Why evolution is true

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#732 Jun 26, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Do you think this was fair?
http://www.richardsternberg.com/smithsonian.p...
2. I've seen statements made on the internet that it was required reading in public classrooms. I believe I included one in a prior post.
3. Is there some sort of access to these videos where outsiders can determine to what degree they were religious motivated, pro-creationist, anti-evolution, etc.?
Has anyone produced any guidelines for teaching ID? In other words, if there were problems with the way they have been taught, like as proposed in this case, did any neutral party with authority attempt to create a way it could be more appropriately taught?
1:
Of course it was fair. The mission of the Smithsonian Institute is "The increase and diffusion of knowledge." The mission of the Discovery Institute is the undermining of the US educational system.

3:
ID cannot be taught because it is illegal to teach right wing religious conservatism in public schools.

“Vader2016!”

Since: Sep 10

The Deathstar

#733 Jun 26, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Do you think this was fair?
http://www.richardsternberg.com/smithsonian.p...
2. I've seen statements made on the internet that it was required reading in public classrooms. I believe I included one in a prior post.
3. Is there some sort of access to these videos where outsiders can determine to what degree they were religious motivated, pro-creationist, anti-evolution, etc.?
Has anyone produced any guidelines for teaching ID? In other words, if there were problems with the way they have been taught, like as proposed in this case, did any neutral party with authority attempt to create a way it could be more appropriately taught?
I must be missing something here.

What in ID do you teach exactly? Is there a process to "GodDidIt?" Is there a scientific formula based on the natural order in ID?

What exactly would they teach?

You all scream "Teach the controversy" What exactly is this controversy you want taught?

I do not see a reason based on the natural order and observable science to say "GodDidIt."

However, everything seems to point to the contrary.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#734 Jun 26, 2013
HighlyEvolved wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Okay.
2. Who said anything about criticizing a religion? Do you have examples of that happening?

3. Just because there are some real historical characters in it doesn't make the Bible 100% true. The Vedas contain a lot of historical facts; for example, the recounting Mahabharat War in intricate detail has been historically verified. Archaeological excavations have unearthed the submerged city of Dwaraka, which is siad to have sunk about 3000 B.C. This is the same Dwaraka as mentioned in the Mahabharata. Does this mean that the Vedas are 100% true, and that Krishna created the universe? Of course not.
Any text that declares the existence of a deity cannot be assumed to be true, and since most ancient texts contain a blend of historical fact and mythological components, it's pretty safe to lump them all together as works of fiction that gave a particular culture a spiritual identity.
2. I was referring to the contents of the book "Demon Haunted World" that has been used in public classrooms on apparent occasion. The book is not a mass assault on religion, but it makes references to Christianity (and maybe other religions), placing it in a bad light:

“The Reverend Dr. Smith is a known Biblical fundamentalist, so her objections to evolution need not be taken seriously”

3.'Why' is it safe to lump them all together?

I don't think the Vedas should be disregarded at all. I think everything within reason should be considered. As a matter of fact, both Hinduism and Buddhism 'are' taken seriously by many westerners as I'm sure you are well aware of.

And you are right, possessing verified historical events does not guarantee 100% accuracy.

The old Superman comics, although I haven't read them, obviously contained historical accuracy, as I believe Adolph Hitler was included:

http://christianschneiderblog.com/wp-content/...

I imagine certain events like that of "Auschwitz" may have been included.

But there's really no reason to consider the story of Superman being authentic. There's nothing to trigger the stories to actual real events.

My point however with the Bible is that there are accounts given like the resurrection of Jesus that link with historical events in such a way that they create validity for the events deemed as "myth". The account I gave that is recorded on a prism has no other explanation 'other' than what is given in the Bible. There's no 'other' explanation. All one can do is maintain they think something 'else' had to happen. I don't know if the Vedas have anything similar. They may, they may not. Everything 'should' be taken into account.

Job

Santa Clara, CA

#735 Jun 26, 2013
HighlyEvolved wrote:
<quoted text>
The task of challenging evolution occurs on a daily basis, by the very people you'd least expect - evolutionary biologists!
Since all good science is falsifiable and testable, evolutionary scientists are constantly attempting to prove evolutionary theory false.
I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but it's what science is all about: trying to get different results than what a colleague has produced.
Creationism isn't testable or falsifiable. That's why it isn't scientific.
If the goal is to replace evolution with something, it has to be replaced with another science.
Not quasi-religious mumbo-jumbo, which is what creationism is after all.
Evolutionary biologists 'are' the people I would expect to challenge evolution. In my opinion, the people who would suffer the most from something replacing evolution would be "Hollywood". Movies like "Planet Of The Apes", and "Inherit The Wind" would become the equivalent of movies like "Reefer Madness". Movies to laugh at.

It's tough to say how much of the rejection of Creationism 'alone' is authentic, because the idea of a creator is 'not' completely rejected. The idea of a creator using 'evolution' is okay with many because in my opinion 'theistic evolution' alone 'appears' non-religious, and often not tied to the idea of "accountability" 'to' a creator. The message of the Bible obviously plays a big part of the argument. The arguments among evolutionists are not 'just' rejection of a young earth, a global flood; but include critique of the very nature of the God represented in the Bible.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#736 Jun 26, 2013
HighlyEvolved wrote:
<quoted text>
He doesn't.
You're confused. I wrote that "God changes his mind frequently" as a reference to the contradictory things God does in the Bible.
Had I written, "Harry Potter changes his mind frequently" would you think that I believed Harry Potter was a real person?
I guess I'll have to be much clearer from now on! LOL.
Let me amend my statement: "When you read the Bible, a work of fiction, it becomes clear that the fictional character named 'God' changes his mind frequently."
Is that better?:)
However, when you read the Bible, a work of fact, it becomes clear that the factual character named 'God' does not change His mind.

It's all about perspective it would appear.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#737 Jun 26, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
“Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism promulgated [put into effect by formal public announcement] by the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the U.S.”- K.Padian N. Matzke,(2009) "Darwin, Dover,‘Intelligent Design’ and textbooks", Biochemical Journal (a peer-reviewed scientific journal)
<quoted text>
Merriam-Webster Dictionary
sect (n)- a : a dissenting or schismatic religious body
b : a religious denomination
1. It would almost appear that you are attempting to support my statement.

2. It's a problem of semantics. One of the intents used for the 30,000 'sects'(a rounded out figure less than 30,000; or sometimes phrased as 20,000-30,000) is used to relate to Protestantism. Sometimes, like in this case (I believe), meant to address Christianity as a whole. The problem of course is that the stats include non-protestant sects and religions. So we're not talking about only denominations which are different than 'sects'.

2.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#738 Jun 26, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
However, when you read the Bible, a work of fact, it becomes clear that the factual character named 'God' does not change His mind.
It's all about perspective it would appear.
Define 'fact'.

Genesis 2:22 God made a woman from the rib
Genesis 3:4 And the serpent said
Genesis 6:4 There were giants
Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life

"And God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not."
-- Book of Jonah, author unknown
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#739 Jun 26, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. It would almost appear that you are attempting to support my statement.
I don’t think that quote supports your position at all! Intelligent Design as promulgated by the Discovery Institute is clearly based on Judeo-Christian religious belief not science.

"Although it [Discovery Institute] purports to be a secular organization, its religious moorings are clearly recognizable.”- Patricia O'Connell Killen Ph.D., Professor of Religion at Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma

“Our program on Religion and Civic Life defends the continuing relevance of traditional religious faith…Specifically, it seeks to defend the importance of Judeo-Christian conceptions…”– Discovery Institute, About Discovery: Study and Activity Areas
Job wrote:
2. It's a problem of semantics. One of the intents used for the 30,000 'sects'(a rounded out figure less than 30,000; or sometimes phrased as 20,000-30,000) is used to relate to Protestantism. Sometimes, like in this case (I believe), meant to address Christianity as a whole. The problem of course is that the stats include non-protestant sects and religions. So we're not talking about only denominations which are different than 'sects'.
2.
Semantics has nothing to do with it. The fact of the matter is that Christianity is based on the Bible and there is no objective standard for interpretation of it so anybody can interpret it any way they want.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#740 Jun 26, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Do you think this was fair?
http://www.richardsternberg.com/smithsonian.p...
Yes, absolutely. Sternberg dishonestly try to sneak a Christian ID paper, "peer-reviewed" by several other "Christians IDers" into an actual scientific journal. He was publicly embarrassed but not fired. He has subsequently become a laughing stock int eh world of since, as well he should.
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
I've seen statements made on the internet that it was required reading in public classrooms. I believe I included one in a prior post.
Yes. I was asking if you knew of anything CONCRETE. I've seen statements made on the internet that the moon landings never happened and were faked in a Hollywood studio, but no actual links proving that.:)
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Is there some sort of access to these videos where outsiders can determine to what degree they were religious motivated, pro-creationist, anti-evolution, etc.?
http://litcandle.blogspot.com/2006/01/creatio...

Videos:(incomplete list)
… Creation/Evolution
… Dating fossils and rocks
… The origen of life
… The Fossil Records
… Astronomy and the Bible
… Lucy: She's no Lady!
… From a Frog to a Prince
… Chemicals to Living Cells: Fastasy or Science?
… Unlocking the Mystery of Life
… Mt. Saint Helens: Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe
… The Fire Below Us: Remembering Mount St. Helens
… Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe
… The Grand Canyon Castastrophe
… Thousands...Not Billions
… Life's Story
… The Privileged Planet
… Rocks of Ages or Rock of Creation?
… Radioisotopes and the age of the earth
… Experiments in Stratification
… Icons of Evolution
… War of the Worldviews
… In the Beginning
… Evidences: the Record and the Flood
… Geologic Evidences
Hurst has tracked down the source of most of these videos. Nearly all hail from creationist organs like Answers in Genesis or ICR. One, The Fire Below Us, appears to be a legitimate documentary used to support creationist ideas, and several could not be identified.

Hurst's analysis: Score: 19 creation, 4 unknown, 1 documentary to support catastrophism, 0 evolution
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#741 Jun 26, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
However, when you read the Bible, a work of fact, it becomes clear that the factual character named 'God' does not change His mind.
It's all about perspective it would appear.
God can and does change her mind, that is a womans' prerogative. What about the book of the prophet Jonah?
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#742 Jun 26, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
I don’t think that quote supports your position at all! Intelligent Design as promulgated by the Discovery Institute is clearly based on Judeo-Christian religious belief not science.
"Although it [Discovery Institute] purports to be a secular organization, its religious moorings are clearly recognizable.”- Patricia O'Connell Killen Ph.D., Professor of Religion at Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma
“Our program on Religion and Civic Life defends the continuing relevance of traditional religious faith…Specifically, it seeks to defend the importance of Judeo-Christian conceptions…”– Discovery Institute, About Discovery: Study and Activity Areas
<quoted text>

Semantics has nothing to do with it. The fact of the matter is that Christianity is based on the Bible and there is no objective standard for interpretation of it so anybody can interpret it any way they want.
1. I'm sure that most scientists that are theistic evolutionists have membership in church, Christian organizations, Christian Universities, etc. And many certainly promote the Judeo-Christian God. Do they have a 'religious' agenda?

2. You can't dismantle an argument with another argument. The original claim was that 30,000 'sects' compete with each other. You can read it for yourself. This is 'part' of the fabrication among others concerning this claim. For one, it's an inaccurate figure. In addition, it includes denominations that are 'not' differing from one another. There are off-shoots of off-shoots of off-shoots where the only differences may be in an alteration in the name, a regional distinction, distinctions that have nothing to do with differences in 'doctrine'. The other extreme would be 'sects','religions'(like Mormonism), and 'cults'. Anything with a reference to Christ in the title.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#743 Jun 26, 2013
“Richard G. Colling is a former professor of biology and chairman of the biological sciences department at Olivet Nazarene University in Bourbonnais, Illinois, who was barred from teaching general biology after writing a book that attempts to reconcile Christian belief with a scientific understanding of evolution.…In 2009, Colling resigned from the Olivet Nazarene University faculty…”– Wikipedia

“As a lifetime Nazarene, and as a faculty member, I have devoted my teaching career to helping students develop their fullest academic, personal, and spiritual potential. I also affirm president John Bowling. I know that very strong political and financial pressures have been brought to bear on him by certain church leaders.

…The truth is all I have ever wanted is to accurately and faithfully teach my discipline to ONU students and communicate a message of peace and harmony between science and faith. It has been God’s calling.…Therefore, I am extremely disappointed by the unwarranted and unnecessary actions of the president which suggest otherwise.

…In a world increasingly driven by advances in science, it is a sad day in the life of a Christian university when new insights into God’s creation revealed by biology and genetics are viewed as a threat to faith. Students deserve better. Those who continue to set biology at odds with the Bible do a terrible disservice to both.”- A Letter from Richard Colling, September 28, 2007
http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2007_09_0...
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#744 Jun 26, 2013
Gillette wrote:
1. <quoted text>
Yes, absolutely. Sternberg dishonestly try to sneak a Christian ID paper, "peer-reviewed" by several other "Christians IDers" into an actual scientific journal. He was publicly embarrassed but not fired. He has subsequently become a laughing stock int eh world of since, as well he should.
<quoted text>

2. Yes. I was asking if you knew of anything CONCRETE. I've seen statements made on the internet that the moon landings never happened and were faked in a Hollywood studio, but no actual links proving that.:)
1. You do realize that Sternberg is an 'evolutionary biologist' right? Did you bother to read his side of the story on the link I gave you?

Why do people complain about IDer's not having their work published in actual Scientific Journals, and when then do, it was "snuck in"?

It's called a "Catch-22".

2. This is not a conspiracy theory. I'm sure various statements can verified if anyone wishes to bother to do so:

I'd make this book required reading, not for students, but for school board members and teachers. If the average citizen is credulous to the point of embarrassment - and that's pretty clearly the case - the solution has to involve the educational system, and especially those in charge. We are not teaching our citizens and future citizens to think critically. In Sagan's phrase, "Extravagant claims require extravagant evidence." For better or worse, the life of the world is logic, and the ability to reason is as important as the ability to read and the ability to do arithmetic. And if you think it's not a problem, you need to read this book, or just attend the public comments portion of a school board meeting, or read the letters to the editor in your newspaper.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Demon-Haunted-World...

Question 1: Our high school chemistry teacher requires all his students to read Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan. It has already caused my son to start questioning everything we hold dear, and last Sunday he refused to go to Church. I have already contacted the Chemistry teacher, but he is adamant about forcing students to read it. What can I do?


http://www.crossroad.to/Q&A/Science/sagan...

“Vader2016!”

Since: Sep 10

The Deathstar

#745 Jun 26, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. You do realize that Sternberg is an 'evolutionary biologist' right? Did you bother to read his side of the story on the link I gave you?
Why do people complain about IDer's not having their work published in actual Scientific Journals, and when then do, it was "snuck in"?
It's called a "Catch-22".
2. This is not a conspiracy theory. I'm sure various statements can verified if anyone wishes to bother to do so:
I'd make this book required reading, not for students, but for school board members and teachers. If the average citizen is credulous to the point of embarrassment - and that's pretty clearly the case - the solution has to involve the educational system, and especially those in charge. We are not teaching our citizens and future citizens to think critically. In Sagan's phrase, "Extravagant claims require extravagant evidence." For better or worse, the life of the world is logic, and the ability to reason is as important as the ability to read and the ability to do arithmetic. And if you think it's not a problem, you need to read this book, or just attend the public comments portion of a school board meeting, or read the letters to the editor in your newspaper.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Demon-Haunted-World...
Question 1: Our high school chemistry teacher requires all his students to read Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan. It has already caused my son to start questioning everything we hold dear, and last Sunday he refused to go to Church. I have already contacted the Chemistry teacher, but he is adamant about forcing students to read it. What can I do?
http://www.crossroad.to/Q&A/Science/sagan...
I must be missing something here.

What in ID do you teach exactly? Is there a process to "GodDidIt?"

Is there a scientific formula based on the natural order in ID? What exactly would they teach?

You all scream "Teach the controversy" What exactly is this controversy you want taught? I do not see a reason based on the natural order and observable science to say "GodDidIt."

However, everything seems to point to the contrary.

“praying for you!”

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#746 Jun 26, 2013
10uhsee wrote:
<quoted text>
OK...
1) You dont know what evolution mean. but chose to argue against it.
2) You said "god" is in the constitution, when you got shown up and realized it was not you then said it is in the states constitutions.
3)You do not understand the difference between public and private, going as far and calling a hotel public property.
You have little credibility right now to call anyone a nut.
Also, I understand you have a bible that you are supposed to follow and preach to others. However maybe you have also heard of the US Constitution? It says your bible does not get to make the laws in this land. It also says you can not force your religious beliefs on me.
are you mentally challenged?
1. EVERYONE knows what evolution is about
2. I NEVER said God was in the constitution.
3. EVERYONE knows the difference between public and private

something is VERY wrong with you.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#747 Jun 26, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
http://litcandle.blogspot.com/2006/01/creatio...
Videos:(incomplete list)
… Creation/Evolution
… Dating fossils and rocks
… The origen of life
… The Fossil Records
… Astronomy and the Bible
… Lucy: She's no Lady!
… From a Frog to a Prince
… Chemicals to Living Cells: Fastasy or Science?
… Unlocking the Mystery of Life
… Mt. Saint Helens: Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe
… The Fire Below Us: Remembering Mount St. Helens
… Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe
… The Grand Canyon Castastrophe
… Thousands...Not Billions
… Life's Story
… The Privileged Planet
… Rocks of Ages or Rock of Creation?
… Radioisotopes and the age of the earth
… Experiments in Stratification
… Icons of Evolution
… War of the Worldviews
… In the Beginning
… Evidences: the Record and the Flood
… Geologic Evidences
Hurst has tracked down the source of most of these videos. Nearly all hail from creationist organs like Answers in Genesis or ICR. One, The Fire Below Us, appears to be a legitimate documentary used to support creationist ideas, and several could not be identified.
Hurst's analysis: Score: 19 creation, 4 unknown, 1 documentary to support catastrophism, 0 evolution
Where's Perry Mason when we need him?
Something's afoul here. The school claims that they had no intention of promoting a religion in any class setting. Either they

A) Didn't know that Creationist material was being used, and 'should' have looked into it 'beforehand'.

B) They 'did' know that Creationist material was being used, and didn't 'know' that doing so would be promoting a specific religion.

C) They 'did' know that the material being used 'was' promoting a specific religion...and perhaps would create controversy.

I think it's probably "A" or "B", in which case the school had/has a certain responsibility to incorporate a subject in such a way 'suitable' so as to not get this "throw the baby out with the bathwater" scenario.

Of course in relation to the unlikely event of "C" being the case, it really doesn't fair any publication well to stress the teacher being the wife of a 'minister'.

What is the logical answer to a problem where policy conflicting videos are being used within a school course/subject? Remove the course/subject, or remove the use of policy conflicting videos and material?

Which goes back to my following question, is any neutral party in power seeking to harmonize ID or Design Philosophy with school policy?

“praying for you!”

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#748 Jun 26, 2013
Punisher wrote:
<quoted text>Let it go doggie...you're chasing your tail.
Go ahead and share, but remember he also said to shake of the dust and move on when resisted.
"Oh that part? No, no we American Xtians have superseded that one...Jesus misspoke on that one...he meant to say, Grab those heathens like a pitbull would a tire-swing, and hold the F on..! Beat them when they resist, steal their children, infect them with pox, enslave them, steal their cultural artifacts, melt down the precious metals for my glory! My blue-eyed blonde haired glory!"
No little Walterlightweight, I am not Biblically ignorant...you however, like most Xtians, are a cherry-picker.
Specifically corners are not places of free-at-will assembly. Usually city ordinances put the kabosh on such things...but
He also rebuke sinners in public in front of others so they might fear.....

For someone who presents himself on here as such a secular ANTI-God person you sure do like to quote Jesus alot.
OKAY

Houston, TX

#749 Jun 26, 2013
10uhsee wrote:
<quoted text>
I must be missing something here.
What in ID do you teach exactly? Is there a process to "GodDidIt?"
Is there a scientific formula based on the natural order in ID? What exactly would they teach?
You all scream "Teach the controversy" What exactly is this controversy you want taught? I do not see a reason based on the natural order and observable science to say "GodDidIt."
However, everything seems to point to the contrary.
Go home and disconnect the gas line. Light a candle, run and look until it explodes. Tell me what you end up with, a Home Depot or a pile of rubble...

Natural order and observable science? LMELAO
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#750 Jun 26, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I'm sure that most scientists that are theistic evolutionists have membership in church, Christian organizations, Christian Universities, etc. And many certainly promote the Judeo-Christian God. Do they have a 'religious' agenda?
You are correct there are many scientists that are members of various Christian churches and other organizations that understand that science cannot be based on religious beliefs and must be based on real world, empirical evidence.

“…it [evolution] makes no assertions about any realm of reality outside of nature; it makes no claims for or against the existence of God…“- Robert J. Schneider Ph.D. Berea [Christian] College
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#751 Jun 26, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. You do realize that Sternberg is an 'evolutionary biologist' right? Did you bother to read his side of the story on the link I gave you?
OF COURSE> This is an ANCIENT story, happened in 2006, right? We've been discussing ti for YEARS here on Topix. "His side of the story" was lodged in a legal complaint that was DISMISSED by either the court or the EOC commission or whoever adjudicated it. He wasn't fired.

Yes, he certainly did earn the undying contempt of his fellow workers for his dishonest attempt to sneak ID into a peer-reviewed journal without real, actual peer-review.
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. You do realize that Sternberg is an 'evolutionary biologist' right?
Read up on the Sternberg controversy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sternber...
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do people complain about IDer's not having their work published in actual Scientific Journals, and when then do, it was "snuck in"?
Because it WAS dishonestly sneaked in. Read the link above.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
He's our only true friend now. 38 min tahoegirl 4
Poll Was Paul a False Apostle? (May '08) 42 min KAB 5,253
WHY GOD does HATE HOMOSEXUALS and LESBIANS????? (Dec '13) 53 min Morningstargirl 386
Scientific Proof Of GOD(for dummies) 1 hr 15th Dalai Lama 1,115
Evidence Against God 2 hr Doubting Thomas 3,292
A God Who Disagrees With The Data 2 hr anonymous 43
The False Teachings of the Hebrew Israelites, s... (Jan '14) 4 hr Morningstargirl 115
More from around the web