Creationish Vs Evolutionism? BE POLITE!

What do you believe? (private)

  • Biblical Creationism (please explain)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Christian Evolution (please explain)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Non Christian Creation (please explain)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Non Christian Evolution (please explain)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Non Christian Science (please explain)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Christian Science (please explain)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • inexplicable (creation cannot be explained through current science or religion))

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other. Please explain in your post! :)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oops you're right, it is a Basilosaurus, that was also found at the site in Egypt. It is an ancestor to whales.

whale-phylogeny.png


"Creationists often deny that these vestigial limbs are evidence for evolution, noting that they could function in copulation. But that’s ridiculous, for we not only see their gradual shrinkage over time, but—more important—why would the Creator make a “copulation guide” that had every bone homologous to those of the fully-functioning hind limbs of their ancestors, and of modern tetrapods? To deny that this is evidence for evolution shows the intellectual dishonesty of creationists."

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress...c-popular-article-on-the-evolution-of-whales/
 
liamstrain said:
Houses do not breed.

And yes, we do share DNA with many other species - because all species are interconnected.

Teach science in a science class. Teach religion in a religion class. Don't mix up the two.
Click to expand...

Don't teach that one precludes the other.
 
Dorudon lived during the same period as Basilosaurus.

Figure_1.png


"Finally, at 40 million years ago, we find the fossils Basilosaurus and Dorudon--clearly fully aquatic mammals, with short necks and blowholes atop the skull. They could not have spent any time on land, for their pelvis and hindlimbs were reduced (the fifty-foot Dorudon had legs only two feet long) and were unconnected to the rest of the skeleton."
 
Codger_64 said:
Don't teach that one precludes the other.
Click to expand...

Evolution is based on facts and observation, while religion is not. There is no place for it in the public school system.

"Creation science has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand why it is false. What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious commodity in our entire intellectual heritage—good teaching—than a bill forcing our honorable teachers to sully their sacred trust by granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an enterprise?" -Stephen Jay Gould
 
Stephen Jay Gould expressed his opinion from the hallowed halls of achedemia. He claimed religion to be false doctrine, that his science was the only true religion.
 
Nixelplix said:
Evolution is based on facts and observation, while religion is not. There is no place for it in the public school system.
Click to expand...

And there you have it. There was no need to denigrate religion in order to express support for the teaching of evolution. Might I suggest a smaller point size next time? It might allow room for more acceptance.



Evolution is based on facts and observation, while religion is not. There is no place for it in the public school system.
Click to expand...
 
But they use entirely different methodologies and types of knowledge and examination. They are separate for those reasons, not the realms they touch on.

If you want to involve creationism in a science class, please also include the creation stories for all major religions, and evaluate all of them with the same methodology (scientific method - this is a science class, after all).

Unfortunately, I'm betting most students will vote for the space turtles regardless...
 
The appearance of "evolutionary biology" and "creation science" were the worst events in the history of science.
 
liamstrain said:
Houses do not breed.

And yes, we do share DNA with many other species - because all species are interconnected.

Teach science in a science class. Teach religion in a religion class. Don't mix up the two.
Click to expand...

Pretty much yeah. They answer different questions. Science looks at the natural, while religion looks at the supernatural. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and available to anyone who would open their eyes to it. To deny your children access to that wealth of information is to do them a disservice. Accepting evolution does not make you an atheist.

Today, many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth’s history. Many have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible. Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution. Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts.
​
- Nationalacademies
 
But what seems to escape many beating the science only drum is that there is no need to pit one against the other. And there is certainly no need to make claims of lack of intellegence of people who have religious beliefs.
 
Codger_64 said:
But what seems to escape many beating the science only drum is that there is no need to pit one against the other. And there is certainly no need to make claims of lack of intellegence of people who have religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

It goes both ways really. Creationists trying to push their way into science classrooms and aggressive atheists trying to push their way into religion classrooms. Science does a better job of explaining the natural, but makes no claims to the supernatural.

I'm pretty sure your first amendment had something to say about the separation of state and church. The whole not giving preferential treatment to any religion. To that end exposing children to other religions in a religion classroom could be justifiable.
 
Codger_64 said:
Both contain differing theories (explanations) for many of the same phenomenon.
Click to expand...

You are using the layman's version of "theory" which equates to a scientific hypothesis. Evolution is a scientific theory, which has been backed up by facts and observation, while religion is not:

" You've been told that "evolution is just a theory", a guess, a hunch, and not a fact, not proven. You've been misled. Keep reading, and in less than two minutes from now you'll know that you've been misinformed. We're not going to try and change your mind about evolution. We just want to point out that "it's just a theory" is not a valid argument.

The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.1 That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.

In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.

Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations)3 happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it.4 Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.

Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it's just something someone guessed at, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better. In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you.5

Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!

1 "Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." American Heritage Dictionary
2 "Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses." Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science - National Academy Press
3 A standard, scientific definition of evolution is: "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." Biology - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, W H Freeman
4 "Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution." Evolution as Fact and Theory - Stephen Jay Gould
5 The Cobb County School Board required a sticker with the following text to be placed on all biology textbooks: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." Decision of the Court Striking Down the Cobb County Evolution "

http://www.notjustatheory.com/
 
Dammit Jim, I'm a surgeon, not a scientist!

The vast majority of people on this planet are not scientists.
 
Codger_64 said:
Both contain differing theories (explanations) for many of the same phenomenon.
Click to expand...

And when those theories conflict we need to look at which theory is supported by the available evidence. If one theory has no supporting evidence it's reasonable to discard it until new evidence comes to light.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top