[_ Old Earth _] Wisconsin district to allow theories besides evolution

[paxigoth7]

Actually, it would depend on how one understood evolution. How it is commonly understood, and the message that understanding gives, is (actually) pretty anti-theistic.

 

[keebs]

Well, the way it is commonly understood is a complete joke to the actual theory...

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Actually, it would depend on how one understood evolution. How it is commonly misunderstood, and the message that misunderstanding gives, is (actually) pretty anti-theistic.

Fixed.

 

[Barbarian]

Scientists sometimes refer to the common misconceptions people have about the theory as the "Cartoon Theory of Evolution."

 

[paxigoth7]

Yes, well, we have to be concerned about how the majority of people would be affected, not what elitist scientists think. Even when there are misunderstandings (in anything) the general opinion is what needs to be addressed. If the majority of people would take 'evolution' as anti-theistic, then 'evolution' as understood by the majority is satanic.

 

[mh13]

evolution (macro-evolution) is satanic

 

[cubedbee]

Creationism (YEC) is satanic

 

[paxigoth7]

How is young-earth-creationism opposed to God?

I'm not personally a YEC, but I fail to see how the view causes a problem. If people want to be YEC's we should let them. The view causes no one harm.

 

[cubedbee]

The view is contradictory to reality, paints Christians as ignorant and delusional , and leads many critically thinking people to reject Christianity.

 

[paxigoth7]

The view is contradictory to reality

That's just an opinion. No one can prove or disprove that.

If people reject Christianity and the gospel of Jesus because they can't get over Biblical literalists, then who's fault is that? Seems to me like someone would use that an excuse when the real reason for not being a Christian lies deeper.

 

[paxigoth7]

I mean, if someone is making the literalistic view of creation a fundamental of the faith and saying you have to believe it to be saved, then I can see your point. But that would be a problem, not with the view itself, but with how the view is being used.

 

[keebs]

Yes, well, we have to be concerned about how the majority of people would be affected, not what elitist scientists think. Even when there are misunderstandings (in anything) the general opinion is what needs to be addressed. If the majority of people would take 'evolution' as anti-theistic, then 'evolution' as understood by the majority is satanic.

No, it's not the "elitists scientists" fault if the general population is too ignorant and/or stupid to understand the actual theory. The way the general population understands evolution is not evolution at all...so you cannot claim that evolution is Satanic. Popular opinion does not make truth.

That's just an opinion. No one can prove or disprove that.

Actually, there's quite a bit of evidence to say that the YEC interpretation is wrong in regards to the age of the earth.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Yes, well, we have to be concerned about how the majority of people would be affected, not what elitist scientists think. Even when there are misunderstandings (in anything) the general opinion is what needs to be addressed. If the majority of people would take 'evolution' as anti-theistic, then 'evolution' as understood by the majority is satanic.

Right, and how would it help the image of evolution as a scientific theory and disuade the popular opinion(in the US) that it is something to be scorned for its not being a literal interpretation of the bible? Teaching the theory of evolution with a warning sticker with a false dillema on it is not going to promote the accurate teaching or learning of the theory. The move is to DISUADE from accuracy and encourage that scorn.

 

[Asimov]

The view is contradictory to reality

That's just an opinion. No one can prove or disprove that.

If people reject Christianity and the gospel of Jesus because they can't get over Biblical literalists, then who's fault is that? Seems to me like someone would use that an excuse when the real reason for not being a Christian lies deeper.

People dont' reject Christianity because of biblical literalism, but it sure helps when you have religious fundies come to your door claiming that evolution is evil and the world is 6000 years old.

 

[paxigoth7]

Ok. And once again, that tells me that there is a problem in how people use the YEC theory, not in the theory itself. I do not believe the earth is 6,000 yrs old. Nor do I think that those who do --- I don't think they have a considerable disagreement with me. I don't think there is a difference in the faith we share, it is the same faith. We may differ in historical reconstruction, but not in faith. Now they may disagree, they may think there is a big disagreement. I don't. *shrugs*.

But what we have to do is realise and look at the implications of what people are saying...

1. 'Evolution is evil, it is satanic'. If by that statement one means that a reconstruction of earth origins that teaches survival of the fittest, no ultimate meaning, no transcendent god, etc. Then I agree, evolution is evil and it is satanic. Since that is the common take on evolution, it is the duty of any evolutionist who says 'that's not what evolution means!' to revise evolution accordingly. If evolution comes to mean something entirely different in ten years, we would have to re-evaluate it.

2. 'The earth is 6,000 years old'. If by that statement one means that we are to look to the Bible as the source and foundation of our faith, then I agree. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10.17). Like I said, we have to make the distinction between what is historical reconstruction and what is faith. And faith is always the more important of the two.

 

[keebs]

1. 'Evolution is evil, it is satanic'. If by that statement one means that a reconstruction of earth origins that teaches survival of the fittest, no ultimate meaning, no transcendent god, etc. Then I agree, evolution is evil and it is satanic. Since that is the common take on evolution, it is the duty of any evolutionist who says 'that's not what evolution means!' to revise evolution accordingly. If evolution comes to mean something entirely different in ten years, we would have to re-evaluate it.

Evolution says nothing about God or the meaning of life...and when you hear the phrase "survival of the fittest," it does not mean "if you're genes aren't good enough you die", it means that more fit organisms are more likely to pass down more of their genes than less fit organisms (Note: I'm using fit in the biological sense). So, what you believe is evolution is, once again, not evolution.

 

[Asimov]

2. 'The earth is 6,000 years old'. If by that statement one means that we are to look to the Bible as the source and foundation of our faith, then I agree. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10.17). Like I said, we have to make the distinction between what is historical reconstruction and what is faith. And faith is always the more important of the two.

I have to do ahead and disagree with that. The age of the earth is not historical reconstruction, it's physics.

And no, faith is not important in determining reality, as faith usually contradicts reality. Besides, the bible says nothing about the age of the universe.

 

[Spike~]

If by that statement one means that a reconstruction of earth origins that teaches survival of the fittest, no ultimate meaning, no transcendent god,

Evolution makes no statements about God or the meaning of life. Evolution is biology, not physics or philosophy.

Likewise, the Big Bang is cosmology, 2 seperate theories. And Abiogenesis is chemistry, completely seperate from evolution.

You're only proving Keeb's point, that what ppl think evolution is, and what it really is.

 

[Featherbop]

I love reading these topics. I personally, do want ID back into the classroom, at very least, taught as a possibility, and furthermore.....not crammed down any throats(except atheists, just to piss them off heh..)

Both sides are ignorant of eachother, and there are very few people who understand both sides(I am trying to learn both, I am neither strongly on one side or another). Evolution itself may not(at least, some versions) reject God's creating, but it does in a secular school system. I think most people are missing this critical point. Evolution itself is not the onyl culprit(maybe not one at all.)

I am in favor of secular schools if the students, and parents want it. I am in favor of nonsecular schools under the same requirements.

So, secular schools + TOE in classroom=Atheistic evolution being taught to children(they are the governments pawns.)

I have observed.

 

[Barbarian]

No, evolution cannot reject God as a creator in a secular school system, since one cannot teach religious ideas in public schools. The curriculum can make no statement about God's role, at all. And that ban includes saying that God had no role.