It isn't. They're just blowing smoke.

'Religion' can be taught in public schools - I took Biblical Lit & History of Religions in high school.  Religion can't be ignored in the  course of secular education.  It is enmeshed in our history.  But there is a difference between the study of religions and the presentation of religious doctrine or dogma as scientific theory.

there is no Science that backs this up.  There is no proof that one species turns into another.  That's just it.  It's just a theory which we believe is nothing more than teaching secular humanism. 

and I can't see why people can't see that the Evoultionary Theory is just as much as a religion.  That's where the debate lies.  We believe the creation story has been replaced with a theory that cannot be proven and is nothing more than secular humanism.  Neither can creation be proven or reenacted.  One theory is just as plausible as the other.   

Actually, I haven't studied this at length but do know that there is a strong belief that the creation story was handed down from one generation to another and that Adam did write it down.  If you study the geneologies you can see a huge overlap.  Adam lived almost all the way to Noah who would have carried that story with him and passed it onto his three sons.  Moses was credited with the writings but there is some that believe that Moses had in his possession words directly written down from Adam.  Remember Adam lived for 930 years and lived almost to the flood.  With everything else in the Hebrew and Gk scriptures as being written down by eyewittnesses I can't see that the creation story would be any different.  It's a very precise description and to me and millions of others thru the centuries makes logical sense. 

I meant any one religion cannot be taught as fact.

That is "religion" as in "faith".

Public schools in a secular state cannot teach any faith as fact, neither atheism nor Hinduism or Christianity.

KFC, I have said this before.

Darwinian evolution does NOT claim that "one species turns into another". In fact, finding proof that that they do would disprove Darwin's theory. But as you say, no such proof has been found yet.

What has been shown to be correct is that animals change.

And yes, animals can change into different species by branching into them. There is no reason why they wouldn't. That's already enough for it to be scientific.

I gave the example with languages.

German and English have a common ancestor.

German and English are different species of language.

But at no point did the ancestor of German and English "turn into" English (or German). There was no such moment in time and there couldn't have been any such moment in time.

Evolution works the same for lifeforms.

As long as you keep believing that evolution is about species "turning into" other species, I'm afraid what you say about evolution and its validity as a scientific theory is entirely without value. You don't even know what evolution is (and refuse to learn), so how could you possible judge it?

That's because you don't understand what the theory of evolution says.

There is no faith evolved. And a scientist can reject it if he likes. And maybe one day somebody will find proof that Darwin's theory is wrong. But that hasn't happened yet.

The point is that Darwin's theory can be proven wrong and that's why it's science.

Creationism cannot be proven wrong and hence it is faith. That's the difference. That's the entire difference.

You think it's about how certain one can be and compare Creationism (which you believe) and evolution (which you don't understand) and arrive at the conclusion that both are essentially the same type of thing. But in reality it's the other way around. Science is not what it is more certain than religion, science is what we know how to disprove.

Present a theory of  "creationism" that includes instructions for what must happen for it to be proven wrong, and you have a scientific theory. But Creationism doesn't have such instructions. It's impossible for Creationism to be wrong. It's religion.

Darwin's theory is quite clear and can be disproven very easily, for example by showing how "one species turns into another". If that ever happens (and cannot be dismissed as a total freak occurence, so maybe we observe it twice to be sure), Darwin's theory will be disproven. And scientists, in contrast to religious authorities, will accept it, just like they accepted that the alternative theories (like Lamarck's) were eventually proven wrong.

I can't imagine how anyone who has learned about evolution from actual biology books (and not Creationist Web sites) could possibly believe that Darwin argues that one species turns into another. He didn't.

Again, and I think this is really the best example, it's like how languages evolve. German and English are two different languages and they have a common ancestor (call it "Germanic" if you want). But German never turned into English or vice versa and Germanic never turned into either. Yet the result is two different languages, quite without "turning into". And this is also how Darwin's theory explains different species.

Yes, but we have no evidence apart from the Bible that any of these people really grew that old and a story handed down is still not a primary source (it's as n-ty as it has been handed down, i.e. if it has handed down three times, it's a tertiary source).

So we don't even have a primary source that those people really grew that old.

But even if they did, we still have no primary source (because of the handing down) of what really happened in Genesis.

The creation story was obviously handed down, not only to Moses but also to other peoples. And it was finally (again) written down in the Bible. But it is never a primary source by its own admission.

This is different from Exodus and later where the Bible clearly claims to be a primary source, written by the people who were there. (Of course the oldest actual example of the text we have is a mere 2300 years old).

Or implausible.

Thank you for admitting that the Bible story is possibly flawed.

1. Grasp Pineapple firmly in one hand.
2. Insert finger into ring of pineapple
3. Pull decisively pin from pineapple
4. Extend arm attached to hand grasping pineapple over head.
5. Propel arm forward
6. release pineapple when arm reaches optimum trajectory arch.

A very interesting debate Infidel.  I am enjoying it.

Thanks.

I didn't say that.  I don't think it's flawed at all.  Makes perfect sense. 

I said that creation of man cannot be reenacted or reproduced.  Neither can secular humanism in the form of the Evolutionary theory when it comes to origins be proven.   They are both equal in that reqard.  I also believe they are both part of a religious system.  So again, why can't both be taught as alternative suggestions when it comes to origins?  I'm not speaking about teaching religion only another answer for how we all got here. 

To me one makes perfect sense and the other is an imitation with no answer so they instead shout out/throw out the other theory. 

About which evolutionary theory postulates nothing.  You continue to pretend otherwise.

And evolutionary theory is not a 'form' of 'secular humanism'.  It's a scientific theory.

Creationists claim that "Intelligent Design" does not require a god.

Then they claim that since evolution doesn't require a god, it's "secular humanism".

In reality, of course, evolution (like gravity) is a scientific theory (and could be proven wrong).

Then Intelligent Design must be secular humanism.

Is there a theme here? I think so. Combine this with widespread belief in UFOs, ESP and Elvis sightings, what I see is a rebellion against scientific orthodoxy. And I think I know why.

http://www.denbeste.nu/essays/pseudo.shtml

Atheism is a religion.  It's a belief system.  It's just the opposite of Theism in maintaining there is no God.   All your "isms" are religions.  Catholicism.  Hinduism.  Mormanism...etc.  The Evolutionary Theory is born out of the fact that they need answers for why we are here, how we got here and our purpose in life without a God or creator that put us here. 

I know someone who went to an Atheism meeting.  They meet and diss the bible.  Instead of an omnipotent, omnicient God they worship self.  It's all about me after all.  But it's still a religion.  Showing us that right from the get go in the garden "you will be like gods" is correct afterall. 

so says the Atheistic Scientists..but not the Christian Scientists but yes it is wrapped up in the package of Science, considered a theory and is considered acceptable while creation by an outside being is not. 

Please note I'm not all against good Scientific Theory or even some forms of the ET but like everything else there is good Science and pseudo Science wrapped up as good.  My son (a Scientist) tells me all the time there is so much subjective material in Science that people have no idea.  It's not always as objective as many believe. 

True, but irrelevant.

However, evolution, does not make any statements about the existence of gods.

It's like Christianity is a religion and so is Islam but gravity isn't.

There is no such 'fact'.  That's just you making a bald assertion, projecting your opinion.  Evolution theory was 'born out of' nothing but human curiosity.  'They' (whoever 'they' are) don't 'need' anything.  And evolution theory has never attempted to ask 'how we got here' or 'what our purpose in life without a God or creator that put us here' may be, much less 'needed answers' to those questions.

We don't have to 'discredit' it.  Because it's not a theory.

The problem I have with this statement in particular is that it has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. The theory of abiogenesis on the other hand matches the event you are describing here.

The fact is, there is no such thing as rapid macroevolution, and any experiment set up to demonstrate macroevolution would have to be rigorously maintained for at least 1000 years to show even the slightest amount of deviation from the general population.

Proof that one can be 'objectively' stupid wrong both.

Yes, gravity can be tested.

Ironically, Newton's theory of gravity ultimately turned out to be wrong. Now we have Einstein's general relativity which describes reality a little better.

But evolution can likewise be tested. And as I said many, many times before, it is routinely done in labs, usually with fruit flies.

As for the "generate life" comment, that's just non sequitur. Evolution is not about "generating life".

Infidel,

Interesting that you posted this in the religion category. Thanks, otherwise I may not have found it.

Good debate.

I agree with KFC across the board.

KFC POSTS 17

Agree, "that all living things came into being through a creator" can be taught without getting into religion.

When you think about it both sides of the debate have a "creator".

One side of the debate posits that all livings things came into being through the process of change called evolution....therefore "evolution" is the "creator".

The other side of the debate posits that all living things came into being through the process of a creator....therefore a "creator" is the "creator".

Your bringing "belief" up is quite interesting. It too goes both ways.

Why bring "belief" in?

Students don't have to believe in a creator to be taught that side of the debate.

Apply that to teaching students about the Declaration of Independence which contains the word "Creator"...do students have to believe in the Creator to be taught the DofI?

exactly.  Just like our kids don't have to believe in some of the aspects of evolution even though that's all they're being taught. Right now they are being taught some things that are contrary to what we believe and what we teach them.  At least they are more balanced than the kids who only get one side of the issue.  Have to say that.  It should be about education; not indoctrination.   

Carry on Lula.  I'm heading up north so I'll be gone for a week or so. 

leauki posts:

I've read about those fruit fly experiments. They all start with fruit flies and end up with fruit flies. That's not "testing evolution"...for it's not evolution at all. Rather, its "variety within kind" due to reshuffling of genes or "recombination".

Scientific tests on fruit flies that show variety within kind or recombination should not be confused with evolution because NEW, HIGHER GENETIC INFORMATION IS NOT GAINED IN THE PROCESS GIVING RISE TO VARIETY.

The definition of EVOLUTION, according to my daughter's 10th grade science book and what is being taught in all public (government) schools, is a molecules-to-man natural transformation in which new, "higher" genetic information is gained which was not possessed by one's ancestor.  

Lula -

You & KFC talk amongst yerselves.  Toodle loo.