Evolution and Stickers Revisted
-
To me a fact is absolute truth. This obviously differs from the scientific definition. I do not doubt evolution as such, but I have a difficult time believing we know for fact how life was created. If there is a good explanation that I haven't seen, I'd be happy to read it. BW
"Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
Today"
-Days of the Newbrianwelsch wrote: I do not doubt evolution as such, but I have a difficult time believing we know for fact how life was created. If there is a good explanation that I haven't seen, I'd be happy to read it. If you are referring to the first origin of life, then there are fragments of an explanation but, as far as I know, there is no definitive account. I expect that any decent biology textbook would make it clear that the knowledge concerning the first origin of life is significantly less than the knowledge concerning its subsequent evolution. As a point of information, the author of the textbook in question, Kenneth Miller, is a Christian. http://energion.com/books/reviews/finding_darwin.shtml[^] John Carson Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious. Oscar Wilde
-
Which means that even you can have a go at debunking it. Why don't you enlighten us with some of your insight as to why it's not correct 100%? John Theal Physicist at Large Got CAD? http://www.presenter3d.com[^]
I'm an agnostic and believe evolution as "fact". The argument I've heard most often from creationists is this: While evolution does a nice job explaining change over time it says nothing about that initial "spark" that created life in even it's simplest form. Until science can create life in a petri dish their argument seems valid. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
-
There are plenty of people who believe both in evolution and God. They aren't mutually exclusive. The theory, as I understand it, is that evolution is possibly the method by which God created/creates life, or even that evolution was put in place by God. BW
"Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
Today"
-Days of the NewYes, I'm aware of the evolution + creationism hybrid. I think it has about as much chance of survival as the antelope + walrus hybrid. :P Seriously though, it's a bit of mental juggling on the part of the believers. It says quite clearly in the bible that god created the world as-is in a period of seven days and makes no mention of evolution. PS: I gave you a 5 to balance the 1.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
-
Anonymous wrote: I notice you completely ignored the point about educational standardization and fell back to the talking points of your own agenda. I ignored it because it is entirely irrelevant. You can't justified trashing the constitution to achieve "standardization". Well, I mean, unless you have an agenda you are trying to push and "standardization" is merely a means to an end for you. Anonymous wrote: If historical prescedent was the deciding factor in all state policies then black people and women still wouldn't be able to vote in many parts of the country. No they wouldn't. Both groups acquired the right to vote precisely as mandated by the framers of the constitution - by amendment. So that tired old liberal stand by has no validity in this case. Anonymous wrote: The irony here is that the kind of system you are pushing is specifically designed to minimize diversity. So having every local community deciding issues for themselves limits diversity but having a judge dictate to them what their standards will be enhances diversity? It is easy to tell that you have been brainwashed indoctrinated educated by the Secularist state. So much for critical thinking over mindlessly accepting a spoon feed world view - the religious nuts of Cobb Co., GA have nothing on you. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."
Stan Shannon wrote: I ignored it because it is entirely irrelevant. Not to anyone who wants to pursue higher education or reliably choose from millions of applying students who want to enter higher education. Stan Shannon wrote: So having every local community deciding issues for themselves limits diversity but having a judge dictate to them what their standards will be enhances diversity? I'm glad we agree. What do people in Podunk, Nowhere know or care about Hinduism, for example? A billion people in the world practice it. It might be a good thing to learn about in a religion class no matter how relevant it may seem to the citizens of Podunk. Hence the increased diversity when pulling from a larger body of knowledge. P.S. The 'state' dictating curriculum does not mean 'a judge' i think you mistyped hur bur glurb.
-
Bring it on. Either we teach children how to think and judge for themselves or we tell them "this is true and this is false". The latter is untenable, so if the Design Theorists (man I love the new term!) wish to put forward their views then they should, and must, do so in a manner that, reciprocally, allows an open mind, sound reasoning without being disingenuous and welcomes challenges and alternatives. cheers, Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote: Either we teach children how to think and judge for themselves or we tell them "this is true and this is false". I don't think one or the other is exclusive. There are some things that are true and some that are false. Teaching students to "think and judge for themselves" is not a solution - its really part of the problem. We have a body of knowledge that all students should learn dogmatically and we have a body of knowledge that is concrete enough to use although its correctness cannot be proven 100% and we have a body of knowledge that is fragmental and evolving in nature. We must not confuse one with the other nor must we let a student think that all knowlede is equal: its not Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
-
brianwelsch wrote: I do not doubt evolution as such, but I have a difficult time believing we know for fact how life was created. If there is a good explanation that I haven't seen, I'd be happy to read it. If you are referring to the first origin of life, then there are fragments of an explanation but, as far as I know, there is no definitive account. I expect that any decent biology textbook would make it clear that the knowledge concerning the first origin of life is significantly less than the knowledge concerning its subsequent evolution. As a point of information, the author of the textbook in question, Kenneth Miller, is a Christian. http://energion.com/books/reviews/finding_darwin.shtml[^] John Carson Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious. Oscar Wilde
Looks like an interesting read, thanks for the link. BW
"Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
Today"
-Days of the New -
David Wulff wrote: Do you not have Religious Education classes over there? Not as part of standard curriculum, at least not 15 years ago where I went to school. Some high schools may offer such classes as an elective to satisfy social study requirements. Or religion would be touched on in classes dealing with other civilizations/cultures, perhaps even in history if appropriate. I don't recall much discussion on actual creation though outside of evolution. David Wulff wrote: But it isn't taught as fact Nor during mine, but it sounded like the pro-sticker folks were concerned that it was being taught as such. I'm not familiar with their school, so can't say they are wrong or right. David Wulff wrote: it was about presenting the GOD theory as pure unadulterated fact and giving no time to the others (if they could only get away with it). I live in the middle of the Bible Belt in the US (the county in question is about 2 hrs. away), and would be very surprised if a majority would want to do away with teaching evolution alltogether. My only real issue with this whole deal is that the stickers were found unconstitutional. That seems absurd to me. The desire for the sticker seems absurd to me also, but that it was found unconstitutional sort of leaves me dumbfounded. BW
"Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
Today"
-Days of the Newbrianwelsch wrote: Not as part of standard curriculum That is a bigger "wow" to me. Did you study any religions? Beliefs, teachings, life, etc? If so, which ones?
Ðavid Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Everybody is entitled to my opinion
-
brianwelsch wrote: Not as part of standard curriculum That is a bigger "wow" to me. Did you study any religions? Beliefs, teachings, life, etc? If so, which ones?
Ðavid Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Everybody is entitled to my opinion
I honestly can't remember specifically studying modern religions in school outside of a few passing remarks or ancient religions when discussing the Greeks and Romans. I may have forgotten the lectures(not out of the question), but either way it wasn't in enough detail that the info stuck with me. Also, a lack of coverage in my education doesn't mean that all schools neglect this topic, just that it wasn't deemed important where I grew up (New England). What knowledge I have is due mostly to my own reading or talking to others. Which touches on Christianity, Judiasm, Muslim, Taoism, Buddhism, Wiccan, Native American, Sikh and Hinduism. I assume by your response then that an in depth coverage of world religion is mandatory in the UK. How detailed do they get? As an aside, how much Asian/African/American History is covered? BW
"Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
Today"
-Days of the New -
Yes, I'm aware of the evolution + creationism hybrid. I think it has about as much chance of survival as the antelope + walrus hybrid. :P Seriously though, it's a bit of mental juggling on the part of the believers. It says quite clearly in the bible that god created the world as-is in a period of seven days and makes no mention of evolution. PS: I gave you a 5 to balance the 1.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
Daniel Ferguson wrote: I think it has about as much chance of survival as the antelope + walrus hybrid. :-D Perhaps. Daniel Ferguson wrote: It says quite clearly in the bible that god created the world as-is in a period of seven days and makes no mention of evolution. But for those who don't necessarily believe the Bible, there is a nice middle ground to bounce around in. Creationists aren't necessarliy all Christians. Some of us like to entertain the idea of "intelligent design" in leiu of a 'proven' explanation of how life began. Thanks for the 5. ;) BW
"Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
Today"
-Days of the New -
Yet another perfect example of the unrelenting attack from the Secularists to utterly displace any competitive set of moral principles. The people of Cobb county Ga were acting perfectly within their constitutional rights to have any damned thing they wanted plaecd within any text book they wanted in their own school district. That is precisely the how the people who wrote the constitution intended for it to work, not to be used by some fucking judge to impose his own personal set of principles without regard to the will of the people. And than the liberals stand around scratching their heads wondering why there is a reaction against this kind of tyranny. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."
You're a crazy man Stan. And your posts reflect that. :) -- Komm tu mir langsam weh, leg mir die Ketten an und zieh die Knoten fest, damit ich lachen kann I blog too now[^]
-
I honestly can't remember specifically studying modern religions in school outside of a few passing remarks or ancient religions when discussing the Greeks and Romans. I may have forgotten the lectures(not out of the question), but either way it wasn't in enough detail that the info stuck with me. Also, a lack of coverage in my education doesn't mean that all schools neglect this topic, just that it wasn't deemed important where I grew up (New England). What knowledge I have is due mostly to my own reading or talking to others. Which touches on Christianity, Judiasm, Muslim, Taoism, Buddhism, Wiccan, Native American, Sikh and Hinduism. I assume by your response then that an in depth coverage of world religion is mandatory in the UK. How detailed do they get? As an aside, how much Asian/African/American History is covered? BW
"Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
Today"
-Days of the NewFirst some age group definitions: - Primary school is ages 4-10 - Secondary school is ages 11-16 - College is ages 17-18/19 - Univeristy is 18-19 + (We also have First and Middle schools where demand for schooling is high, which are ages 4-7 and 8-11 respectively.) Up to middle scool age we are taught, loosely, Christian beliefs and values. As far as I can remember we didn't have any specific Religious Education (RE) classes. From 8 to 15 we are taught about the six main religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism and Hinduism). Emphasis is of course given to Christianity still because on paper England is a Christian country, and we go into a lot of detail on the various teachings and ideas presented in the Christian history and beliefs, but maybe a third of the secondary education is dedicated to other religions. The only shortcoming from memory was that we barely touched Judaism (I know more about Sikhs than I do Jews). In my experience the first two years of high school RE was almost exclusively looking at Christianity with only passing mention of other beliefs, with about a third then looking at the other main religions. Then at 15 we have two years preperation for our GCSE qualifications - as part of this course we are required to take certain subjects. Maths, English, Biology, Physics, Chemistry, a foreign langauge etc. One of the requirements is also either a short course or long course religious education. I believe the short course is called Religious Studies (RS), where you look at religions in general and none in particular. I opted to go for the full course Religious Education myself because I found it an interesting subject. In the RE course we looked at Christianity and one other main world religion that we as a class/group decided on, which in our case was Islam. I think in those two years we looked majoritively at Islam, including studying their beliefs systems, their teachings, their links with world history and the personal history of a number of important people in their faith. This wasn't just academic study - we visited local mosques, talked with local Imam's, took part in Islamic medidation, looked at historical items, etc. At the end of the course we had to prepare coursework and take a series of written exams that were on par with those we took relating to the Christian faith. Regarding history, I stopped taking it as a subject at 15 (before my GCSEs) so I don't have a full education on that. I personally don't recall anything relating to Asian hi
-
Chris Maunder wrote: Either we teach children how to think and judge for themselves or we tell them "this is true and this is false". I don't think one or the other is exclusive. There are some things that are true and some that are false. Teaching students to "think and judge for themselves" is not a solution - its really part of the problem. We have a body of knowledge that all students should learn dogmatically and we have a body of knowledge that is concrete enough to use although its correctness cannot be proven 100% and we have a body of knowledge that is fragmental and evolving in nature. We must not confuse one with the other nor must we let a student think that all knowlede is equal: its not Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
I think that is the point. When you are presented with information in the real world, nobody is going to tell you how correct it is, you had better be able to judge for yourself. In your words, you need to be able to add new facts to each of the 3 different catagories. That judgement, along with the ability to reason about new facts, and to communicate well with others are the core of what a high school graduate should know. Unfortunately, in the US that isn't taught until college. High school is geared to produce assembly line workers. Everybody must ignore everyone else with their heads down while they all complete the same task, regardless of their abilites.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
First some age group definitions: - Primary school is ages 4-10 - Secondary school is ages 11-16 - College is ages 17-18/19 - Univeristy is 18-19 + (We also have First and Middle schools where demand for schooling is high, which are ages 4-7 and 8-11 respectively.) Up to middle scool age we are taught, loosely, Christian beliefs and values. As far as I can remember we didn't have any specific Religious Education (RE) classes. From 8 to 15 we are taught about the six main religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism and Hinduism). Emphasis is of course given to Christianity still because on paper England is a Christian country, and we go into a lot of detail on the various teachings and ideas presented in the Christian history and beliefs, but maybe a third of the secondary education is dedicated to other religions. The only shortcoming from memory was that we barely touched Judaism (I know more about Sikhs than I do Jews). In my experience the first two years of high school RE was almost exclusively looking at Christianity with only passing mention of other beliefs, with about a third then looking at the other main religions. Then at 15 we have two years preperation for our GCSE qualifications - as part of this course we are required to take certain subjects. Maths, English, Biology, Physics, Chemistry, a foreign langauge etc. One of the requirements is also either a short course or long course religious education. I believe the short course is called Religious Studies (RS), where you look at religions in general and none in particular. I opted to go for the full course Religious Education myself because I found it an interesting subject. In the RE course we looked at Christianity and one other main world religion that we as a class/group decided on, which in our case was Islam. I think in those two years we looked majoritively at Islam, including studying their beliefs systems, their teachings, their links with world history and the personal history of a number of important people in their faith. This wasn't just academic study - we visited local mosques, talked with local Imam's, took part in Islamic medidation, looked at historical items, etc. At the end of the course we had to prepare coursework and take a series of written exams that were on par with those we took relating to the Christian faith. Regarding history, I stopped taking it as a subject at 15 (before my GCSEs) so I don't have a full education on that. I personally don't recall anything relating to Asian hi
I think we would do well to require some type religious education, even if only something like your short course. Especially today with the increase in globalization and greater likelihood of having to interact with other cultures, etc. History courses seem to be similar. We covered Asia and Africa only as far as their histories crossed paths with Europe and later the US. Which basically means Ghengis Kahn, WWII, slavery, imperialism, and early man. Thanks for the details. BW
"Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
Today"
-Days of the New -
Stan, the year is 2005. We are no longer in 1005, the ninth century. We have science, technology, no fear of the dark and a legal code that isn't controlled by the papacy. Welcome to it... ;P John Theal Physicist at Large Got CAD? http://www.presenter3d.com[^]
John Theal wrote: and a legal code that isn't controlled by the papacy. The sad fact is that this judge represents the papacy of New Age . The left has returned us intellectually to an age when morality is dictated to us from on high. As with all true believers, you are comfortable with it merely because it happens to also be your morality. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."
-
You're a crazy man Stan. And your posts reflect that. :) -- Komm tu mir langsam weh, leg mir die Ketten an und zieh die Knoten fest, damit ich lachen kann I blog too now[^]
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: You're a crazy man Stan. And your posts reflect that. I won't argue that point, but that don't mean I'm wrong... ;P "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."
-
I'm an agnostic and believe evolution as "fact". The argument I've heard most often from creationists is this: While evolution does a nice job explaining change over time it says nothing about that initial "spark" that created life in even it's simplest form. Until science can create life in a petri dish their argument seems valid. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
Mike Mullikin wrote: Until science can create life in a petri dish their argument seems valid. Uhm. Why? It's as valid as the idea of walking on water (liquid state ;P) I do hope the scientists will be able to create life. Life which can sustain itself. Then, and only then, will we be able to answer the question "Who am I?" - the only question that makes all other questions seem so trivial. -- Komm tu mir langsam weh, leg mir die Ketten an und zieh die Knoten fest, damit ich lachen kann I blog too now[^]
-
Stan Shannon wrote: David Kentley wrote: Judges, in my view, are here to protect what is right, public will be damned. I find that statement to be absolutely incredible and so anti-American as to be beyond belief. If I had written "Judges are here to protect the law" would it make you feel better? They also make sure the laws that are made are constitutional, all of which is why I say they are here to protect what is right. The laws are written by elected officials, the judges are appointed by those officials or in many cases elected directly. It's still ultimately the will of the people at work. However, when it comes to specific issues like this, it is the judge's duty to follow what they believe is right and lawful. Do you not understand the ingenious checks and balances system this country employs? It sounds like you want to strip the judicial branch of its power by giving the executive branch iron fisted control over it. Presidents and senators bow to the will of the masses (or lobbyists); judges impose the will of the law, and the constitution, and are required to ignore the will of the masses, or else they are not doing their job. You talk about hurling society back in time, but that is exactly what would happen if fanatics, even large groups of fanatics, are allowed to run amok and impose superstition on our science classes. If these people's faith is so flimsy that observation of the real world around them theatens it, it's time for them to get a new faith, not stick their heads and the heads of their children in the sand. The judge in this case did absolutely the right thing according to the law, and proves once again that this country's system usually works. "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect, has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo Galilei
David Kentley wrote: However, when it comes to specific issues like this, it is the judge's duty to follow what they believe is right and lawful. Which is precisely what we would have if the government was, in fact, controlled by the church. Judges are there to merely interpret the constutitionality of a law. There is absolutely notihng in the constitution which gives the federal government even the least little bit of authority over how children are educated. It is not there. This judge forced his own personal opinion upon the people without regard for the inherent intent of the constitution. Your defense of this judge proves beyond doubt who the true fanatics are, and why the people of this country have every right to be concerned about the federal judiciary's refusal to recognize any constitutional limitations upon its powers at all, and why the left is to be feared for its loathsome attempt to reshape the social and legal structure of this nation into something more akin to a European social welfare state. The left, via the courts, has succeeded in destroying the most fundamental and important achievments of the American experiment in liberty and freedom. And this decision is yet more proof of that. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."
-
I'm an agnostic and believe evolution as "fact". The argument I've heard most often from creationists is this: While evolution does a nice job explaining change over time it says nothing about that initial "spark" that created life in even it's simplest form. Until science can create life in a petri dish their argument seems valid. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
Mike Mullikin wrote: I'm an agnostic and believe evolution as "fact". The argument I've heard most often from creationists is this: While evolution does a nice job explaining change over time it says nothing about that initial "spark" that created life in even it's simplest form. People who say this are not creationists as that term is normally used. They are 99% evolutionists, even if they are also Christians. Mike Mullikin wrote: Until science can create life in a petri dish their argument seems valid. They are closer than you appear to believe: One[^] Two[^] Three[^] The last is a Google cache, since the website is unreachable at the moment. The original link is http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2004/3/30/64612/5378[^] John Carson Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious. Oscar Wilde
-
John Theal wrote: and a legal code that isn't controlled by the papacy. The sad fact is that this judge represents the papacy of New Age . The left has returned us intellectually to an age when morality is dictated to us from on high. As with all true believers, you are comfortable with it merely because it happens to also be your morality. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."
Stan Shannon wrote: As with all true believers, you are comfortable with it merely because it happens to also be your morality. 1. I certainly do not ascribe to religion in any form. 2. My code of morality is not known to you in any way, shape or form whatsoever. 3. The important bit here is to stress the fact that it took a judge to put a halt to the idiotic antics of an apparently significant sized group of uneducated country bumpkins who didn't know when to quit. 4. The only thing I am happy about is that finally someone took the bull by the horns and put an end to the endless stream of crap that inevitably seems to dribble out of the bible-belt... John Theal Physicist at Large Got CAD? http://www.presenter3d.com[^]
-
Stan Shannon wrote: As with all true believers, you are comfortable with it merely because it happens to also be your morality. 1. I certainly do not ascribe to religion in any form. 2. My code of morality is not known to you in any way, shape or form whatsoever. 3. The important bit here is to stress the fact that it took a judge to put a halt to the idiotic antics of an apparently significant sized group of uneducated country bumpkins who didn't know when to quit. 4. The only thing I am happy about is that finally someone took the bull by the horns and put an end to the endless stream of crap that inevitably seems to dribble out of the bible-belt... John Theal Physicist at Large Got CAD? http://www.presenter3d.com[^]
John Theal wrote: 1. I certainly do not ascribe to religion in any form. Yes you do. John Theal wrote: 2. My code of morality is not known to you in any way, shape or form whatsoever. It could not be more obvious. John Theal wrote: . The important bit here is to stress the fact that it took a judge to put a halt to the idiotic antics of an apparently significant sized group of uneducated country bumpkins who didn't know when to quit. No, it took a priest of your belief system to enforce the moral authority of your cult upon an unwilling populace. John Theal wrote: 4. The only thing I am happy about is that finally someone took the bull by the horns and put an end to the endless stream of crap that inevitably seems to dribble out of the bible-belt... I'm sure you are happy about it. Most true believers are joyous as competitive belief systems are ground into the dust beneath the heel of those they empower to do their bidding. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."