Low IQ's and Conservative Values Linked

[tourists24]

I would agree with that. More and more mainline christian churches see no conflict with evolution and their faith and they would be right. However, many of those churches don't hold a literalist view of the creation story so I would think this makes the process much easier.

One point I did want to make to MFE concerning an earlier comment he made in the conflict between evolution and creationism. Creationism is telling the story of how time, space and matter came to be and thus life as we know it came to be. Evolution itself IMO does not tell or suggest how time, space and matter came to be but it does tell how life as we know it today came to be. Evolution does theorize a beginning point for life, the primordial soup if you will, but there is no empirical evidence at this time to prove the exact event in which that took place. The search is still on to answer that question. As to the transitional fossil record, genetic record and other research of the evolutionary process, the evidence IMO is overwhelming but that's me.

The biggest difference in a creation point of view scientifically vs the way evolution is taught in school is the starting point. Creationists dont doubt that evolution happens, only that it didnt start from one source. The way evolution is taught in school has everything originating from a single source and expanding to everything we have now. Creation theorizes that God created many "kinds" and what we have now was accomplished through evolution by changes in DNA from existing codes. All depends on what your faith lies in

 

[bbsam]

The biggest difference in a creation point of view scientifically vs the way evolution is taught in school is the starting point. Creationists dont doubt that evolution happens, only that it didnt start from one source. The way evolution is taught in school has everything originating from a single source and expanding to everything we have now. Creation theorizes that God created many "kinds" and what we have now was accomplished through evolution by changes in DNA from existing codes. All depends on what your faith lies in

But if it depends on faith, then why insist that it be taught as a scientific theory?

 

[tourists24]

But if it depends on faith, then why insist that it be taught as a scientific theory?

because it is all faith... even the "science" that is taught... There is science involved BB.... The same science that tries to prove a one source evolution is also used to show how creation is viable.... Either or neither could be taught. If evolution is taught then so should a creation science theory. Answersingenesis.org is a good sight to check out to see the science of creation. I also recommend books by Jonathan Safarti. He has a couple of books titled "Refuting Evolution" and "Refuting Evolution 2" that can give you some good insight

 

[island1fox]

It would sound like some people are a little confused. Darwinism is a theory. Evolution is a theory.
People seem to be discussing them as fact.

 

[wkmac]

But if it depends on faith, then why insist that it be taught as a scientific theory?

Good point. There are some potential interesting questions that I.D. could pose from the standpoint of science and push the discussion forward but I wonder for most how long before the faith side would jump in? To be fair, in a discussion with I.D. where you might have a Richard Dawkins or a Sam Harris involved, how long before the temptation for them to jump their own tracks to make the no god argument a part of the discussion? I don't think Darwin saw the idea of evolution as necessary to advance a non deity argument nor the need to kill god in order to make evolution work.

As to the term theory being used, I see the word as suggesting a growing school of thought. You mentioned dark matter and yes dark matter I would see as part of gravitational theory and yet what we know about dark matter is far from settled but no one doubts gravitational theory as fact. Island makes the claim about separation of church and state and in this case I would not make that argument. If one could keep ID in a purely scientific framework, it's questions might prove fruitful in a search for origins but as we just saw here, how long before faith would become the motivating force in the discussion? ID can have a place even in the public school education but if faith is a part of that discussion, as education it would fall in the realm of philosophy or historical review but it would need to be one of many taught. The creation POV would need to be taught along side the Enuma Elish, the 3rd millenia BCE Egyptian creation story as well as others from other cultures and belief systems. If it's going to be science, then evidence, testing and testing along with peer review will be necessary.

Seems funny IMO that both Island and MFE coming from opposites on this also seem to accept the same falsehood in regards to teaching ID in college. Island from the position of a conspiracy against Jesus and MFE because it violates the church/state thingy. I guess MFE also never looked at the public colleges that offer degrees in religious studies, theology and yes even divinity. Hope they don't get caught by the ACLU. OMG!




I do believe what I'm about to suggest can be done but can christians as a whole, especially literalists do this? Here you go.

If we throw Darwin's Origins of Species aside, does evolution still hold up? Yes IMO it does because so much research, evidence, testing and retesting with peer review already let's evolution stand. Now here's the hard part so to speak, remove the bible completely from the equation and I mean completely from ID. You have no Genesis story to stand on so is there any evidence to stand on to make the case for an intelligent design and a higher power as the source of creation? I think you can make an argument and in your case bbsam, I'm thinking you might be able too as well. However can our intrepid christians in Tourist and Island willing to throw the bible creation story aside completely, ignore it as though it doesn't exist and then argue the case for intelligent design? If not, then the whole point is to advance a specific religious belief and not about a search for higher order truth IMO.

I would also ask, does ID require a young earth or literal 6k earth or is there latitude for the idea of a far older earth?

 

[804brown]

books titled "Refuting Evolution" and "Refuting Evolution 2"

Dont forget the books: "Refuting Gravity", "Refuting Photosynthesis" , "Refuting Relativity", "Refuting Gravity 2" "Refuting Plate Tectonics", etc

 

[tourists24]

Dont forget the books: "Refuting Gravity", "Refuting Photosynthesis" , "Refuting Relativity", "Refuting Gravity 2" "Refuting Plate Tectonics", etc

yeah yeah.... I know you already know the truth. You have no need to view scientists with an opposing view. Im just pointing those who may want to see what other scientists that support evolution in a way that explains how creation is possible. It also shows how some scientists use information to suit their needs in general. There really are many scientists that believe in something besides the goo to you theory. They are simply dismissed as kooks like you just did because it doesnt fit the mold.

 

[Jones]

It would sound like some people are a little confused. Darwinism is a theory. Evolution is a theory.
People seem to be discussing them as fact.

Evolution is both a theory and a fact.
In science a theory is not just a guess (that's called a hypothesis), it's an explanation of the facts. Gravity is a fact (we stick to ground instead of floating around), Gravitational Theory explains how it works. Electricity is a fact (lt's powering your computer), Electrical Theory explains how it works. Evolution is a fact (allele frequencies change in a given population over time due to mutation and selection), Evolutionary Theory explains how it works.

 

[Catatonic]

Evolution is both a theory and a fact.
In science a theory is not just a guess (that's called a hypothesis), it's an explanation of the facts. Gravity is a fact (we stick to ground instead of floating around), Gravitational Theory explains how it works. Electricity is a fact (lt's powering your computer), Electrical Theory explains how it works. Evolution is a fact (allele frequencies change in a given population over time due to mutation and selection), Evolutionary Theory explains how it works.

Evolution cannot be proved using the Scientific Method - it is not reproducible.
Gravity can be proved using the Scientific Method - it works every time.

Evolution is accepted by the Scientific Community and Review because of the preponderance of evidence.

Evolution does not address how life started ... just that once here, it evolved.

 

[tourists24]

Evolution cannot be proved using the Scientific Method - it is not reproducible.
Gravity can be proved using the Scientific Method - it works every time.

Evolution is accepted by the Scientific Community and Review because of the preponderance of evidence.

Evolution does not address how life started ... just that once here, it evolved.

You are right in the way you put this Hoax. Thats why there is operational science and origins science. Creation scientists also agree with this. The only difference is that the way evolution is taught in our schools supports a goo to you idea which is not supported by a perponderance of evidence. Creation science sets out to show how there were already different kinds from the moment of creation and evolution occurs from those "kinds". Mutation and selection does not mean obtaining new additonal DNA to a being and has never been proven. That would be producing something from nothing. Shifting and mutating can form new traits, but not "additonal" information from nowhere.

 

[Jones]

Evolution cannot be proved using the Scientific Method - it is not reproducible.
Gravity can be proved using the Scientific Method - it works every time.

You should do a little more reading. This is just one example, evolution and speciation have both been reproduced and observed in laboratory settings. You know what really can't be reproduced? Starts with a "c"...

Evolution is accepted by the Scientific Community and Review because of the preponderance of evidence.

True as far it goes, but it also accepted because it is the only valid, observable, falsifiable explanation that doesn't rely on supernatural intervention.

Evolution does not address how life started ... just that once here, it evolved.

Evolutionary theory was never intended to address how life began, that's an entirely different discussion.

 

[wkmac]

It would sound like some people are a little confused. Darwinism is a theory. Evolution is a theory.
People seem to be discussing them as fact.

In a general use among the public, your thinking of the term theory would have standing but in the world of science, the word theory has another meaning entirely.

Not that among some here this will settle the question or establish an accepted common ground but just thought I'd put it out there anyway.

 

[wkmac]

For what it's worth.

Introduction

volution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).
Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.
This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case of Common Descent

And in the pursuit of fairness

The Scientific Case Against Evolution

by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.

Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.

The Scientific Case Against Evolution

And a middle ground

The Short Answer: No. Some biological structures may have resulted from a combination of both design and evolution. Most intelligent design proponents accept microevolution but question if macroevolutionary changes are possible. Intelligent design theory questions if evolution can produce irreducibly complex structures. Thus, intelligent design holds that evolution is not capable of producing all aspects of life.

FAQ Does Intelligent Design Completely Reject Darwinian Evolution?

 

[island1fox]

Good point. There are some potential interesting questions that I.D. could pose from the standpoint of science and push the discussion forward but I wonder for most how long before the faith side would jump in? To be fair, in a discussion with I.D. where you might have a Richard Dawkins or a Sam Harris involved, how long before the temptation for them to jump their own tracks to make the no god argument a part of the discussion? I don't think Darwin saw the idea of evolution as necessary to advance a non deity argument nor the need to kill god in order to make evolution work.

As to the term theory being used, I see the word as suggesting a growing school of thought. You mentioned dark matter and yes dark matter I would see as part of gravitational theory and yet what we know about dark matter is far from settled but no one doubts gravitational theory as fact. Island makes the claim about separation of church and state and in this case I would not make that argument. If one could keep ID in a purely scientific framework, it's questions might prove fruitful in a search for origins but as we just saw here, how long before faith would become the motivating force in the discussion? ID can have a place even in the public school education but if faith is a part of that discussion, as education it would fall in the realm of philosophy or historical review but it would need to be one of many taught. The creation POV would need to be taught along side the Enuma Elish, the 3rd millenia BCE Egyptian creation story as well as others from other cultures and belief systems. If it's going to be science, then evidence, testing and testing along with peer review will be necessary.

Seems funny IMO that both Island and MFE coming from opposites on this also seem to accept the same falsehood in regards to teaching ID in college. Island from the position of a conspiracy against Jesus and MFE because it violates the church/state thingy. I guess MFE also never looked at the public colleges that offer degrees in religious studies, theology and yes even divinity. Hope they don't get caught by the ACLU. OMG!




I do believe what I'm about to suggest can be done but can christians as a whole, especially literalists do this? Here you go.

If we throw Darwin's Origins of Species aside, does evolution still hold up? Yes IMO it does because so much research, evidence, testing and retesting with peer review already let's evolution stand. Now here's the hard part so to speak, remove the bible completely from the equation and I mean completely from ID. You have no Genesis story to stand on so is there any evidence to stand on to make the case for an intelligent design and a higher power as the source of creation? I think you can make an argument and in your case bbsam, I'm thinking you might be able too as well. However can our intrepid christians in Tourist and Island willing to throw the bible creation story aside completely, ignore it as though it doesn't exist and then argue the case for intelligent design? If not, then the whole point is to advance a specific religious belief and not about a search for higher order truth IMO.

I would also ask, does ID require a young earth or literal 6k earth or is there latitude for the idea of a far older earth?

wkmac,

Where in the world did you get the idea that I asked this question about teaching the Theory of I.D. from a position that it is a conspiracy against JESUS ????? Or did this though simply just EVOLVE from you.

I have never mentioned Jesus, Christianity or defense of support for any religion.

In a very accurate "nutshell" The question revolved around the millions,and millions if not billions of people that believe in SOME FORM of I.D. -- why is such a cry from Liberals that it violates seperation of Church and State. I did not mention any Church, any religion, Jesus or anything close. ???

 

[island1fox]

For all of the deep thinkers and researchers on this subject. How do you feel about the Cambrian period ??--again there are two side to this ---some doubt it happened --others show evidence of no-evolution-but rather describe it as a revolution.


China seems to have more freedom to investigate these fossils than "Liberal Academia" in the U.S. will allow.

 

[menotyou]

Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Cambrian Period

 

[island1fox]

menotyou,

Thank You ! That was very fast.

 

[moreluck]

I tried checking Cambrian Period For Dummies, but didn't find it.

 

[island1fox]

moreluck,

Please no offense meant. I have read through many articles on the Cambrian period--I am not a rocket scientist nor a dummy. But the subject is deep and can be complicated --like some of wkmacs posts( wkmac--laugh only joshing you} This subject unfortunately probably will not be covered in the Dummie series.

 

[moreluck]

moreluck,

Please no offense meant. I have read through many articles on the Cambrian period--I am not a rocket scientist nor a dummy. But the subject is deep and can be complicated --like some of wkmacs posts( wkmac--laugh only joshing you} This subject unfortunately probably will not be covered in the Dummie series.

Hey, it's a joke. I found a site today with any subject you could possibly think of......."for dummies". Like a series. I didn't know everybody was so touchy about beetles. Continue.