Reply With Quote
Many of the founding fathers of different branches of science were "religious". Religion and science aren't mutually exclusive. I know I'm inviting ridicule here, but I don't believe in Evolution as it is taught now myself and I love science!
GuardianAl Frisby has spent the better part of his life in rooms filled with rebellious teenagers, but the last years have been particularly trying for the high school biology teacher. He has met parents who want him to teach that God created Eve out of Adam's rib, and then then adjusted the chromosomes to make her a woman, and who insist that Noah invited dinosaurs aboard the ark. And it is getting more difficult to keep such talk out of the classroom.
"Somewhere along the line, the students have been told the theory of evolution is not valid," he said. "In the last few years, I've had students question my teaching about cell classification and genetics, and there have been a number of comments from students saying: 'Didn't God do that'?" In Kansas, the geographical centre of America, the heart of the American heartland, the state-approved answer might soon be Yes. In the coming weeks, state educators will decide on proposed curriculum changes for high school science put forward by subscribers to the notion of "intelligent design", a modern version of creationism. If the religious right has its way, and it is a powerful force in Kansas, high school science teachers could be teaching creationist material by next September, charting an important victory in America's modern-day revolt against evolutionary science.
(snip)
The suggested changes under consideration seem innocuous at first. "A minor addition makes it clear that evolution is a theory and not a fact," says the proposed revision to the 8th grade science standard. However, Jack Krebs, a high school maths teacher on the committee drafting the new standards, argues that the campaign against evolution amounts to a stealth assault on the entire body of scientific thought. "There are two planes where they are attacking. One is evolution, and one is science itself," he said.
"They believe that the naturalistic bias of science is in fact atheistic, and that if we don't change science, we can't believe in God. And so this is really an attack on all of science. Evolution is just the weak link."
more…
Whoah....dinosaurs on the ark?
Many of the founding fathers of different branches of science were "religious". Religion and science aren't mutually exclusive. I know I'm inviting ridicule here, but I don't believe in Evolution as it is taught now myself and I love science!
I wish Dan would evolve.
SJ - What are your thoughts on evolution?I know I'm inviting ridicule here, but I don't believe in Evolution as it is taught now myself and I love science!
What was here before here was here?
Don't really see how people don't believe in evolution based on evidence, but if it is against their religion to believe that, then so be it.
None of my bussiness.
I feel the same way.
To put it in a few words, I believe in evolution guided by the hand of God. Intelligent design. Can't disprove evolution, can't prove creation, but hard to deny that intelligent design happened. Evolution by default is intelligent design. Randomness, regardless of time, will always beget randomness.
What was here before here was here?
In a nuts , I believe in what has been termed as "micro-evolution", basically adaptation, such as the variations within species and the like, but I don't believe that all chemical elements evolved from one, that all life evolved from a single-celled organism, that life evolved from nothing, etc. I believe that the evidence that supports evolution is full of holes, patchy, and inconclusive. That evidence is subject to interpretation and can support creation as well, given a different set of assumptions.
I only touched on it, but I think that's enough food for thought for now...
Last edited by Samurai Jane; 02-07-2005 at 05:18 PM.
I personally believe in the BIG BANG Theory!
Just watch Karl Baugh(Sp?). The garbage he spews on TV is ridiculous.
MY FAVORITE!!!
I believe that believing in Creation and Evolution are not mutually exclusive, and those who claim so do a disservice to Science and Religion.
It all depends on what Religion you stand for....Christianity is not the be all end all...Creationism is hillarious when you think of it....plus if you look deep within other cultures and idelogies...the world is a very old place indeed.
I should probably mention that I'm not one of those that advocates taking the teaching of evolution out of schools.
That's what they taught me in Catholic school...
So what was here before here was here?
There?
Well I see that didn't elicit much of a response.
How about: What was here before 'The Big Bang'?
Another Big Bang.
And before that...?
Cue loop --> "Another big bang."
Next time you wonder why the US schools are falling behind a lot of other countries, it is because we are becoming an anti-scientific society. If we don't like evolution or global warming, why, we can solve it by believing otherwise.
If there are only "micro" evolutions, then why are there no 63 million year old dog fossils? Or for that matter, and 63 million year old mammal fossils larger than a small shrew? Only Dinosaurs. Carbon 14 dating can tell you how old fossils are. It's scientificly airtight, unless you posit a world with God as a trickster setting up things to LOOK old. Carbon 14 is a radioactive isotope that breaks down in a known, steady fashion. If you live your life according to clocks, they aren't 1/1000th as acurate as carbon 14.In a nuts , I believe in what has been termed as "micro-evolution", basically adaptation, such as the variations within species and the like, but I don't believe that all chemical elements evolved from one, that all life evolved from a single-celled organism, that life evolved from nothing, etc. I believe that the evidence that supports evolution is full of holes, patchy, and inconclusive.
I want to participate in this thread, but I can only do so in about 30 seconds... so here it goes...
1. Why do people have difficulty understanding that a series of micro's amounts to a macro?
2. Why is "evolution by default intelligent design?" What has lead you to believe such a thing?
3. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, but creation (as in what Creationists believe) and evolution are.
4. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and reading just about any readily available science journal (or the National Geographic) shows that Scientists are convinced.
5. Creationists often point to the "vast numbers of scientists" who doubt evolution (as a whole). The Creation Science Ins ute registers these scientists. There are over 300 of them! The number of scientists registers with the National Ins ute of Science is over 12,000. 300 out of 12,000 = vast?
6. Anyone who seeks to remove evolution from textbooks or present it as "just a theory" does a disserve to the Children of America, who are well below the standards of other industrialized nations. Evolution is indeed "just" a scientific theory... of course scientific theories are half a step away from "facts"- we aren't talking about the kind of theory you come up with to figure out who ate the last slice of cheesecake.
Evolution is a continuing process. If one believes in Creation as a starting point, he can also believe that we have evolved since Creation. Furthermore, one can believe that God created the earth with evidence of a past (much like Adam was created as a man and not an embryo)... evidence that can be studied and used to make scientific breakthroughs in the present.3. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, but creation (as in what Creationists believe) and evolution are.
Creationism does not need to be taught in schools, nor does "Intelligent Design" which is basically a philosophical theory. What should be encouraged, however, is the coexistance of religious and scientific theories about the beginning of the earth.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
