When did it ever got thought like that?

Please, no straw man arguments. I need that straw for the animals.

If you revierw my post, i do not say that i cannot concieve of a way for new forms to arise or for small change over time to become a large change. I simply am stating that the current processes given by scientists are insufficient in explaining large scale macroevolution.

All those things the above poster listed as NOT having are correct. For microevolution.
It also absurd to suggest random mating. Anyone who has any knowledge of biology, and certainly human psychology, knows that mating is anything but random, but based on a variety of important facts.

Therefore all theories must be an appeal to authority fallacy for the 'common people', and the educated, for that is where we obtain our information from. Following that logic, all educated knowledge not found out by myself is an appeal to authority fallacy, regardless of its evidence.

Just because philosophers like nietzsche, spinoza, and descartes did not have 'proof' for their thought experiments didnt make them any less valid, and the theory is supported by many other physicists including Steven Hawkings. Science must be told, along with philosphy, and continue to suggest possibilites, or the human mind and soul is going to be locked into rigid views which will stop new important discoverys from happening.

I am not saying evolution is incorrect, only trying to persuade others to have a differing more open view on the subject. I agree based on biology, that evolution is an important process. But why restrict ourselves to a single explanation when we have such variety around us?

However, i have gone off track immensely and must now answer the question the thread actually asked.

Should we teach such arguements in schools? No, but it should be taught alongside philosopy as a intriguing and entirely possibly thought experiment and explanation.

In fact, i think that in the UK, in secondary schools, the Religious Education GCSE should be replaced by a more profound and stimulating Philosophy GCSE.

Who said God had to make creatures as they were? Who said that billions of years ago, when the Universe was created via the Big Bang, that he set it all in motion with its precise outcome? Why must we undercut him to some "snap your fingers and here is an animal" method?

Meh. I'm catholic and I believe 100% in evolution. So does the catholic church...it's theistic evolution which basically says that evolution is entirely true but somewhere in the beginning of the Universe there had to be someone to set everything in motion with the ability to create the laws that govern our Universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution#The_creation_history
For those of you interested. Science and faith shouldn't share a bed in my opinion, however. They are definitely separated entities.

Evolutionary theory is science- it's used in science and all major fields relating to biology. It's the principle theory behind modern genetics and instrumental in curing diseases and what not. There a -great deal- of unrefutable evidence, and it is accepted by scientists of every religion in the world.

Intelligent Design is not. Intelligent design is religion specific, that is Judeo/Islam/Christianity. It is part of the American dogma that international peoples find unappealing. Intelligent Design has no basis in practical application. Intelligent design is not truth or supported by credible scientific cultural-neutral sources- it is supported by credible religious sources.

Darwinist theory has plenty of holes. In fact it's given way to much more complex theories of evolution that actual scientists will learn in university. While it is a theory and certainly not gospel, it's very easy to grasp and serves as a stepping off point for higher biology. It's certainly reconcilable with other religious beliefs as long as you accept that the science of how things work is the work of a deity, and not some kind of magic.

Intelligent Design ultimately leads to God. Because it's full of logic errors. It could lead to the flying spaghetti monster- and this very fact that it leads to an implicit acceptance of the dominant culture's favorite deity- Yahweh, The Judeo/Christian/Islam God of Abraham, is why it should be kept very far away from schools.

Intelligent design ultimately leads to a philosophical conflict between the followers of one religion and another, or no religion at all. It's a terrible thing to expose children to. As far as principle goes, it's easy enough for parents and pastors to teach, and just isn't something kids -need- to know. They've been going on fine without it for thousands of years. It's just an attempt to move something that was formerly in the domain of the church- into the school.

I highly recommend you watch the Ken Miller versus Intelligent Design video on youtube.

I'll repost it again for convenience:
Ken Miller on ID

He shows hard evidence that only be ignored through ignorance.

Ok, maybe this is a slight derail, but I can't resist.



This type of thinking brings up some questions for reflection. Why do people make the assertion that there are two views, evolution vs their particular belief system, instead of evolution vs that vs every other culture's belief system? Does anyone else with a particular religious background find it highly convienent that they just happened to be born into the area/culture with the correct view of reality? And that everyone thinks "theirs" is the right one?

/aside/ I seem to recall a funny South Park where a bunch of "pious" folks end up in hell wondering why they didn't go to heaven despite their "correct" belief system. They then ask the devil, "Who was right?" He consults a list and says, "Uh, it was the Mormons." Queue collective sigh from the "damned." /end aside



Here's another interesting thought. If God set everything in motion, then stayed "hands off," is there any practical difference than if God didn't exist?

/end derail

Now it is such a bizarrely impossible coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The arguement goes something like this:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promply vanishes in a puff of logic.
--THGTG

Well, all of it had to come from something. And if I was omnipotent, I would just create it so that it worked the way I wanted it to from the beginning. That doesn't quite mean he is just sitting their twiddling his fingers though because God is outside of space and time since he created it all. So however that abstract concept works...

To write a post explaining all that I believe would take up a lot of time and space that few would ever read. You may not agree and that is OK, but I think some of these things bear consideration.

Let me give a few bulleted points to part of this topic.

1. Both Creation and Evolution are a matter of faith. Neither side can fully prove its point without a measure of faith.
(e.g. Where did matter come from in the first place?)

Creation looks outside the material universe for answers while Evolution looks only a the material universe that is observable.

2. Evolution has some major problems that have been noted over the years even by prominent evolutionists.
(e.g. Darwin wrote, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." -- The Origin of Species, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p. 167.)

3. The problem of Irreducible Complexity. Here is one major issue regarding the problem evolutionists have with Blood Clotting. http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_indefenseofbloodclottingcascade.htm

4. Finally, to keep it short. I find it rather amazing that people would defend a theory that by it own admission defines life as random and purposeless. Evolution teaches that your life is meaningless and no matter what you do in life it has no ultimate point, purpose, or value.

A personal note: I personally believe that many people would rather believe in evolution and have no meaning in life (but they have to live as if there really is a meaning to their life) rather than believe that there is a creator.

Why? Because men are not accountable to meaningless forces, but if God is real then He is the creator and we are His creation and therefore accountable to Him as such.

There is a lot more that can be said, but I think that is enough for now.

"Oh, Americans...

I wish you people would stop worshiping the evil death god of the Bible"

Yes because only Americans and all Americans believe in Christianity. I think this whole topic is just asking for a religion war.
Its best said like this. Evolution is still not proved. Too many holes. I don't think either should be taught until one of them is proven fact. This would solve everything and make everyone happy.

You should read the whole paragraph in the book.

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. "

What theleif said is right on the mark. Evolution only causes problems for people who are Biblical literalists but otherwise doesn't even cause a problem with God.

And there is SOOOO much evidence for evolution its ridiculous; it's not baseless and doesn't have massive holes. There are things we can't explain when it comes to GR but it is still a prettymuch 100% accepted theory. Remember the difference between the conversation word "theory" and a scientific "theory"...

Plus, in order for evolution to NOT occur, you need a population with identical genetics, no crossing over, entirely random mating, and absolutely no environmental pressures. IT HAS TO BE OCCURING! For those of you who understand the mechanics of evolution then you know why this is true. Evolution is not a vague mechanism, it is real, defined, and logical.

Why are people even thinking this is in ANYWAY important? Do schools even do a good job at the basics? Well come on now, where are the quotes and charts saying that schools in the US or anywhere else are doing such a bang up job with what they have to teach that they can be force to teach this?

Education in the US is hampered by more BS and other whiz bang plans that result in little if any education, and yet you want this system to try to bring this to the children? Scan the papers EVERY day there is another teacher having sexual relations with students, but lets forget that, lets teach them this new thing that we need, it is a moral requirement! Give me a break! How about first you get the teachers to quit molesting the kids?

The time to change is now, fix the broken system so it can give the children the basics, then maybe then you can try to have this system teach morals and values. If you want to see evolution, look at No Child Left Behind. Let see the scores went up right, the children are learning more, on a global level there is parity right? Here is your issue, more BS and nothing for the children or the schools or teachers, just another group of words that sent me a nice glossy sheet and what did my kids get? Well what did they get? More money for science, math, or reading - NO. Better trained teachers - NO.

Come on people lets add more crap to this broken system, thats the fix. Adding this to the current system is trying to put lipstick on a dead pig.