As long as it is made quite clear that Evolution is a THEORY, and not a LAW, I have no problem with it being taught. A friend of mine in my biology class in high school brought a bible with him (from Bethany in Baker) and it talked about how his church believed in "Micro-evolution" or the evolution of all things other than humans...
Ok, I have read almost this entire thread tonight, amazing! What strikes me as "funny" is that some people put more faith in men than god such as believing in science and the Big Bang theory while not believing in either god or that Christ could've existed. There is more of a chance that Christ existed than the Big Bang theory IMO. Have you ever blown anything up and have perfectly round objects such as planets and the universe. Then there is the DNA structure of human beings as well as the way reproduction happens. Also, human beings don't have the same blood types, wouldn't evolution and the Big Bang theory mean that people would be more alike than different? These are very compelling questions and facts, I just don't see how anyone could be an athiest, you might as well believe in magic and wizards in that case.
but you should also understand how the term "theory" is used by the scientific community. scientists technically consider gravity a theory and commonly debate on how exactly gravity works. yet no scientists would ever deny gravity exists. similarly, no scientist who is not a christian would deny evolution is true, but they would argue strongly with each other on how exactly it happens. maybe we should remind children that gravity is only a theory.
Well, while certainly not a devout Christian, I believe in God and the big bang theory. I've done a lot of reading up on the big bang theory, and it is a beautiful thing that only a being that exists on a plane much higher than that of our own could set in motion. No, but scientists have conducted experiments in laboratories in which they applied severe amounts of light energy to concotions said to resemble that of 'primordial soup' and produced amino acids, which are the basic building blocks of human life. (These procedures were conducted to model the hypothesized conditions of the 'big bang') Further, if you examine the characteristics of space and gravity, you will have an understanding as to why these bodies turned out 'round' (just for the record, they're not perfectly round...they're typically oblate). Funny. martin says the same thing about people that have faith in God.
Over the last couple of days, I haven't heard one person refer to evolution as theory. The way they speak of it, is as if, it were proven fact. That's what bothers me when it comes to the class room. I can't physically prove my belief of creation to you. You can't prove evolution. Why not teach both, or at least mention the other. My kids attend a private Christian school. Sadly, not all children have that privilege. The ones that don't, have evolution shoved down their thoughts as though it were undeniable truth. This just isn't right. PC only works for that which is against God and Christianity.
"The first mathematical formulation of gravity was published in 1687 by Sir Isaac Newton. His law of universal gravitation was the standard theory of gravity until work by Albert Einstein and others on general relativity." from wikipedia article on gravity. over time, theories of gravity have changed. that doesnt mean we will ever deny gravity exists. science finished arguing over the existence of evolution before most of us were born. now scientists argue the specifics. not the existence. only christians argue that. again, i wonder if you would care if we discussed gravity without reminding everyone that scientists debate various theories of gravity. why not mention the flying spaghetti monster theory too, you cnt prove it isnt true. http://www.venganza.org/
I agree to a point. Why not teach that some people have different creation theories as part of their religion. That's OK. I have no problem at all with anybody believing what he wants to based upon faith alone. We all do--even martin. The problem is when someone tries to proclaim a faith-based concept as scientific fact when it does not stand up to rigorous scientific scutiny. As martin has spointed out, scientific theories are scientifically defendable and have been refined from many scientific challenges over the years. Creationism has not made such a proper challenge but instead counters with "Don't pay any attention to that man behind the curtain". Criticism should always be listened to, of course, but often it must be dismissed for having no basis in fact. Articles of faith do not constitute scientific evidence. We can argue until the cows come home about how the universe was created because there were no witnesses and the remaining scientific evidence is fragmentary. There are thousands of religious creation myths around and we can argue over those as well . . . but it isn't a scientific argument. But evolution, on the other hand, is supported by an massive preponderence of evidence. Just last year National Geographic did a cover story entitled "Was Darwin Wrong? " in which they examine how well evolution has held up over the decades. Their conclusion -- No, Darwin was quite correct and the supporting evidence is overwhelming. Not only is there scientific evidence, but there are human witnesses including ourselves. DNA evidence shows conclusively that all breeds of dogs were descended from the wolf, not from foxes, coyotes or other wild canines. Domestic dogs evolved rapidly due to human influences in the last 15,000 years, specifically the selective breeding of dogs to produce specific desired traits. This process continues and is just one example of many. Again a recent National Geographic article "From Wolf to Woof: The Evolution of Dogs " describes this story well.
I think this idea is key. Man was created with an innate sense of curiousity, and an overarching desire to satisfy that curiousity. It is that very desire we were created with that drives us to explore our own evolutionary tendencies. It is the nature of the beast in its purest form. Another good example of this are disinfectants, such as Lysol. These products claim to only eliminate 99.9% of bacteria. Why? Because the bacteria reproduce, and therefore evolve, at such a rapid pace that some of them actually adapt to the active ingredients. That's also why they always say that cockroaches would survive a nuclear war. Not because they are small enough to fit into the tiniest and most well-protected crevises, but because they reproduce so rapidly that the subsequent generations would produce enough adapted mutations to survive the fallout.
Interesting, you are correct about the planets being oblate, i had forgotten that. I used Martin's quote, borrowed it that is, I hope he doesn't get to mad at me for that one! :hihi: If one is a atheist, they will need magic to get them to the afterlife or magic is all they will have to look forward too. Some say it takes a weak man to lean on religion, well, I think it takes a weak man to rely on mankind for all the answers or not to believe in god. It takes more strength to believe in something than not to believe. Everyone can talk about science but I'm always skeptical about science and mans version of things because there has been so many cases to where science and theories have been blown out of the water, proven wrong. Even I talk about science, talking about DNA and all. I wonder how someone would explain close to death experiences, my aunt had one and hovered over her body. If there is no god that means there is no afterlife, how do you explain these instances?
me too, they are often wrong. and they debate things, like global warming. i duno whether to believe humans are causing global warming or not, scientists cant seem to get it straight. and they always have some new reversal of what we are supposed to eat and what is healthy. but evolution isnt like those things. their are mountains upon moutains of observable evidence for evolution. scientists do not debate it. the same way they do not debate the existence of something like electromagnetism.
