Was I born under a rock?(CC)(Young earth vs. old earth)

[lionfamily1999]

yes, but even scientists that are not YEC, but may entertain the notion of intelligent design are completely disregarded as well. there is a definite mindest of what is acceptable in the scientific community. when that is questioned or challenged, the result is not well for the person at hand.

:iagree:

[Wheres Toto]

yes, but even scientists that are not YEC, but may entertain the notion of intelligent design are completely disregarded as well. there is a definite mindest of what is acceptable in the scientific community. when that is questioned or challenged, the result is not well for the person at hand.

 

Any proof or evidence of this?

[KingM]

yes, but even scientists that are not YEC, but may entertain the notion of intelligent design are completely disregarded as well. there is a definite mindest of what is acceptable in the scientific community. when that is questioned or challenged, the result is not well for the person at hand.

 

They are disregarded because if they are YEC scientists, they either received a poor science education or it didn't take.

[susankenny]

Any proof or evidence of this?

 

yes. watch "expelled". then come and post back here. don't google rebuttals. actually watch it.

[LND1218]

False. First, bees are specialized wasps. They evolved from predator insects. Second, bees date to about 100 mya and flowering plants 140 mya.

 

I was being facetious about those bees... Goodness gracious - lighten up!

 

Duh of course they didn't just fly around looking pretty. Dang this why these threads get to ugly. :chillpill:

 

And while yes the belief is that they evolved from predator insects there are bee hive fossils and bee fossils that date to 140 mya. And yes they do keep pushing back the flowering plant date to match that. But the evidence is weak there.

[susankenny]

They are disregarded because if they are YEC scientists, they either received a poor science education or it didn't take.

 

You clearly have not done any research outside of your comfort zone.

[Tea Time]

I am confused by what you are saying. Are you saying that people who espouse evolution are materialists? This sounds like you are saying that those who believe in evolution are not religious or are of a false religion IMHO. There are many Christians who believe in creation and evolution and who do not take Genesis literally and I do not think they are lesser Christians. I think Jesus is more concerned with the golden rule than with whether we believe in Genesis literally or in evolution IMHO.

 

ma·te·ri·al·ism (m-tîr--lzm)

n.

1. Philosophy The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

2. The theory or attitude that physical well-being and worldly possessions constitute the greatest good and highest value in life.

3. A great or excessive regard for worldly concerns.

 

I am talking about materialists in bold above. I am well aware that many religious people also believe in evolution, and I definitely do not think they have an inferior faith.

 

Belief in evolution by itself does not constitute a materialist; however, most materialists do believe in evolution. I do not believe many people are true materialists, and I do not believe most people who think of themselves as materialists really meditate on the full ramifications of that philosophy. You would have to trail back to the other posts to follow the whole train of thought, and you would have to be crazy to do that. :D

[lionfamily1999]

They are disregarded because if they are YEC scientists, they either received a poor science education or it didn't take.

Not all scientists that have been cast aside have been YEC, or religious, YE. Some just believe there is an intelligent force behind the beginning.

[Tea Time]

Okay, I hate to quote myself because it seems narcissistic, but this is the relevant part of my post. You can kind of tell by the starting - "But seriously..."

But seriously, like I said in my post (the relevant parts don't seem to make it), I think that people will self select at levels in science where these concepts become critical. There is no need to ask politicians and employees what their religious beliefs are about evolution unless you have a specific need for a specific type of science to be done. And, even then, other questions will make that clear, won't they?

 

As Dottie noted, some of these questions, when they are being asked, are not about science at all but about gay marriage and abortion, and that is a different agenda.

 

Belief in God has nothing to do with it. Understanding of science, the scientific method, and the possession of critical thinking skills are very important. If they believe the earth is 6,000 years old, either they did not receive a good science education or it didn't take. Either of those things would disqualify them for a job in the sciences.

 

There have to be more questions than just, "Do you believe in evolution?" doesn't there? I just don't like the evolution question as a litmus test because it can be expanded to your plumber in pretty short order. Ask the questions that you need to tell if they received a good education. Make it specific. There are a lot of unprepared people out there who do believe in evolution.

[Beth in SW WA]

I think that how we believe the earth came into being has a lot to do with our understanding of faith and more importantly, our view of God. Each theory sets out your symbolic beginning of who you expect God to be.

 

If you believe God started it all in 6 days, zip, poof, pow then your God is zip, poof, pow. I get why people want the magic show--haven't we always wanted it? I mean, don't we just all love the shine and wonder of it all? Every age has a Pardoner, you know, and we want to buy it all? We want all of that and creation in 6 days feeds that. That is how you expect God to communicate with you. Flash bang, zip, poof, pow. A laser light show.

 

If you believe God pulled the big bang together with natural forces billions of years ago, that he used the process of natural selection to build this most amazing world, that he is so patient that millions of years of volcanoes, drips of water, mud, can come together to build this moment---then you know God's plan isn't over yet. It's taken billions of years to get here, to this moment, and I'm sure he's not done. You can walk, day by day, with faith that His work is slow and beautiful. That He takes the worst heavings of this world and works them into beauty and that he has years yet to work on us and this earth. You have an organic view of God. He speaks to you organically. It's a slow thing, as opposed to a drive through.

 

What I do know of God is that he never does things the way we expect. I love that show, The Naked Archeologist and how he delves into those bible stories and tries to work out how they might have happened with science and research. The things he finds seem natural-these natural occurrences that *were* miracles. And in hindsight, I see that God used the small natural occurrences to work the biggest miracles in MY life. Pushing me and pulling me here and there-backing me into places and making me turn over stones I wouldn't have previously-but it's all God and it's all organic. I think it's actually a more accessible view of God, and one that *for me* is even more miraculous.

 

OK, sorry for the sermon.

 

eta, and I'm tired of vilifying the scientists. God is the God of science and maybe they are showing us His glory. Just because it doesn't fit with our little box of doctrine doesn't mean it's not Him. Doctrine isn't God. He's bigger than that man made device.

 

I just arrived late to this party and I have only read posts up to this one....

 

Wow, Justamouse. This is inspired. Thank you!

 

We are old-earth'ers here (creationists) and I get blasted sometimes from my young earth friends. I love the way you phrase this.

Edited November 15, 2010 by Beth in SW WA
typo

[Wheres Toto]

yes. watch "expelled". then come and post back here. don't google rebuttals. actually watch it.

 

I have watched it. I don't really see a satirical documentary that interviewed less than a dozen scientists that were supposedly fired and/or not hired due to their beliefs on intelligent design as proof.

 

You say not to look at the rebuttals but I looked at both the rebuttals and the supporting documentation at the time I watched the movie. I know that the main scientist interviewed for the movie - Richard Sternberg - was shown to have lied (he wasn't an employee but an intern of some sort, he was still working at the Smithsonian for 3 years after the publication of the ID article and he bypassed the review process for the article he published). Just one example but it does show you can't believe everything you see just because it's called a documentary.

 

I'm not saying the movie had no valid points but it hardly proves a wide-spread conspiracy against Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design may or may not be true but it is not Science. Science is all about proving through observation and experimentation. How do you prove the existance of a supernatural being?

 

I have heard before the idea that Hitler used Darwin's ideas to justify the Holocaust (the scientific term is eugenics). Doesn't mean that Darwin meant for his ideas to be used this way.

[SailorMom]

I really try not to judge, and some of my good friends are YEC - we get along just fine. I am not....

I am a diest, and a believer in evolution and the Big - well - whatever it was. I suppose for now we can call it the Big Bang - but I don't think physicists are sure the moniker fits.

 

Anyway - my little addition to the conversation will be this:

 

I don't think God (yours, mine, and ours) or Jesus (an amazing person) cares all that much what we think about where it all came from. Really.

 

I don't think I've ever read anything Jesus wrote about the age of the earth or prophetically denouncing evolution.

 

I think these legalistic arguments are a detriment to true spirituality and love of God no matter what your religion is. I, as a former Christian, would love to see Christians who focus on the word of Jesus and his teachings rather than argue over biblical "facts".

[elfgivas]

you asked some great questions, and i'm going to separate them out for clarity.

 

 

The Cambrian jellyfish fossils for example can be evidence of this.(the flood) I mean how on earth does a jellyfish fossilize over many years? Wouldn't a soft body creature like that just deteriorate?

 

try this

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fossils-suggest-jellyfish'>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fossils-suggest-jellyfish'>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fossils-suggest-jellyfish'>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fossils-suggest-jellyfish

or this

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fossils-suggest-jellyfish

 

ann

[elfgivas]

speaking of plate tectonics...

 

Yes, that is an observation, but how do you know they have always moved at that rate? While this is what Uniformitarianism states, we know that catastrophic events occurr through time that change the landscape of earth. Just look at what a hurricane does or an earthquake, maybe a volcanic eruption or tsunami. These have to be taken into account.

 

 

 

this is actually cause and effect reversed. the movement of the earth's plates can cause mountains to be raised up, and earthquakes, eruptions and tsunamis, but the cataclysmic events are the result of the plates moving NOT the cause of them moving.

 

here's a link to an overview of plate movement and the results

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/dynamic.html

 

i'm having a much harder time finding a link to the research on uniform plate movement that is accessible for most folks. i'll keep looking.

 

hth,

ann

[mytwomonkeys]

Intelligent Design may or may not be true but it is not Science. Science is all about proving through observation and experimentation. How do you prove the existance of a supernatural being?

 

i disagree with you. you can visit www.intelligentdesign.org where the website specifically addresses this.

 

also, i posted this reply once before in the thread earlier...

 

intelligent design primarily interprets data (rather than accumulating it), and imho, that doesn’t make it unscientific. i'm not even referencing old earth/young earth here....just the *idea* that intelligent design could have had its hand involved here. it seems people complain that ID is not science because it is not based on observation and experiment, but imo, this charge is false because intelligent design scientists rely on research already done by others (and some writers like behe have independently done & published significant research). but the main contribution of ID is very logical... which is to evaluate what is necessary to verify evolutionary theory, to judge whether the evidence establishes it, and if not, what changes must be made to evolutionary theory to make it credible.

[Lovedtodeath]

I don't know anything about these pictures, but there are hundreds of ways to show similarities between species or sub-populations of species. You can look at the DNA, for example and see that an Irishman is more closely related to an Italian than to a Japanese. You can see that a chimpanzee is more related to a human than to a monkey, that a dog is more closely related to a coyote than a fox, but more related to a fox than an elephant.

 

Taking this last example, we can also tell that they're more closely related because you can cross a dog with a coyote but not with a fox. You can then examine skeletons of dogs found in ancient sites and see that their skeletons are less gracilized compared to their modern counterparts, and that human skeletons have similarly become gracilized over tens of thousands of years as we've become more domesticated. Believe me, there is plenty of evidence for evolution that has nothing to do with 150 year old drawings.

Just so you know, Creationists do not ignore evidence. They are not ignorant of it, even though I didn't know this a few months ago when I called their ideas ludicrous. ;) Baraminology is a creation biology discipline that studies of the ancestry of life on Earth (biosystematics). Holobaramin (holo-, from the Greek ὅλος, holos for "whole") is an entire group of living and/or extinct forms of life understood to share genetic relationship by common ancestry. It is a grouping that contains all organisms related by descent, not excluding any.

 

And about your previous post... Fair enough. I will read your article if you read mine. :D

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/hominid-baraminology

[Lovedtodeath]

speaking of plate tectonics...

 

this is actually cause and effect reversed. the movement of the earth's plates can cause mountains to be raised up, and earthquakes, eruptions and tsunamis, but the cataclysmic events are the result of the plates moving NOT the cause of them moving.

:iagree:But then what causes them to move? Why is the sea floor younger than the sediments on the continents and why is old sea floor pushed under the continents (seen with seismology)? I recently saw a video that claimed this was evidence for catastrophic plate tectonics being the cause of the flood? I intend to get some books on plate tectonics next time I have play money. :D

[elfgivas]

:iagree:But then what causes them to move? Why is the sea floor younger than the sediments on the continents and why is old sea floor pushed under the continents (seen with seismology)? I recently saw a video that claimed this was evidence for catastrophic plate tectonics being the cause of the flood? I intend to get some books on plate tectonics next time I have play money. :D

 

the reason for the movement is actually covered in the link i sent from the usgs.

 

did you have a chance to read it?

 

ann

 

ps. it covers the sea floor that is being created as the plates move apart, too.

Edited November 16, 2010 by elfgivas@yahoo.com

[lionfamily1999]

i disagree with you. you can visit www.intelligentdesign.org where the website specifically addresses this.

 

also, i posted this reply once before in the thread earlier...

 

intelligent design primarily interprets data (rather than accumulating it), and imho, that doesn’t make it unscientific. i'm not even referencing old earth/young earth here....just the *idea* that intelligent design could have had its hand involved here. it seems people complain that ID is not science because it is not based on observation and experiment, but imo, this charge is false because intelligent design scientists rely on research already done by others (and some writers like behe have independently done & published significant research). but the main contribution of ID is very logical... which is to evaluate what is necessary to verify evolutionary theory, to judge whether the evidence establishes it, and if not, what changes must be made to evolutionary theory to make it credible.

:iagree:

[amey311]

To jump back into the fray. Those that think ID or creation theory should be taught in schools alongside Darwinism - which creation theories? Only Christian ones? How detailed does the creation theory need to be?

 

This came up when Kansas decided it wanted to do ID in public schools. What makes the Christian creation theory more plausible than this one: http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/ ? Or this one: http://www.bonafidescientology.org/Chapter/02/page05.htm

[justamouse]

Should we break out the Irish drinking songs?

[KingM]

Just so you know, Creationists do not ignore evidence. They are not ignorant of it, even though I didn't know this a few months ago when I called their ideas ludicrous. ;) Baraminology is a creation biology discipline that studies of the ancestry of life on Earth (biosystematics). Holobaramin (holo-, from the Greek ὅλος, holos for "whole") is an entire group of living and/or extinct forms of life understood to share genetic relationship by common ancestry. It is a grouping that contains all organisms related by descent, not excluding any.

 

And about your previous post... Fair enough. I will read your article if you read mine. :D

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/hominid-baraminology

 

Okay, although you have to realize that baraminology is regarded by scientists as a pseudoscience, an attempt to refute cladistics, because the commonly accepted taxonomy doesn't agree with the Bible.

 

This is what Wikipedia says:

 

Baraminology has been heavily criticized for its lack of rigorous testing and post-study rejection of data not supporting desired findings.[20] Universal common descent, which states that all life shares a common ancestor, is well-established and tested, and is a scientifically-verified fact.[21] However, neither cladistics, the field devoted to classifying living things according to the ancestral relationships between them, nor the scientific consensus on transitional fossils are accepted by baraminologists.[22]

Despite voluminous evidence for evolution at and above the species level, baraminologists reject universal common descent and the emergence of new families and higher taxa.

 

 

[justamouse]

Actually, it isn't my take on faith, I just like arguing. :001_smile:

 

 

 

asta

 

:lol:

 

I, myself, can be quite the contrarian. I know, it comes as a surprise to many. :D (I actually believe what I said though, lo those many pages ago)

[KingM]

Okay, I hate to quote myself because it seems narcissistic, but this is the relevant part of my post. You can kind of tell by the starting - "But seriously..."

 

 

 

 

There have to be more questions than just, "Do you believe in evolution?" doesn't there? I just don't like the evolution question as a litmus test because it can be expanded to your plumber in pretty short order. Ask the questions that you need to tell if they received a good education. Make it specific. There are a lot of unprepared people out there who do believe in evolution.

 

No, I wouldn't say that a belief in evolution would be the most important detail in any job I have have ever had. Before I changed careers, I worked on nuclear submarine simulators, so evolution or the age of the earth didn't come up so often in our algorithms. However, if, all other things being equal, an applicant had said he believed the earth was 6,000 years old, this would have raised serious questions about his or her science education.

 

Note that probably 3/4 of my teammates were Christians of some stripe, mostly Catholics, but also someone who belonged to Assemblies of God, so it didn't have anything to do with whether or not someone had a theistic outlook on life.

[mytwomonkeys]

To jump back into the fray. Those that think ID or creation theory should be taught in schools alongside Darwinism - which creation theories? Only Christian ones? How detailed does the creation theory need to be?

 

well, if you actually look at the ID website, they clearly say they don't feel ID should be mandatory. here's their comments taken directly from the website.

 

Don’t Require The Teaching of Intelligent Design

All of the major pro-intelligent design organizations oppose any efforts to require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education. The mainstream ID movement agrees that attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scientists and within the scientific community.

Teach More About Evolution

Instead of mandating intelligent design, the major pro-ID organizations seek to increase the coverage of evolution in textbooks by teaching students about both scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolution. Most school districts today teach only a one-sided version of evolution which presents only the facts which supposedly support the theory. But most pro-ID organizations think evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned.

Protect Academic Freedom

Although pro-ID organizations do not advocate requiring the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, they also believe there is nothing unconstitutional about voluntarily discussing the scientific theory of design in the classroom. Pro-ID organizations oppose efforts to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss the scientific debate over design in an objective and pedagogically appropriate manner

 

 

Now, I for one believe in creation and choose to teach my children this way. One of the reasons I love to homeschool is because we have this freedom, but I can honestly say I would not expect the creation story from Genesis to be taught in a public school setting. I agree completely that this is faith based. However, I have really enjoyed following the ID movement & their resources are excellent. I absolutely feel they hold their own within the scientific community & find their approach to evolution being taught in the public schools much more unbiased than the current model.

[Wheres Toto]

i disagree with you. you can visit www.intelligentdesign.org where the website specifically addresses this.

 

also, i posted this reply once before in the thread earlier...

 

intelligent design primarily interprets data (rather than accumulating it), and imho, that doesn’t make it unscientific. i'm not even referencing old earth/young earth here....just the *idea* that intelligent design could have had its hand involved here. it seems people complain that ID is not science because it is not based on observation and experiment, but imo, this charge is false because intelligent design scientists rely on research already done by others (and some writers like behe have independently done & published significant research). but the main contribution of ID is very logical... which is to evaluate what is necessary to verify evolutionary theory, to judge whether the evidence establishes it, and if not, what changes must be made to evolutionary theory to make it credible.

 

I actually don't dismiss ID as a possible factor in evolution. But, from the website you linked, the research they are doing is backwards to the Scientific Method. They have decided what they are looking for and are searching for the "proof" by looking signs of intelligent acts. And dismissing those things that don't fit the theory. An intelligence so advanced as to have created the universe and be directing evolution would probably be so far past our understanding as to have absolutely no relation to what we view as intelligence.

 

From the site:

"Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence"

 

They also are working with a definition of natural selection that only includes completely random mutations, whereas the main idea of natural selection is survival of the fittest. That those mutations that are most beneficial will survive. I also was not able to find that quote on the National Association of Biology Teachers site. Their current Statement on Teaching Evolution is here and was actually adopted over ten years ago.

 

"However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution)."

[amey311]

Should we break out the Irish drinking songs?

 

I need to decide if I'm willing to drink when I'm parenting solo. The past couple of days I've abstained because "what if there was an emergency?"

 

I think today, though, (my last night alone) I'm going to let loose because I know I have people I could call if I had a catastrophe and couldn't drive.

[mytwomonkeys]

dorothy, they have so much information, resources, videos etc. at their website, as well as many other websites linked there. proponents of ID are not narrow in their process at all imho. i'm sorry your findings made you believe otherwise. we'll just agree to disagree.

[Wheres Toto]

I don't dismiss the possibility of Intelligent Design. I just don't feel it is something that can be proven scientifically (or any other way).

[Rivka]

yes, but even scientists that are not YEC, but may entertain the notion of intelligent design are completely disregarded as well. there is a definite mindest of what is acceptable in the scientific community. when that is questioned or challenged, the result is not well for the person at hand.

 

I think scientists reject intelligent design because it runs contrary to the fundamental principles of science.

 

Intelligent design arguments shut inquiry down. They boil down to "if we can't see how it was done, it must have been done by a supernatural force." ID proponents don't put forth testable hypotheses which advance our knowledge of natural processes; they label certain natural processes as unknowable. The fundamental ID argument of irreducible complexity means "don't bother trying to figure out how this could have happened by natural means, because it couldn't have." And that is antithetical to the principles of science. Science works to fill in gaps with series of experiments and observations and cross-reasoning. It never assumes that what we don't yet know is unknowable.

[Rivka]

Should we break out the Irish drinking songs?

 

Malt does more than Milton can

To justify God's ways to man.

 

;)

[Lovedtodeath]

Just an interesting tid-bit... I love researching this stuff. 'According to Loren C. Eiseley, Benjamin Franklin Professor of Anthropology and the History of Science at the University of Pennsylvania before his death, "the leading tenets of Darwin's work — the struggle for existence, variation, natural selection, and S@xual selection — are all fully expressed" in a paper written by creationist Edward Blyth in 1835.'

i'm totally happy for you ~ and i'm not saying that in sarcasm or anything, i really am...you sound like some doubts/confusion/etc got lifted for you and that's always an awesome feeling. :D

:iagree:

 

I actually don't dismiss ID as a possible factor in evolution. But, from the website you linked, the research they are doing is backwards to the Scientific Method. They have decided what they are looking for and are searching for the "proof" by looking signs of intelligent acts. And dismissing those things that don't fit the theory. Don't Evolutionists do the same thing? They search for missing links don't they? They actually routinely label things as missing links and later decide that it was wrong. An intelligence so advanced as to have created the universe and be directing evolution would probably be so far past our understanding as to have absolutely no relation to what we view as intelligence.

 

From the site:

"Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence"

 

They also are working with a definition of natural selection that only includes completely random mutations, whereas the main idea of natural selection is survival of the fittest. That those mutations that are most beneficial will survive. I also was not able to find that quote on the National Association of Biology Teachers site. Their current Statement on Teaching Evolution is here and was actually adopted over ten years ago. Um, the bolded is correct, right?

 

"However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution)."

 

Okay, although you have to realize that baraminology is regarded by scientists as a pseudoscience, an attempt to refute cladistics, because the commonly accepted taxonomy doesn't agree with the Bible.

 

This is what Wikipedia says: Interesting. I discovered baraminology a week or so ago... I am new to all of this stuff. ;)

. Edited November 16, 2010 by Lovedtodeath

[LibraryLover]

Rivka, dude.

 

:lol:

[justamouse]

Malt does more than Milton can

To justify God's ways to man.

 

;)

 

 

That is just too brilliant. Touche.

[Tea Time]

No, I wouldn't say that a belief in evolution would be the most important detail in any job I have have ever had. Before I changed careers, I worked on nuclear submarine simulators, so evolution or the age of the earth didn't come up so often in our algorithms. However, if, all other things being equal, an applicant had said he believed the earth was 6,000 years old, this would have raised serious questions about his or her science education.

 

Note that probably 3/4 of my teammates were Christians of some stripe, mostly Catholics, but also someone who belonged to Assemblies of God, so it didn't have anything to do with whether or not someone had a theistic outlook on life.

 

Fair enough! I appreciate your perspective. Thanks for sharing.

[Lovedtodeath]

I think there would be more of a turning back to God if this was widely taught (if it were taught seriously.).

And this line is problematic because there are Christians who get upset when they are told that they can accept evolution OR God but not both. I don't feel "judged". :lol: I feel irritated that some people in the YE group paint all evolutionists as atheists or gravely misguided souls (or both). :glare:

That is not how I understood it. I know of some theistic evolutionists with strong faith, but I also know of some people who have returned to God or turned to God after reading some Creationists articles. They could not have a strong faith because science and the Bible seemed to contradict each other.

[Lovedtodeath]

Evolution is taught as fact in our CA schools, yet it is unproven. I've yet to see a true transitional species.

There seems to be a pretty good case for whales...

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtransitional.shtml

 

 

http://www.thisviewoflife.org/references/papers/Thewissen%20and%20Bajpai%202001-%20Whale%20Origins.pdf

[Mrs Mungo]

To jump back into the fray. Those that think ID or creation theory should be taught in schools alongside Darwinism - which creation theories? Only Christian ones? How detailed does the creation theory need to be?

 

This came up when Kansas decided it wanted to do ID in public schools. What makes the Christian creation theory more plausible than this one: http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/ ? Or this one: http://www.bonafidescientology.org/Chapter/02/page05.htm

 

I think the chart on global warming and pirates is my favorite chart, ever.

[Rivka]

Rivka, dude.

 

:lol:

 

Hey, this is a classical education board. I'm just doing my part, quoting classical literature. :D

[Veritaserum]

That is not how I understood it. I know of some theistic evolutionists with strong faith, but I also know of some people who have returned to God or turned to God after reading some Creationists articles. They could not have a strong faith because science and the Bible seemed to contradict each other.

 

Ok, but when I read answersingenesis or other pro-Creationist literature it makes me question if I want to share a religion with those people. Trying to force science to fit a narrow interpretation of the Bible just leaves me shaking my head. It pushes me away from Christianity to be told by Christians that a literal interpretation of the Biblical creation story fits with science. :001_huh: Apparently, the destruction of faith goes both ways. Just sayin'. :tongue_smilie:

[asta]

How come everyone who isn't a Christian (excepting the Catholics) doesn't argue about evolution intruding on their faith / being a bunch of hooey?

 

Is it because they aren't enlightened enough to have come to the "one, real truth"? Have better things to do with their time? Or have they just figured out that perhaps god is bigger than they are?

 

Just wondering.

 

 

asta

Edited November 16, 2010 by asta

[KingM]

How come everyone who isn't a Christian (excepting the Catholics) doesn't argue about evolution intruding on their faith / being a bunch of hooey?

 

Fundamentalist Muslims don't like evolution, either. Of course there are also complicated mathematical structures taught at certain Islamic schools that "prove" that the earth really is the center of the universe and the sun really does rotate around the earth instead of vice versa. Because, you know, some interpretations of the Quran seem to say this.

[asta]

Fundamentalist Muslims don't like evolution, either. Of course there are also complicated mathematical structures taught at certain Islamic schools that "prove" that the earth really is the center of the universe and the sun really does rotate around the earth instead of vice versa. Because, you know, some interpretations of the Quran seem to say this.

 

Learn something new every day!

 

 

a

[mytwomonkeys]

my question is, why be snarky? to insinuate that myself (or others) are narrow minded (as if a tone of "enlightenment" has been in any single post here) or to compare us to muslim fundamentalists is truly insulting.

 

this thread is no longer productive, and continuing with it seems futile.

 

for those of you that shared your opposing opinions with an open mind & respectful tone, i enjoyed reading your posts.

[asta]

my question is, why be snarky? to insinuate that myself (or others) are narrow minded (as if a tone of "enlightenment" has been in any single post here) or to compare us to muslim fundamentalists is truly insulting.

 

this thread is no longer productive, and continuing with it seems futile.

 

for those of you that shared your opposing opinions with an open mind & respectful tone, i enjoyed reading your posts.

 

“Love the Lord your God with all your passion and prayer and intelligence. Love others as well as you love yourself.â€

 

(unless they're muslim fundamentalists or people with whom you disagree)

 

Turn around sucks.

 

 

a

[mytwomonkeys]

“Love the Lord your God with all your passion and prayer and intelligence. Love others as well as you love yourself.”

 

(unless they're muslim fundamentalists or people with whom you disagree)

 

Turn around sucks.

 

 

a

 

asta, your own advice would do you well. my comments throughout this board have been very respectful and my tone kind. i'm not agitated that people don't embrace creation. i stated that clearly in an earlier post & acknowledged my belief is totally faith based. so how you have translated any of my posts into seeming narrow minded or fundamental is beyond me. keeping the topic at hand as the main discussion doesn't seem unreasonable. character attack, however, seems unnecessary, unproductive, and simply disrespectful.

 

i've said all i needed too regarding this topic.

[Wheres Toto]

They also are working with a definition of natural selection that only includes completely random mutations, whereas the main idea of natural selection is survival of the fittest. That those mutations that are most beneficial will survive. I also was not able to find that quote on the National Association of Biology Teachers site. Their current Statement on Teaching Evolution is here and was actually adopted over ten years ago. Um, the bolded is correct, right?

 

"However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution)."

 

Did you go to the link? Neo-Darwinism isn't mentioned and the actual part of that statement that is being attributed to the NABT is the part about "has no discernible direction or goal, including survival of a species" which is not stated anywhere on the link (and actual is counter to the definition of natural selection). What the link does say (among other things but not any of the above):

 

"The fossil record and the diversity of extant organisms, combined with modern techniques of molecular biology, taxonomy, and geology, provide exhaustive examples of and powerful evidence for current evolutionary theory. Genetic variation, natural selection, speciation, and extinction are well-established components of modern evolutionary theory."

 

So, no the NABT is not contributing evolution solely to completely random mutations that serve no purpose.

[KingM]

my question is, why be snarky? to insinuate that myself (or others) are narrow minded (as if a tone of "enlightenment" has been in any single post here) or to compare us to muslim fundamentalists is truly insulting.

 

 

There is a point to this. If science contradicts religious beliefs, people will often come up with elaborate rational as to why science is wrong, even so far as coming up with pseudo-scientific theories supported by quasi-mathematical proofs. Intelligent design is just such a pseudo-science.

 

Certain fundamentalist readings of the Bible seem to support ID theologically, and so apologists have gone to incredible effort to prop it up scientifically. But my point about Muslim fundamentalists who prove the sun revolves around the earth is that if you want to badly enough, you can come up with a science to prove anything.

[unsinkable]

Should we break out the Irish drinking songs?

 

I'm in!!!

 

"Her eyes, they shone like diamonds.

You'd have thought she was queen of the land.

And her hair hung over her shoulders,

Tied back with a black velvet band!"

[justamouse]

How come everyone who isn't a Christian (excepting the Catholics) doesn't argue about evolution intruding on their faith / being a bunch of hooey?

 

Is it because they aren't enlightened enough to have come to the "one, real truth"? Have better things to do with their time? Or have they just figured out that perhaps god is bigger than they are?

 

Just wondering.

 

 

asta

 

Having been raised in very Christian fundamental churches...why? they believe Catholics are a cult. There is a list as to why Catholics aren't the 'right' way according to them, and won't follow anything the RCC does. To them, it's probably just cause to oppose evolution.

 

Re: science intruding on their faith-again, they believe that it SHOULD intrude on your faith and if it doesn't, u'r doin it rong. You have committed the sin of compromise and heaven forbid that happen. You've lowered your beliefs to fit science, you heretic.

 

And, they also tie their salvation into believing in a literal interpretation, which never ceases to amaze me.

 

Cognitive Dissonance as far as I'm concerned.