by hamilcarr 360 Replies latest jw friends
evolutionary science is not and never has been absolute.... variables are always in play.
The same is true for gravity. Science is still tracking down the exact mechanisms of gravity. But we certainly know well enough that gravity IS REAL. Would you suggest not teaching about it until all of the details are worked out (may never happen)?
Both evolution and creation are the 'history' that is taught because neither of them are correct.
The human race has been on this planet, one way or another, for hundreds of thousands of years and we haven't changed that much. If anything we have become dumber.
The Secret History of the world, (esoteric, occult, whatever) is never taught for fear of what anarchy would result.
Hence, carry on teaching and believe BS if you want but no one will ever teach the real stuff because......of the results!
Gill, I can agree with your post.
Thats why neither God, creation, the bible, or abiogenisis makes sense to me.
I'll have to start researching esoteric hidden truths and the secret history of the world.
I got a feeling there is some reincarnation going on.
Jaguarbass - You know what is really upsetting, is that people want to be told to believe a certain traditional belief, and through mental laziness are unwilling to think through what they are expected to accept.
The reality of life is out there an can be found for those who choose to search for it. But it takes effort and may not be the nice cushy answer that people want to hear.
It is up to all of us to take the sometimes traumatic journey of discovery to find out what 'it is all about'.
For this, we need to go far back and study the past, the hidden past that is all around us and which people choose not to see.
I would never discuss this with anyone who did not already know these things or who was not ready to take on such a journey, because it can be such a shock and also mind expanding experience.
I know there are many people who know these things now.....and they all have the sense to know that only when they are ready can other people take up the same path.
Until then, others must believe the lies they are taught in school.
The Secret History of the World is truly mind blowing. It does NOT make me depressed or unhappy. It is hope and knowledge but it is NOT the lazy option in life. Once you know it you can never go back and only move forward. It makes you happier, fulfilled, hopeful and I hope, more generous and loving.
It makes you understand everything all at once and feel peace.
I hope you find all this satisfaction with your journey Jaguarbass!
It has taken me nearly six years of study to get this far and it was worth every moment of thought, study and shocking realisation!
I have lost fear of everything except to be parted from my nearest and dearest. But the realisation that even that will never ever happen is.......totally gob smacking, for want of a more appropriate phrase.
As to teaching evolution in school.....whatever, teach evolution, creation, religion, after all they remain theories.
Sometimes however we need FACTS. Only there, when we see with our own eyes do we know we are not being lied to any more.
Peace to everyone.
Ok I have spent my life calling what you call evolution, adaptation.
But I will say if something is scientifically observed to be happening, then its happening.
So call it evolution. But that term has an atheistic tint to it.
Evolution has nothing to do with atheism except that most atheists accept evolution as the method of speciation in the natural world. Believing in evolution doesn't require you to be theist or atheist, so it is possible to believe in both god and evolution. Speciation has been observed in nature so yes, the evidence is there if you want to see it.
I think there is a bigger religious issue of whether there is a God or not.
I'd say in the past 3 years I have had 5 serious conversations with atheist who were not happy and were suicidal, 2 conversations with people who believed in God who wanted me to kill them.
I will agree the prison population is not one made up of a lot of atheist.
But many of the people who have problems have no guidance or direction, which you will say is not a problem of atheism and I can see your point.
The theist/atheist debate is a different debate to the evolution/creation one, the former will probably last for a long time and the latter will inevitably be over once people start to realise the overwhelming mountain of evidence that exists for evolution.
I would be interested to find out what the rates of depression and suicide are in theistic populations as compared with atheist populations, because for a start you are looking at individual isolated cases in a specific group of people (prisoners) My question still still stands, did the people claiming to be depressed about their atheism have a religious up-bringing?
In fact I would say that for a lot of atheists, their atheism makes their brief time on this planet more valuable. Knowing you only get one shot tends to give you a lot of direction.
Why do people behave criminally, there are a number of reasons,
The most simple is there are trying to satisfy, fulfill their basic needs; food, clothing, shelter, love, belonging,
Any one of us may act criminally trying to find food or shelter.
Then after that catagorie of criminal we have those who are taking garbage in and putting garbage out. Listening and watching violent antisocial material.
Then the 3rd reason people would act criminally would be they are insane, mentally instable, organically deficient.
Many criminals intake through their eyes and ears violence, evil and corruption.
Garbage in = garbage out. Once again not evolution, atheist problem.
I would probably disagree that watching violent antisocial material is sufficient on it's own to create criminal behaviour. No matter how many times I played grand theft auto or watched a violent movie or listened to gangster rap/death metal I am not going to go out and start mugging old ladies or holding up petrol stations. That criminals are attracted to such material does not make a link that such material causes criminal behaviour.
Criminal behaviour is an atheist problem in as much as we have to live with it's effects as much as anyone does, perhaps when it is sufficiently acceptable to be an atheist without people threatening to kick them out of their own country then atheist groups will feel comfortable enough to offer help with rehabilitating offenders.
But the only people that I see or hear that counsel people to walk the straight and narrow, to watch what they take in their eyes and ears seem to be in my part of America, bible believing Christians.
I've never seen atheist come to the jail to try and turn people lives around.
I dont hold biologist in the high esteem that you and your fellow atheist do,
I figure a biologist is someone who couldnt get in or make it through medical school.
There is a famous scientist, doctor, author who comes to my jail from time to time to encourage the inmates to walk down the right side of the street. Dr. James P. Gills. One book he wrote that I have and have read is "Darwin under the Microscope"
See my previous comment, although I'm sure you are well aware there are plenty of altruistic atheists out there. However, you do have a point that atheism isn't a claim to having all the answers to life's problems in the same way christianity is for some christians. There is also the point that atheists dont recruit believers in the same way some theists do.
Biology is as important an area of science as physics or chemistry, studying biology no more makes you a medical school drop-out than studying engineering makes you a physics drop-out, they are simply different areas of study.
Science is the effort to discover and increase understanding of how the physical world works.
The mechanisms of evolutionary change are natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow.
I have no agenda.
It just does not make sence to me evolution without a desiger. I think it is more unlikely than likely.
I have read a lot about it over the years and the math does not add up for the earth to have been here long enough given the distance from the sun to have favorable conditions for life to have evolved.
Plus I think we are too complicated to have not been designed.
I have taken college anantomy and physiology and to me the body seems to complicated to have assembled itself without an intelligence directing it.
Since all the scientific evidence points to the fact that evolution has occured and doesn't preclude your god then I don't understand why the two are incompatible in your mind? Evolution predicts we will adapt over time to suit our conditions, favourable conditions are not required, just conditions that allow life in the first place. After this evolution will mould everything to suit conditions as they are, hence you can find life in the the most inhospitable climates on earth. Why would your creator make life just destined to live life around ocean vents when he could make life adapt to it's environment naturally.
Obviously to me as an atheist, evolution doesn't require a creator since it adds an additional layer of complexity to a simple and elegent picture of life on this planet.
The complexity of all creatures is amazing, however the fossil record shows increasing complexity over time and I have no problem with the idea that we are simply a little more complex than our ancestors. Those gradual increases are sufficient to explain how we got to today. Since you know that the body does assemble itself without direction just using natural biological, chemical and electrical processes, then it is not difficult to see how those same processes are filtered by natural selection to only select those processes that either help or at least do not hinder procreation.
I dont neccessarly believe there is a loving kind benevolent God, I'm not saying there is not, but I'm not convinced there is.
But I believe some intelligence put life into motion. Just like there is an intelligence that makes the internet work.
Computers and the internet work and viruses and programs are launched and the designer or programer may have no interest or knowledge of everything that is going on as a result of his programing.
I have no agenda. I'm not lying about the books I have and have read. I work midnights at a jail. I get to read all night and get paid for it, thats what I like about my job.
So why the resistance to the concept of evolution then? Your view of god is beyond dogma, why does it matter that science happens to have identified the mechanism god used to populate the planet? The analogy you use is a good one, evolution is a mechanism or program that automatically populates planets (or experiment #34756 as she likes to call it! )
I will say I am tired of reading Creation and evolution books, I find them basically the same with 5% of the words changed. Its like watching a PeeWee Herman movie, "I know you are but what am I"
Each side uses the same arguments to make their points. I work in law enforcement In Florida, that makes a hung jury.
The only way a jury can send someone to the electric chair is with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
I dont see where the atheist evolutionist have established that yet.
People see what they want to see and that goes for you as well as me. I think you have much more of an agenda than I.
When someone does a good job of explaing abiogenisis and demonstrates it in the laboratory, I will change my argument.
Maybe so, but one side has proper scientific work backing it up and the other doesn't. The evidence is way beyond reasonable doubt, all of the DNA evidence and fossil record backs up evolution.
Atheism and abiogenesis has nothing to do with the veracity and evidence for evolution as a proven scientific law.
What agenda? It makes no matter to me what you believe, I just like debating the subject.
yknot:
Technically speaking in your world of black and white and absolutes..... no it is not round!
It is fairly round. I know of course that the world is only approximately spherical being flattened at the poles and bulging slightly at the equator, as well as other minor imperfections that I would have gone into at length had this thread been about "round-earth theory" versus "flat-earth theory". I'd be happy if everybody who finished high school knew that the earth was spherical and if about half knew that it wasn't quite spherical. I'd be very happy with a similar level of knowledge about evolution. A grasp of the basics would do for most people. I'm as opposed to people trying to deny this to children as I would be if they were promoting "flat-earth theory", especially if they used the complicated nuances of "round-earth theory" to cast unwarranted doubt in the minds of those children.
Nope, evolution is subject to changes and rewrites based on future discoveries or interpretations of past opinions.
OK, I should have said that one side is right in broad principle and in most of the detail while the other side is completely wrong.
Evolution versus creationism is as debatable as trinity versus non trinity..... you can't fully prove one or the other absolutely.
Debates about the nature of imaginary beings certainly have no place in a science class, but you're right that if you allow such imaginary beings into the fray, anything can be debated forever without resolution. (See the entire history of religion for countless examples.)
Maybe you can in your mind but evolutionary science is not and never has been absolute.... variables are always in play.
Evolution is still a fact and should be taught as such.
I can not stress enough that science is taught but at present both of these two theories are being avoided and open for student's personal interpretation.
Evolution should be taught early in any biology course so that the rest of the course can be interesting and make sense. Creationism, having no scientific support, is unworthy of mention except perhaps to be debunked where children's minds have already been infected with it.
KingArthur:
Do try to use the quotes feature. It would make reading your posts a little easier, if no more rewarding.
Why do u assume those who disagree with you are ignorant?
I don't. I'm asserting that those who have demonstrated that they do not understand even the basics of evolutionary theory are ignorant of that theory. I have supported this claim in considerable detail. The only assumption I make is that these people are genuinely ignorant and not just pretending to be.
this ought to answer the arrogant part derrick.
Perhaps you're mistaking for arrogance the esteem in which I hold knowledge as opposed to ignorance. The fact that in this case it's my knowledge is incidental.
You never answer my question, what have your read or know.
Why should I? It's not relevant to the thread. My claims are either correct or not. If you believe they are not, then please state why. If you merely believe that my posting about this subject is indicative of a personality flaw, then you're not adding anything useful to the discussion.
I did not mean this literally.
So I'm arrogant in a figurative sense?
When I was a Jw I remember an elder saying “there are only MS and Elders and Pioneer everyone else is a nothing” Was that you Derrick? Were you an arrogant elder who has become an arrogant an ex-jw?
Ah, I think I see it now. You were made to feel inadequate as a JW so now anybody who makes you feel inadequate gets compared to those who made you feel that way in the past. You should probably see someone about this.
I guess you must know I have your number.
Ha! You can't even get my name right.
LisaAnn
You say you're from the MidEast but I'm guessing that's a ruse ;-) and you live more like in the MidWest where this may be true. I'm sure hoping so.
LOL... ((( ahhh aren't newbies so cute sometimes!)))
I'd like you to know that there are many, many patriotic people here who love their country and are proud to be Americans, and we fight for the Separation of Church and State as our forefathers set forth in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
I see, so you are insinutating that any American who doesn't support evolution being broadly taught in public schools as an absolute is not patriotic, loves their country less and doesn't appreciate the sacrifices of their ancestors.
I'm sick of extremists trying to hijack my country. Thomas Jefferson would be appalled.
Would you agree that history is just as important as science? If so I suggest you strike up a conversation with a Jeffersonian about state's rights. As far as the hijacking comment..... .please there is a disagreement here..... if anyone 'hijacked' anything it is the evolutionist. Every science textbook in my area has a chapter on evolution.
Religion needs to be taught ONLY at home until the child is older, then a comparative religion class with all the different creation myths is appropriate.
So you want evolution and a comparative religion class to be taught in public schools?
I have two questions:
1) If the Bible didn't tell the Genesis story, would Creationism ever be taught? Ever?! If you can answer that truthfully, you've got to agree that this is a religiously-based argument and not based on scientific evidence.
2) When 'alternatives' are taught side-by-side with evolution, are the Hindu and Native American creation myths given equal billing to Biblical stories? Ditto above.
If you would like to live in a society that attempts to be purely secular.... then by all means move to France.
The American society has it's foundations in religion, and most of us are not wishing to stray from that heritage at this time.
Ultimately if you believe in evolution, then by all means teach your child such and petition you school board locally.
Yknot of the Syrian Arab Republic **wink**
Derek,
I'd be happy if everybody who finished high school knew that the earth was spherical and if about half knew that it wasn't quite spherical. I'd be very happy with a similar level of knowledge about evolution. A grasp of the basics would do for most people. I'm as opposed to people trying to deny this to children as I would be if they were promoting "flat-earth theory", especially if they used the complicated nuances of "round-earth theory" to cast unwarranted doubt in the minds of those children.
Okay, then compromise..... you get the basics of evolution and they get the basics of intelligent design in the same discussion...........
Rome wasn't built in a day.
Okay, then compromise..... you get the basics of evolution and they get the basics of intelligent design in the same discussion...........
Intelligent design has no scientific credibility, even Behe was forced to admit in court that a science course that included ID as legitimate 'science'would have to include astrology as well. As such ID has no place in the science classroom.
Inspired by Caedes' post:
First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to “change the ground rules” of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. (28:26 (Fuller); 21:37-42 (Behe)). Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces. (38:97 (Minnich)).
This is indeed crucial to this discussion. Are we willing to broaden the rules of science to such an extent that it becomes almost impossible to prevent pseudo-science from entering our school buildings? What about historical revisionism for example? Holocaust Denial? Should it be taught because at least some scientists have considered it?
So, on the one hand, we have a scientific anti-dogmatic method based on observation, logical inference, predictability and falsifiability, on the other hand, a theory that wants to do away with this methodology to install its own dogmatism, paving the way for the spread tons of pseudo-theories based on subjective presuppositions without any mechanism to distinguish between rubbish and ratio.
The choice is yours.
