Re: Try this

On May 12, 8:33 pm, "[M]adman" <ad...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
unrestrained_h...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On May 12, 11:37 am, "[M]adman" <ad...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Remove "The Theory Of Evolution" from the science classrooms. After
all, it is not really a *science.

Yet strangely enough, the scientists think so.

you would expect them not to?

If it weren't science, yes. You do not hear physicists,
climatologists, or physical chemists saying "Pshaw! Evolution isn't a
*real science!" But you do hear Creationists saying this.

You don't hear scientists agreeing that astrologers is science, event
tho astrologers claim it is. Nor homeopathy, or orgone energy. But if
evolution were wrong, half the sciences would be also. If you had
*looked at the list of the types of evidence which support it, you'd
know that.




Put it in a class that teaches all of the other theories regarding
the origins of mankind.

There aren't any other theories.

Unless you've come up with one? Remember, in order to be science, the
data msut be verifiable, and the model must make specific predictions
(which makes it testable).

Got one?

do you?

Not really, because evolution is not really a theory.

Sure it is. It fits all the data (your version of everyone's fairy
tales and myths aren't data). It makes predictions (tiktaalik, reptile-
bird transitions, ambulocetus). If is used and applies every day in
dozens of fields: vaccinations, wildlife management, oncology,
wilderness management, zoo breeding programs, etc.




Present all sides in an objective manor.

The only alternatives aren't science.

Neither is evolution So everything will be on equal footing

Sorry, no. Evolution uses verifiable data. You use data which other
Christians don't accept, let alone folks who don't accept your
favorite bronze-age mythologies as information about the natural
world.

Evolution makes predictions, which means it's testable. Your version
of Creationism does not.

Evolution adapts to fit the data. Your religion dismisses data to fit
your model.

Evolutionary science can be done by anybody with the education -
Baptists, Catholics, Sunni Muslims, Mahayana Buddhists, Sikhs,
atheists. Your version of your myths are not accepted by most
Christians, let alone other religions or the non-religious.

Problem solved.

A. Creationism wiped out smallpox from the face of the Earth, using
insights from the book of Genesis.
B. Creationism developed the germ theory of disease, using insights
from the book of Genesis.
C. Creationism built the Hubble Space Telescope, using insights from
the book of Genesis.
D. Creationism develops the current flu vaccine every year, using
insights from the book of Genesis.

Answer: none of the above.
A. EVOLUTION wiped out smallpox from the face of the Earth, using
insights from the book of Genesis.
B.  EVOLUTION  developed the germ theory of disease, using insights
from the book of Genesis.
C.  EVOLUTION  built the Hubble Space Telescope, using insights from
the book of Genesis.
D.  EVOLUTION  develops the current flu vaccine every year, using
insights from the book of Genesis.

None of the above. It seems once again that you want to lend scientific
creditability to an idea that is not all that scientific. i.e. evolution

I never said that evolution did all those things, altho looking at
the list, A, and D required evolutionary theory. And fighting, using,
and understanding bacteria are impossible without evolutionary
science. Hubble, it's true, does not use it. Of course, the YEC - the
ones who disagree with you, the ones who think you're going to Hell
(like my grandfather would have) - have *serious issues with Hubble's
observations. Evolution is accepted by the scientific community,
however; even evangelical Christians.

Are you saying that Creationism has contributed to science, just not
those particular contributions? OK, which ones?




Let the students decide what resonates to them and makes more sense.

Bwahahahaha!
Nice.

This should go over well in history, algebra, and chemistry, also.

"Every child left behind".

you mean: Every child put first to choose

You really think that it's a good idea to let the kids choose what the
right answers are? Is that what your Mom did when you were home-
schooled? That explains a lot.(1)




Or perhaps the proponents of evolution afraid?

Yeah. I'm afraid that your grandkids will be polyglots. They'll be
able to say "Do you want fries with that?" in Swedish, Japanese,
Mandarin, or Indonesian. Or perhaps they can do little religious
rituals on the side of the road for the cameras, and pick up tips that
way.

In the meanwhile, the scientists will just have to wade thru the
mountains of research papers published by Creation scientists in the
last few years. Oh, wait.

Look. Evolution is not science. Why do you try to associate an unproven
theory with real science?

Science doesn't prove theories. A theory is scientific if it is
testable, and it is correct as long as it fits all the data.
Creationism does neither.


I am sure there are real scientists around the world that get very angry
when you do this.

Nope. There are dozens, maybe hundreds that agree with you.
But:
1. There are hundreds of thousands if not millions who do not.
2. They've heard this before, and they understand it, so I assume they
are resigned to it.
3. Most of them are honest enough to admit that they reject mainstream
science on this issue for religious reasons, not evidential.


Kermit

(1) Note to others. Yes, I know that some home-schooled folks are
brilliant, but those who home-school to protect the kids from atheist
liberal science almost always turn out disasters.

Kermit

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Discussion of von Rads _Genesis: A Commentary_
    ... I provided this example to show that non-literal readings of Genesis ... began long before evolution came on the scene, ... Can science deflect interest in spiritually beneficial things? ... one interpretation of a claim was faulty; ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Activist judge declares that Intelligent Design is not science
    ... Phillip Johnson is known as the father of intelligent design. ... The idea in its current form appeared in the 1980s, and Johnson adopted and developed it after Darwinian evolution came up short, in his view, in explaining how all organisms, including humans, came into being. ... In this interview, hear why he feels that such evidence is "somewhere between weak and nonexistent," why he feels intelligent design is a testable science, and why he thought the Dover trial was a train wreck waiting to happen. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Five major misconceptions for evolution
    ... >> actually using science for once. ... >> Science students are taught the basic law of science that without ... >> philosophy of evolution in direct opposition to science. ... >> Chemical evolution is clearly excluded by the evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Aforementioned paper: Evolution and Creationism.
    ... The conflict between science and creationism in this country is not ... adults were open to the idea of creationism and evolution being taught ... of science, and so thoroughly supported by the evidence, attacks on it ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Question for the Evolutionist
    ... > The alleged evidence of evolution does not support the God hypothesis. ... > Christian evolutionists are deluded buffoons or confused. ... Christians who accept evolution do so because it's good science, ... >> didn't ask their priests and pastors to reconcile Genesis with Sagan's ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading