been designed but doesn't specify by whom. Liberals call ID a menace that will sneak religion into public schools. They're exactly wrong. ID is a big nothing. It's non-living, non-breathing proof that religion has surrendered its war against science.
Creationism used to be assertive and powerful. Darwinism wasn't allowed in schools. As Darwin gained the upper hand, conservatives fought to preserve creationism alongside evolution. They lost the war on both fronts. Courts struck down the teaching of creationism on the grounds that it mixed church and state.

I was interested to read this as only recently a similar story has come to light here in the UK. A school in Gateshead has begun to teach creationism, causing a bit of a stir and bringing the great debate back into the public eye. (See link + related links)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/education/newsid_1872000/1872331.stm
Prof Richard Dawkins has written to the school inspectors Ofsted, asking for the school to be inspected. The thing that annoys me most is that I thought people weren't supposed to be teaching religious beliefs in a science class, but we appear to have a one-way street which is hardly fair. Let me explain.
There is an uproar when a creationist viewpoint is taught in schools, 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 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.
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.
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. 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!!
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.
Give science enough time and it will eventually catch up with the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by fleeming, posted 03-20-2002 12:09 AM fleeming has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-21-2002 8:39 PM GregP618 has not replied
 Message 11 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-21-2002 10:08 PM GregP618 has replied
 Message 15 by Peter, posted 03-22-2002 8:05 AM GregP618 has replied
 Message 17 by Xombie, posted 03-22-2002 1:04 PM GregP618 has not replied

  
GregP618
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 33 (7728)
03-24-2002 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Darwin Storm
03-21-2002 10:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Darwin Storm:

As for Copernicus, and subsequnetly Galileo, it was the CHURCH that tried to supress VALID SCIENTIFIC THEORIES to DEFEND A RELIGIOUS WORLDVIEW. I am amazed at the audacity of your attempt to use copernicus as vindication of relgious dogma , when relgious dogma was the reason Copernicus and Galileo were ridiculed and persecuted. How very ironic. Peace.

Am I correct in thinking that the original geocentric viewpoint was postulated by Ptolemy who was neither Jew nor Christian, but Greek? His viewpoint wasn't based on the Bible or on scientific evidence. The Copernican view was in opposition to the establishment of the time which the Church had allowed itself to become caught up in. Why they attempted to defend a theory which was neither Biblical or scientific is beyond me, I'm not surprised they came out with egg on their faces! This is what happens when the Church tries to align itself with the scientific theory of the day. Trying to fit the Bible to a worldly viewpoint is a dangerous game, which is why I won't align myself with "theistic evolution" or "progressive creation" as I understand them to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-21-2002 10:08 PM Darwin Storm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-24-2002 7:16 PM GregP618 has not replied
 Message 30 by blitz77, posted 11-05-2002 1:29 AM GregP618 has not replied

  
GregP618
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 33 (7732)
03-24-2002 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Peter
03-22-2002 8:05 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
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.
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. Evolution 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.

Interesting. I went to a "so-called" Church of England school and was taught evolution at GCSE level - as a fact, with no mention of creationism as a viable alternative. Now that looks to me like an attempt to take the decision of what I should believe in for me. I guess that shows how different schools can be...
quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
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.

This comes back to another rather large thread currently running in the Great Debate about evolution not being science. It was kicked off by the following link-
http://www.planetkc.com/puritan/EvolutionIsNotScience_f.htm
I am quite happy to affirm my earlier statement regarding evolution as a religious philosophy rather than true science. Surely out of the billions of fossils in existence we would have found some credible "missing link" and yet there are none. In fact, there is no credible evidence for macroevolution at all. The entire history of evolution SHOULD be in the fossil record, and yet we see NOTHING. Oops, how careless.
We see variation WITHIN a species, aka microevolution, but there is nothing to suggest any transitional forms. Surely if macroevolution was a true process then we would still see it today, and yet again we don't. As for the abiogenesis thing - neither proteins or nucleic acids could have come into being without the other, as admitted by Leslie E. Orgel, in "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American (vol. 271. October 1994), p. 78.
[This message has been edited by GregP618, 03-24-2002]
[This message has been edited by GregP618, 03-24-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Peter, posted 03-22-2002 8:05 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by edge, posted 03-24-2002 4:58 PM GregP618 has not replied
 Message 24 by gene90, posted 03-24-2002 5:01 PM GregP618 has not replied
 Message 25 by gene90, posted 03-24-2002 5:02 PM GregP618 has not replied
 Message 27 by Peter, posted 03-26-2002 10:46 AM GregP618 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024