Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

@spendius,

There's a very simple answer to that question, spendi. It advances every science known to man, and allows humans to discover our universe in many ways that were unknown to generations of humans who have lived before our time. We know more about our universe and environment that were unknown before our time, and have discovered what causes disease and their cures. Medical care improvements have helped extend our lives, and our so-called standard of living have shown great strides. We have very good to excellent sanitation compared to third world countries, have sufficient supply of clean drinking water and food - all thanks to science.

I also love the fact that I can travel half-way around the world in one day, and most times with only two flights. I find this not only amazing, but the safety record of flight is the result of aeronautical science.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I did hear that the church helped to stop cannibalism! that is a plus but then we can talk about how many lives it has saved compared to that which it has taken in the name of hindering the truth about science and wars

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

A real challenge would be one -- NOT based on the Bible -- but on science that absolutely disproves evolution.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

None. Youth who are taught evolution, versus those who are denied it, have no special social dilemma.

That's an assertion which I don't accept. It implies you don't know what the teaching of evolution means. Taught properly to intelligent people it raises many ethical dilemmas. This debate would not be taking place if it didn't.

Your assertion is a species of Ignore. My question is on Ignore and has been from the start. It has not only never been answered but no attempt has even been made to do so.

That there are social consequences to the teaching of a number of subjects is the reason for school boards and the heated debates they have. And evolution is the BIG ONE.

Quote:

The answer hasn't changed and no threat has come from teaching evolutionary principles.

How do you know that? And anyway--as of now, any evolution taught will be by what are still essentially Christian teachers. That won't be the case when it's been going 50 years.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

His (spenid's)initial assumptions are based upon a deity in charge.

That is not true. A collective and accepted belief in a deity in charge is not the same as there being a deity in charge. The latter in unknowable. The former is an aspect of social organisation.

We have no useful knowledge of a collective and accepted belief that there is no deity. Assurances by domesticated husbands are of no use. A leap into the dark is a leap into the dark however it is presented.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendi, Your argument for the unknown is your weakest point. You haven't shared with us why you accept a deity in charge? Only that "we don't know."

Flip the coin, and you'll find that science has been answering many of life's mysteries; deity, none.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

If you truely do care about social consequences then why not study and share ethics?

With you you mean I presume rl. I don't think you are up to it. In fact I know it.

Quote:

What are the social consequences if we do not question our mores?

But we constantly question our mores.

No morality is worth a blow without an authority behind it. So establishing an authority is necessary to prevent as many moralities as there are people.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

I have only one question for spendi; show us how any religion has had an impact on any society on morals and ethics?

Come on ci. Religion impacts almost everything. The relations between the sexes. Property. Architecture. Art generally. Treatment of criminals. Manners. Almost everything not governed by biological forces. Without religion there would only be biological forces.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendi, You've lost it in translation. LOL

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
None. Youth who are taught evolution, versus those who are denied it, have no special social dilemma.

That's an assertion which I don't accept.

Actually you do accept it. Your words deny it, but your actions don't. You gladly accept the fruits from the tree of science. You accept medicine and all sorts of things based on evolutionary principles. Your actions speak for you more honestly than your text.

spendius wrote:

It implies you don't know what the teaching of evolution means. Taught properly to intelligent people it raises many ethical dilemmas.

This is a No True Scotsmen fallacy and an underhanded way of implying that those who disagree with your analysis of evolution are not "intelligent people." Both are vacant and desperate pleading on your behalf. It's embarrassing to watch.

spendius wrote:

This debate would not be taking place if it didn't.

Sure it would. The debate is about the factual history of the universe, not what you perceive as a social dilemma.

spendius wrote:

Your assertion is a species of Ignore. My question is on Ignore and has been from the start. It has not only never been answered but no attempt has even been made to do so.

Plenty of people have taken their turns tutoring you on your evolutionary illiteracy, spendi. You've received far more attention and effort to address your objections than you probably deserve.

spendius wrote:

That there are social consequences to the teaching of a number of subjects is the reason for school boards and the heated debates they have. And evolution is the BIG ONE.

The real social dilemma is in religious fascism.

spendius wrote:

Quote:
The answer hasn't changed and no threat has come from teaching evolutionary principles.

How do you know that? And anyway--as of now, any evolution taught will be by what are still essentially Christian teachers. That won't be the case when it's been going 50 years.

I don't care who teaches evolution, as long as it is taught accurately and without religious obstruction.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Your argument for the unknown is your weakest point.

The opposite is the case. It is the strongest point. I made it at the beginning of the ID/Science thread about 7 years ago. It should have been made at Dover. In judge's chambers of course.

You don't understand the argument ci. You think it simple and it isn't.

Your other post is mere flannel. Our science is a Christian science and not even glimpsed in any other culture. Your praise of the achievements of science are praise of Christianity.

2 Replies

@spendius,

spendi, You're more confused today than you were 7 years ago.

There is no argument; when you can't provide any proof or evidence and rely on one book written a century after the events described in your comic book by many men who wasn't even living during the period of your jesus/god, it has no credibility.

Add in all the errors, omissions, and contradictions in that one book called the bible, and we have something bordering on bad fiction. It would not pass any class in logic or common sense; only religious study. That's the reason why it's classed as philosophy.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Where would our christian science be without the help of the rest of the world? one example would be Hindu-Arabic numerals. Does god love the christians so much that he gave them the knowledge of science and not the rest of man kind?
Does he love the jews less as they are not christians?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

No. It isn't like that at all rl. And I'm not good enough to explain it for you. I refer you to Oswald Spengler. How can I be expected to explain in a short post what took him so much effort to explain in The Decline of the West.

It is not simple. I'm sorry about that but there it is. You lot want it to be simple because you don't care for the idea that it is beyond you. Same with Judge Jones. So you make it simple. As the prosecution did at Dover and the defence hadn't the capacity to counteract it. Or the nerve.

Does it not bother you that the bulk of the media conglomerates are on your side? Profit is their only interest. Profit comes from ratings. Ratings come from telling people what they want to hear. Authority must collapse. What people want to hear for 308 million people is the road to ruin. Mr Obama referred to the economy as a "tinder box" the other day. That's an item which needs but one little spark to confraglate.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Do you have any idea what the media conglomerates are talking about in the US? Do you think that they are on my side?
Do you think that they are saying that our Authority must collapse?

Is that what your media conglomerates are talking about?

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

spendi is unable to derail anything

The statement of which is follwoed by one pge of spendi de-rail. Am I the only one who sees the irony in that?

3 Replies

@spendius,

Truth is always simple, spendi. Something you have failed to learn.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman, I expect you to have a stronger mind than to follow into spendi's railroad.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Me, me, fm. I see it.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Gee, am I the only one who sees spendi's off-track comments as nonsensical and without any value except entertainment?

1 Reply

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know