I had the privilege of attending a wonderful lecture on evolution today. It was presented by one Dr. Prothero, of California (LA, iirc).
Anyways, he addressed numerous topics, and was quick to jump on the wonderful wagon of attacking Creationists - okay, not all, as he is one, but he did go after some.
Some minor, yet very important points he dredged up:
1. Science (and evolution) is not Atheistic.
2. Science pertains to falsification, opposed to verification.
=>ie. If you say all swans are white, it would be proven false by a black swan existing. A brief elaboration by...Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Inductive_categorical_inference)
3. So called "Missing Links" exist, but clearly, not all can nor will be found.
The discussion moved on to Young Earth Creationism...which is the Earth being 10,000 years old at most, made in a period of 6 days. We discussed how the fossil record clearly proves otherwise, and ended it there.
We then progressed on to something more of you will be familiar with:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/MontreGousset001.jpg/210px-MontreGousset001.jpg)
Intelligent Design. This is the belief that with advanced structures (and effectively beauty), only something highly intelligent could have created such things as life. The analogy is that if you find a watch on the beach, a designer (watchmaker) had to have created it - it doesn't just magically shape itself. The premise is that without saying which God(s) created this life, it should be allowed in schools. If not...
(http://pharyngula.org/images/teach_both_theories.gif)
He proceeded to tell us how many of the ID followers (and higher ups) are indeed Doctors, however their PhD's come from other fields; Religion, Chemistry, Education, and not Geology or Biology. He proved it with samples from previous debates and presentations from these Creationists (note: this is addressed at the particular sect, not Creationists in general) that were embarrassing, at best.
"Kiddie books" and Wikipedia are where they get their information was a rather bold claim. With "hoaxes" like Nebraska Man or a general lack of evidence, perhaps the fossil record was clearly wrong, and Flood Geology is far more likely.
(http://pharyngula.org/images/bensen_carnival.gif)
Of course, prove from the Grand Canyon showed a pattern => Dinosaurs on one layer, shelled creatures on the next, dinosaurs, shelled, etc. Not a proof, mind you, merely falsifying the Flood Geology. Then what about missing links? We've found several, such as The Great Canadian Example - Tiktaalik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik), or others such as an example close to our hosts heart, the Frogamander (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frogamander).
So, maybe these do exist? Just maybe. How can we explain Chimps being around when humans are? If evolution were real, then the species branched off of must become extinct. His explanation was simple - when one is born, do their parents automatically die off? No.
(http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/Images/CA230_1Trever.gif)
This lecture went on and on, using examples like the Walrus. The simple fact, for me, is that I really bought into it more than I thought it would. I support evolution, but I am still Creationist in a sense.
It brings up so many possible topics, though. Our Q+A addressed several, but I'd like to wait for discussion here.
1. Canada ranks far better on the scales of Science Literacy than the US (which ranks near the bottom, with Turkey). Why is this?
2. Do you believe in Evolution or Creationism?
3. Can the two co-exist?
4. Are "Missing Links" truly needed to have an understanding of evolution?
5. Should schools teach both?
And so much more.
poppycock...
Evolutionist here. My school teaches only evolution, cuz like it was stated, i gives us the facts before any conclusions, so to be taught in a science class, it's a better example of reinforcing the scientific method.
1. Canada ranks far better on the scales of Science Literacy than the US (which ranks near the bottom, with Turkey). Why is this?
I don't really know. Don't really care to tell you the truth.
2. Do you believe in Evolution or Creationism?
Evolution. Creationism has been proven false many time over.
3. Can the two co-exist?
No: they are complete opposites. Creationism says that the God created everything as it is now and that nothing ever changes; Evolution says that we are constantly changing thanks to factors such as stress, predators, food supply, genes, and many others.
4. Are "Missing Links" truly needed to have an understanding of evolution?
I wouldn't know. My opinion is ambivalent.
5. Should schools teach both?
As a required course? No. And neither should it be a course that can be taken instead of a real class. It could be an optional course.
I believe that God created the Universe via the Big Bang, be it from a previous universal crunch, other dimension, or what have you; the universe is in too perfect an order for it to all be cosmological chance. Energy cannot be created out of nowhere, so somehow, somewhere, something had to have created the energy that fuels our reality.
Evolution should be taught in tandem with this concept, for the proof behind it is so overwhelming it is basically fact.
tl;dr- God created evolution (in a sense, I don't think he simply said "boom let there be evolution)
1. Canada ranks far better on the scales of Science Literacy than the US (which ranks near the bottom, with Turkey). Why is this?
I'm not sure about that one.
2. Do you believe in Evolution or Creationism?
I used to believe in Creationism. But I think I believe in Evolution now. As I grew older, I wondered how things could just "magically" happen, and started buying into the things that can actually be proven.
3. Can the two co-exist?
Not really. They are polar opposites, like britney said.
4. Are "Missing Links" truly needed to have an understanding of evolution?
Not necessarily, but it would definitely help it's cause and give us more information.
5. Should schools teach both?
No. Schools should just teach evolution, like they are already. If you want to learn about creationism, go to a church. They shouldn't be together, because they're opposites. They don't mix well.
Quote from: Country Boy on March 14, 2009, 05:54:58 PM
I believe that God created the Universe via the Big Bang, be it from a previous universal crunch, other dimension, or what have you; the universe is in too perfect an order for it to all be cosmological chance. Energy cannot be created out of nowhere, so somehow, somewhere, something had to have created the energy that fuels our reality.
Evolution should be taught in tandem with this concept, for the proof behind it is so overwhelming it is basically fact.
tl;dr- God created evolution (in a sense, I don't think he simply said "boom let there be evolution)
What created God?
Energy cannot be created out of nowhere.
One of the best primers on the subject of religion vs. atheism that I've ever read, though not perfectly on-topic. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/mar/15/society)
And it's just an op-ed, too.
Also, inb4 certain Canadian users tell us that we're all delusional for believing in any kind of spirituality.
1. USA is stupid.
2. Creationist.
3. No.
4. Not really, although no one can be an "expert" on the subject unless there was not any.
5. Absolutely.
Quote from: britneymahboy on March 14, 2009, 06:02:26 PM
Quote from: Country Boy on March 14, 2009, 05:54:58 PM
I believe that God created the Universe via the Big Bang, be it from a previous universal crunch, other dimension, or what have you; the universe is in too perfect an order for it to all be cosmological chance. Energy cannot be created out of nowhere, so somehow, somewhere, something had to have created the energy that fuels our reality.
Evolution should be taught in tandem with this concept, for the proof behind it is so overwhelming it is basically fact.
tl;dr- God created evolution (in a sense, I don't think he simply said "boom let there be evolution)
What created God? Energy cannot be created out of nowhere.
What created the first rule of thermodynamics?
1. Canada ranks far better on the scales of Science Literacy than the US (which ranks near the bottom, with Turkey). Why is this?
don't know
2. Do you believe in Evolution or Creationism?
Evolution
3. Can the two co-exist?
can they? no, should they? yes
4. Are "Missing Links" truly needed to have an understanding of evolution?
only for Creationist, and no matter how many we find they will still want more
5. Should schools teach both?
no Evolution only
Quote from: PsychoYoshi on March 14, 2009, 06:25:35 PM
Quote from: britneymahboy on March 14, 2009, 06:02:26 PM
Quote from: Country Boy on March 14, 2009, 05:54:58 PM
I believe that God created the Universe via the Big Bang, be it from a previous universal crunch, other dimension, or what have you; the universe is in too perfect an order for it to all be cosmological chance. Energy cannot be created out of nowhere, so somehow, somewhere, something had to have created the energy that fuels our reality.
Evolution should be taught in tandem with this concept, for the proof behind it is so overwhelming it is basically fact.
tl;dr- God created evolution (in a sense, I don't think he simply said "boom let there be evolution)
What created God? Energy cannot be created out of nowhere.
What created the first rule of thermodynamics?
It is like a side-effect of the forces dominating the Universe. But, yeah, that question was pointless. It didn't prove his point anymore pertinent
Quote from: britneymahboy on March 14, 2009, 06:47:47 PM
Quote from: PsychoYoshi on March 14, 2009, 06:25:35 PM
Quote from: britneymahboy on March 14, 2009, 06:02:26 PM
Quote from: Country Boy on March 14, 2009, 05:54:58 PM
I believe that God created the Universe via the Big Bang, be it from a previous universal crunch, other dimension, or what have you; the universe is in too perfect an order for it to all be cosmological chance. Energy cannot be created out of nowhere, so somehow, somewhere, something had to have created the energy that fuels our reality.
Evolution should be taught in tandem with this concept, for the proof behind it is so overwhelming it is basically fact.
tl;dr- God created evolution (in a sense, I don't think he simply said "boom let there be evolution)
What created God? Energy cannot be created out of nowhere.
What created the first rule of thermodynamics?
It is like a side-effect of the forces dominating the Universe. But, yeah, that question was pointless. It didn't prove his point anymore pertinent
It wasn't designed to prove his point, it was designed to expose your logical fallacy and deconstruct your point.
I could then ask you what created the forces that hold up the laws of thermodynamics, and you'd be unable to answer that couched in logical terms and would be forced to say "they simply exist", which is the exact argument that any religious person would use about a higher power. Problem is that if you magnify science to a certain level, its rationalizations for things break down, and at that level it is arguably no better than religion at explaining things.
Quote from: PsychoYoshi on March 14, 2009, 06:58:37 PM
Quote from: britneymahboy on March 14, 2009, 06:47:47 PM
Quote from: PsychoYoshi on March 14, 2009, 06:25:35 PM
Quote from: britneymahboy on March 14, 2009, 06:02:26 PM
Quote from: Country Boy on March 14, 2009, 05:54:58 PM
I believe that God created the Universe via the Big Bang, be it from a previous universal crunch, other dimension, or what have you; the universe is in too perfect an order for it to all be cosmological chance. Energy cannot be created out of nowhere, so somehow, somewhere, something had to have created the energy that fuels our reality.
Evolution should be taught in tandem with this concept, for the proof behind it is so overwhelming it is basically fact.
tl;dr- God created evolution (in a sense, I don't think he simply said "boom let there be evolution)
What created God? Energy cannot be created out of nowhere.
What created the first rule of thermodynamics?
It is like a side-effect of the forces dominating the Universe. But, yeah, that question was pointless. It didn't prove his point anymore pertinent
It wasn't designed to prove his point, it was designed to expose your logical fallacy.
I could then ask you what created the forces that hold up the laws of thermodynamics, and you'd be unable to answer that couched in logical terms and would be forced to say "they simply exist", which is the exact argument that any religious person would use about a higher power. Problem is that if you magnify science to a certain level, its rationalizations for things break down, and at that level it is arguably no better than religion at explaining things.
Quantum Mechanics = God
... :P
I'm not some crazy religious zealot either.
The exact laws that science says govern our universe are so crazy it almost sounds like science fiction.
The truth is, we will almost never be able to understand what makes our universe tick at the most basic levels.
So, its not totally illogical to think that, "Hey, something might have caused this that we can't understand."
We can't even determine where an electron is in space... science has a long way to go.
Quote from: PsychoYoshi on March 14, 2009, 06:58:37 PM
Quote from: britneymahboy on March 14, 2009, 06:47:47 PM
Quote from: PsychoYoshi on March 14, 2009, 06:25:35 PM
Quote from: britneymahboy on March 14, 2009, 06:02:26 PM
Quote from: Country Boy on March 14, 2009, 05:54:58 PM
I believe that God created the Universe via the Big Bang, be it from a previous universal crunch, other dimension, or what have you; the universe is in too perfect an order for it to all be cosmological chance. Energy cannot be created out of nowhere, so somehow, somewhere, something had to have created the energy that fuels our reality.
Evolution should be taught in tandem with this concept, for the proof behind it is so overwhelming it is basically fact.
tl;dr- God created evolution (in a sense, I don't think he simply said "boom let there be evolution)
What created God? Energy cannot be created out of nowhere.
What created the first rule of thermodynamics?
It is like a side-effect of the forces dominating the Universe. But, yeah, that question was pointless. It didn't prove his point anymore pertinent
It wasn't designed to prove his point, it was designed to expose your logical fallacy and deconstruct your point.
I could then ask you what created the forces that hold up the laws of thermodynamics, and you'd be unable to answer that couched in logical terms and would be forced to say "they simply exist", which is the exact argument that any religious person would use about a higher power. Problem is that if you magnify science to a certain level, its rationalizations for things break down, and at that level it is arguably no better than religion at explaining things.
Oh, sir! what was furthest from my mind when I said that comment. You assume too much about such a diminutive comment. In fact, if you read again, you'll see that your point and mine are the same. He says that the Universe had to come from somewhere, and he thinks it only logical that that somewhere is God; I ask the same question posed to the Universe to God's existance, knowing that we don't know how the Universe really got started, to show how illogical his proposition was. I found it very disagreeable and ornery of you to say something like my logic had a fault when you were merely
assumingmy point of view. It was also sad to make you think you could somehow deconstruct a point that was all but in your head. Also, the forces of thermodynamics, to my understanding, are created by the intermolecular forces between particles, electrons, atomic size, and other factors that I've yet to learn--I imagine. I mean, you could definitely go deeper into it, but I think both of us rather not.
Quote from: Country Boy on March 14, 2009, 07:06:12 PM
Quote from: PsychoYoshi on March 14, 2009, 06:58:37 PM
Quote from: britneymahboy on March 14, 2009, 06:47:47 PM
Quote from: PsychoYoshi on March 14, 2009, 06:25:35 PM
Quote from: britneymahboy on March 14, 2009, 06:02:26 PM
Quote from: Country Boy on March 14, 2009, 05:54:58 PM
I believe that God created the Universe via the Big Bang, be it from a previous universal crunch, other dimension, or what have you; the universe is in too perfect an order for it to all be cosmological chance. Energy cannot be created out of nowhere, so somehow, somewhere, something had to have created the energy that fuels our reality.
Evolution should be taught in tandem with this concept, for the proof behind it is so overwhelming it is basically fact.
tl;dr- God created evolution (in a sense, I don't think he simply said "boom let there be evolution)
What created God? Energy cannot be created out of nowhere.
What created the first rule of thermodynamics?
It is like a side-effect of the forces dominating the Universe. But, yeah, that question was pointless. It didn't prove his point anymore pertinent
It wasn't designed to prove his point, it was designed to expose your logical fallacy.
I could then ask you what created the forces that hold up the laws of thermodynamics, and you'd be unable to answer that couched in logical terms and would be forced to say "they simply exist", which is the exact argument that any religious person would use about a higher power. Problem is that if you magnify science to a certain level, its rationalizations for things break down, and at that level it is arguably no better than religion at explaining things.
Quantum Mechanics = God
... :P
I'm not some crazy religious zealot either.
The exact laws that science says govern our universe are so crazy it almost sounds like science fiction.
The truth is, we will almost never be able to understand what makes our universe tick at the most basic levels.
So, its not totally illogical to think that, "Hey, something might have caused this that we can't understand."
We can't even determine where an electron is in space... science has a long way to go.
It's pretty illogical since we can't just say, "oh well, God made it." Not only that, but, still, where
did God come from? Or what, we are expected to just die and hope He exists so he can tell us? What if he really doesn't exist? All of science comes to a stagnation just because of some mediocre mindset like that? I don't think so.
Quote from: britneymahboy on March 14, 2009, 08:35:16 PM
Oh, sir! what was furthest from my mind when I said that comment. You assume too much about such a diminutive comment. In fact, if you read again, you'll see that your point and mine are the same. He says that the Universe had to come from somewhere, and he thinks it only logical that that somewhere is God; I ask the same question posed to the Universe to God's existance, knowing that we don't know how the Universe really got started, to show how illogical his proposition was. I found it very disagreeable and ornery of you to say something like my logic had a fault when you were merely assumingmy point of view. It was also sad to make you think you could somehow deconstruct a point that was all but in your head. Also, the forces of thermodynamics, to my understanding, are created by the intermolecular forces between particles, electrons, atomic size, and other factors that I've yet to learn--I imagine. I mean, you could definitely go deeper into it, but I think both of us rather not.and at that level it is arguably no better than religion at explaining things.
tl;dr
Its also pretty illogical that the the best we can do is predict how often something can be in a certain place, and never know if its really there or not. I mean, everything has a certain position is space right?
But according to science, no, things can be everywhere and nowhere at the same time.
It is simply impossible to say science rules out God, just as it is impossible to say that God must be there because there are things we cannot explain.
The universe is infinitely more complex than even most scientists are willing to imagine, so if some people (the majority of the planet) choose to believe that somewhere there is something we will never be able to explain, hell maybe in another dimension or universe for there could be more than one, than it seems to me that religion is actually the one taking the safer bet.
An all knowing, benevolent overseer might be taking it a touch too far... but in my eyes faith for the time has more ground for belief than science. If I choose to believe that there is a God somewhere, science has yet to prove me wrong.
I'm not going to jump into any arguments on this subject, but I am a christian who believes that both sides have something to offer on the theory of the beginning of life. I personally try not to think about it too much because, personally, I don't care how we got here. What I think matters is that we're here now and we need to live our lives the way we think is right.
Oh, and if you don't believe in evolution, or creation, trying to argue it out of another person isn't going to help. No side is ever going to annoy the other out of existence, and there are people who need to realize that out there.
Quote from: Country Boy on March 15, 2009, 09:23:39 AM
Its also pretty illogical that the the best we can do is predict how often something can be in a certain place, and never know if its really there or not. I mean, everything has a certain position is space right?
But according to science, no, things can be everywhere and nowhere at the same time.
It is simply impossible to say science rules out God, just as it is impossible to say that God must be there because there are things we cannot explain.
The universe is infinitely more complex than even most scientists are willing to imagine, so if some people (the majority of the planet) choose to believe that somewhere there is something we will never be able to explain, hell maybe in another dimension or universe for there could be more than one, than it seems to me that religion is actually the one taking the safer bet.
An all knowing, benevolent overseer might be taking it a touch too far... but in my eyes faith for the time has more ground for belief than science. If I choose to believe that there is a God somewhere, science has yet to prove me wrong.
If there is a God it's definitely not the Christian God.
It's pretty silly of you to say something like just because we can't know where an electron is, we must then believe in God. Actually, the rule states that absolutely nobody can know where exactly an electron is--not even God. It's just impossible. That's why they rely on statistics to predict where an electron is most likely to be. And we can just say, "all right, guys, lets take a vote; if the majority agrees on something even without factual support it must be true!" I mean, I can certainly believe in any stupid poop I want to believe. And, really, the whole science community doesn't revolve around me, so it would be very self-centered of me to say that science has to prove my outlandish belief wrong, and for me to agree, for them to be right, even if they seem more logically correct. Science doesn't attempt to answer all questions at once, but it tries to answer many as time progresses with data that can be tested, and sadly God cannot. You can make millions of excuses for him to exist and your mind; therefore God is not even worth proving wrong or right, and neither are people that just zealously make excuses for him worth the time explaining why they are incorrect.
My point was not that we can't prove where things are, but rather that science is not as rock solid as people make it out to be.
And you didn't address the one point I thought was truly central to faith.
That because we don't know everything, there is a chance something bigger than ourselves could exist.
And science most certainly does have to 100% disprove God before people can use it as a basis for religion be false.
Saying we are 99% sure God isn't real just makes you sound stupid.
No bible study should not be a class in school unless its a privet religion school of some sort. The science method should be learned because its science and most likely to be proven soon enough. But thats Okay religion freaks your going to find a way to back yourselfs up with that 1 sentence that goes something like this.
Thats not what the Bible sayyyyysss!
A religion class is fine in school under one conditions:
1) It's an elective. No one should be forced to take this course, as publics schools owned through the state, and church and state are separate yada yada yada.
Quote from: Country Boy on March 15, 2009, 03:42:00 PM
My point was not that we can't prove where things are, but rather that science is not as rock solid as people make it out to be.
And you didn't address the one point I thought was truly central to faith.
That because we don't know everything, there is a chance something bigger than ourselves could exist.
And science most certainly does have to 100% disprove God before people can use it as a basis for religion be false.
Saying we are 99% sure God isn't real just makes you sound stupid.
Well, if it sounds stupid in your mind, then there's hardly anything scientist can do about it. There's no need to disprove something that cannot be disregarded in the first place: it's pointless. Let's say humans go all over the Universe and through every single universe that exist, which is impossible, and they don't find God. Any Christian would just give another excuse for Him to exist to the extent that their faith does not become extinct. Sure, not all of science is rock solid, but it's definitely way more grounded than any God. If it wasn't, you wouldn't be in the internet right now. And, yeah, something bigger could exist, but it's not going to be the Christian God; that's for sure.
Quote from: britneymahboy on March 16, 2009, 12:34:41 PM
Quote from: Country Boy on March 15, 2009, 03:42:00 PM
My point was not that we can't prove where things are, but rather that science is not as rock solid as people make it out to be.
And you didn't address the one point I thought was truly central to faith.
That because we don't know everything, there is a chance something bigger than ourselves could exist.
And science most certainly does have to 100% disprove God before people can use it as a basis for religion be false.
Saying we are 99% sure God isn't real just makes you sound stupid.
Well, if it sounds stupid in your mind, then there's hardly anything scientist can do about it. There's no need to disprove something that cannot be disregarded in the first place: it's pointless. Let's say humans go all over the Universe and through every single universe that exist, which is impossible, and they don't find God. Any Christian would just give another excuse for Him to exist to the extent that their faith does not become extinct. Sure, not all of science is rock solid, but it's definitely way more grounded than any God. If it wasn't, you wouldn't be in the internet right now. And, yeah, something bigger could exist, but it's not going to be the Christian God; that's for sure.
...
K, good chatting with you
I'm Roman Catholic so that puts me into the Intelligent Design category I guess.
I asked my biology teacher about the Church's stance on evolution. He says that for the most part the Church is fine with it as long as you know that it was God who designed the world in the first place. Or something very similar along those lines.
Quote from: Country Boy on March 16, 2009, 03:15:27 PM
Quote from: britneymahboy on March 16, 2009, 12:34:41 PM
Quote from: Country Boy on March 15, 2009, 03:42:00 PM
My point was not that we can't prove where things are, but rather that science is not as rock solid as people make it out to be.
And you didn't address the one point I thought was truly central to faith.
That because we don't know everything, there is a chance something bigger than ourselves could exist.
And science most certainly does have to 100% disprove God before people can use it as a basis for religion be false.
Saying we are 99% sure God isn't real just makes you sound stupid.
Well, if it sounds stupid in your mind, then there's hardly anything scientist can do about it. There's no need to disprove something that cannot be disregarded in the first place: it's pointless. Let's say humans go all over the Universe and through every single universe that exist, which is impossible, and they don't find God. Any Christian would just give another excuse for Him to exist to the extent that their faith does not become extinct. Sure, not all of science is rock solid, but it's definitely way more grounded than any God. If it wasn't, you wouldn't be in the internet right now. And, yeah, something bigger could exist, but it's not going to be the Christian God; that's for sure.
...
K, good chatting with you
You're welcome.
This could be a fun thread. :3
I'll answer the questions first. :u
1. Canada ranks far better on the scales of Science Literacy than the US (which ranks near the bottom, with Turkey). Why is this?
What seems to be a majority of people in the United States don't have their darned facts straight. They don't believe that the two can coexist, and they believe that evolution is the spawn of evil. Thing is, evolution is real - or, at least on a micro level. Hell, even Darwin didn't say that macroevolution was real; we still don't know if it is to this day. ONE THING IS SURE, THOUGH: MICROEVOLUTION IS REAL. Evolution is a species better adapting to fit its environment. Every little change is evolution, albeit on a rather small scale that takes place over a rather long period of time.
2. Do you believe in Evolution or Creationism?
I believe in evolution (obviously), but will not reject the possibility of a higher power; I simply will not devote my life to something that I cannot prove.
3. Can the two co-exist?
Of course. Extremists are the ones that get facts and all that messed up so that they can convince people otherwise. If someone researches both and finds a middle ground, then let them believe it. Everyone has the ability (and right) to believe what they want.
4. Are "Missing Links" truly needed to have an understanding of evolution?
To have an understanding of it? What kind of understanding? How? Why? When? I have a feeling that I'm reading this question wrong... :U
5. Should schools teach both?
Of course. If they teach one, that's giving priority. If they teach neither, that's keeping people from the information they need to truly believe what they would like to. Give people the chance to see and understand both sides' views.
...Well, looks like that's all I have to say right now. :U I've had a fair share of religious debates, and they tend to get quite heated. The main problem I have is with extremists. Let people believe what they want, but dangit, keep them from shoving their beliefs down my throat.
I posted this elsewhere and got a great response I'd like to share.
Quote from: Pkmn_Flying_Master on March 15, 2009, 05:33:51 PM
Yay, evolution. One of my favourite topics recently. I do have quite the knowledge of evolution and of the creationism vs evolution debate. But I'll get right to the point. You posted a list of potential topics to discuss. I'll go through each one and if anyone wants to develop on one of them, feel free.
1. Canada ranks far better on the scales of Science Literacy than the US (which ranks near the bottom, with Turkey). Why is this?
Why? I believe the answer is simple. America is one of the most religious countries in the world. That would result in a more biblical perspective of the world. Also, many of them aren't very accepting in general. A portion of the population wants their own president dead because he is of a certain race. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any state allows a same-sex marriage because they believe it's "unnatural" (***Correction "Gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts and Connecticut. It's recognized (if from out of state/country) in NY."*** thanks FH ). George Bush senior doesn't think atheists should even be considered citizens just because they don't believe in his god. About half the population doesn't believe in evolution. These aren't the traits of an open minded culture. Canada on the other hand, is only a little less religious but we are pretty accepting of new ideas. I don't think there are any Canadian groups against Obama (and we've also had a woman as a leader before), we allow gay marriages and atheists are generally not ostracized from their cities or towns. Not to mention the fact that a significantly greater amount of Canadians believe in evolution. And that's what it really comes down to. Canada is more liberal minded and America is more conservative. America isn't kind to people who break free of the bible story and Canada doesn't care.
2. Do you believe in Evolution or Creationism?
Evolution, if someone couldn't figure that one out yet.
3. Can the two co-exist?
If you mean a literal interpretation of the creation story and evolution, then absolutely not. Both weave a completely different tale and you logically cannot accept both. If you mean a loose interpretation of the creation story and evolution, I suppose you can. Most people I know accept the whole "God guided evolution" theory. I don't know how people can accept that though. It's basically a heresy. Making a religious claim that has no evidence from the religion supporting it. It is a horrible attempt to merge the two because the person doesn't want to choose one over the other. You think if a god actually created the universe, that he would add something as important as his process of creating humans. So yeah, evolution and religion can co-exist, you just have to create your own religion for it to work.
4. Are "Missing Links" truly needed to have an understanding of evolution?
Links between species aren't really necessary to "prove" evolution. Even if no transitional species have been discovered, there is still phylogenetic, geographic, archaeological and genetic evidence to back up evolution. phylogenetic in the sense that animals can be traced back to previous generations based on physical properties. Geographic in the sense that distribution of animals is tied in the movement of the continents and animals that evolve independently of each other in different locations will form different branches on the tree of evolution. Archaeological in the sense that complexity in fossils increases as you get high in strata levels. Genetic in the sense that close branches on the tree of evolution share verrrry similar DNA (we share ~98% of the same DNA as chimps) and often times contain viruses that latch on to a point in DNA and remain inactive and continuously get passed down for generations after generations. Fossils of transitional species are hard to come by, but they do exist. Here's a list:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html)
5. Should schools teach both?
NO NON ONON NO. The comic you posted says it all. Would you teach kids alchemy alongside chemistry? No. Would you teach astronomy alongside astrology? No. Would you teach holocaust denial alongside WWII history? No. Would you teach intelligent falling alongside gravity? No. Truth is, creationism is NOT science. Science draws conclusions based on evidence. Creationism draws evidence based on conclusions. Evolution has active, acceptable theories and peer reviewed evidence supporting it. Every "theory" put up by creationism falls flat on its face and not a single peer reviewed paper has ever been published supporting creationism. Intelligent Design is supported by as much evidence as Intelligent Falling. None. Should we teach kids every option regarding every subject? No. Kids should be taught the currently accepted model. The one backed with supporting evidence. The one most biologists (>99%) accept. That's it.
1. Canada ranks far better on the scales of Science Literacy than the US (which ranks near the bottom, with Turkey). Why is this?
Don't know, but cool.
2. Do you believe in Evolution or Creationism?
Creationism
3. Can the two co-exist?
No
4. Are "Missing Links" truly needed to have an understanding of evolution?
Don't care
5. Should schools teach both?
No
Quote from: Lord Layton on March 17, 2009, 08:42:20 PM
Quote5. Should schools teach both?
NO NON ONON NO. The comic you posted says it all. Would you teach kids alchemy alongside chemistry? No. Would you teach astronomy alongside astrology? No. Would you teach holocaust denial alongside WWII history? No. Would you teach intelligent falling alongside gravity? No. Truth is, creationism is NOT science. Science draws conclusions based on evidence. Creationism draws evidence based on conclusions. Evolution has active, acceptable theories and peer reviewed evidence supporting it. Every "theory" put up by creationism falls flat on its face and not a single peer reviewed paper has ever been published supporting creationism. Intelligent Design is supported by as much evidence as Intelligent Falling. None. Should we teach kids every option regarding every subject? No. Kids should be taught the currently accepted model. The one backed with supporting evidence. The one most biologists (>99%) accept. That's it.
I like this guy. I never looked at it this way, and I must say that it puts a whole new perspective on things.