Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
I live just a few miles from the Kansas border and know people from Kansas. One Kansas woman I talked with told me the world is filled with demons. She tried to convert me to Christ! We biologists have the highest number of atheists of any profession because we deal with and understand evolution.
Or do we? I am surprised over all the talk of "theory." What is going on? It would appear that even biologists are still having trouble accepting that there are no absolutes. Amazingly enough, this goes back to the 1920s and 1930s when a host of scientists in different fields discovered there was no such thing as "truth." Even Einstien showed that all is relative. There are no absolutes, no "truths," so everything that is important to us to deal with is belief or theory. All we are doing, in science, is improving constantly the accuracy of what we believe. So, evolution is a far more accurate understanding of our origin and the origin of all life than the creation myth! There is no evidence to support the old myth, but plenty to support evolution. It is more accurate and its accuracy is constantly being further improved. Let the "born again" think they have "truth", let them deceive themselves, but they have only something that does not exist.
Here is the transcript of the May 5 Science Hearing of the Kansas State Board of Education http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/schearing05052005.pdf.
The notable thing about the hearing are the contradictory statements made by William Harris, PhD while being cross-examined by Mr. Pedro Irigonegaray. "William Harris, a medical researcher and co-founder of a Kansas group called the Intelligent Design Network, posed the core question about life's beginnings before mapping out why he and other Christians want changes in school curriculum." http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/5/175846/9499
Harris accepts that science should be dealing with naturalistic explanations and supernatural explanations should be not included. Yet, he objects that the science standards should mention something about guided/unguided and the fact that they don’t is a problem. (pp. 27-28 of transcript)
Harris argues that the standards should remain neutral with respect to philosophical and religious views. Yet he argues that the problem with the standards is that they do not include such views. (pp. 30-31 of transcript)
Ideology...is indispensable in any society if men are to be formed, transformed and equipped to respond to the demands of their conditions of existence. -- Louis Althusser, For Marx
The creationists arguments before the Kansas board give the appearance of reasonableness---which is characteristic of their approach. They concede science is needed, that natural cause is the way to go and all that. This is a deceiving because science is the secular, in other words, it is the profane. To them, their faith is THE TRUTH and science is superficial and unnecessary, just an big bother.
also, the connect it with amorality and associate it with our hedonistic society. The more people return back to their old faith, the more science will be in trouble. Already the creationists "reasonableness" is making friends and scientists are beginning to flow with the trend. Social scientists are notorious for that.
For example, they love to come up with theories that are popular. They want to please everyone. They love to show that religion, science and our secular beliefs are all compatable and, in fact, can be reconciled. This way our science is corrupted. In the end, if we allow religious reaction to continue thru the century, we will have no more science, hence no more technology. That means, we would be living grubbing out from subsistence farming.
It is not a habbit of mine to debate on creationist's side...
But you blame them so much that they belive their way is the truth and everything else is bogus... You seem to do the same thing but you enforce evolution not creation. I am not saying evolution is not true, i am a convinced evolutionist... But each man has the choise of what to believe in
I believe in evolution, however, I believe it was directed by some being. There are some things in the universe that can't be explained. This is not to say that they will never be explained, but they aren't at the moment. So, sometimes when there is no rational explanation, the only explanation is irrational.
"Take four red capsules, in ten minutes take two more. Help is on the way."
----- Voice from the Medicine Cabinet
Nothing wrong with a bucolic lifestyle
As for teaching evolution,
I think that there's no problem in having creationists debate with evolutionists regarding their ideals. The only problem is when the public is involved. Asking the public to decide is like asking a 5 year old which wine tastes better. They have no clue and will decide in favor of who's more eloquent.
I say, let the scientists decide. Kids in school should be taugh evolution just as they should be taught physics or math. Everyone is taught that a triangle has 180 degree angles. There's no need to elaborate on 3d triangles and situtations where Euclidian geometry fails. Once they're in college, they can choose to pick whether they want to study some of the more controversial matter i.e. creationism, the myriad of phyic theories etc.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 0 guests