albeto. Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Did I say the theory of evolution is predicated on belief? You said, "Person A came to hold that belief is no more scientifically valid than the process by which Person B came to hold her belief." Because Person B comes to a belief [creationism] through faith, and you suggest the process by which Person A's conclusion [evolution] is no more scientifically valid than Person B's, I then interpreted you to imply Person A and Person B utilize the same methodology - belief. I interpreted it this way because you say one method is no more scientifically valid than the other, and creationism is predicated on belief. Therefore, I understood you to imply so too is evolution. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alte Veste Academy Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 You said, "Person A came to hold that belief is no more scientifically valid than the process by which Person B came to hold her belief." No, she said: We have the ability to do so, but careful, logical consideration of all the facts is not actually the way most people form their opinions most of the time. Person A believes that modern humans are the result of evolution acting over the span of many millennia because her school teacher told her so. Person B believes that modern humans are the result of a special act of creation by God in the much more recent past because her Sunday School teacher told her so. Person A and Person B each have beliefs about the origins of modern human derived in a very similar manner; while Person A's belief may be more scientifically valid, the process by which Person A came to hold that belief is no more scientifically valid than the process by which Person B came to hold her belief: both simply accepted what they were told by a person whose authoritative pronouncement they trusted. Because Person B comes to a belief [creationism] through faith, and you suggest the process by which Person A's conclusion [evolution] is no more scientifically valid than Person B's, I then interpreted you to imply Person A and Person B utilize the same methodology - belief. I interpreted it this way because you say one method is no more scientifically valid than the other, and creationism is predicated on belief. Therefore, I understood you to imply so too is evolution. And she is using "belief" with the definition Mommaduck cited earlier. In a true effort to be helpful, the reason your character comes into questions in these threads is because you seem to have a very hard time addressing what people are actually saying instead of what seem to be your pet talking points. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 And she is using "belief" with the definition Mommaduck cited earlier. Thank you. I read and replied to those comments earlier. I think we're going in circles now. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alte Veste Academy Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Thank you. I read and replied to those comments earlier. I think we're going in circles now. ;-) As usual in these threads. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 You said, "Person A came to hold that belief is no more scientifically valid than the process by which Person B came to hold her belief." Because Person B comes to a belief [creationism] through faith, and you suggest the process by which Person A's conclusion [evolution] is no more scientifically valid than Person B's, I then interpreted you to imply Person A and Person B utilize the same methodology - belief. I interpreted it this way because you say one method is no more scientifically valid than the other, and creationism is predicated on belief. Therefore, I understood you to imply so too is evolution. Person A and Person B did follow the same methodology in adopting their beliefs about the origins of modern humans--that methodology was simply believing/accepting/adopting (if the word belief is causing communication problems) what a teacher told them. For most people, acceptance of creationism or acceptance of evolution is predicated on no more than this. That says nothing about the actual validity of either. I have not argued that creationism and the theory of evolution are themselves built upon the same kind of foundation or process, nor that they represent similar systems of thought. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Is there a better term than "belief" to express "something one accepts as true"? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cottonwood Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Poor OP...sigh.... FWIW OP, when the kids were in public school, in 6th grade, there was a quarter-long thing about where man came from that we definitely don't agree with but we didn't stop the kids from being in that class because it brought up AWESOME discussions about why we believe what we believe. It firmed up the kids' beliefs, actually. We also use this Usborne Ency. and discuss questions surrounding those pages/chapters that conflict with our beliefs. I'd much rather have them ask those questions and use them as research topics and communicate about it. My kids are bit older, true. But I ultimately think not addressing other viewpoints might not be a good thing. They are going to find out about things like evolution one day and I think that when you aren't transparent with kids, and hide pages, etc., it becomes enticing when it could have just been part of a discussion on beliefs of other. Just b/c they learn about it doesn't mean they are going to believe it. If you're like me, you've given them MUCH more knowledge already, on your own belief system. They will still have that to go on. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 There is absolutely no difference. Both are disrespectful to others. And, yes, you have mocked others on this thread. Delivery is very important if you are hoping to get people to listen to you; it's not important if you are just enjoying listening to yourself. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Delivery is very important if you are hoping to get people to listen to you; it's not important if you are just enjoying listening to yourself. ETA: On second thought, I think it might be in our best interest to avoid discussing this further. I can't know who will be upset by ideas like suggesting "belief in evolution" should be called out as misleading. I can only make the suggestion, then explain myself as questions are raised, but at this point it seems that you insist on discussing my character. If you'd like to discuss my character, what you'd like me to change, what you think is unacceptable, or whatever, please PM me so this particular rabbit trail can be put to rest on this public thread. Let's focus on the point, and not the perceived delivery of the point. My point has been made. If you have an issue with it, I'm all ears. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 (edited) nm Edited May 11, 2015 by Susan Wise Bauer Personal attack. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aiden Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Poor OP...sigh.... Yes, definitely, poor OP. This thread was begun on the curriculum board, not the chat board. It addressed a specific audience (Christians, though I do think that in order to get the information desired, it would have been better to specify YEC Christians). It asked about a specific resource. When people complain that they feel attacked by posters of various viewpoints on these boards, they often are told to make their questions more specific, to post on the educational boards rather than the chat board, to address threads to a particular audience. The OP did all those things, and this thread still derailed. What more could she have done? Is it really so hard for posters who want to talk about tangents to start spin-off threads? (Yes, I'm being hypocritical here by not starting a spinoff thread, but this thread has been so thoroughly hijacked already that I don't think it does additional harm.) 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsuga Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 really? I thought that was the basic teaching that man evolved from apes? no? :( Not at all. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7459/full/nature12228.html The idea is that there were common ancestors which were neither human, nor apes. And then there was more and more divergence between the different descendants of those common ancestors, with major mutations leading to different species. Most mutations died out, but some of them were beneficial and enabled the holders to mate more. Many of the gene mutations we know among humanity confer a disadvantage. However, I know at least one person from a village* where many people have one extra chromosome that actually doesn't seem to cause any problems at all. It is not even identifiable, what is different about them. However, if this extra gene were to mutate in one offspring, who would continue to mate with other people in that village, and that village were somehow miraculously saved in a catastrophic famine in Europe, it is conceivable that those primates--very similar to humans, but with one more chromosome--would eventually repopulate the continent. At this point it seems unlikely. But the theory is that that is what happened to end up with all these species of primates. Most of the divergences started when there were far fewer primates. So a small population could really blossom. Those animals which had large populations early on haven't changed as much. The theory is, the new mutations didn't stand a chance against the existing population pool. *Crazy but I actually do know someone with an extra chromosome of no apparent consequence. One child of his has it, the other doesn't. They haven't tested the whole family yet. OP: I'm not a Christian, but I think Usborne is great. If you don't agree with evolution this might be a great time to explain what everyone else believes and why: the majority of the scientific community, a Christian, Muslim and Orthodox Jewish minority, other religious beliefs, as well as people who reject science altogether. Simply not exposing the kids to evolution is like me pretending Christianity doesn't exist. We discuss Christians in a respectful tone in my home. I don't believe Christianity. They don't have to believe it. But we don't have to exclude books with beliefs about god from what we read. On the contrary, we are reading Little Women and it's leading to some great discussion. Best of luck. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 It's important to understand that there are many people who "believe" in evolution without understanding it. It prevents accusing people who say "I was taught that evolution says that humans evolved from chimps" of being liars. It is entirely possible that they were taught that. And it prevents, or should prevent, hubris which believes that being "pro-science" means people are more logical or analytical or educated. The vast majority of people do "believe" in evolution, essentially as an issue of trust, or lack of really questioning what they were taught. Just like a lot of people who believe in YEC. People believe in all kinds of "scientific sounding" nonsense - that microwaves can cook your ovaries, or that vaccination causes autism or that coffee beans can aid weight loss. No doubt there are people who believe these claims are "based on science", but that only reveals their own ignorance. One should not confuse being scientifically illiterate with being "pro-science". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Susan Wise Bauer Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 1) Zombie thread. 2) Massive derail. Move on. SWB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts