Jump to content

Menu

Theory of Evolution -- do you avoid teaching it?


Recommended Posts

Not to upset anyone, but it's difficult to know. Even if one learns Biblical Hebrew and/or Greek and Aramaic it is difficult to know exactly the meaning ancient cultures placed on words. So even looking at the original (or approved) texts in the original languages involves some "interpretation."

 

Just look at how words in our own language change over a relatively short time.

 

And English interpretations are, we must admit, often guided by and reflective of sectarian differences among branches of the faiths. So it ain't easy. Even when one aims to be "objective."

 

Yes. Context does need to come into play in translating and understanding.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 696
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Yes. Context does need to come into play in translating and understanding.

 

The 80 plus volume Anchor Yale Bible Commentary series is pretty great too, if you want to know what a wide-ranging collections of Biblical scholars and ancient language linguists and historians have to say on matters of interpretation.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
Disclaimer: I'm atheist, but I was raised Anglican and understand what Priscilla is talking about. Truth need not be so narrowly defined. Truth need not mean factually or literally correct: it can be found in a phrase or an image, in a metaphor or a parable. Truth can be found in an emotional resonance or intellectual excitement. A larger truth may exist which we can never understand, but only catch glimpses of peripherally, if you will. "Divinely inspired" doesn't necessarily equate to "comes with a decoder ring."

:iagree:

 

Holy pile of logical fallacies Batman!

 

ka-POW!:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Divinely inspired does equate directly to "isn't wrong." It means that there are things an omnipotent deity would know that men would not. Things like the the ancient belief that the world was surrounded by a metallic sphere through upon which the stars where hung. Also though which "doors" were opened to allow flood waters through. Belief in astrology, that stars sent messages to the people of the earth. These types of things are utter nonsense yet they are referenced in the Bible. Putting striped branches in front of goats does not cause them to have babies that are striped. This too is in the Bible.

 

But we seem to have strayed from the original intent of this thread...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I try to cover everything. We study all the major religions, both creation and evolution and as much in between as we can.

 

I was raised a creationist and even DISCUSSING evolution was shameful in my house. I don't want that for my children, I was completely unprepared to discuss my reasons for WHY I believed in creation. I want my kids to have a basic understanding of all religions and all theories and be able to form their own opinion so we learn about all of them and will also focus on the ability for form an argument in high school (something I really wish I had!!!)

 

Sara

Link to post
Share on other sites
Divinely inspired does equate directly to "isn't wrong." It means that there are things an omnipotent deity would know that men would not. Things like the the ancient belief that the world was surrounded by a metallic sphere through upon which the stars where hung. Also though which "doors" were opened to allow flood waters through. Belief in astrology, that stars sent messages to the people of the earth. These types of things are utter nonsense yet they are referenced in the Bible. Putting striped branches in front of goats does not cause them to have babies that are striped. This too is in the Bible.

 

But we seem to have strayed from the original intent of this thread...

 

except the Bible is full of divinely inspired literary elements too. ;)

 

Trying to paint a specific brush on God's literary intentions opens the door to quite a bit of logical criticism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
except the Bible is full of divinely inspired literary elements too. ;)

 

Trying to paint a specific brush on God's literary intentions opens the door to quite a bit of logical criticism.

If you accept that "God" exists. If not, well... I'm sorry but I accept no criticism based upon the existence of a being I simply don't believe in. That's your house of cards, not mine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Divinely inspired does equate directly to "isn't wrong."
That's a whole other can of worms: "Wrong" in what sense? :D

 

People can read their Bible (or other religious text) however they like, and I don't have a problem with it unless they think it should apply to me and mine, defined broadly enough to include public school curriculum and other elements of the public sphere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you accept that "God" exists. If not, well... I'm sorry but I accept no criticism based upon the existence of a being I simply don't believe in. That's your house of cards, not mine.

 

well sure!

 

but there's a difference in belief in the Bible vs looking at the Bible's different interpretations logically within its parameters.

 

Within the parameter of belief, the various interpretations are [usually ;)] very logical, and not necessarily "wrong."

 

eta: it doesn't hold much water when you start spouting off about how illogical and factually wrong the Bible is, then after having the logical fallacies about your factual criticisms explained....... come back with "well, it's still wrong cuz i don't buy into that stuff anyway."

Edited by Peek a Boo
Link to post
Share on other sites
DISCLAIMER: I wanted to be HONEST but I do worry that the below could offend both creationists AND evolutionists. These are my honest thoughts about these things. My goal in stating it the way I did was not to offend but to state the belief as strongly as I believe it. Maybe there was a better way to do so, but I couldn't do it this morning.

 

We don't avoid evolution AT ALL. By discussing it, it strengthens our faith because it's so ludicrous. Mathematically and scientifically, it's IMPOSSIBLE that it happened that way. There HAS to an intelligent designer behind it.

 

However, we also aren't young earth creationists (though I believe it could have happened that way, the evidence scripturally and scientifically doesn't point to that it DID happen that way). And I don't understand throwing adaptation out the window at all.

 

Anyway, the scientific facts are AMAZING as are various beliefs, the reasons and people behind them. I have no reason to add or take away from the science OR scripture in regards to this topic as what is available is plenty to keep me in awe.

 

Ditto.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm intrigued by the notion of 'avoiding evolution.' (The Noeo science thread got me thinking.)

 

I'm wondering what this means to those of you who 'avoid' it.

 

Is it must macro-evolution (as in 'gazillions of incremental changes finally leading up to earth as we know it') that you avoid? Or do you also not teach micro-evolution (as in 'head-lice are evolving and now cannot be killed with most over-the-counter lice killers').

 

Do you discuss it at all? Or is it a taboo subject altogether?

 

Is your choice primarily based on your faith beliefs, or on scientific research?

 

Were you taught evolution as a child?

 

I ask this because I don't think I know anyone who doesn't accept evolution as a plausible theory. So, it's a stretch for me to understand what seems to be a trend in some home-schooling circles.

 

I haven't read any of this thread but I can only imagine. We teach religion and science. Two different subjects. You can't prove religion with science and you can't prove science with religion. We also do the big bang, the ark, genesis although our Old testament stuff is mostly for background, not to be taken literally.

 

Based on science. Creative design, ID whatever is not science. Evolution has been studied scientifically for 150 years. I'm not getting into this one just telling you my feelings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
well sure!

 

but there's a difference in belief in the Bible vs looking at the Bible's different interpretations logically within its parameters.

 

Within the parameter of belief, the various interpretations are [usually ;)] very logical, and not necessarily "wrong."

 

eta: it doesn't hold much water when you start spouting off about how illogical and factually wrong the Bible is, then after having the logical fallacies about your factual criticisms explained....... come back with "well, it's still wrong cuz i don't buy into that stuff anyway."

I haven't discussed anything that's literary. Only those things that are factual. God creating two great lights in the sky is observably incorrect. Either the KJV is incorrect or God is. But the heavens, ie the universe, was not created at the same time as the earth. However, to one who believed that the heavens were a gigantic metallic sphere that surrounded the earth, of course it must have been created at the same time as the earth.

 

Pick your inconsistencies... I don't much care. Point is, a divinely inspired document would not have them.

 

And your explanations require that a god exists. I'm not willing to grant that assumption. Therefore they are not logical.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And your explanations require that a god exists. I'm not willing to grant that assumption. Therefore they are not logical.
Which is why debating faith with a person of faith is pointless. It is likewise pointless for a person of faith to try to "prove" the veracity of the object of their faith to an "unbeliever." Sure, some people "find" a god or "lose" their faith, but I'll wager that's rarely a result of a purely logical (strictly speaking) process.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't read all the posts here but it really all comes down to if you believe the Bible to be the infallible word of God and the Truth or not. That's really the bottom line. My girls are young, so for now, I will be teaching creation and no evolution. Period. When they get older we may discuss the "theory" of evolution but definitely only in an evolution versus creation and why evolution is wrong manner.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Pick your inconsistencies... I don't much care. Point is, a divinely inspired document would not have them.

 

If you are truly interested in another valid point of view, there are good explanations for the kind of inconsistencies you describe. IMO God didn't intend for the Bible to be used as a science text. In what way would He have to describe the universe scientifically to prove divine inspiration? Would it be in accordance with our modern day understandings? What about 200 years from now? What happens when we know more details about the forming of the universe? Will that knowledge be the standard of accuracy?

 

The Bible was meant to be a timely and timeless message. We should always assume the role of the original audience when reading scripture. The message for the Israelites in Genesis was not a science lesson, it was a theology lesson given within the context of the ancient middle eastern understanding of the cosmos. It makes perfect sense if you think about it. What benefit would this band of homeless escaped slaves wandering in the desert gain from a thesis in Newtonian physics or heliocentrism? God was accommodating the commonly held cosmological world view of the time in order to focus on the pertinent message; HE was the author of creation, not the Egyptian gods. They had just left the epicenter of civilized order (where these Egyptian gods seemed to have made quite a name for themselves) and were now in the wilderness. They needed to know it was HE who created order from chaos, and it was HE who would provide for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Which is why debating faith with a person of faith is pointless. It is likewise pointless for a person of faith to try to "prove" the veracity of the object of their faith to an "unbeliever." Sure, some people "find" a god or "lose" their faith, but I'll wager that's rarely a result of a purely logical (strictly speaking) process.
Now that I can agree with. And it is great because it saves me a lot of time. ;)
Link to post
Share on other sites
My interest in religion is historical, and also fear of it. "A serial killer may kill 20, but an ideology can kill millions." Religions can split people, and cause them to fight and kill when territory and food are NOT at stake. Thus, it behooves me to know about religions and what their followers are up to. In times past, people like me have been burned and killed (although I'm not on fire for free thinking, and I'm sure I'd have done the things I needed to do not to be pilloried, and just kept my thoughts to myself) by people obsessed with "the spiritual".

 

I do not worship anything. I enjoy things, I respect things, I'm told I'm doing "god's work" because I work with people nearly everyone else shuns and abandons, but I don't worship it. My body and my life is a tool, and my brain is the part of my body that finds using the tools around me interesting and worthwhile. Is this genetic? Is this environmental? Whichever, it sure runs in my family. But, do not take the feeling you have that you label "spiritual" and assign it to non-spiritual people who have a passion for something.

 

 

 

I really like quantum physics. I love learning about how energy hangs out and manifests itself. We've been househunting, and you can feel the emotion of the people in a house-the ones facing foreclosure-I swear you can smell the desperation. It took me hours to shake it one day-and even then it still lingered bits. You can feel the lies, and you can also feel the love and 'home'.

 

Spiritual, to me, is energy. Not 'worship', not religion. I hate religion. Man made rules. Why not believe in Ra if you have to follow one man's interpretation of how to be a Christian? So, there's my beliefs in a nutshell. (Yes, I'd be burned, too)

 

So, to me, spirituality/worship is energy. Where do you put your energy and where do you get it? When I say we have God shaped holes, I was speaking Christianese-sorry. But I believe we have need to give and share that energy. Some use their powers for evil, true. You can't say the universe is evil because evil people reside on the earth, no?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I really like quantum physics. I love learning about how energy hangs out and manifests itself. We've been househunting, and you can feel the emotion of the people in a house-the ones facing foreclosure-I swear you can smell the desperation. It took me hours to shake it one day-and even then it still lingered bits. You can feel the lies, and you can also feel the love and 'home'.

 

Spiritual, to me, is energy. Not 'worship', not religion. I hate religion. Man made rules. Why not believe in Ra if you have to follow one man's interpretation of how to be a Christian? So, there's my beliefs in a nutshell. (Yes, I'd be burned, too)

 

So, to me, spirituality/worship is energy. Where do you put your energy and where do you get it? When I say we have God shaped holes, I was speaking Christianese-sorry. But I believe we have need to give and share that energy. Some use their powers for evil, true. You can't say the universe is evil because evil people reside on the earth, no?

 

 

It's been said that God made man, but man made religion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
However, one can hardly argue that that Sickle Cell Anemia offers a functional advantage, so it is not likely to survive many generations.

 

Sickle Cell Anemia decreases the risk of malaria.

http://sickle.bwh.harvard.edu/malaria_sickle.html

 

The issue was finally settled in an investigation that included more than 4,000 subjects (Modiano, et al., 2001). Hemoglobin C heterozygotes had significantly fewer episodes of P. falciparum malaria than did controls with only hemoglobin A. The risk of malaria was lower still in subjects who were homozygous for hemoglobin C. Homozygous hemoglobin C produces a mild hemolytic anemia and splenomegaly. The much milder phenotype of the condition relative to homozygous hemoglobin S led the investigators to speculate that without medical intervention for malaria, hemoglobin C would replace hemoglobin S the over the next few thousand years as the dominant "antimalarial" hemoglobin in West Africa.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was, like some of the other posters here, young earth creationist until I decided to research science and evolution for myself.

 

If you choose to take a literal interpretation of Genesis, it isn't reconcilable with our current knowledge of science, therefore can't be taught as science. You can teach it as a miracle, that defies what humans know about the way the world works, but it's not science.

 

The moon is not a light. Plants don't grow without sunlight. (and I'm guessing the Earth revolves around God before the sun is created?)

Cats cannot be vegetarians. Morning and evening do not exist before the sun is created. God also created livestock and wild animals separately. They didn't even need to be domesticated!

 

It's easy to "make up" reasons why you think these things could be true, but the Bible doesn't give explanations. You either take a risk and stick with the literal interpretation, and disregard scientific knowledge on the facts, or you disregard the literal interpretation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are truly interested in another valid point of view, there are good explanations for the kind of inconsistencies you describe. IMO God didn't intend for the Bible to be used as a science text. In what way would He have to describe the universe scientifically to prove divine inspiration? Would it be in accordance with our modern day understandings? What about 200 years from now? What happens when we know more details about the forming of the universe? Will that knowledge be the standard of accuracy?

 

The Bible was meant to be a timely and timeless message. We should always assume the role of the original audience when reading scripture. The message for the Israelites in Genesis was not a science lesson, it was a theology lesson given within the context of the ancient middle eastern understanding of the cosmos. It makes perfect sense if you think about it. What benefit would this band of homeless escaped slaves wandering in the desert gain from a thesis in Newtonian physics or heliocentrism? God was accommodating the commonly held cosmological world view of the time in order to focus on the pertinent message; HE was the author of creation, not the Egyptian gods. They had just left the epicenter of civilized order (where these Egyptian gods seemed to have made quite a name for themselves) and were now in the wilderness. They needed to know it was HE who created order from chaos, and it was HE who would provide for them.

 

Actually, if God had chosen the commonly held cosmological world view of those pagan Egyptians instead of that of the Hebrew people, they might not have gotten lost in the first place. The Egyptians were much more advanced scientifically, as were many other primitive societies. If I were to compare the design of the pyramids against Genesis in terms of divine knowledge of how the world works, Genesis doesn't fare well. What is the point in giving inaccurate scientific information to your creation? I don't see any benefit in this, unless you count wandering in the desert as a benefit.

 

Here's a fascinating article on the subject of the Egyptian pyramids and scientific accuracy.

‘The Great Pyramid is extremely accurately aligned towards north. The sides deviate from true north by less than three ark minutes, that’s less than a twentieth of a degree, which is extremely accurate in terms of orientation.’

 

Modern astronomers would have little difficulty in finding north because the Pole Star, Polaris, is almost directly above the North Pole. But astronomers know that the Earth regularly wobbles very slowly on its axis over a period of 26,000 years and so in ancient Egyptian times there would have been no star overhead marking true north.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/sci_tech/highlights/001116_pyramids.shtml
Link to post
Share on other sites
I

 

Spiritual, to me, is energy. Not 'worship', not religion.

 

So, to me, spirituality/worship is energy. Where do you put your energy and where do you get it?

 

Oh, I see. I was going off a dictionary definition, like:

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spiritual

 

I do find that "spirituality" and such words are tossed around to fit many opinions. Perhaps that has something to do with my slight gut-clutch when I see the word. What the heck is meant by it?

 

I would call that "energy" of which you speak passion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I really like quantum physics. I love learning about how energy hangs out and manifests itself. We've been househunting, and you can feel the emotion of the people in a house-the ones facing foreclosure-I swear you can smell the desperation. It took me hours to shake it one day-and even then it still lingered bits. You can feel the lies, and you can also feel the love and 'home'.

 

Spiritual, to me, is energy. Not 'worship', not religion. I hate religion. Man made rules. Why not believe in Ra if you have to follow one man's interpretation of how to be a Christian? So, there's my beliefs in a nutshell. (Yes, I'd be burned, too)

 

So, to me, spirituality/worship is energy. Where do you put your energy and where do you get it? When I say we have God shaped holes, I was speaking Christianese-sorry. But I believe we have need to give and share that energy. Some use their powers for evil, true. You can't say the universe is evil because evil people reside on the earth, no?

 

I wish to be your friend in real life. :001_smile:

 

 

a

Link to post
Share on other sites
My girls are young, so for now, I will be teaching creation and no evolution. Period. When they get older we may discuss the "theory" of evolution but definitely only in an evolution versus creation and why evolution is wrong manner.

 

IMO God didn't intend for the Bible to be used as a science text.

 

And yet, people continue to try and use it as a science text, ill preparing their children to compete in the world we live in. Evolution is not wrong. It's not an opinion, it's verifiable fact. I'm sorry this fact stomps on the worldview many people wish to hold. Well, no... I'm not sorry. It is what it is. It's simply ignorant to pretend that the Theory of Evolution is a guess, that's what you're saying when you put the word "theory" in quotes. How can you say that magic is a valid alternative to science?

 

Does anyone even know what the Theory of Evolution is? Or is it simply condemned because it invalidates a literal acceptance of the Bible?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. I wouldn't avoid teaching evolution. It's an evidence-based scientific theory, and I am teaching my children to base their learning on evidence, not fancy or dogma. It's not "just a theory," unless you completely lack understanding of what that word means, scientifically. I'm not tap-dancing around accuracy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Divinely inspired does equate directly to "isn't wrong."

 

Of course it doesn't. The original text could be divinely inspired but centuries of copying could have introduced errors.

 

Regardless, divinely inspired means inspired by the divine. No more then that should be assumed unless you're looking for a shortcut through the hard work of sound reasoning to make a point. Especially when we're faced with the fact that churches exist that call the Bible divinely inspired but do not believe it is inerrant. And it's inerrancy that you're really talking about.

 

There's also another fallacy at work here. That true equals factual and that not wrong equals factual as well.

 

 

It means that there are things an omnipotent deity would know that men would not. Things like the the ancient belief that the world was surrounded by a metallic sphere through upon which the stars where hung. Also though which "doors" were opened to allow flood waters through. Belief in astrology, that stars sent messages to the people of the earth. These types of things are utter nonsense yet they are referenced in the Bible.

 

Bone to pick. Have some respect for astrology. No, not the modern foolishness in the newspapers but the ancient art of it. The foundations of math, science and philosophy lay in astrology. Perhaps the fact is that astrology ultimately tells us nothing about ourselves as individuals but the truth is that astrology drove us to find out about the world around us, how it works and put us on the path that led to science as we know it today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you accept that "God" exists. If not, well... I'm sorry but I accept no criticism based upon the existence of a being I simply don't believe in. That's your house of cards, not mine.

 

You don't need to believe in God to accept the Bible has literary elements. You just need a few good books on textual criticism and biblical scholaship.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bone to pick. Have some respect for astrology. No, not the modern foolishness in the newspapers but the ancient art of it. The foundations of math, science and philosophy lay in astrology. Perhaps the fact is that astrology ultimately tells us nothing about ourselves as individuals but the truth is that astrology drove us to find out about the world around us, how it works and put us on the path that led to science as we know it today.

Can you show me more about that one?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you show me more about that one?

 

Sit back and think about it. If you're an ancient Babylonian or Egyptian and you believe the heavenly bodies have something to tell you about yourself or your land then you need to be familiar with them. You have to map them, you have to measure them, measure their movements, observe their cycles (and perhaps incorporate them into a calender? :)), predict events like an eclipse, etc. And to do all that you need math to measure and calculate, precise tools to do the measuring, practical means of recording and organizing information, etc.

 

Alchemy is much the same. Along the way of looking for things not factually possible chemistry was developed.

 

A good history of science book should give you an outline of this. I know TTC has an excellent course that, I think, touches on the importance of some pseudosciences like astrology and alchemy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This debate was over and now we are starting to get insulting again. Can't we just let this thread be? And please, at the very least, read what has already occured instead of bringing up the same lame arguments about the sun and the filament (firmament, sorry I am too short on time to check and edit at the moment)?

 

Does anyone even know what the Theory of Evolution is? Or is it simply condemned because it invalidates a literal acceptance of the Bible?
You may be right in some cases, but there are plenty of people who have studied evolution at length and come to the conclusion that it is not a valid understanding of how we came to be here. I am one of them. I still find it fascinating and would never dream of not teaching my children about evolution. But I feel that there are plenty of holes in the idea of evolution by chance. There are also scientists who have started out grounded in evolution and changed their mind.

 

Dawn... I love ya!!! mmmmmwwwwaaaaahhhhh

Link to post
Share on other sites
You may be right in some cases, but there are plenty of people who have studied evolution at length and come to the conclusion that it is not a valid understanding of how we came to be here. I am one of them. I still find it fascinating and would never dream of not teaching my children about evolution. But I feel that there are plenty of holes in the idea of evolution by chance. There are also scientists who have started out grounded in evolution and changed their mind.

Then you are studying strawmen. Your simple statement, "evolution by chance" shows you are not studying the Theory of Evolution but rather a clumsy strawman put for forth by detractors specifically for the purpose of making it look ridiculous.

 

And yes, there are a few scientists who have decided to come forward with their belief in creationism. Very few. You'd be hard pressed to come up with a dinner party. Creationism however, is not an alternate to the Theory of Evolution. In fact, there is no alternate. There is the Theory of Evolution which explains how life became so diverse on this planet and without it nothing in biology makes sense. There are those, such as the Discovery Institute, who pretend that Creationism is an alternate theory. They pretend to be doing research. Yet nothing of any value ever comes out of there. No published papers, no discoveries, no Nobel prizes... nothing but apologetics.

 

So I have to wonder... what exactly are you teaching your children when you teach them about "evolution by chance"? Do you teach them about how we used to believe in creationism because there simply was no other explanation? Do you teach them about how Darwin first synthesized the idea of evolution by natural selection in his book, The Origin of the Species but that he delayed the publication out of fear of the repercussions from religious organizations? Do you teach them that evolution is really very simple... it's genes passed down from parents to children. Then there are two major mechanisms at work that determine which variations of genes will become more common in a population: Natural Selection and Genetic Drift. Do you teach them that an organism will die with the genes that it's born with. Change happens between generations. Do you teach them that Darwin wrote about all of this before we knew about DNA and how genes actually worked. It's only been since we merged with Medelian genetics that we have the modern evolutionary synthesis that proves what Darwin predicted.

 

Or do you just teach them that evolution is wrong?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Then you are studying strawmen. Your simple statement, "evolution by chance" shows you are not studying the Theory of Evolution but rather a clumsy strawman put for forth by detractors specifically for the purpose of making it look ridiculous.

 

 

WOAH Phred, you make some good points, but you could lower the tone. Of all the people on this board there is no one I know who more open to learning (if they have an idea "muddled") than Carmen. I'd I'd like to see you around awhile.

 

It's true that "evolution" doesn't happen by "chance".

 

Mutations happen by "chance." Most mutations are bad (or disadvantageous) and thus die out of a population. Some chance mutations confer advantage to individuals in their specific environment and are spread through reproduction.

 

So evolution happens by "natural selection." Where the driving mechanism behind evolution, ie mutation, does happen by chance.

 

Lay-man's explanation.

 

Bill

Edited by Spy Car
Link to post
Share on other sites
Then you are studying strawmen. Your simple statement, "evolution by chance" shows you are not studying the Theory of Evolution but rather a clumsy strawman put for forth by detractors specifically for the purpose of making it look ridiculous.

 

And yes, there are a few scientists who have decided to come forward with their belief in creationism. Very few. You'd be hard pressed to come up with a dinner party. Creationism however, is not an alternate to the Theory of Evolution. In fact, there is no alternate. There is the Theory of Evolution which explains how life became so diverse on this planet and without it nothing in biology makes sense. There are those, such as the Discovery Institute, who pretend that Creationism is an alternate theory. They pretend to be doing research. Yet nothing of any value ever comes out of there. No published papers, no discoveries, no Nobel prizes... nothing but apologetics.

 

So I have to wonder... what exactly are you teaching your children when you teach them about "evolution by chance"? Do you teach them about how we used to believe in creationism because there simply was no other explanation? Do you teach them about how Darwin first synthesized the idea of evolution by natural selection in his book, The Origin of the Species but that he delayed the publication out of fear of the repercussions from religious organizations? Do you teach them that evolution is really very simple... it's genes passed down from parents to children. Then there are two major mechanisms at work that determine which variations of genes will become more common in a population: Natural Selection and Genetic Drift. Do you teach them that an organism will die with the genes that it's born with. Change happens between generations. Do you teach them that Darwin wrote about all of this before we knew about DNA and how genes actually worked. It's only been since we merged with Medelian genetics that we have the modern evolutionary synthesis that proves what Darwin predicted.

 

Or do you just teach them that evolution is wrong?

 

Phred.

 

I don't even know you. And I've had a bad, bad week.

 

But man, you win my 'post 'O the week' award.

 

I'm saving this one on a sticky.

 

Schönes Wochende people!

 

 

a

Link to post
Share on other sites
WOAH Phred, you make some good points, but you could lower the tone. Of all the people on this board there is no one I know who more open to learning (if they have an idea "muddled") than Carmen. I'd I'd like to see you around awhile.

Point taken.

 

It's true that "evolution" doesn't happen by "chance".

 

Mutations happen by "chance." Most mutations are bad (or disadvantageous) and thus die out of a population. Some chance mutations confer advantage to individuals in their specific environment and are spread through reproduction.

 

So evolution happens by "natural selection." Where the driving mechanism behind evolution, ie mutation, does happen by chance.

 

Lay-mens explanation.

 

Bill

Mostly. The term "evolution by chance" is a strawman created to make evolution sound ridiculous. You'll find that, behind it, is the idea that life went from goop to man and that transition required a gazillion throws of the dice, each one had to land a 7. You can plainly see that can't happen. The odds are just too fantastic for it to have occurred.

 

The error in this thinking is that man was the target. That somehow we were "intended". That's what "evolution by chance" means. It's code for, "evolution can't have happened".

 

Thing is, if man was "intended" then there had to be a deity behind this intention, no? If the deity was smart enough to plan for man, wouldn't this deity be powerful enough to control the throws of those dice? I mean, let's take this out to its logical conclusion. How is it that God is included for only the convenient parts of the concept?

 

Either way, the evidence shows that we evolved. I don't much care if people want to ascribe the intention of it to a deity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Bill. :)

 

Or do you just teach them that evolution is wrong?
I did state that I am fascinated by evolution. Allow me to explain. I am also fascinated by cryptozoology and eclipsazoology. You can't get into that much without learning quite a bit about evolution. We just watched a kid's documentary about the Gallapagos Islands on Darwin's birthday. I go into more details than "evolution is wrong". Evidence shows that evolution works. Land creatures become sea creatures, creatures adapt to living in a different atmosphere and in different environments. I just don't believe it happens by chance. What I mean by that is that it was all programmed into the genetic code (which we still know very little about, btw) by the creator. I also don't believe some of the specific ideas that evolutionists have. The biggest being that man evolved from animals, or that all living creatures evolved drom a single cell.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Phred.

 

I don't even know you. And I've had a bad, bad week.

 

But man, you win my 'post 'O the week' award.

 

I'm saving this one on a sticky.

 

Schönes Wochende people!

 

 

a

Yeah, I hear that... this week has been a dooozy.

 

Happy weekend to you too!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Point taken.

 

 

Mostly. The term "evolution by chance" is a strawman created to make evolution sound ridiculous. You'll find that, behind it, is the idea that life went from goop to man and that transition required a gazillion throws of the dice, each one had to land a 7. You can plainly see that can't happen. The odds are just too fantastic for it to have occurred.

 

The error in this thinking is that man was the target. That somehow we were "intended". That's what "evolution by chance" means. It's code for, "evolution can't have happened".

 

Thing is, if man was "intended" then there had to be a deity behind this intention, no? If the deity was smart enough to plan for man, wouldn't this deity be powerful enough to control the throws of those dice? I mean, let's take this out to its logical conclusion. How is it that God is included for only the convenient parts of the concept?

 

Either way, the evidence shows that we evolved. I don't much care if people want to ascribe the intention of it to a deity.

Okay, so you do get it, you just prefer to assume the worst and reply with that in mind. :001_huh:
Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you Bill. :)

 

The biggest being that man evolved from animals, or that all living creatures evolved from a single cell.

 

I've never understood why folks have a hard time with the single cell theory. We start off as an egg cell and a sperm cell, so that's two cells, but still we end up as this complex mess of about 100 trillion (give or take). You don't even have to take God out of the equation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've never understood why folks have a hard time with the single cell theory. We start off as an egg cell and a sperm cell, so that's two cells, but still we end up as this complex mess of about 100 trillion (give or take). You don't even have to take God out of the equation.
Interesting! Bit this all happens inside a womb... I will look into this idea some more. (picture thinking man smiley, hey admin, I request a thinking man smiley!)
Link to post
Share on other sites
The biggest being that man evolved from animals, or that all living creatures evolved drom a single cell.

 

Here's the thing that really got me. Way back when I wished I could go back in time and put a marker in the DNA of one of my ancestors that would not only be present in me, but also in other primates to prove that this common ancestor was common to all of us. That's when I found out about endogenous retroviruses. It seems that, in the past, a virus infected a cell. But not just any cell. An egg cell or a sperm cell. And that sperm or egg actually went on to be the one that reproduced. The virus left its mark in the DNA by injecting its own DNA into the host. So now the DNA would forever be a part of not only that creature but every creature that would come after. Just like the marker I wanted to leave. These ERVs exist and guess what? We have several of them. So do Chimpanzees. In exactly the same place in our genes. There's no way that could happen unless we share a common ancestor. We also share some of these ERVs with Gorillas and Chimps. Here's another interesting thing. All of the ERVs we share with Gorillas we share with Chimps. But not all of the ERVs we share with Chimps do we share with Gorillas. That shows that we split off from Gorillas before we split off from Chimps. Exactly as predicted. We share a common ancestor with Chimps more recently than we did with Gorillas. This is borne out by DNA, by the fossil record and by the presence of ERVs.

 

We do share a common ancestor with Chimps and Gorillas and other primates. There are ERVs in common with Bonobos and Baboons and Monkeys (New and Old world) too.

 

As to a single cell... well, everything just keeps pointing backwards. One cell or several like it. We all come from the same primordial life. One way or another... it all goes back to a very simple beginning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As to a single cell... well, everything just keeps pointing backwards. One cell or several like it. We all come from the same primordial life. One way or another... it all goes back to a very simple beginning.

 

I wish much we had the extra $$ to do that National Geo Genographic Project. https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/participate.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mostly. The term "evolution by chance" is a strawman created to make evolution sound ridiculous. You'll find that, behind it, is the idea that life went from goop to man and that transition required a gazillion throws of the dice, each one had to land a 7. You can plainly see that can't happen. The odds are just too fantastic for it to have occurred.

 

I totally agree. And yes, there is much duplicity in how the Theory of Evolution is mis-represented by anti-evolutionist organizations such as AIG.

 

It is deeply troubling that they design materials aimed at deliberately misleading people (and especially children) about what the Theory of Evolution actually states. It is a "straw man" tactic. You have that exactly right.

 

And, unfortunately, many in this online community have no real exposure to the Theory of Evolution outside the disingenuous "versions" offered up by AIG and the like.

 

With your deep understanding you can do a service in educating people and clearing up the untruths about the Theory of Evolution. Then people can decide for themselves what makes sense them.

 

I know I've blown my top more than one seeing outright fabrications substituted for the real Theory, but it's good for us both to remember that's the only expose many people in this community have had.

 

It's good to have you back!

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm answering the Title of the thread as the OP of the thread presumes the answer.

 

Yes, I do teach evolution...as a theory alongside other theories and what we believe. My children will face people of all sorts. They will have to face these theories in colleges and universities. I also teach them that even if they don't agree with it, they will be expected to listen and respond with the answers the teachers want, because the teachers don't give a flip about other theories out there, only the one they are using as their base.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...