Reply #1 from PolMach Forums Top
Reply #2 By: Citizen T_Bone4Justice - 12/14/2004 11:47:24 AM
Evolution is a scientific theory and is non-religious based. There is no cause of action from which to sue and that's why no one has done it. It's a loser case from the git-go.


The hell it's not religous based. It's not based on any "named" or "organized" religion that is recognized by the IRS, but it's the same damned thing. It's based on a theory, just as Christianity is based on the theory that Jesus Christ lived and was the son of God. The start of the theory is different, but either way, both require a faith in the theory that is presented.

It's been hashed around here, with Myrr and others faithfully defending their beliefs in the scientific theory though they can never explain where the first organisms came from that started it all, and therefore they watch their beloved theory go up in flames for lack of a starting point which can be defended.

Without including several caveats, all of which dance around religion, which is such a big "no-no" in schools, Evolution can't be taught. It has to be cast aside because it's infringes upon the rights of those that practice certain faiths to hold those beliefs. The case can be made, it's a matter of whether or not someone really wants to pursue it, and if they can be lucky enough to land in front of a judge that wants to take the case.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Atheism isn't a religion.

Evolution isn't about "where did the first organism come from," it's about a process of adaptation.

We have actual proof of evolution, which is more than we can say for any of the myriad deities worshipped throughout history.
WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Evolution is a scientific theory and is non-religious based. There is no cause of action from which to sue and that's why no one has done it. It's a loser case from the git-go.
Reply #5 from PolMach Forums Top
The hell it's not religous based. It's not based on any "named" or "organized" religion that is recognized by the IRS, but it's the same damned thing. It's based on a theory, just as Christianity is based on the theory that Jesus Christ lived and was the son of God. The start of the theory is different, but either way, both require a faith in the theory that is presented.


Anything that starts with a theory isn't necesarily a religion. I may have a theory that it's raining outside because; it was raining yesterday; my hip is acting up; God speaks to me, but my theory isn't a religion in any sense. I could go to the dictionary and give you a direct definition, but I think you know how liberally you are using that word.
Sure, you could say that everything is a theory, as even I would tend to do and say that "No one can KNOW anything, really, all belief/knowledge is based on some sort of Faith". As some having faith in some abstract personel conception of an all powerful super human(s) - better known as God(s), isn't entirely removed from a faith in a set of axioms or principles that constitute a particular science. Usually the axioms of science seem almost so common sense that it seems a waste of paper to right them down, but based on a fixed set of these axioms/laws they can discover new axioms/laws that builds a knowledge base for more growth and discovery. And what is also different is that in matters of religion there is always an authoritative figure who translates 'divine knowledge' from the source for his pupils whereas in science the authoritative figures, the theorists, tend to have to defend their theories vigioursly, and if the theory can't stand the heat it is dropped. This is how most scientist make a name for themselves, not by creating but through disecting theories to death - and if a scientist could come around to tell us what is wrong with Darwin's theory he would have shown up by now.

It's been hashed around here, with Myrr and others faithfully defending their beliefs in the scientific theory though they can never explain where the first organisms came from that started it all, and therefore they watch their beloved theory go up in flames for lack of a starting point which can be defended.

This seems to be a common misconception - that the theory of evolution is somehow supposed to explain where the first organism came from, because it can't nor can anybody. If you claim God did it you're simply putting the answer in another unexplainable form. The unknown is still there. Simply putting a question out there that nobody can answer doesn't give any credibility to your own position - it only serves to show your limitations in debate. The starting point for evolution is the apparent fact that species evolve over large periods of time and the 'theory' goes on to explain the phenomeon. I can't believe that a rational person who, even believes the bible, could also belive that species don't evolve. One need only look at the animals we have managed to domesticate or the dogs we breed - or even how Adam and Eve 'evolved' into so many races of man

Without including several caveats, all of which dance around religion, which is such a big "no-no" in schools, Evolution can't be taught. It has to be cast aside because it's infringes upon the rights of those that practice certain faiths to hold those beliefs.

Is this sarcasm? If not it is ridiculous. History has shown time and time again that science has had to bitch-slap religion until it comes to agree with an all too undeniable truth which contradices their own. Certainly if someone holds such beliefs then they are use to their religious beliefs not always being in accord with reality.

A science class without evolution is like a religion with One God that is sometimes partitioned into three gods!?!?... ah, confused by religious dogma again.
Reply #6 from PolMach Forums Top
The existence of evolution does not preclude the ideas presented in the bible. The bible is full of symbolism, not literal stories. If you want to present that there is a higher being that had a hand in evolution, that is not for the schools, that is for parents and churches to put forth.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #5 By: mismos - 12/14/2004 5:56:55 PM
It's been hashed around here, with Myrr and others faithfully defending their beliefs in the scientific theory though they can never explain where the first organisms came from that started it all, and therefore they watch their beloved theory go up in flames for lack of a starting point which can be defended.

This seems to be a common misconception - that the theory of evolution is somehow supposed to explain where the first organism came from, because it can't nor can anybody. If you claim God did it you're simply putting the answer in another unexplainable form. The unknown is still there. Simply putting a question out there that nobody can answer doesn't give any credibility to your own position - it only serves to show your limitations in debate. The starting point for evolution is the apparent fact that species evolve over large periods of time and the 'theory' goes on to explain the phenomeon. I can't believe that a rational person who, even believes the bible, could also belive that species don't evolve. One need only look at the animals we have managed to domesticate or the dogs we breed - or even how Adam and Eve 'evolved' into so many races of man


Species can and do evolve, but then again there is no explanation where the first organism did come form. And since they can't they can't explain it away, the possibility that a higher power may or may not had a hand in it is still viable..


. I can't believe that a rational person who, even believes the bible, could also belive that species don't evolve. One need only look at the animals we have managed to domesticate or the dogs we breed


And BTW, next time leave the animals out of it. That's not evolution, that's selective breeding. Caused by "man" not by nature.
Reply #8 from PolMach Forums Top
Species can and do evolve, but then again there is no explanation where the first organism did come form. And since they can't they can't explain it away, the possibility that a higher power may or may not had a hand in it is still viable..


That's an argument for church, not school.
Reply #9 from PolMach Forums Top
The problem is, everybody is using th word "theory" incorrectly. Generally, it means an idea. A scientific theory, which Darwin's evolution is and intelligent design is not, is almsot completely accepted by scientists and remains a theory instead of a fact because we can't go back in time and observe it.

As for the origin of life, cosmic evolution attempts to explain that.

http://www.funkyscience.net/lonelyplanets/
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
1. Evolution and "Intelligent Design" or not conflicting theories in any way. "Intelligent Desgin" seeks to explain how the univers was created while Evolution seeks to prove the evolution of species when the earth was created. How can the 2 supposedly conflict when they explain different solutions for different problems?

2. Their are a variety of theories that are never explained in schools. It would be wierd to cover the "Scientoligist Theory" or some other crazy nut who made up some theory. Then again I could see the need for "Intelligent Design" being in schools seing it is an extremely popular theory held by many people. So really the whole descision should be left up to the district not some activist judge.

3. Science is not a Religion and Religion is not a Science.

Meh the whole problem arises from the Government creating education services in the first place....
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #8 By: whoman69 - 12/14/2004 10:19:39 PM
Species can and do evolve, but then again there is no explanation where the first organism did come form. And since they can't they can't explain it away, the possibility that a higher power may or may not had a hand in it is still viable..


That's an argument for church, not school.


Did you comprehend what I posted? There was no arguement there.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
terpfan,
you should not confuse your dislike for anyone challenging the teaching of intelligent design with the theory of evolution. The two are totally different issues. Evolution has nothing to do with the law suit you have highlighted. Whether God created the universe or not, does not change the fact that evolution occurs.

My biggest problem with Intelligent design is that it is a belief and not a science. Evolution had to go through decades of research before it was considered a solid theory. It could be disected, predictions made, fossils searched for, evolutionary steps postulised, and then tested. Intelligent design can never go through that though as it is a belief and hence is a completely different issue.

Whether schools should be allowed teach beliefs is the real question here and not how the universe was actually formed. This lawsuit is not about intelligent design but about beliefs or religious being brought into the classroom. Something that I understand is against the US constitution.

Paul.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

You knew it was coming, it was just a matter of when


actually i knew it had come and gone.  like in 1925. now it's back in reverse


I really wish that the "other side" would fire off a bunch of pre-emptive shots and start suing over the teaching of evolution. Why not? It's just another form of religion - secular humanism, or atheism. Or perhaps Darwinism.


have you never seen the movie version of 'inherit the wind'?   you're not aware of the case that inspired the stage play and later stanley kramer's film--argued by clarence darrow vs william jennings bryan--generally conceded to be one of the most important trials of the 20th century? 

altho the issue then was a violation of the butler act which forbade teaching evolution...and the defense lost (i hate givin away the ending but)...

Epperson v. Arkansas (393 U.S. 97) 1968   united states supreme court invalidated  arkansas statute forbidding teaching  evolution in public schools.  court ruled 1st amendment prohibits states from requiring/prohibiting teaching/learning based on religious doctrine specific to any sect.

Reply #14 from PolMach Forums Top
Species can and do evolve, but then again there is no explanation where the first organism did come form. And since they can't they can't explain it away, the possibility that a higher power may or may not had a hand in it is still viable..

True - the fact of evolution doesn't make any suggestion to the God hypothesis.

And BTW, next time leave the animals out of it. That's not evolution, that's selective breeding. Caused by "man" not by nature.

When Darwin was creating his theory he only studied animals. Also, yes selective breeding is caused by man - but this points to the fact that species evolve - or change - over time. Now if you apply this to wild animals the process is called "Natural Selection" and has many similiar factors to selective breeding - they go hand-in-hand.
What do you have against little furry animals drmiler?
Reply #15 from PolMach Forums Top
The problem is, everybody is using th word "theory" incorrectly. Generally, it means an idea. A scientific theory, which Darwin's evolution is and intelligent design is not, is almsot completely accepted by scientists and remains a theory instead of a fact because we can't go back in time and observe it.

As for the origin of life, cosmic evolution attempts to explain that.

http://www.funkyscience.net/lonelyplanets/
Reply #16 from PolMach Forums Top
Whoops.. Sorry for double posting. Really sorry. My submit button has a really long delay.
Reply #17 from PolMach Forums Top
Really, the best way to illustrate how silly it is to try to justify "well sure we can teach I.D., because evolution is just a theory" is to take another theory. Newton's Theory of Gravity works pretty well, and it states: "the force of attraction between two bodies is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them." But I mean, it's only a theory, right? So science teachers should be required to explain that gravity is just a theory, it's not really complete, set-in-stone fact. And then we could teach alternative "theories," like maybe the reason things are naturally pulled toward the center of the earth is because there's a giant, invisible, extremely powerful vacuum at the earth's core.