Evolution is Crap, there I said it! (page 12)

cantleave

I think it's more that evolution gives a good enough answer for the origin of life

Evolution does not give any answers re: the origin life. It only explains biodiversity.

punkofnice

Punkie - Evolution is part of the science curriculum mate. There is no getting around it - even in the wilds of Cambridgeshire!

That'll upset the fundies! GOOD!!

Now to draw a picture of Mohammed.....

The Scotsman

Crazyguy - I suspect you may be correct........ it is just taking the science community a long time to realise.

rawe

Hi Julia,

I've touched on the two belief systems (evolution and ID) when teaching, while not promoting either one.

Our ability to understand the world is largely based on our ability to correctly separate things into two basic categories...

(1) Things that are the result of intelligence

(2) Things that are the result of natural processes without the input of an intelligence.

Thus when we see a gopher hole, we can assign the hole to the intellect of the gopher. However, the gopher is not the product of ID, we know it is the result of a process of sexual reproduction and growth.

A snowflake with its intricate crystal shape - #2

A round smooth rock - #2

A rock shaped into an arrow head - #1

The Mona Lisa - #1

All living life forms - #2 (i.e. come from some parent form of the life)

First example of a life form - #?

Cheers,

-Randy

cantleave

I really hope you don't teach science Randy!

slimboyfat

We used to have a chemistry teacher on the site who was a creationist. What happened to him?

Laika

I am not sure if evolution is true or not. The Society seem to be wrong about everything so it wouldn't surprise me if they got this wrong... A lot of people believe in God and evolution.

Qcmbr

ID isn't science so it has no place in the classroom. Time and time again we have to bang the drum that religion and faith are at best diversionary time wasters and at worst downright useless and b*****ks as means of determining how the natural world works. Who supports ID? The religious who wish to explain the natural world by supernatural means. Nothing in the observed world leads to a conclusion that supernatural beings created every species twice after magically flooding the earth and after making people from mud and breath. Breathtaking crapulence.

ID is a sophisticated (read corrupt) approach to preaching creationism that offers NO answers as to the mechanisms or processes by which life changes or came to be. It stands in direct contrast to evolution that is observed, predicted, is testable, is confirmed by ALL observed facts in all disciplines fom paleontology through to genetics. For the first time we have opportunities to cure genetic diseases and we have a bunch of well paid faithful ignoramuses trying to scupper the best and brightest children of the most powerful nation with bull****. The number of people who live with crippling diseases or who die of what will be curable illnesses is directly related to how much wasted effort is spent dealing with stupid believers wishing to slow down science with fairytales so they can enjoy church undiscomforted by facts and information.

Satanus

From sawe's post:

'First example of a life form - #?'

I don't see the problem w leaving it open to question. Coming from a teacher, it would make the students think, and that is a good thing, imo.

'(1) Things that are the result of intelligence

(2) Things that are the result of natural processes without the input of an intelligence.'

Maybe, leaving it at 2 possibilities is the problem. Is there intelligence in a virus? Don't think so. Yet, it acts very powerfully in the field of reproduction. Having intelligence as the only factor in the process is perhaps limiting the field of inquiry.

S

cofty

If science requires naturalism as an assumption in order to function properly then isn't it simply a case of circular reasoning? - SBF

No.

Methodological naturalism is a working assumption. Scientists act as if there is a naturalistic answer to questions and go looking for it. If you assume there is a supernatural answer there is no point in doing science.

Methodological naturalism should not be confused with ontological naturalism. "Let's proceed as if the answer isn't supernatural" v "there is no supernatural".

Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller are theists but need to adopt methodological naturalism to do their job.

Methodological naturalism works.

Newton was a great scientist but he lapsed into supernatural nonsense when he could not find answers. For example he could not explain why the planets revolve on the same plane. Instead of humbly accepting the solution was still beyond him he asserted it was a result of god's sense of order. The great man was not above behaving like Behe and Hovind. We now know exactly why the planets are on the same plane but first it had to be discovered how planets were formed.

ID is a classic example of resorting to supernatural answers instead of working to find the real answers. It's lazy and it's anti-science.

“Every mystery ever solved has turned out to be not magic." - Tim Minchen

I don't see the problem w leaving it open to question. Coming from a teacher, it would make the students think, and that is a good thing, imo. - satanus

A teacher's job is to inspire children about the possibilities of discovery. How exactly does "god-did-it" going to achieve that?

Evolution is Crap, there I said it!

Share this