Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

[_ Old Earth _] Should evolution be allowed in the text books?

Heidi said:
Strawman argument. No one that I am aware of rewrites the verse as you say, so your question is pointless.
Good. Then I trust that all Christians here believe that God formed the man out of the dust of the ground...
This does not follow from the reply I gave to which you are responding. I don't understand how you derive such an argument from that reply.
...instead of from the wombs of wild beasts and thus will refute the story of evolution.
You seem obsessed with this travesty of an understanding of what evolutionary theory proposes. Why do you keep repeating it when all it does is demonstrate your ignorance of the theory?
In that case, most of them shouldn't be arguing for evolution here and this whole category is a waste of time.
Evolution as a concept is not incompatible with Christianity, as Dr Kenneth Miller has testified, only with your narrow, idiosyncratic interpretation of what Christianity should be.
But the reality is, that many people who call themselves Christians don't believe Genesis 2;7 as written which is why they're fighting tooth and nail to refute it as written. That's the reality.
Ah, the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy raises its head yet again.
So your statement is false.
In which case you can no doubt refer me to a Christian who has rewritten Genesis in the way you have suggested? You seem as ready to libel and misrepresent Christians as you are to libel those you regard as atheists.
 
Heidi said:
If you want to throw away God's word that says He formed man out of the dust of the ground...
Well, I regard those words as the words of fallible men trying to explain something that they had neither the knowledge nor methodology to understand. This does not make the Bible worthless as a source of an inspired and allegorical interpretation of a divine message.
...and instead, believe the stories of the secular world who rejects God, that unknown animals turned into humans which can't be verified by anyone in history, nor can it be verified biologically either, then who am I to try to stop you?
This warped understanding of evolutionary theory and the evidence that supports it is fundamentally flawed; therefore your argument is dubious at best.
If you don't believe God's word, then you won't believe me either.
I have no reason to suppose that you are the ultimate arbiter either of God's word or of what it means.
I've told you what God says, word for word, and that we are not to add or subtract from it or go beyond what is written.
You'vegiven me your opinion of what God says, as you have given me your opinion of what evolutionary theory says. Given that it is demonstrably clear that the latter opinion is desperately awry, why should I place any value in the former?
If you want to go against it, then that's between you and God. I've done my part by telling you what God says.
Going against what you say is not the same thing as going against God. As far as I am aware, only the Pope claims to be the source of infallibility on spiritual matters.
But I'm sick and tired of being attacked and mocked for believing God's word as written, by someone who also claims to believe God's word but tries as hard as he can to refute it.
Who would that be? As far as I am aware, I have only criticized your view of evolutionary theory and offered the opinion that Genesis should be more properly regarded as allegorical and inspirational, rather than literal.
That's a house divided against itself that cannot stand.
It's stood quite a long time already.
So I'll leave you to worship fallible human beings who can do nothing for you on your deathbed. I'll stick to God's words because he can and does help me on my deathbed. So if you think you know better than God does how he created man, that's between you and God. But don't worry, I know you don't know better than God does. So I won't argue with you; I'll pray for you instead.
If you don't have an argument to offer beyond this, then all you have to do is say so. I don't claim to know anything 'better than God', just better than you - at least with regard to evolutionary theory. Thanks for the prayers.
 
LOL. I really can't believe this is a thread. I read a couple posts, but stopped.

Should science be taught at all is the real question. It appears some would be happy if we all lived in the dark ages.

Should science be in science textbooks? LOL what silliness.

Hey, when we start using leeches, and drilling holes in peoples heads to let the demons out as medicine you can that your fellow young earthers for taking science out of science textbooks.
 
Of course evolution should be taught in schools as it is reality. Without that knowledge enhancements in genetic engineering for the benefit of mankind would be held back. Also I think that evolution is Gods work as it was in his plan from the beginning. I do not find Christianity and Science contradictory at all.
Evolutionary theory is the framework tying together all of biology. It explains similarities and differences between organisms, fossils, biogeography, drug resistance, extreme features such as the peacock's tail, relative virulence of parasites, and much more besides. Without the theory of evolution, it would still be possible to know much about biology, but not to understand it.

This explanatory framework is useful in a practical sense. First, a unified theory is easier to learn, because the facts connect together rather than being so many isolated bits of trivia. Second, having a theory makes it possible to see gaps in the theory, suggesting productive areas for new research.

Evolutionary theory has been put to practical use in several areas (Futuyma 1995; Bull and Wichman 2001). For example:
Bioinformatics, a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with modification is one of its most basic assumptions.
Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them. Evolutionary theory is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture (Bull and Wichman 2001).
Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields (Conover and Munch 2002).
Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it has become much more efficient with the addition of quantitative trait locus mapping.
Knowledge of the evolution of parasite virulence in human populations can help guide public health policy (Galvani 2003).
Sex allocation theory, based on evolution theory, was used to predict conditions under which the highly endangered kakapo bird would produce more female offspring, which retrieved it from the brink of extinction (Sutherland 2002). This bird is a New Zealand one. They will attempt to use evolutionary theory to bring Mammoths back to life and also Moa another New Zealand bird.

Evolutionary theory is being applied to and has potential applications in may other areas, from evaluating the threats of genetically modified crops to human psychology. Additional applications are sure to come.

Phylogenetic analysis, which uses the evolutionary principle of common descent, has proven its usefulness:
Tracing genes of known function and comparing how they are related to unknown genes helps one to predict unknown gene function, which is foundational for drug discovery (Branca 2002; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
Phylogenetic analysis is a standard part of epidemiology, since it allows the identification of disease reservoirs and sometimes the tracking of step-by-step transmission of disease. For example, phylogenetic analysis confirmed that a Florida dentist was infecting his patients with HIV, that HIV-1 and HIV-2 were transmitted to humans from chimpanzees and mangabey monkeys in the twentieth century, and, when polio was being eradicated from the Americas, that new cases were not coming from hidden reservoirs (Bull and Wichman 2001). It was used in 2002 to help convict a man of intentionally infecting someone with HIV (Vogel 1998). The same principle can be used to trace the source of bioweapons (Cummings and Relman 2002). They will do it but I am not too keen on this one. Watch the film "virus"
Phylogenetic analysis to track the diversity of a pathogen can be used to select an appropriate vaccine for a particular region (Gaschen et al. 2002).
Ribotyping is a technique for identifying an organism or at least finding its closest known relative by mapping its ribosomal RNA onto the tree of life. It can be used even when the organisms cannot be cultured or recognized by other methods. Ribotyping and other genotyping methods have been used to find previously unknown infectious agents of human disease (Bull and Wichman 2001; Relman 1999).
Phylogenetic analysis helps in determining protein folds, since proteins diverging from a common ancestor tend to conserve their folds (Benner 2001).

Directed evolution allows the "breeding" of molecules or molecular pathways to create or enhance products, including:
enzymes (Arnold 2001)
pigments (Arnold 2001)
antibiotics
flavors
biopolymers
bacterial strains to decompose hazardous materials.
Directed evolution can also be used to study the folding and function of natural enzymes (Taylor et al. 2001).

The evolutionary principles of natural selection, variation, and recombination are the basis for genetic algorithms, an engineering technique that has many practical applications, including aerospace engineering, architecture, astrophysics, data mining, drug discovery and design, electrical engineering, finance, geophysics, materials engineering, military strategy, pattern recognition, robotics, scheduling, and systems engineering (Marczyk 2004).

Tools developed for evolutionary science have been put to other uses. For example:
Many statistical techniques, including analysis of variance and linear regression, were developed by evolutionary biologists, especially Ronald Fisher and Karl Pearson. These statistical techniques have much wider application today.
The same techniques of phylogenetic analysis developed for biology can also trace the history of multiple copies of a manuscript (Barbrook et al. 1998; Howe et al. 2001) and the history of languages (Dunn et al. 2005).

Good science need not have any application beyond satisfying curiosity. Much of astronomy, geology, paleontology, natural history, and other sciences have no practical application. For many people, knowledge is a worthy end in itself.

Science with little or no application now may find application in the future, especially as the field matures and our knowledge of it becomes more complete. Practical applications are often built upon ideas that did not look applicable originally. Furthermore, advances in one area of science can help illuminate other areas. Evolution provides a framework for biology, a framework which can support other useful biological advances.

Anti-evolutionary ideas have been around for millennia and have not yet contributed anything with any practical application.
Remember I believe evolution to be Gods work.
yours

ÒõýþüäðýóÖ
 
We post it all the time and it has nothing to do with intimidation. And didn't you already edit another post in which you added a link to your source after you were asked?
 
VenomFangX said:
Why not just contact the person and tell them in private without the big scene??
VFX
becasue the public will want to know that it isn't cited and they also want to know where it came from.

Now if you have a personal problem with another member or moderator, then that should be delt with in a PM.

Can we get back to the topic now please?
 
Nick_29 said:
Yes, as long as it's tought about what it is - a theory. Children need to be exposed to all areas of learnig and to society to make up their minds for themselves about what to believe. Critical thinking is, well - critical!

This is a good and conciliatory reply.

For some, it appears, evolution is at best a theory, if not downright nonsense. For some others, Genesis is at best a myth, if not downright nonsense. How can the two extremes ever meet?

It would be only fair that those two camps get to know each other's premises. And where is this better done than at schools? This has been the custom in European education for decades, though not necessarily in every country.
 
This is a good and conciliatory reply.

For some, it appears, evolution is at best a theory, if not downright nonsense. For some others, Genesis is at best a myth, if not downright nonsense. How can the two extremes ever meet?

It's always surprising to read something like this. In science, "theory" is the strongest assurance of being true.

It would be only fair that those two camps get to know each other's premises.

Such as the above. When "theory" is misconstrued to mean something like "a guess", science is out of reach.

And where is this better done than at schools? This has been the custom in European education for decades, though not necessarily in every country.

A course in philosophy/comparative religions would certainly be a good idea. But not as science class.
 
The Barbarian said:
It's always surprising to read something like this. In science, "theory" is the strongest assurance of being true.
Such as the above. When "theory" is misconstrued to mean something like "a guess", science is out of reach.

I don't argue any of that. But this is how people tend to take it. Ask the man in the street to define "theory" and you get interesting answers.

What I meant above was simply that I agree with Nick_29's general opinion. Writing "it appears", I wasn't referring to this thread or this forum.

Barbarian, I'm too new a member to join any sort of debate. And if some day I will, I'm most certainly not going to start with evolution :D
 
Yes. It should be included as theory but not fact as it is often times depicted. Even when they unveiled the latest fossil found last week most of the scientists present indicated that evolution is fact.

Include it as theory and the premise behind it. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Yes. It should be included as theory but not fact as it is often times depicted.

Gravity is also a theory. And it's a fact. Just like evolution. Well, not quite the same; we know why evolution works, but we still aren't quite sure why gravity works.

It's like this; evolution is a fact. There is a theory of evolution that explains it.

Even when they unveiled the latest fossil found last week most of the scientists present indicated that evolution is fact.

True, it's a fact. But the theory we use to explain that fact is constantly being upgraded to reflect our growing knowledge about it. It's good to remember the distinction.
 
The Barbarian said:
Yes. It should be included as theory but not fact as it is often times depicted.

Gravity is also a theory. And it's a fact. Just like evolution. Well, not quite the same; we know why evolution works, but we still aren't quite sure why gravity works.

It's like this; evolution is a fact. There is a theory of evolution that explains it.

[quote:1ufurjud]Even when they unveiled the latest fossil found last week most of the scientists present indicated that evolution is fact.

True, it's a fact. But the theory we use to explain that fact is constantly being upgraded to reflect our growing knowledge about it. It's good to remember the distinction.[/quote:1ufurjud]

When someone says that evolution is fact they are saying that 100% beyond the shadow of a doubt that the humans as we know them today evolved from apes. That is how it is presented. We think that is what happened but have not been able to put together all of the pieces of the puzzle to outright proove it.

It is not fact. Gravity is fact because we see it in action right now. I can drop a quarter and it will fall to the floor. I can see right now that gravity is real. I cannot however see that evolution for humans actually happened. I cannot proove it with absolute 100% certainty. That is why it is still a theory.
 
People don't need to be taught about Jesus and that the earth is 6,000 years old or not in Public school. Public school should teach children how to be literate citizens in a functioning society in the modern world. So if you want your children to believe the earth is 6,000 years old and that Jesus is God. They should be taught that at church. See that is what Young Earthers don't understand. Their theory is not theory, but religion. Learn church stuff at church and science, language, and math etc at school.
 
kenmaynard said:
People don't need to be taught about Jesus and that the earth is 6,000 years old or not in Public school. Public school should teach children how to be literate citizens in a functioning society in the modern world. So if you want your children to believe the earth is 6,000 years old and that Jesus is God. They should be taught that at church. See that is what Young Earthers don't understand. Their theory is not theory, but religion. Learn church stuff at church and science, language, and math etc at school.
just curious what about homeshoolers, not all kids goto public schools some goto private as well, but all must be goverment school standards, i will look up whats required in sciences

jason
 
Back
Top