Originally posted by Richie_LaMontre
So if my child states in a biology class that man was created and not evolved, he doesn't get an an "F"?
"Ah. Now you are critiquing the education system. Students are not encouraged and much of the time not allowed to question and debate the teachers. And I agree that that is a sad state of affairs. But I do recall it being taught as the "Theory of Evolution". And it most definitely is taught as theory at the University level."
Yes, I understand your point and I knew you'd make it. But that doesn't explain why all others are tossed from the arena. There are many spiritual implications within the topic of evolution I'm sure you would agree. So why are all others treated as "not science" simply because they have roots in a spiritual source. Especially if, as you say, nothing has been proven.
"I have found even more absurdity in English classes. Where the professor's interpretation of a work was the only accepted answer on the test. And this in a field that is entirely subjective."
Of course, accepted as true and understandable given what it is they are given to do.
"Classroom tests, unfortunately, often demand only that the student repeat back what was said in class. Understanding, debate, logic, counterargument, do not enter into it. I agree that this is a terrible way to teach but it does not demonstrate the notion that the sciences are attempting to indoctrinate the students. Merely, that most teachers have too many students or are otherwise uninterested in teaching student how to think on their own. This is a topic for another thread."
Agreed, but my point is not that the education system is wrong, or that even to teach evolution there is a bad thing. MY problem is that evolution is taught as the ONLY answer. And as such it is taken as fact. When there are many other good theories which have compelling evidences. The only difference is the source of those evidences, and the reasons why these evidences have been sought out in the first place. WHY?
And as I said, in the mean time, we use them in the schools as a little carrot on a stick. Just to keep em interested.
"I'm not sure I understand your analogy but once again we're discussing the education system."
The point I am trying to get you to see is that the issue is totally polarized. There are no stated alternatives therefore there is no legitimate research. Until all avenues are made available for each individual involved in the process of deciding, how can there be a decision at all? The "carrot" is the latest theory which usually destroys the one before it, but yet fills some other gap. And so there is always the pat answer, "We don't have all the answers, but were working on it." When in truth, most of the things which filled a gap in the past, were disproved and forgotten. And another gap is filled in its place to distract us from the last. Its like a chess game.
--------------------------------------------------------------
These things are presented as indisputable simply because you can't prove it DIDN'T happen the way it is stated to have happened. Im sorry, but thats just not science.
Ah I see, what your saying here in effect is that evolution cannot be disproven, therefore it is true. Sounds like religious talk to me.
"Evolution is not presented as indisputable."
What shall we dispute it with when all others have been shut out of the debate?
"The refutations have been analyzed and eliminated."
Yes, in favor a theory that is no more or less proven or provable than any other.
"That
is science. What you state is not what evolution is about."
Actually Im a big conspiracy nut.
What it is "about" is far deeper than I'd care to go here. But I believe that others SHOULD be given a voice in the debate. ESPECIALLY within the classroom. No other evidence will ever be found for an alternative when none other is offered.
"I cannot speak for people who may have argued in this fashion but the theory of evolution does not rely on this fallacious defense."
Nope, your right, it relies on facts and figures and the conjecture which is drawn from those. I accept that. But it has become like the "the state religion". Every educational television program refers to monkeys as our "ancestors" now. When there is no proof of such lunacy. Yet it is just accepted. WHY? Because the scientific community has shut the door on any other option. Therefore the education system HAS no other choice.
"To answer the second point; that is not what I said. I said "a
particular fact." If you can eliminate
all the supporting evidence or if you can demonstrate a valid contrary fact then yes you will have invalidated evolution. But, believe me, you have tons of evidence to eliminate first."
Well after about 50 years of isolationism I'd say your right. MOST of those theories have been given viable alternative solutions which are just as, if not MORE likely, and they have been simply dismissed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks....but your sidestepping the issue again. This does not in any way invalidtae my point.
This is why I say that evolution is a religion and not legitimate science at all.
"It invalidates
one of your statements. One that you repeat again in this post. The one stating that evolution is religion. I gave you the definition of religion."
Yes, and I showed you where the similarities ly. Terminology does not make a religion, people do. You just have different terminologies, but in the end, it is VERY much like a church denomination. ESPECIALLY considering the spiritual implications of the theory.
"Evolution states nothing about God or the supernatural. How then can it be religion?"
Actions speak louder than words.
"You may state that it's like religion if you want (and hopefully will then point out the similarities). For instance; You may state that it is an unfounded belief (in which case you'd be wrong)."
I never said it was unfounded. Though I would imagine that you might say such about other alternatives to evolution which may have a religious basis. Would you not? And as you did you would not seem to be speaking from a concern that these poor people are being decieved by "religious fanatasism"......am I wrong? If I am it's ok, I am simply making a point. MANY I have debated on this issue do just that. They are as crusaders for God. They only have different terminologies and sources for their crusade.
"which would make it similar to religion. But you cannot say it IS religion. That is calling it something it decidedly is not."
Perhaps, but only from the textbook definition. Which does not cover the human interaction factors. Its one thing to read a definition of religion and get an ideal. Its another to see it in practice.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know, but there could have been a lot happen in the mean time. And if I was to say that the Dinosaurs lived during that time, you could neither refute me nor could I actually prove i was right.
"Actually it says: Genesis 1:5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. Doesn't leave much time for the dinosaurs to be around, does it? But lets leave off this particular track."
Well, I can't leave it cause you missed it. Verse one, the earth is created, verse two it is under a deluge. God flooded the earth later on in judgement. Who is to say he didn't do it before? And there is good evidince for a couple world wide floods. Dismissed of course but noe-the-less. And so, what happened between verse 1 and verse 2? Point is, no one knows, but it could have been the time of the dinosaurs, and this would well explain the extreme age of the earth, would it not? Just a thought.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not the kind of detail that is reported in many of the evolutionary contrivances. And certainly, if it really were as accurate as all that, the missing link would not still be missing.
"Actually, it is
exactly the kind of detail given in the published works. And it's not missing. There are some very nice transitionary proto human fossils."
NONE of which can be said to be anything but human. Does not cover it.
Of course.....but I think forensic science has had as many successes as failures.
"Of course it does. Sometimes a bone fragment (still using your example) does not provide enough evidence. This does not mean that it's successes are a matter of chance. It simply means that in this case there wasn't enough information to make a determination."
Accepted, I think were agreeing here in an odd sort of way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the massive failures of the evolutionary contrivances, from a single bone which in many cases has been proven NOT to be what it was thought to be (or stated to be) in the first place?
"Show me one of the "massive" failures. And I don't mean an isolated piece of "evidence" that was later disproved. That would not be a "massive" failure."
Not disproved, proven to be hoaxes. Another one of those "carrots" we discussed earlier.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Refutable is undoubtedly the correct term for it. That is not the question. The question is why, when so many DO refute it, they are dismissed and accused of having simply a "religious bias"?
And, to restate my position, for reasons that seem very hypocritical considering that the "facts" which support evolution simply do not draw a complete picture. … Its an idea, and its a good one, but it is still just an alternative to the creation model. And CERTAINLY no more complete.
Where do you get valid scientific evidence for the origin of man and the planet he lives on? All you can do is theorize, based upon valid fact possibly, but still only theory.
"No, it does not draw a complete picture, there are missing pieces, there are issues still under debate. No, we do not have facts to prove every single step along the path to evolution."
True, thank you.
"Most of the time, people who attempt to refute all of evolution (not just a particular method or fact) have either 1. an incomplete understanding of what it actually is or 2. another agenda (often religious in nature). I've included a piece regarding your argument of "proof" below."
Well let me address this first. There are MANY in the scientific community who hold to a creation model with a world wide flood and the works. They are dismissed on the grounds that they are "basing their scientific conclusions from a religious bias, as you well know. How is it that a theory can be dreamed up from nothing and accepted. But based on a long standing belief, ridiculed? Sound most suspicious to me.
~Raithere
Excerpt from (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html)
"Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved."
"First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact."
I will agree with this. However, should not science perhaps be more specific with their terminology? I mean, is this a "science" or not? Well, you know my opinion.
"Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well)."
Yes but when it is presented in the classroom, (where all our future scientists are arising from) and when it is presented on educational television, this is EXACTLY what is related. "Check out our couzins the apes!" What a crock.
"The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved."
They go no where, in fact, they dead end in a mathmatical improbability so amazingly hard to accept, that it would HAVE to simply be accepted on faith.
"Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty."
It is not implied, once again, in the definitions or the terminology. But it is certainly implied in the evedence.
"Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)"
Pure bias.......sorry but thats all that is. They do not "prove" them to be false. They simply fall back on what they would prefer as a solution which, invariably supports the theory of evolution. And the scientists which presented the findings are ridiculed and once again, shut out of the debate entirely.
"Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be."
More bias statements to defend evolutions wild claims. What about gravity, This has not been proved?
"Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence."
Which is exactly what you cannot do with evolution. Evolution has NEVER been observed and given the huge time frames that are said to be needed, it never will be.
"The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain."
Ah so.........
"What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it."
Where? Transitionary bones can be said to be simply extinct animals much more believably. These "transitionary" humans are still human. Sorry but this theory is, and originally was, based upon a desire for an alternative to the creation model. Thats not to say its wrong, that is to say, it has little real evidence to support its amazing claims. It has opinions. Scientific opinions yes, but still, there are others who disagree.
"Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others."
Yes and they all have a great stake in evolutionary theory. All sorts of good experimentation goes on in the name of proving evolution. Which is good. Much good can come of it.
"If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence."
I do not wish to "challenge" it. I wish it to be taught as, and seen as what it really is. A theory, unproven and probably unprovable. No, to disprove it you must first be able to prove it. If you do attempt to disprove it, you are stifled and shut down.
Thanks for the convo.
