U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Of course not. I'm just pointing out the flaw in the argument. If you accept 'literal creationism' it logically follows that you have to question the majority of scientific and empirical reason. That is a fundamental paradigm shift that few people are willing to make.

Like 'Flat World' theory Creationism is essentially a castle of superstition under siege by an ever advancing army of logic and reason. It's a bizarre argument to make that the laws of physics and empirical reason should be accepted at face value for every issue EXCEPT creation.

yes questioning is good... i dont think otherwise.

just sometimes you gotta have faith that what you believe is truth... even without an answer to it.

There's a difference between truth and fact - something that many can't seem to grasp.

Viewing the debate in terms of truth and fact is unnecessarily adversarial. A person can only reach that determination by first acknowledging the terms of the debate, and in that regard 'literal creationism' is intellectually dishonest.

You cannot accept 'literal creationsim' in place of evolutionary theory (along with the empirical evidence that supports it) without calling into question (and throwing out) the entirety of the scientific method. There are very very few people who would be prepared to do that because the only alternatives are the ones that existed before the development of the scientific method (essentially witchcraft and superstition).

I'm not saying that evolution is 100% fact, it is a developing theory - but it is a theory that, at present, best fits the available physical evidence.

Edited August 11, 2006 by erekose

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Of course not. I'm just pointing out the flaw in the argument. If you accept 'literal creationism' it logically follows that you have to question the majority of scientific and empirical reason. That is a fundamental paradigm shift that few people are willing to make.

Like 'Flat World' theory Creationism is essentially a castle of superstition under siege by an ever advancing army of logic and reason. It's a bizarre argument to make that the laws of physics and empirical reason should be accepted at face value for every issue EXCEPT creation.

yes questioning is good... i dont think otherwise.

just sometimes you gotta have faith that what you believe is truth... even without an answer to it.

There's a difference between truth and fact - something that many can't seem to grasp.

Viewing the debate in terms of truth and fact is unnecessarily adversarial. A person can only reach that determination by first acknowledging the terms of the debate, and in that regard 'literal creationism' is intellectually dishonest.

You cannot accept 'literal creationsim' in place of evolutionary theory (along with the empirical evidence that supports it) without calling into question (and throwing out) the entirety of the scientific method. There are very very few people who would be prepared to do that because the only alternatives are the ones that existed before the development of the scientific method (essentially witchcraft and superstition).

I'm not saying that evolution is 100% fact, it is a developing theory - but it is a theory that, at present, best fits the available physical evidence.

My point is that for Fundamental Christians they can not EVER accept evolution even if you could prove the science behind it without them having to completely change their understanding of truth. To them truth is synonomous with fact. I was trying to explain earlier to Stina that that is at the heart of this whole debate. We can come up with all the scientific evidence in the world, it won't resolve the internal conflict that these particular Christians have with believing in the Bible as Truth, but not necessarily or entirely factual. It's tricky because then they errantly conclude that if the story of Creation isn't factual, then the whole Bible must not be. I've gotten into numerous discussions with many biblical literalists about this very issue and it always come down to that. If you could ever get one to understand the difference between truth and fact and you've opened up a whole world to them.

[*Robert* 2]

I'm not saying that evolution is 100% fact, it is a developing theory - but it is a theory that, at present, best fits the available physical evidence.

At least science can explain geological history and anthropology, unlike the bible, which is more for bed time stories.

But I forget... back when the bible was written, they didn't have science, so they didn't know about dinosaurs, the ice age, or plate tectonics. But then if the bible was written by god, through man, then you'd think he would have bothered to fill them in on all those little details, but ahhhh... what the hell... not important back then. Brainwashing everyone into believing there is an all powerful all knowing god had to take priority. Why confuse the issues with facts?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The problem is that science isn't necessarily fact or truth either and the many proponents of particular theories are just as inflexible in their beliefs as religious fundamentalists. There was a big hole in the theory of relativity that has only recently been filled (still not 100% satisfactorily) by Quantum Mechanics and String Theory - and there are constant disagreements between scientists over various aspects of various theories.

The purity of the scientific method is not in dispute, but that is not to suggest that scientists can never be wrong.

As regards evolution - it would be inaccurate to say that there is consensus in the scientific community as to the validity (or not) of particular aspects of it. But there is significant physical evidence to show that life evolves to fit its indigenous environment. Evolution is itself an evolving theory - relying as it does on many other branches of science, most notably biology and genetics. A lot of arguments about invalidity of evolutionary theory focus on holes in the current understanding, gaps in fossil records etc - which as Steven_and_Jinky suggests points to an inability to separate truth from fact.

Edited August 11, 2006 by erekose

[iceyspots 0]

::popcorn::

[Mirorgate 0]

The problem is that science isn't necessarily fact or truth either and the many proponents of particular theories are just as inflexible in their beliefs as religious fundamentalists. There was a big hole in the theory of relativity that has only recently been filled (still not 100% satisfactorily) by Quantum Mechanics and String Theory - and there are constant disagreements between scientists over various aspects of various theories.

The purity of the scientific method is not in dispute, but that is not to suggest that scientists can never be wrong.

As regards evolution - it would be inaccurate to say that there is consensus in the scientific community as to the validity (or not) of particular aspects of it. But there is significant physical evidence to show that life evolves to fit its indigenous environment. Evolution is itself an evolving theory - relying as it does on many other branches of science, most notably biology and genetics. A lot of arguments about invalidity of evolutionary theory focus on holes in the current understanding, gaps in fossil records etc - which as Steven_and_Jinky suggests points to an inability to separate truth from fact.

I like your thought process, and you explain what you mean fairly well (moreso than I at times ) any way though... the theory of evolution though does explain a few things, but will not explain all, nor does the creation aspect in the Bible either (hence those pesky chapter on faith).

there is still one major issue that Evolution has to overcome to go from theory to fact. Observation. repeated observation at that too. and please... the mayfile experiment.. there is a distinct difference between adaptation to an environment and evolution from one species to another (monkey to man) or even... protazoa to spider. so what if I share DNA strand similarities with an ape... same genetic type makeup (minerals, carbon, etc) ... we are all on the same planet after all... but if you want to believe that science proves there is no God... maybe science actually will prove that the world we live in is to uniform and complex and does indeed point to the existence of God.

[*Robert* 2]

[...]but if you want to believe that science proves there is no God... maybe science actually will prove that the world we live in is to uniform and complex and does indeed point to the existence of God.

now that arguement, brother miror, I can handle!

but once again, please don't say that man evolved from apes, since we all know that that is not the case, otherwise there would be no more apes, as they would have all evolved into man, or we would see something inbetween. the analogy is more of a tree, all growing from the same roots, and branching out into different limbs.

except of course for certain individuals, as seen on VJ from time to time, who's family tree has no branches...

*looks around for incanada and chuckie*

Edited August 12, 2006 by roi_aggie

[Mirorgate 0]

[...]but if you want to believe that science proves there is no God... maybe science actually will prove that the world we live in is to uniform and complex and does indeed point to the existence of God.

now that arguement, brother miror, I can handle!

but once again, please don't say that man evolved from apes, since we all know that that is not the case, otherwise there would be no more apes, as they would have all evolved into man, or we would see something inbetween. the analogy is more of a tree, all growing from the same roots, and branching out into different limbs.

except of course for certain individuals, as seen on VJ from time to time, who's family tree has no branches...

*looks around for incanada and chuckie*

no, wouldnt say that. just that there should be a somewhere in between... and a few more "advanced" humans as well... i remember the tree analagy from science class... course my science teacher was an idiot.. as she explained that the marine iguanas of the alutian (spell??) showed that one day they would evolve into fish because they spent so much time in/under the water uummm... we supposedly came out of the water.. so that would be an example of de-evolution

[*Robert* 2]

... we supposedly came out of the water.. so that would be an example of de-evolution

yep, no need to get back into the pool, unless it's full of chlorine!!!

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

*looks around for incanada and chuckie*

keep going roiboi, i'm wearing out the report button

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

except of course for certain individuals, as seen on VJ from time to time, who's family tree has no branches... whistling.gif

*looks around for incanada and chuckie*

that was uncalled for. No need to be rude like that... thanks!

[*Robert* 2]

except of course for certain individuals, as seen on VJ from time to time, who's family tree has no branches... whistling.gif

*looks around for incanada and chuckie*

that was uncalled for. No need to be rude like that... thanks!

you're right Capt. I shouldn't stoop to their level. My appologies.

from now on, i'll report chuckie everytime he does something to offend me, rather than say something rude!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I like your thought process, and you explain what you mean fairly well (moreso than I at times ) any way though... the theory of evolution though does explain a few things, but will not explain all, nor does the creation aspect in the Bible either (hence those pesky chapter on faith).

there is still one major issue that Evolution has to overcome to go from theory to fact. Observation. repeated observation at that too. and please... the mayfile experiment.. there is a distinct difference between adaptation to an environment and evolution from one species to another (monkey to man) or even... protazoa to spider. so what if I share DNA strand similarities with an ape... same genetic type makeup (minerals, carbon, etc) ... we are all on the same planet after all... but if you want to believe that science proves there is no God... maybe science actually will prove that the world we live in is to uniform and complex and does indeed point to the existence of God.

Well science doesn't (and can't) prove there is no God, it just conflicts (in places) with the verbiage of certain religious texts. In essence, the problem is a refusal to accept any deviation from a specific and inflexible concept of God.

Which is kind of why I said that Creationism is a bit like a castle under siege - its an entrenched position that is simply impossible to prove one way or another, but certainly our scientific research has, and continues to provide evidence that constantly chips away at the foundation (you don't see much coming the other way).

Personally I can't see the problem - my beliefs (on that issue at least) are not rooted in the absolute literal truth of the text. As I said, I can't understand why people feel that science threatens faith - if anything science has validated and enriched it. I used the example before about the "flat earth". Perhaps a more useful example to use would have been the archaic idea that the Sun travels around the Earth. People used to believe that (because it validated the idea, from the bible, that the Earth is the center of creation) - we now know its not as simple as that. What we don't know - and can't prove is whether or not the Earth is the center of the universe (the universe being of infinite size and unknown shape and being comprised of multiple dimensions).

Incidentally science is actually older than any of today's major religions, I just thought I'd throw that in there.

Edited August 12, 2006 by erekose

[*Robert* 2]

So how does all this explain why the U.S. is so far behind when it comes to Evolution? How do the basic principals and theories of evolution threaten religion? Why are the fundamentalists so scared of evolution being taught, if they are so convinced there is a god and in creationism itself?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So how does all this explain why the U.S. is so far behind when it comes to Evolution? How do the basic principals and theories of evolution threaten religion? Why are the fundamentalists so scared of evolution being taught, if they are so convinced there is a god and in creationism itself?

Simply - because the US is a less secular country.