Plea from a Christian: Keep My Religion out of the Science Classroom!!!!

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

It's all semantics, and I think you know that.
I love it when atheists and evolutionists try and get cute with scientific semantic terms that involve a play on the word "theory"

It's not semantics, you're merely ignorant to the use of the term 'theory' in scientific discourse. If there were no proof they would call it the 'evolution hypothesis' just like they call panspermia 'the panspermia hypothesis'

See, you're confusing the word 'theory' with 'hypothesis', a dangerous thing to do in science.

The theory of gravity is vastly different than the theory of evolution, I can prove what is scientifically called the theory of gravity by dropping a pen to the ground.

Really? How does that describe the methods by which gravity operates? How does it describe the fundamental physics of it?

All you did was prove the gravity exists. The theory of gravitation deals with the mechanics underlying the law of gravity.

The same can not be said about the totality of the theory evolution from A to Z and all it implies to the development of the human species.

...why are creationists so fixated on the development of humanity? Evolution speaks to a lot more than the development of humanity. It involves the development of all life of which humans are merely one out of an incredible variety of species.

Now, we can prove evolution quite quickly with a hell of a lot of examples of speciation events that we've observed.

Evolution is actually one of the most well-supported theories of science. I think there are only two biological theories that are more well-supported

And you guys know that, but you play that card anyways, and think you've won the argument.

No, we simply know that the theory of evolution is one of the most well supported scientific theories around.

Originally posted by Raiment
I hope your mind stays open just enough. I did probabilities on the 'common sense' thread so it is repetitious to repeat them.

Yes, you provided some random numbers, which I'm still waiting to see the arithmetic behind.

A theory being around for a while does not discredit it, in and of itself. Darwinian theory been around for some time, has it not.

Well, it does depend on whether the theory has or has not been stagnant. If a theory should have made some progress by now and hasn't, it shouldn't be held up to highly.

On the other hand, a theory like evolution has been around for quite a while and has made some quite significant leaps in complexity and understanding.

I related fine-tuning to the scientific process of making predictions, like continuing to prove there was a front-loading design process, or demonstrating that virulent bacteria had a functional logic (or) represented decay of an originally good design.

...except the teleological argument falls flat on its face.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Ok guys I looked up the definition of evolution and I see where the problem is, it is the perception of the definition of the word evolution.
You are debating on this definition and I am not, because we see some factual science in it through biology.

Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

And

biology See also natural selection a gradual change in the characteristics of a population of animals or plants over successive generations: accounts for the origin of existing species from ancestors unlike them

This is the definition I am debating and disagree with

A theory first proposed in the nineteenth century by Charles Darwin, according to which the Earth's species have changed and diversified through time under the influence of natural selection. Life on Earth is thought to have evolved in three stages. First came chemical evolution, in which organic molecules were formed. This was followed by the development of single cells capable of reproducing themselves. This stage led to the development of complex organisms capable of sexual reproduction....debates continue over the precise mechanisms involved in the process.

Cultural perception to most people when you say we got here by evolution, think, formation of one celled creature to Homo Sapient. They are not thinking about adaptation or genetic drift or even mutations. Some of the biological things that take place under the different definitions of evolution are very broad and obviously scientifically correct, of that there is no dispute.

Once again it is only semantics & perception, and in many ways the "Theory of Evolution" has a non-scientific cultural definition, and that's how it is perceived.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Well, the problem is that the various definitions seem to say the same thing.

Cultural perception to most people when you say we got here by evolution, think, formation of one celled creature to Homo Sapient.

...yes, that's part of evolution. We are one of many, many products of evolution. But the formation of the first cell isn't a part of evolution. It's called 'abiogenesis', it's an entirely separate field of study.

The term 'chemical evolution' isn't scientific. There's 'molecular evolution', the colloquial term for the progression of molecular scales. There's nucleosynthesis, the formation of more complex atoms. And there's abiogenesis, the formation of life from organic chemicals.

All of them operate under mechanisms that are hardly related to evolutionary mechanisms.

They are not thinking about adaptation or genetic drift or even mutations.

...those are evolution. The only way to go from single cell to homo sapiens over 3.5 billions of years is adaptation, genetic drift, and mutations as well as sexual and environmental selection.

And the fact that they aren't thinking about those speaks volumes about the education system and who is controlling the discourse.

Those are the only necessary things required for a single-celled organism to evolve into a complex animal organism over 3.5 billion years.

Some of the biological things that take place under the different definitions of evolution are very broad and obviously scientifically correct, of that there is no dispute.

Then where is the dispute?

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Well, the problem is that the various definitions seem to say the same thing.

Cultural perception to most people when you say we got here by evolution, think, formation of one celled creature to Homo Sapient.

...yes, that's part of evolution. We are one of many, many products of evolution. But the formation of the first cell isn't a part of evolution. It's called 'abiogenesis', it's an entirely separate field of study.

The term 'chemical evolution' isn't scientific. There's 'molecular evolution', the colloquial term for the progression of molecular scales. There's nucleosynthesis, the formation of more complex atoms. And there's abiogenesis, the formation of life from organic chemicals.

All of them operate under mechanisms that are hardly related to evolutionary mechanisms.

They are not thinking about adaptation or genetic drift or even mutations.

...those are evolution. The only way to go from single cell to homo sapiens over 3.5 billions of years is adaptation, genetic drift, and mutations as well as sexual and environmental selection.

And the fact that they aren't thinking about those speaks volumes about the education system and who is controlling the discourse.

Those are the only necessary things required for a single-celled organism to evolve into a complex animal organism over 3.5 billion years.

Some of the biological things that take place under the different definitions of evolution are very broad and obviously scientifically correct, of that there is no dispute.

Then where is the dispute?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

But the formation of the first cell isn't a part of evolution

Technically by scientific definition you are correct, Darwin really never got into that, but culturally and perception wise it is wrong. Evolution to most non-scientific people encompasses non-living matter combining into the building blocks for life all the way to male and female humans. At least that's what the evolutionists I have talked to over the years tell me, I am not going to question what they should or should not believe within the theory itself. As that would be an even bigger exercise in futility.
That's for you to educate them on the technicalities of proper scientific semantics.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

But the formation of the first cell isn't a part of evolution

Technically by scientific definition you are correct, Darwin really never got into that, but culturally and perception wise it is wrong.

Yes, and that's why science isn't subject to popular opinion and is in fact a tyranny of evidence rather than a democracy.

Popular opinion is bunk on this issue.

Evolution to most non-scientific people encompasses non-living matter combining into the building blocks for life all the way to male and female humans.

...um...well, they're wrong.

Non-living organic molecules becoming life is the area of study known as abiogenesis. I've already mentioned this.

At least that's what the evolutionists I have talked to over the years tell me, I am not going to question what they should or should not believe within the theory itself. As that would be an even bigger exercise in futility.
That's for you to educate them on the technicalities of proper scientific semantics.

It's not semantics one bit, it's merely proper definitions. Science requires proper definitions to function, as does any technical field.

If you have two engineers that have a dispute over what the value of 1 ohm is, you're going to have confusion.

If you have two biologists with a dispute over what the definition of any biological theory is, you're going to have a nightmare.

So science has standardized definitions for the simplicity of it all.

Evolution is defined as the Origin of Species, not the origin of life. Anyone who believes otherwise is simply mistaken.



And apologies for my previous double post, it was entirely unintentional and I just realized it now...and I can't change it.

Originally posted by imnotbncre8ive
With respect to "day", the fact that (supposedly) the sun did not yet exist is beside the point. It obviously refers to the length of time that would comprise a day: 24 hours. The fundamentalists are correct on this point because, much as you may hate to admit it, the fundamentalists are far more knowledgeable about the contents of the Bible than the wannabe Christians.

So you are saying that some people are able to read the Book of Genesis on a level inaccessible to others. I find such point of view preposterous. It's not "knowledge" that you should mention in this context (because it's there for all to see right in the Bible) but simply adherence to a dogma. There is a big difference, you know.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Even though you are technically correct with all your terms and reasons and explanations, you still are incapable of understanding from a position of a basic understanding with a minimum amount of knowledge. Other people perceptions within your own group of evolutionists are just wrong and that's it, according to you.
From my perspective multiple theories within the Evolution family of beliefs being argued don't help your cause, which scientist is right and which one is wrong, is subjective to personal opinion. So then at least that portion of the idea really is a theory in the truest sense.

And back to the OP topic this becomes an issue to teach in schools, teaching theories within theories within more theories, that can change with the next scientists who thinks he is smarter than the last one because he has a new theory about how evolution works

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Evolution to most non-scientific people encompasses non-living matter combining into the building blocks for life all the way to male and female humans.

Because anti-science people, like yourself, refuse to acknowledge the difference between abiogenesis and evolution and lump them together.

At least that's what the evolutionists I have talked to over the years tell me,...

What is it that they have told you? That evolution and abiogenesis are the same thing? I doubt that.

... I am not going to question what they should or should not believe within the theory itself.As that would be an even bigger exercise in futility.

But that is exactly what you have been doing.

That's for you to educate them on the technicalities of proper scientific semantics.

Thank you. We are trying. It does get a little irritating when anti-science campaigners like yourself keep muddying the waters because it is the only way your argument can be understood. I am glad to see that you have seen the light and won't be needlessly confusing your audiences in the future. Perhaps you could go further, and consent to help educate those near you that have trouble hearing our explanations.

Remember always that in science:

• a theory is an explanation that has been rigorously validated to fully describe the particular phenomenon it purports to describe (and nothing else). Theories are seldom overthrown by new data, but new data often requires modification of the theory. The "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis" is such a theory, one of the most highly supported theories in all of science.
  
• an hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a particular phenomenon, and is often incomplete. Hypotheses are in the process of being validated, individual hypotheses may be discarded and several hypotheses may be synthesized into one theory during the validation process. Abiogenesis is currently a collection of hypotheses, not yet complete, and not yet fully validated, but it is getting closer all the time.
  
• speculation has no claim to validity, but serves only to spur the imagination and drive further investigation. Unfortunately, many less thoughtful, non-technically oriented people confuse personal speculation with theory. This is fine when they are not seriously discussing science, but when discussing a technical subject, any technical subject, you must use the accepted technical jargon or the conversation is meaningless. When describing boat handling, if you give instructions for using a tiller, and the boat actually has a wheel, you will get completely backward results.
  

For more information on the difference between abiogenesis and evolution it is explained in the first 1:50 of the video I posted above (though, be warned, it is a little strident, the author is obviously exasperated with having to explain it for the 15 bazillionth time).

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Even though you are technically correct with all your terms and reasons and explanations, you still are incapable of understanding from a position of a basic understanding with a minimum amount of knowledge.

So I'm correct, but there's something bad about the fact that I have greater understanding and a fairly in-depth understanding of the theory...and that's...bad?

Other people perceptions within your own group of evolutionists are just wrong and that's it, according to you.

Well, the average person that accepts evolution doesn't hold sway over what it means. And yes, they're just wrong and that's it. Not according to me, but according to what the scientific theory states and what the evidence is.

From my perspective multiple theories within the Evolution family of beliefs being argued don't help your cause,

What? Do you mean multiple ideas relating to explanations of phenomenon that are contested? Sure, there are some different ideas about the speed at which evolution takes place and a few other factors, but the majority of the theory is uncontested and it's merely argumentation over specific mechanisms.

Oh no, the scientific method doesn't help the case of...science!

which scientist is right and which one is wrong, is subjective to personal opinion.

No, it's subject to whether or not the scientific community accepts that there is enough evidence on specific instances. Now, whether or not I support an idea that is yet to be established can be seen as a subjective view of what I think the best answer is in the situation, but it still has to rely on reason.

But can you give me an example of one of these disagreements?

So then at least that portion of the idea really is a theory in the truest sense.

No, the truest sense of a theory is the highest form of scientific thought.

Again, you're confusing the colloquial misuse of the word 'theory'. What you're thinking of is a 'hypothesis'.

And back to the OP topic this becomes an issue to teach in schools, teaching theories within theories within more theories, that can change with the next scientists who thinks he is smarter than the last one because he has a new theory about how evolution works

The majority of disagreement isn't going to be taught in high school level biology. It probably wouldn't even make it into undergraduate study.

And it's not 'theories within theories within theories'

Your demonstrated misunderstanding of science is staggering. May I recommend watching the "Cosmos" series by Carl Sagan? He's probably the most accessible champion of science in modern history, and he doesn't dumb things down. The television series is delightful, and the parts relating to evolution, though mildly outdated, are very good at clearing up certain misconceptions.

reply to post by rnaa

Because anti-science people, like yourself, refuse to acknowledge the difference between abiogenesis and evolution and lump them together.

So your saying most people that believe in evolution might not believe in abiogenesis?
The two might have different scientific titles and classifications, but that doesn't abolish the mental link between the two, they are linked. You guys keep saying no they aren't, but psychologically they are, and you know it, yet you keep beating this dead horse.

But then again you guys are what I call elite evolutionists you must keep the two separate in every way as it allows you to defend your position more effectively.
Can you answer this question then, since you are in agreement with the theory of evolution, do you support a theory within abiogenesis? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
How can you teach biology without evolution at a university level?
Especially for doctors!
No mention of how antibiotic resistance occurs? No mention of genetic markers for pathologists? No mention of genetic mutations to oncologists?
Modern medicine requires evolutionary theory to stand. The only other theory that's more necessary is germ theory.
Now, if the doctors are bible-believing and reject evolution, do they reject antibiotic resistance? Do they think that 'evil spirits' cause cancer? Can they deal with birth defects?
All of these things are explained by evolutionary theory. Not by the Bible.
Remember, a Bible-believing doctor would think that the cure for a leper would be to kill a bird...it's in the Bible, isn't it?

Creationists who want to get anywhere in science divide evolution into "micro evolution" and "macro evolution".

Micro evolution comprises everything they need to know to study medicine or whatever, so they conveniently believe that part.
Macro evolution is the rest, the stuff they can't get their indoctrinated brains around.
And besides, if they believe that they might go to hell.


Despite believing in God who mysteriously created the universe, I've yet to find a better argument for creationism than, "hey, who are you calling an ape?"

The oft-repeated watchmaker idea, although cute, is meaningless.
Despite Thomas Paine, (a deist, not a Christian,) holding this idea, it is only a belief, not a provable fact.
Life, viewed with an open heart, can appear to be miraculous, and I've taught my children that I believe it is.
However teaching that is up to a parent. There is no way I want beliefs cluttering up the classroom.

Working out the low probability of humans evolving is meaningless, because we are here, and that may just prove that a ridiculously remote possibility did happen. Or the probability may not be as low as creationists believe.


Re abiogenesis, one thing that has convinced me of the possibility of random chance bringing about the very first instance(s) of life is playing Magic the Gathering, and examining pack after pack of perfectly shuffled cards. (Yes, unlike many, I know how to shuffle properly.) Time after time the random order would have many instances of the same card clumped together, or would have cards landing in a superbly playable order, or would show a pattern that appeared to be too perfect to be random.

Random chance does not generally create a homogenous, muddy "soup".
Random chance creates patterns, all sorts of patterns.

What about if the link between spirituality, god, outer world beings and mankind could be factually proven?

If we could scientifically prove the existence of God?

Originally posted by Astyanax
His parents, incidentally, once burnt a book I wrote. Because it had photos of Hindu gods in it.

I'd love to read your book. Is it reasonable easy to obtain?
Let me know its title if you feel like doing so.

Originally posted by rnaa
. . . when discussing a technical subject, any technical subject, you must use the accepted technical jargon or the conversation is meaningless. When describing boat handling, if you give instructions for using a tiller, and the boat actually has a wheel, you will get completely backward results.

Just an aside, did you know there's a possibility that caused the Titanic disaster?

Did a Steering Error Sink the Titanic?

Titanic was launched at a time when the world was moving from sailing ships to steam ships. My grandfather, like the other senior officers on Titanic, had started out on sailing ships. And on sailing ships, they steered by what is known as “Tiller Orders” which means that if you want to go one way, you push the tiller the other way. (So if you want to go left, you push right.) It sounds counter-intuitive now, but that is what Tiller Orders were. Whereas with “Rudder Orders’ which is what steam ships used, it is like driving a car. You steer the way you want to go. It gets more confusing because, even though Titanic was a steam ship, at that time on the North Atlantic they were still using Tiller Orders. Therefore Murdoch gave the command in Tiller Orders but Hitchins, in a panic, reverted to the Rudder Orders he had been trained in. They only had four minutes to change course and by the time Murdoch spotted Hitchins’ mistake and then tried to rectify it, it was too late.’

It sure does show how important it is to stick to the predefined meanings of jargon when having a discussion.

This, after all, is what makes jargon so useful. Generally, the group using it all immediately understand what it conveys. If I want to discuss computers with a bunch of geeks, I'm not going to get very far if I keep insisting that I understand a CPU to be a Container of Poopy Underwear.

Originally posted by SonofGod25
What about if the link between spirituality, god, outer world beings and mankind could be factually proven?
If we could scientifically prove the existence of God?

Proof of the existance of God/aliens would not, on its own, disprove evolution.
If a creator created the universe and all that's in it, it may have done so by imagining the big bang, the formation of the celestial bodies, abiogenesis and evolution, then pressing a specially prepared button which would cause these chapters to start unrolling.

If aliens created us, we still have the question of how they came into being.

According to the Bible God created our brains along with the rest of us. We are said to be created in his image. We are, as a species, inquisitive, and tend to accumulate knowledge. Therefore we had to be created that way, if the Bible is correct. So it is right for us to investigate this world, to examine all that we can find, and to work out for ourselves how these discoveries fit together.

A belief in a creator is no-way contradictory to the scientific study of the world around us, and evolution is simply one fascinating part of this study.

Originally posted by Raiment
I thought there were also laws in science; although I realize a theory does not necessarily become a law. Probabilities and predictions exist in intelligent design and these have been accepted as having a high level of certainty. An example of a prediction may be:
Finding increasing evidence of fine tuning
for one. There have already been probabilities put forth in intelligent design. I hope that people have an open mind about this and not see it as retreating to Genesis.

Hmm, the more years a good wooden stringed instrument has been played, the more musical are the resonances it produces. I guess that means a creator lives inside it, continually changing the wood structure to fine-tune it.

Sorry, but there are no predictions or probabilities put forward by "intelligent design" that do anything to prove it.
So you might as well retreat to Genesis.

Or you could try to prove me wrong.

Originally posted by Raiment
Each person has his or her own conspiracy theory; I see a conspiracy in that science wants to keep the status quo and not having people raise pesky questions about evolution.

Au contraire.
It's creationists who are limiting questions. They want to proceed on the assumption that god exists and created us, and simply proceed from that assumption, designing "thought experiments" to support that theory.

Science, otoh, is all about asking questions. The proviso is that they must be intelligent questions, which take known facts into account. Some people keep asking how eyes and wings evolved, ignoring the fact that these have been explained, and been shown to evolve. All they want is to push the notion that creation is the correct explanation.

It's like arguing with Birthers. After reading 100 threads all containing the same debunked garbage, one stops considering those questions constructive. However if someone was to produce something factual, such as proof that Obama's mother actually went to Kenya during late pregnancy, that would be a fact that could be taken seriously.

Same with evolution. Setting up straw-men and knocking them down, as I've seen online creationists do, is boring. (and deceitful.) But investigating Neanderthal Man has been welcomed, with our knowledge being added to by people who didn't stop at presenting arguments, they went out and examined the evidence, seeing what can be proven. Now it can be said that it's highly probable you possess genes inherited from a Neanderthal ancestor. Interbreeding with Neanderthals, roughly 80,000 to 50,000 years ago, was part of our more recent evolution.

Originally posted by Raiment
. . . (or) represented decay of an originally good design.

Ah yes, chaos theory as espoused by creationists . . .

Would you like to explain that one to us properly?