Evolution in Education

If Christianity and Evolution are both theories why is Evolution taught in the public schools.

,couldn't you just not deal with origin?

MVC biology professor offers Christian defense of evolution
(By TRAVIS WATTS, Marshall Democrat-News, April 2, 2008)

Mark Mills, a biology professor at Missouri Valley College, gave a presentation "Evolution for Everyone," the second part of a three part science and religion series at Valley, on March 31.

Mills, a Christian himself, explained why other Christians cannot afford to dismiss the theory of evolution.

"When we say 'theory' we don't mean educated guess, this is something very different," Mills said.

He also expressed frustration with Christians that claim evolutionary theory is still debated among scientists.

"Probably 99.9 percent of credible scientists today would disagree with that," claimed Mills.

Mills also discussed the need for better scientific education in our schools. He feels that this lack of education leads to the spread misinformation, usually by well-meaning creationists.

According to Mills, one common misconception is that all scientists are atheists and it's not possible to be a Christian and a scientist.

"(There is) a mistaken view that all scientists are atheists and that one cannot be both a scientist and a Christian," said Mills. "This misconception that all scientists are atheists has permeated for too long."

To support his claims about evolution, Mills pointed to comments made by Pope John Paul II.

"In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by natural sciences," the Pope said. "It is necessary to determine the proper sense of scripture, while avoiding interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say."

Mills also stressed that Genesis is not an accurate scientific account of creation.

"God speaks to us in terms we can understand. For example, Jesus taught in parables, often with agrarian examples, because the people could understand these stories and examples," he said. "God needed to convey the message in terminology men could understand 5,000 years ago. We didn't even know the structure of DNA until the late 1950s."

Mills conclude his talk by addressing how the human may have developed. He cited tests that confirm the existence of a common female ancestor, possibly Eve. Scientists have used mtDNA and nuclear DNA to confirm that all humans are the descendants of an African ancestor, dating back over 140 thousand years.

Mills, unlike many Christians, believes that science and religion are two compatible truths.

"I do not read the Bible as a scientific account no more than I read a scientific article or textbook as a manual on life and how to get to the afterlife," he said. "God guides me in my day-to-day life. He wants me to be the best biologist and the best Christian that I can."

Evolution is taught in US public schools for the same reason Christianity is taught in Christian churches; it's the only theory that fits the venue.

Evolution doesn't address the origin of life, it addresses the process of life.

When you study the process of combustion in a combustion engine, you don't necessarily study the starter motor, because it's not part of the combustion process. You can know a lot about the combustion process without ever knowing what started it.

rosborne979 wrote:

Evolution is taught in US public schools for the same reason Christianity is taught in Christian churches; it's the only theory that fits the venue.

Evolution doesn't address the origin of life, it addresses the process of life.

When you study the process of combustion in a combustion engine, you don't necessarily study the starter motor, because it's not part of the combustion process. You can know a lot about the combustion process without ever knowing what started it.

Abiogenesis/Evolution are taught in the public schools in one slick package.

Prominent evolutionists (that I have quoted on A2K) refer to abiogenesis as 'the first step in evolution'.

Your attempt to parse and wiggle is funny, but the fact is that you also credit a process indistinguishable from natural selection with producing the 'first life' , do you not?

When you study the process of combustion in a combustion engine, you don't necessarily study the starter motor, because it's not part of the combustion process. You can know a lot about the combustion process without ever knowing what started it.

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

Evolution is taught in US public schools for the same reason Christianity is taught in Christian churches; it's the only theory that fits the venue.

Evolution doesn't address the origin of life, it addresses the process of life.

When you study the process of combustion in a combustion engine, you don't necessarily study the starter motor, because it's not part of the combustion process. You can know a lot about the combustion process without ever knowing what started it.

Abiogenesis/Evolution are taught in the public schools in one slick package.

Prove it. Show us a textbook which state that evolution caused abiogenesis.

real life wrote:

Prominent evolutionists (that I have quoted on A2K) refer to abiogenesis as 'the first step in evolution'.

So what. Just because it's the first step doesn't mean it's part of the evolutionary process for existing biology.

Please review the analogy I included above. It demonstrates how the initiator of a process is not necessarily a part of the resulting process, even though one leads to the other. Here it is AGAIN:

rosborne979 wrote:

When you study the process of combustion in a combustion engine, you don't necessarily study the starter motor, because it's not part of the combustion process. You can know a lot about the combustion process without ever knowing what started it.

real life wrote:

Your attempt to parse and wiggle is funny, but the fact is that you also credit a process indistinguishable from natural selection with producing the 'first life' , do you not?

No, I say "similar to", not "indistinguishable from". There's a difference.

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

Evolution is taught in US public schools for the same reason Christianity is taught in Christian churches; it's the only theory that fits the venue.

Evolution doesn't address the origin of life, it addresses the process of life.

When you study the process of combustion in a combustion engine, you don't necessarily study the starter motor, because it's not part of the combustion process. You can know a lot about the combustion process without ever knowing what started it.

Abiogenesis/Evolution are taught in the public schools in one slick package.

Prove it. Show us a textbook which state that evolution caused abiogenesis.

What?

rosborne979 wrote:

Please review the analogy I included above. It demonstrates how the initiator of a process is not necessarily a part of the resulting process, even though one leads to the other. Here it is AGAIN:

rosborne979 wrote:

When you study the process of combustion in a combustion engine, you don't necessarily study the starter motor, because it's not part of the combustion process. You can know a lot about the combustion process without ever knowing what started it.

bad analogy

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

Your attempt to parse and wiggle is funny, but the fact is that you also credit a process indistinguishable from natural selection with producing the 'first life' , do you not?

No, I say "similar to", not "indistinguishable from". There's a difference.

It's a distinction without a difference.

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

Evolution is taught in US public schools for the same reason Christianity is taught in Christian churches; it's the only theory that fits the venue.

Evolution doesn't address the origin of life, it addresses the process of life.

When you study the process of combustion in a combustion engine, you don't necessarily study the starter motor, because it's not part of the combustion process. You can know a lot about the combustion process without ever knowing what started it.

Abiogenesis/Evolution are taught in the public schools in one slick package.

Prove it. Show us a textbook which state that evolution caused abiogenesis.

What?

Sorry. "StateS" not "State" (seems like such a small error, I'm surprised you couldn't make sense of it... unless you weren't trying of course).

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

Please review the analogy I included above. It demonstrates how the initiator of a process is not necessarily a part of the resulting process, even though one leads to the other. Here it is AGAIN:

rosborne979 wrote:

When you study the process of combustion in a combustion engine, you don't necessarily study the starter motor, because it's not part of the combustion process. You can know a lot about the combustion process without ever knowing what started it.

bad analogy

Perfect analogy. The thing that started the process isn't necessarily the same as the process itself.

Is anyone else having trouble following this, or is it just RL?

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

Your attempt to parse and wiggle is funny, but the fact is that you also credit a process indistinguishable from natural selection with producing the 'first life' , do you not?

No, I say "similar to", not "indistinguishable from". There's a difference.

It's a distinction without a difference.

Indistinguishable from means "same as". "Similar to" means "not same as". Big difference.

Again, is anyone else having trouble following this, or is it just RL? I would be glad to go into more detail if I didn't think the challenges were baseless and contrarian (which RL's challenges seem to be).

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

Evolution is taught in US public schools for the same reason Christianity is taught in Christian churches; it's the only theory that fits the venue.

Evolution doesn't address the origin of life, it addresses the process of life.

When you study the process of combustion in a combustion engine, you don't necessarily study the starter motor, because it's not part of the combustion process. You can know a lot about the combustion process without ever knowing what started it.

Abiogenesis/Evolution are taught in the public schools in one slick package.

Prove it. Show us a textbook which state that evolution caused abiogenesis.

What?

Sorry. "StateS" not "State" (seems like such a small error, I'm surprised you couldn't make sense of it... unless you weren't trying of course).

I wasn't referring to your spelling.

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

Please review the analogy I included above. It demonstrates how the initiator of a process is not necessarily a part of the resulting process, even though one leads to the other. Here it is AGAIN:

rosborne979 wrote:

When you study the process of combustion in a combustion engine, you don't necessarily study the starter motor, because it's not part of the combustion process. You can know a lot about the combustion process without ever knowing what started it.

bad analogy

Perfect analogy. The thing that started the process isn't necessarily the same as the process itself.

Is anyone else having trouble following this, or is it just RL?

compression is a NECESSARY part of the process, ros

compression is produced by the movement of the pistons

not much of a mechanic?

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

Your attempt to parse and wiggle is funny, but the fact is that you also credit a process indistinguishable from natural selection with producing the 'first life' , do you not?

No, I say "similar to", not "indistinguishable from". There's a difference.

It's a distinction without a difference.

Indistinguishable from means "same as". "Similar to" means "not same as". Big difference.

Again, is anyone else having trouble following this, or is it just RL? I would be glad to go into more detail if I didn't think the challenges were baseless and contrarian (which RL's challenges seem to be).

You've yet to show there's any difference.

Asserting a difference is not the same as demonstrating it.