61
   

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Nov, 2009 10:28 am
@rosborne979,
It's funny how god buried some animal and human bones in Africa to be found millions of years after their demise. Evolution was not a neat sequence of development, but a long term trend that took millions of years. Creationist must believe the earth to be 7,000 years old when so much evidence shows otherwise. Why did god confuse his flock with such much conflicting evidence?
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Nov, 2009 11:03 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne wrote:
Quote:
Kraft doesn't think someone can be a Christian and an evolutionist.

This guy continues to demonstrate that he's an idiot.

Actually, I would have said he's making sense on this point, or something pretty close to it.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Nov, 2009 11:11 am
@Thomas,
I have to agree with Thomas.
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Nov, 2009 02:04 pm
I disagree, I know I'm going to flailed on this point, but... My parents, my kids and I were all educated by the Catholic school system and they never once tried to teach creationism in the science class. In fact, other that religion class I never heard a creationist idea. Mind you they didn't call it that, it was called reading the bible.
My science teachers from grade 5 on were nuns and we were taught Darwin's evolution.
I'm not religious, time served... But my uncle is a priest. He believes in Evolution as does most of my family. I'm not pretending to be the poster child for Catholics, but some Christians don't have their head up their ass.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Nov, 2009 02:18 pm
@wandeljw,
Quote:
Thanks for the analysis, rosborne. I agree with you 100 percent.


What? That an American High School science teacher is an "idiot" and a "raging moron"?

Do the authorities know this wande? I think they should be told.

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Nov, 2009 02:35 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Why did god confuse his flock with such much conflicting evidence?


Well--He didn't you see ci. You keep forgetting that you are on an international science forum and arguments of the sort you lay on your sister are really a little too naive. In fact they are infantile and if you think you can cosy up to the scientific elite by blurting them out over and over again despite explanations having been presented to you many times you must think we are all stupid. And scientists must wonder how on earth a silly sod like you ever got on their case.

Your current President, the previous one, the one before that and the one before that all disagree with you. Does that not give you pause for thought?

0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Nov, 2009 02:37 pm
@wandeljw,
gFollowing the teachings of Christ is no different than following the teachings of Buddha or Confucius, none of them being supernatural at all but great prophets and philosophers. It's impossible to align with those teachings 100% but it's important that we forgive ourselves for our transgressions, admit to mistakes and make amends -- our society's laws will punish those who go way beyond the fray and some of those will be sociopaths, incapable of forgiving anyone including themselves.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Nov, 2009 02:39 pm
Like we're suppose to model ourselves after Presidents, like PSXXX models himself after the Shrub.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Nov, 2009 04:48 pm
@Thomas,
I think it depends on how strictly you limit the definition of "being Christian". If you limit it to literal interpretations of resurrection and other magics then it is irreconsileable with reality. But if being Christian has more to do with a general philosophy rather than dogmatic literalism then there is no conflict with science or reality. I prefer to think that the "true" Christians are the ones who have freed themselves from the ancient literalism and tried to explore the message rather than the word.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Nov, 2009 04:50 pm
@rosborne979,
If any Christians have given up immaculate conception and the resurrection, they are okay in my book.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Nov, 2009 05:01 pm
@edgarblythe,
The beginning and the end, heh, edgar? The in-betweens with all them miracles are okay?
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Nov, 2009 05:10 pm
@cicerone imposter,
If they lose the big ones, the little ones will follow of their own accord.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Nov, 2009 05:18 pm
@edgarblythe,
You're probably right! But the biggies are very huge hurdles for believers, and I'm not so sure many can overcome the height.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Nov, 2009 08:20 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Especially with their typical negative view that directly over that hurdle is a pool of hot burning acid. It's really about getting over the egoism that Earth and everything on it was created especially for us. That makes that pool of hot burning acid full of alligators who are impervious to that acid and several immune man-eating sharks. Irrational fear keeps them from even approaching the hurdle.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2009 05:06 am
@Lightwizard,
I don't think any other society outside the US has ever quite acted so superbly on the assumption that the Earth had been created especially for its members. We will have to hope they don't get over it because a collective nervous breakdown would ensue if they did.

It is certainly an irrational fear to conjure up such anachronistic nonsense as that Wiz. Shouldn't you be on a street corner?
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2009 07:51 am
Anyone see 60 Minutes last night? Fascinating bit on a 60 million year old t-rex they found in Montana a few years ago. They've been able to extract soft tissue and blood vessels. The bones are of a pregnant female, it's the first time they've ever been able to pinpoint the sex of one of these beasts.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2009 09:07 am
@Ceili,
60 Minutes is a CBS production. I gather CBS is not very conservative, or at least not in the apprehension of those who are in the habit of allowing a few well chosen words to over-ride obvious outward signifiers to the contrary.

As such it is not surprising that it should produce programmes of such a nature which do, of course, reinforce the Darwinian position which I assume it supports for reasons which have been explained earlier in these threads pertaining to this subject.

It might be worth bearing in mind that the Darwinian position is ultra conservative as befits that of a gentleman of leisure, as Mr Darwin was, and who showed ample evidence of being obsessed by repetitive elaborations of easily observed minutiae which I think most psychologists would say was a distraction from the contemplation of his own mental states and the conditions of the workers in the factories from which his life of ease derived.

Your post Ceili betrays a remarkable acceptance of the information seemingly imparted in the programme and which some might say represents the dogma of the scientific priesthood. I presume the usual reverential tones were deployed as is to be expected in such cases as well as the insignias of office of those whose task it was to do so for the entertainment slotted into the gaps between the ads.

Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2009 09:09 am
@spendius,
Blah, blah, blah...
Darwin wasn't mentioned. Just video of soft tissue...
blah, blah, blah....
Just get home from the pub?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2009 09:23 am
@Lightwizard,
Wiz- At what tender age were you first exposed to the artistic productions of Hieronymus Bosch?

In case you misinterpreted those works of art you ought to be appraised of the fact that he was taking the piss in the same manner that Mr James Joyce employed in his famous passage on Hell in Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man.

You were not supposed to take those things seriously as you seem to have done.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2009 09:49 am
DARWIN CONFERENCE IN EGYPT
Quote:
Evolution's classroom crisis
(Riazat Butt,The Guardian, 15 November 2009)

Questions abound in the Bibliotheca Alexandrina on the second day of a conference on Darwin's legacy. Where can I get a coffee? Is this seat taken? Is religion compatible with evolutionary theory? Delegates search for answers.

Jason Wiles, a former creationist, chaired a discussion featuring Salman Hameed, Joshua Rosenau and Saouma Boujaoude. The focus was Islam. Each time the Americans said Qur'anic, it sounded like they were saying chronic.

They showed to what extent evolution was accepted among students and teachers in Muslim-majority countries. Not much. But then the US was no better, observed Rosenau. It languished in the bottom five of industrialised countries accepting evolution. The others were Turkey, Cyprus, Latvia and Lithuania. Wiles said he and colleagues at the Evolution Education Research Centre (EERC) were studying attitudes towards evolution in countries such as Egypt, Lebanon, Indonesia and Pakistan. In Indonesia there was open resistance, said Wiles. The leader of one student body objected to EERC's very presence on campus. "Don't give the survey here! How can you believe we are from apes?" he cried. The students rallied behind him. Most of the Indonesian teachers surveyed used the works of Harun Yahya in science classes. In Egypt and Lebanon, said Boujaoude, Muslim and Christian students were influenced by their religious beliefs. Around half of the Egyptian teachers surveyed opposed evolution and all Egyptian biology teachers opposed evolution. Claims that science and Islam are compatible look shaky against such findings. Boujaoude pointed out that objections were based on limited understanding on the nature of evidence and the nature of science. The narrowness was hardly surprising given the lack of investment and activity in the scientific field, said Hameed, using Nature data as proof. The scarcity of knowledge and resources was one of the reasons that Saudi Arabia needed outside help to deal with swine flu, he surmised.

But untangling the issue went deeper than what happened in the classroom, it was also about what teachers and governments accepted and understood about science. "Muslims have been using fragments of science and fragments of religion to make them more compatible," said Hameed as he pulled out quotes from a pair of Peshawari muftis, one who attacked the Met Office for providing moon sighting data and another who praised Islam's scientific legacy.

There was some good news. There was no clear doctrinal opposition to evolution and Muslims were looking to appropriate theologically palatable aspects of it. The bad news was the absence of debate between scholars and scientists. Anti-western feelings and the blurring of lines between evolution and secularism would make that harder. "If it's presented as a dichotomy, it's going to be religion. It depends on who is going to shape the narrative."

Nidhal Guessoum intervened to say that Islamic creationism was a "fuzzy mosaic of ideas" and not the same as US creationism, which was peddled by Harun Yahya. Islamic creationism used scripture, he said, it was all about Adam, Adam and clay. There were more references to hadith and the Qur'an, which is what set it apart from the Christian-influenced movement.

The vacuum meant someone more mainstream could finish off Yahya's work, someone who appeared more credible, to use the internet and solidify the message of Islamic creationism.

To people wondering why creationism was getting any kind of platform, Anglican priest Michael Roberts offers a reminder. Creationism is totally untrue. It exposes people of the book " many of whom, among them distinguished speakers at this conference, see no contradiction between evolutionary theory and their faith " to ridicule. And if it gains traction with governments or other authorities, then the public practice of science and research will be hindered.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 06/18/2025 at 08:15:22