Separation of Church and State

[Stick]

Are we smart enough to decide for ourselves? Does your child have a right to decide for him/her self? Is it our schools responsibility to teach a young mind to think or should the courts decide what a child should think about intelligently?
Re: Ohio Evolution Lesson Plan Eliminated
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/shar...nid=amn021506e

[Advisor]

Guess life has been passing me by. When did Evolution become truth & stop being a theory? Or did they change the definition of the scientific method? Just asking.

[Seascamp]

The hard science that deals with these issues in just over a hundred years old now. Previously, the database plus the speculation was created by people exploring hobbies or having an interest in the topic. By and large, these people didn?t have the tools or methodologies that are available today so all that leads to is high quality speculation that is subject to challenge and reexamination.
As new discoveries are made, old assumptions go out the window. Most recently, human footprints were found in a Mexico City excavation site and the initial speculation is that they are from 1.5 million years ago. This of course challenges the theory that human habitation began 15 thousand years ago. So let the arguments begin, eh.

I do not think the Scientific Method is being used at all, but merely declarations of ?Laws? without the process of examining proofs that support or challenge the hypothesis.

Kind of sort of quasi-scientific sandlot ball dressed up in the trappings of officialdom. If a judge can be rented to make a declaration, then somehow theory becomes law. Then one needs to inquire as to the qualifications of the judge that makes declarations that should be made by qualified research scientists.

I?m not a big fan of gravity so perhaps all I need to do is rent a Judge and have gravity declared unconstitutional.

Scamp

[colmurph]

Advisor....maybe you should look up the definition of "Scientific Theory" and try to understand what it means. The "Theory of Evolution" is a proven scientific fact. Creationism, or "Intelligent Design" is nothing more that a religious belief and nothing about any religion can be stated as "Fact".

[Advisor]

One thing I remember about the Scientific Method from 40 years ago is that something must be replicable...and when did they find the missing link? Just asking. And, some of what I see from the advocates of evolution, global warming is replicable in a religious context..it takes faith to believe some of it 'cause it is not provable.

[rotorwash]

Colmurph, I missed the memo where evolution was a proven fact, perhaps you can fill me in.

You also neglected a third group that doesn't believe in creation but also thinks Darwinian evolution is basically a load of c**p and completely unprovable, they exist largely in Europe and make statements like, "the great joke of the 21st century is that Darwinian evolution was actually taught in the 20th." (with apologies to G.K. Chesterton who originally said it).

Rotorwash

[reconeil]

Good points brought up.

That's why I actually believe in both Creationism
and The Theory (Yes, just a theory.) of Evolution.

I honestly believe that I was created in: "His Image".

Whereas, simultaneously believe that most all others
(family and friends excluded) evolved from...
slugs, snails, snakes or baboons.

"Works-fir-me".

Neil

[SuperScout]

While not certain what "Creationists" actually subscribe to, if they adopt the "literalists" perspective, I would find them quite frightening and generally illiterate. People who think that The Bible is to be believed literally have missed the point: God gave a brain to use, to discern, and the free will to accompany those two, with room left over for as to ask for Wisdom.

Either group, - the Creationists or the Theorists - be they so dogmatic as to ignore or refuse to acknowledge the other, are no better off than the "flat earth society" members. If one would study physical geology, for instance, one would see a definite order of process; one can't jump from Cambrian to Cretaceous without first passing through many other time/rock strata. For the Creationists to think that the earth is only a few thousand years old vs. several billion years old - is to embrace nothing better than witchcraft.

And yes, certainly, we are created in His image, but that doesn't mean that God has gray hair as I do!

[Advisor]

I remember one of my earliest Philosophy classes..the one where they talked about First Cause. Seems to me that Evolution or whatever is the fashionable theory de jour totally ignores the question of First Cause.

[rotorwash]

When I lived in New Mexico I became mildly interested in this issue and this is what I observed.

To write the Intelligent Design folks off as a bunch of hicks who say, "Yup, rat cheer on page 16 of my trusty King James it says God created, and by gum thats good enough for me" is a huge mistake. There are thousands of scientists with PhD's that reject evolution in total, as indefensible and unrealistic. I have attended some seminars and they will bore you to tears but they do know their subject matter.

Part of the problem is the controversy within the evolutionary camp. Because one of the necessary proofs for Darwinian evolution to be fact is fossils showing one species transitioning to another-and the fact that none exist creates evolutionists many problems. One solution developed by Stephen J. Gould-a well known Marxist, by the way-is called Punctuated Equilibrium, the idea that evolution happened in short bursts and then a species remained static for long periods of time. A simplistic explanation would put it this way, a dinosaur egg hatched and out popped a bird with no resemblance to its mother. For obvious reasons, this theory is called "monster surprise." Not that there is not controversy in the Intelligent Design side, some of them subscribe to the universe being millions of years old.

Basically, it all boils down to the fact that there is one mass of data available and thousands of unanswered questions. Each side examines the data and draws their own conclusions about the questions. Because of the lack of proof for either argument, once you get beyond the mass of data, it takes just as much blind faith to believe evolution as it does intelligent design.

Rotorwash