Jump to content

evolution


Leeds Ram

Recommended Posts

It's interesting, In my class we had a biblical literalist who's reasoning was so poor I just gave up.She stated how can evolution be true if we are related to bananas, that natural selection isn't part of evolution and she laughed when I said we were all primates. I personally don't think alternatives should be taught, we don't teach alchamy along with chemistry so why should we teach creationism along with evolution? We know creationism is scientific garbage and if we taught it we would be teaching something with no evidence against evolution which is a scientific fact, and I think serious believers in god easily entwine it with their theology, the church of england believes it and so does the catholic church and many others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

It's interesting, In my class we had a biblical literalist who's reasoning was so poor I just gave up.She stated how can evolution be true if we are related to bananas, that natural selection isn't part of evolution and she laughed when I said we were all primates. I personally don't think alternatives should be taught, we don't teach alchamy along with chemistry so why should we teach creationism along with evolution? We know creationism is scientific garbage and if we taught it we would be teaching something with no evidence against evolution which is a scientific fact, and I think serious believers in god easily entwine it with their theology, the church of england believes it and so does the catholic church and many others.

It shouldn't be taught together. The science class shouldn't entertain any of it, I'm fully in agreement.. Don't we have separate R.E (Religious education) classes, don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to offer the alternative in that environment.

In some ways it is a lot easier to debate from the side of science because it doesn't take any brainpower to read and accept whatever the bible says, just faith in its "wisdom". It does however take a brain to understand the process of evolution, "how can evolution be true if we are related to bananas"- I'd have thought this was a case for evolution rather than against. Sometimes, the way to win a debate is to say nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It shouldn't be taught together. The science class shouldn't entertain any of it, I'm fully in agreement.. Don't we have separate R.E (Religious education) classes, don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to offer the alternative in that environment.

In some ways it is a lot easier to debate from the side of science because it doesn't take any brainpower to read and accept whatever the bible says, just faith in its "wisdom". It does however take a brain to understand the process of evolution, "how can evolution be true if we are related to bananas"- I'd have thought this was a case for evolution rather than against. Sometimes, the way to win a debate is to say nothing.

Indeed, I think it should be taught in the R.E class as well, maybe as precisely the wrong way to read genesis. In the end with that girl I just gave up, I simply said I can't help you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do creationists have to force their beliefs on to others?.

Why do they not want children to learn about the evolutionary process?

Do they realise that their religious beliefs are not robust enough to stand up to question?

yes I think they do and that is why when I questioned one she said have you ever been touched by god, I said no, she said then you don't know what it feels like. Her other defence was it's called faith for a reason. They don't want them to learn about it because the parents have a moronic belief and they daren't let any evidence get in the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TBH I worry more about people who are taught a blended version of God's role in creation alongside evolution, this is essentially a mix of two polar opposites and they don't marry. This happens in faith schools in this country, it doesn't help anyone or bring clarity to anything. "Intelligent design" is a classic example of religion trying to manipulate the masses back to creationism under the guise of intelligent reasoning. It shouldn't be tolerated anywhere near a science class. Science has one opportunity for a brief period in ones life to get its message heard, don't let it be compromised or worst still edited by those not qualified to understand or appreciate it. Religion has the advantage of being tutored almost from birth until death in some cases as well as during school hours and the fact it wants to creep into the science classroom shows me just how paranoid and controlling it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dawkins is right for me.......enough said topic closed... 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />

Please no! The Atheist equivalent of a fundamentalist Baptist preacher from Texas. There are far, far better atheist writers out there. He's only famous because he forces the point home, and therefore of interest to the media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TBH I worry more about people who are taught a blended version of God's role in creation alongside evolution, this is essentially a mix of two polar opposites and they don't marry. This happens in faith schools in this country, it doesn't help anyone or bring clarity to anything. "Intelligent design" is a classic example of religion trying to manipulate the masses back to creationism under the guise of intelligent reasoning. It shouldn't be tolerated anywhere near a science class. Science has one opportunity for a brief period in ones life to get its message heard, don't let it be compromised or worst still edited by those not qualified to understand or appreciate it. Religion has the advantage of being tutored almost from birth until death in some cases as well as during school hours and the fact it wants to creep into the science classroom shows me just how paranoid and controlling it is.

Equally as dangerous having people teach RE who don't know what they're talking about.

Part of the reason why the debate between science and religion is so poor is that neither side really know what they're talking about.

Whenever I tell anyone I'm a christian, the atheist starts having a go. telling me what I believe. When I tell them I believe in evolution, it really throws them. I know far more about science than most think they know about my faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whenever I tell anyone I'm a christian, the atheist starts having a go. telling me what I believe. When I tell them I believe in evolution, it really throws them. I know far more about science than most think they know about my faith.

I'd imagine that none of you, including your atheist friends know anything about science I couldn't get off wikipedia. That is not meant to be a criticism just a fact, people devote their lives to the single equation you see wrote in a textbook, I've spent 15 years working with and studying one isotope of Technetium! Anybody can understand the principle of evolution and follow its logic but very few will ever understand the science behind it. I've read the bible and think I can have a reasonable debate with anyone on its contents. I've silenced many a people who don't have a clue what they're talking about with regards to science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I feel I've contributed way too much to these types of threads in the past and it must be getting boring for people reading the same stuff so I'm going to bow out of them now, I'm becoming like Dawkins! Back to the footie threads...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing wrong with a little bit of dawkins 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':P' /> I hope your research goes well silly billy 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' /> I'm not a natural science man more of a social science man but I am amazed by the endeavor of scientists and the beauty of science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd imagine that none of you, including your atheist friends know anything about science I couldn't get off wikipedia. That is not meant to be a criticism just a fact, people devote their lives to the single equation you see wrote in a textbook, I've spent 15 years working with and studying one isotope of Technetium! Anybody can understand the principle of evolution and follow its logic but very few will ever understand the science behind it. I've read the bible and think I can have a reasonable debate with anyone on its contents. I've silenced many a people who don't have a clue what they're talking about with regards to science.

But, equally, there of theolgians of numerous religions who know their own stuff just as well as you know your science. Christianity and many other religions extend way outside the pages of their religious book. If the atheist/religion debate is going to be an intelligent one, the atheists need to think of other points of attack than just religious texts. There are plenty of theologians who could silence you with regards to religion.

But anyway, we're comparing science and religion as if it's either science or religion. You need to understand both to understand the world. Yes, as you say, science is a massive field and some things will only ever be left to the very brightest but the average Joe's knowledge of science is far better than that of any religion. Science is generally well-taught in schools, but when it comes to R.E. you get one half-arsed lesson a weak and the rest of your information comes from whatever biased newspaper you read.

I also think you can not seperate science completely from religion. When the big bang theory is taught in schools, religion is so relevant you can't ignore it, just like in R.E. you can't ignore the big bang theory when creationism is taught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I feel I've contributed way too much to these types of threads in the past and it must be getting boring for people reading the same stuff so I'm going to bow out of them now, I'm becoming like Dawkins! Back to the footie threads...

Argghg. IUHTiuhrgajguashgrojioiaeug. You could have told me before I wrote an essay in reply to you. I see how it is. 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/angry' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':angry:' />

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Argghg. IUHTiuhrgajguashgrojioiaeug. You could have told me before I wrote an essay in reply to you. I see how it is. 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/angry' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':angry:' />

I'm going to have to resist replying to it (as hard as it is) but as always you raise some good points Duracell. You just know when you read these threads who is going to be involved and we always end up going in circles. 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...