Evolution is Crap, there I said it!

by Crazyguy 261 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  cofty

  Molecular biologists who believe in design or theism have just as much motivation to study some natural thing in depth as ones who have a strictly naturalist view of the universe: - Julia Orwell

  People like Behe and Dembski don't do useful research or publish anything original. They are parasites who look for gaps in current scientific knowledge where they can insert god - except they never say god in public because that would undermine their efforts to get ID taught in schools.

  Google "Wedge Strategy" if you have any doubts about their non-scientific motives.

  Scientists like Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins are different. They advocate Theistic Evolution - god is in the initial conditions but every single step in evolution was 100% naturalistic. Intelligent design cannot be detected and is not required.

  The key thing is whether or not a scientist adheres to the principle of methodological naturalism. Regardless of personal beliefs supernatural answers are off-limits.
• 

  slimboyfat

  If science requires naturalism as an assumption in order to function properly then isn't it simply a case of circular reasoning?
• 

  Julia Orwell

  So what if ID is taught in schools? It would only be one 4 week unit at a junior high level. Kids don't have to believe it. I've touched on the two belief systems (evolution and ID) when teaching, while not promoting either one. You can't promote your own views on those things as a teacher, but you can tell kids there are other ideas. Kids ask questions all the time, so why hide an idea from them? You could spend a few lessons on ID without harming the kids, believe me, and you won't upset the Christians or the Muslims in your class if you don't say Allah or God, just "this is what ID is and how it's supposed to work".

  I'm sure there already are teachers here who discuss ID in class. While it's not in the curriculum, it's no biggie to teach it if you have time. The curriculum is about exposing kids to all sorts of different perspectives and teaching them to evaluate the sources and documentation. The kids here do everything from a critical perspective and learn critical literacy. That's the Australian model anyway. I don't know what it is in America.
• 

  Julia Orwell

  We look at mythology in history, and fiction in English. Kids don't really come out believing in Greek gods and that the witches in Macbeth were real. So what's the big deal about looking at ID?
• 

  cantleave

  So what if ID is taught in schools?

  The issue is if ID is taught in Science class. If it is taught as religious studies or mythology I have no problem with that. Afterall I loved Greek mythology.

  However, to teach is as science is abhorant, would you be happy to to allow medical schools to teach that some ailments are a result of demon activity? Would your want you children to be taught that the Roman empire never existed, or that the Nazi concentration camps were successful in improving the German nation?
• 

  Julia Orwell

  The issue is if ID is taught in Science class.

  Oh. I understand. You could still touch on it in science as an historical curiosity if you have time. But I'm an English and History teacher so I think very differently to Science teachers. I might ask what the Science teachers think of the issue next time I'm in their staffroom. Hear what the actual ones who'd have to teach it would think. See, as an English teacher, everything's up for debate and evaluation, and as a History teacher everything's up for reconstruction, evaluation and interpretation. I am interested in science and did very well at it, but I'm wired for English and History now. Science is very different I believe with its seach for FACT , and no more do you see the splitting off of different subject-thinking patterns as among teachers.
• 

  punkofnice

  Here in the UK I could imagine they dare not touch on life coming ito being in any set way in schools as they're afraid to upset the Muslim fundy weirdos.

  Although having said that I don't know what they teach in schools as the origin of life these days..............
• 

  Julia Orwell

  Evolution over here. I see tonnes and tonnes of books and dvds on it over in the science staffrooms.
• 

  cantleave

  Punkie - Evolution is part of the science curriculum mate. There is no getting around it - even in the wilds of Cambridgeshire!
• 

  Max Divergent

  I don't see why evolution is assumed to preclude some other, intelligent force. - Julia Orwell

  No one can prove a negative, like 'there is no God', so there is no preclusion going on (though assumptions of preclusion might be). He might exist but not have created the life we've seen, thus there is no evidence for Him in the origins or diversity of life.

  I think it's more that evolution gives a good enough explanation by itself , thus there is no need for God (or ID) to explain how anything happened and that leaves us no reason to include Him in any explanations.

  Absence might seem like preclusion, but really its just absence: absence of Someone for whom there is no other verifiable evidence. There's nothing to give one cause to believe in God apart from faith, and that's down to the individual.

  [Thanks cantleave! LOL! Abiogenesis, not evolution, refers to the origin of life. Edit duly made.]