Endless debate over teaching of Creationism in schools resolves issue

by Abaddon 59 Replies latest members adult

• 

  Abaddon

  Forscher, evolution (as a fact) has no more or less morality than Gravity. It happened; get over it .

  Evolution (as a theory) actually teaches us humans have been social creatures caring for people when they were not able care for themselves for hundreds of thousands of years. Fossil evidence shows healed injuries that must have required support during the healing period, and older members of the population that could not have survived to that age without help.

  Evolution teaches us that gay people have probably been around for a VERY long time, and that humans evolved in modestly promiscuous communities where the chief form of realtionship was a pair-bond of some years duration... whoah, doesn't that last sentence sound like society today - modestly promiscuous communities where the chief form of realtionship was a pair-bond of some years duration. LOL

  But we already KNOW gay people have been around for a long time, and that humans exist and have existed in modestly promiscuous communities where the chief for of realtionship was a pair-bond of some years duration.

  So where is this morality you speak of? Evolution teaches us we are social animals who care for each other, that being gay is nothing new, and that most people will have a partner and be failthful to them most of the time, which is what we knew already.

  I amk afraid you are making what is known as a strawman argument. You are saying evolution 'says' things that evolution doesn't say. Live by by fallacy, die by the fallacy. But now I really need to eat some stirfry.

  But you demonstrated the point I made in my last post really well. Your desire for such education is rooted in your opposal to modern society. I am glad you have that freedom, but obviously don't agree with it.
• 

  EvilForce

  For...
  
  And each generation rails against the "new" generation as being bankrupt of any moral decency. "Those darn kids!" Scorn was heaped upon the heads of Louis Armstrong, Chubby Checker, Elvis, Kiss, AC/DC, Rap music...blah, blah, blah. "Back in our day....."
  
  Not too long ago there were seperate schools for blacks and whites. Then same schools but seperate classrooms....then partial integration but still seperate restrooms. Schools have always been a social institution.
  
  I seriously doubt the majority of parents do not want a certain ciriculum taught. You have put yourself on one side of the argument and have dismissed the notion that you may in fact be in the slim minority.
• 

  Forscher

  You are slipping, Doogie, when you want one to provide a FALSIFIABLE theory. ;-)
  
  The problem is that the fossil record can only be interpreted. interpret it from the materialist point of view, and it say one thing. Interpret it from a non-materialist point of view and it says another. Which is correct? Since neither of our views can be verified in a strict scientific sense, I am afraid that I can never present evidence in a manner in which we can come to an agreement.
• 

  Forscher

  I did not say that evolution teaches anything Abaddon. I merely stated the fact that it serves as vehicle for the new morality since it is used as a justification for the moral relativism that is being taught in schools today.
• 

  EvilForce

  For... I think you are making a leap there. You are saying since A and B are being taught that somehow C is the answer.
  
  You are basically saying that without the teaching of god there cannot be true morality. I disagree.
• 

  seattleniceguy

  Hello Forscher,

  However, while I don't have a real problem with adaptation explaining the variety among, say, bears (as your panda article was a good example), to say that it partly proves that we "evolved" from monkeys (the macro-evolutionary contention), even conceptually, is a little far out there.

  I'm glad you accept that level of evolution. Regarding the line you suggest between micro- and macro-evolution, I wonder exactly where you would draw it. For example, you accept that bears of different varieties (say, grizzlies and pandas) came from a single bear precursor. You probably accept that various cat species (say, lynx and lion) came from the same species. In both of these cases, there is very strong genetic evidence showing that the relationship is indeed real, and even in which order the various lines diverged.

  The same evidence very strongly shows that chimps and humans share a common ancestor. Why do you accept the evidence when it relates to bears and cats, but not when it relates to primates? Is it not a religious predisposition?

  Respectfully,
  SNG
• 

  doogie

  You are slipping, Doogie, when you want one to provide a FALSIFIABLE theory. ;-)

  what do you think scientific theory is?!? this is one of the fundamental principles of a scientific theory...that it could conceivably be proven false. (i.e. if we found a homo sapien fossil alongside a tyranosaurus rex it would shoot evolutionary theory all to hell. up until now, we have never encountered such a scenario. so far, evolutionary theory has made predictions about what we will and will not find in any given dig, and it has made good on its predictions)
  

  evolutionary theory does not cover how life came to be, only how lifeforms changed over time. this is testable and has been proven accurate by the fossil record. however, creationism (or Creationism) is not a scientific theory because it CANNOT be proven false and it makes no accurate predictions as to what we may uncover in the futures of biology, geology, archaeology, etc. (if anything, the claims it has made over the centuries have been proven completely false. [i.e. 6000 year old earth and man])
• 

  EvilForce

  Um, not to pop your bubble but a Panda isn't truly a bear (use brown bear and grizzley bear maybe)....it is closer to the racoon family.
• 

  seattleniceguy

  I merely stated the fact that it serves as vehicle for the new morality since it is used as a justification for the moral relativism that is being taught in schools today.

  Now we get to the crux of the issue. Rejecting evolution because you don't like its implications is like staying in the Witnesses because you are afraid of life on the outside. Deal with the facts on their own merits. Where you suspect they might lead does not bear on whether the facts are valid.

  SNG
• 

  seattleniceguy

  EvilForce,

  I know that there has been speculation that pandas are related to raccoons. The San Diego Zoo says that genetic research shows that pandas are related to bears (http://www.sandiegozoo.org/animalbytes/t-giant_panda.html):

  For years scientists have wondered whether pandas are bears, raccoons, or in a group all their own. Through studying the genetic code (DNA) in pandas? cells, scientists have confirmed the panda's relationship with bears. Giant pandas are similar to other bears in their general looks, the way they walk and climb, and their skull characteristics. It's important to know that pandas are bears, because the more we know about pandas, the better we can help them reproduce and survive .

  SNG