Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Could you explain how religion is a part of "our evolutionary struggle?" Can you show how religion has caused us to physically evolve? Why do you describe the process of evolution as a struggle? That's a value judgment which is meaningless in nature.

Yes, I was wondering what that meant, too.

That phrase is freighted with ominous but obscure import.

Also the comments about religious education in schools are ... well, not exactly clear.

Rather you than me Jack. He has suggested "re-education camps" for religious people. He does evade every interesting question. He has a serious axe to grind. Perhaps you should read the threads more carefully. He once predicted a football game result after reading it in the paper.

He wouldn't know where to start with the educational process denuded of religious influence. And if he doesn't want that he's up the junction.

He hasn't a scientific bone in his body. And neither has wande, ros, Setanta or that silliest of silly moos ci.

fm has not yet responded to the CBS News report I mentioned of the Omani gentleman who has retired rich from "showing American (geologists) where to drill for oil.

Ive been on a small holiday so pardon me if I dont refer back to your earlier semi precious gems.
Did this Omani gentleman divine entrails or did he use geophysics?

No--he seemed content to take the money and let the American geologists take the credit with brilliant explanations about rock strata that nobody in head office was capable of contradicting nor was inclined to.

I would guess his knowledge had been passed down the male side of his family since when Caractacus was a lad.

Are there lady geologists fm? I daresay swotting is the only thing that matters in geology.

There was one more poster who expressed doubts on the above topic.
I am glad you have given me the opportunity to do so. Setanta, evolution does not take place in episodes. It is neither a serialised set of events. Evolution is continous and affects all parts and parcels of life. 'Evolution' is a broad term, and it includes the evolution of the brain. All these are obvious and need not go much into this.

But if i pick upon the evolution of brain or neural systems, we need to have a fair understanding of the brain-mind connect. We see very clearly by studying the natural history of man how with natural selection we have developed brain (your physical evolvement), but also by scratching your skull a bit, you may well understand the development of human mind too. You may well be aware of all this basic things, but if not, it may help to scratch because of a possible a Eureka moment that you may experience. Development of the human mind is the development of human intelligence with all its faculties (and frailties, if one may add) of the intellect and memory to observe, analyse and learn with the help of logic and language.

The development of the human intelligence is therefore based on the evolutionary principles, leading to a continous progression in human thoughts and ideas. It is this progress of thoughts and ideas that led to the foundations of religion or ethical behaviour in human life. The goal of man is to be civilised, and no one can dispute the role of civilisations in human progress. Religion or religious thoughts system is the result acheived with the progress of human thought.

Any given thought process - ideas, concepts and formulations of scientific knowledge, and of any belief systems for that matter is not a gift from heaven, it is consequent to the ongoing evolutionary process. Whether today we like it or not, Religion was and is important for human progress. It is part of the human story, (How far ahead it would be useful is arguable, but no one can deny Religion and its role in human society). Hope this may have helped.

It sounds like you are trying to construct a link between cultural evolution and biological evolution. One is social science, the other is natural science. Linking the two seems strained and artificial.

I just tried to explain to the other poster, that cultural evolution does not take place in isolated environs or bunkers, set apart from the physical environment.
One is social science and other is natural science is a distinction for academic purposes. Scratch a little more, and you would realise that they are not two different ships sailing on the opposite directions. One is within the other.

Now Jack--you're new around here and you possibly don't know that none of these anti-IDers know anything about evolution except how to spell the word and use it as if they are experts on the matter. They do fin to wing to leg stuff. Poofed into existence. Darwin didn't know all that much about it.

For a materialist there is no "brain-mind" connect. Brain, mind and body all mean the same thing to a materialist. The totality of the organism.

Could you explain the development of human intelligence from Pythagoras to Setanta (Set). Or from the cave painters to cicerone impostor (ci.). In a manner which avoids us going off a cliff in the next three months. Go from Ovid to rosbourne (ros) if your prefer. Or Empedocles to farmerman (fm).

Show us the progress. Actually, progress is a myth. It's a conceit of the sweet pretty things who think early to bed, early to rise is the route to wisdom when it is actually a denial of the pleasure principle.

Mark the day. wande opined.

The educational system is concerned with cultural evolution in whatever direction. Biological evolution has no place in such a system. It confuses people.

From a biological evolution point of view all the females in a Grade 12 class should mate with the lad who wins most gold stars.

I can't agree with that Jack. No culture has lasted long enough for evolutionary processes to have had any measureable effect. Social science not only ignores natural science, which is as near constant as makes no difference, but it deliberately sets out to set it aside. Clay is clay. Potters make an array of objects out of it.

All that blather, and no answers to my questions.

I can certainly deny the "role" of religion in society--but first you'll have to make an allegation about what it is. If that turns out to be dubious, i'll be happy to deny it. And there's no "help" to it . . . i'm not learning anything from you.

Hi spendius

Inter-disciplinary or multi-disciplinary studies have just dawned over the horizon of human enquiry. It will take a while for the concept to evolve. The paradigm is shifting. When you say clay is clay, it is true. Believe me, one is part of the whole. Social science is a small part of natural science. Both are sciences, both are knowledge systems.

Of course it leads to a different worldly outlook.

Now let me ask you a simple question phil..
If the environment for a tribe of humans changes, who is more likely to survive, one that believes in fairy tales and sacrifices virgins to the gods or one that looks that uses science to overcome the obstacle? I think there is little question about it, don't you phil?

Hey, that's why they have prayer, for gods sake.

I am neither teaching you.
You have your own predetermined notions, you are prejudice and compromised. It is amply evident in the comments you just made. Thanks

I am not sure what that 'little question' is, or what you are trying to suggest; but be whatever it may be, the fact remains that humans does not merely live a cultured existence. The natural instincts takes over in a survival situation, and all those indoctrination goes for a toss. The answer is inherent in your question. It is anybodies guess, who will survive. And thats precisely the point I made, which you seem to reiterate in a different form. Thats all. Thanks anyway. and btw, call me jack......... phil is a kind of tag given to me, indicating that i came from the philosophy forum. ha ha