Acceptance...
- Thread starter BIGgourami
- Start date
digger;2228851; said:
I do have to say that I really enjoy the adjectives atheist's use to describe themselves! hamato_yoshii;2228906; said:
He be foaming at the mouth!
we have not furthered the understanding of evolution through this thread.
I am sorry if it contradicts with individual's belief, but evolution is accepted in the scientific community. If you want to use faith/religion as a reference, you are no longer being objective to this thread/ or science. In the past i have brought up the notion of religion, and my post has been altered, deleted, and ridiculed. I have only offered an adult and scientific dialogue.
I am concerned when people are suggesting that "intelligent design" be taught in public schools.
"intelligent design" ignores the systematic analysis of methods/practices/rules that science has produced and constantly tests. By incorporating a supernatural/god/even alien creator that cannot be proven, pro-intelligent designers are ignoring the basic scientific method. it is a fact that intelligent design is not observable, measurable, or empirical, i.e dependent on real data that is testable. But this does not mean it false, under our observable senses, we can not form any scientific evidence with the present tools/data for such a claim.
Right now, through years and decades of testing in the scientific world, what we do have is natural selection and evolution.
I really enjoyed bigg's input earlier on this thread. Where you at man?
I am sorry if it contradicts with individual's belief, but evolution is accepted in the scientific community. If you want to use faith/religion as a reference, you are no longer being objective to this thread/ or science. In the past i have brought up the notion of religion, and my post has been altered, deleted, and ridiculed. I have only offered an adult and scientific dialogue.
I am concerned when people are suggesting that "intelligent design" be taught in public schools.
"intelligent design" ignores the systematic analysis of methods/practices/rules that science has produced and constantly tests. By incorporating a supernatural/god/even alien creator that cannot be proven, pro-intelligent designers are ignoring the basic scientific method. it is a fact that intelligent design is not observable, measurable, or empirical, i.e dependent on real data that is testable. But this does not mean it false, under our observable senses, we can not form any scientific evidence with the present tools/data for such a claim.
Right now, through years and decades of testing in the scientific world, what we do have is natural selection and evolution.
I really enjoyed bigg's input earlier on this thread. Where you at man?
jbnebres;2228945; said:
This is exactly why it turns into religion at times. Some people understand the scientific methods and conclusions as to what is going on others see it as blasphemy. I try not to attack anyones beliefs (other than my own) but when you look at the data that has been presented which you have some people get intimidated and bring personal beliefs rather than scientific understanding into the discussion. People automatically assume that when the word evolution is used it is in regards to micro, macro, and universal. Macro is when faith based people get annoyed but almost everyone accepts micro. My parents are born again Christian and they accept micro.
There is a lot here, hopefully I have time to address it all.
"I am sorry if it contradicts with individual's belief, but evolution is accepted in the scientific community."
Evolution is accepted in the evolutionary scientific community. There are many scientists who do not subscribe to that theory.
"I am concerned when people are suggesting that "intelligent design" be taught in public schools."
This is a seperate debate, but I would encourage you to look at the history of the US, and take an unbiased look at how schools were, and what was taught, when our forefathers were "running the show". You will see that the recent trend of taking intelligent design out of schools, is just that, recent, and it is in no way how the people who "designed" this country would have had it.
""intelligent design" ignores the systematic analysis of methods/practices/rules that science has produced and constantly tests. By incorporating a supernatural/god/even alien creator that cannot be proven, pro-intelligent designers are ignoring the basic scientific method. it is a fact that intelligent design is not observable, measurable, or empirical, i.e dependent on real data that is testable. But this does not mean it false, under our observable senses, we can not form any scientific evidence with the present tools/data for such a claim. "
I would agree with some of this, but this goes back to my posts earlier. The problem is, the origins of our planet cannot be "tested" to prove God made it, but also that means it can't be "tested" to prove that God didn't make it either, so I don't think thats a good argument. What this is, is starting at the middle (observing evolution in our time) and theorizing how it would have started, and then saying because I believe that the middle is is right and scientific, that means that how I view the begining must also be too. Unfortunatly, this also is not "scientific".
"Right now, through years and decades of testing in the scientific world, what we do have is natural selection and evolution. "
The problem is, evolution is still just a theory. Just because people are really excited and passionate about, isn't enough to push it over to the fact category. So, untill then, it should be regarded in the same sense as other theories, like intelligent design.
"I am sorry if it contradicts with individual's belief, but evolution is accepted in the scientific community."
Evolution is accepted in the evolutionary scientific community. There are many scientists who do not subscribe to that theory.
"I am concerned when people are suggesting that "intelligent design" be taught in public schools."
This is a seperate debate, but I would encourage you to look at the history of the US, and take an unbiased look at how schools were, and what was taught, when our forefathers were "running the show". You will see that the recent trend of taking intelligent design out of schools, is just that, recent, and it is in no way how the people who "designed" this country would have had it.
""intelligent design" ignores the systematic analysis of methods/practices/rules that science has produced and constantly tests. By incorporating a supernatural/god/even alien creator that cannot be proven, pro-intelligent designers are ignoring the basic scientific method. it is a fact that intelligent design is not observable, measurable, or empirical, i.e dependent on real data that is testable. But this does not mean it false, under our observable senses, we can not form any scientific evidence with the present tools/data for such a claim. "
I would agree with some of this, but this goes back to my posts earlier. The problem is, the origins of our planet cannot be "tested" to prove God made it, but also that means it can't be "tested" to prove that God didn't make it either, so I don't think thats a good argument. What this is, is starting at the middle (observing evolution in our time) and theorizing how it would have started, and then saying because I believe that the middle is is right and scientific, that means that how I view the begining must also be too. Unfortunatly, this also is not "scientific".
"Right now, through years and decades of testing in the scientific world, what we do have is natural selection and evolution. "
The problem is, evolution is still just a theory. Just because people are really excited and passionate about, isn't enough to push it over to the fact category. So, untill then, it should be regarded in the same sense as other theories, like intelligent design.
I see what you're saying and have had this discussion with my parents many times. Regarding what the founding fathers would think, I can only imagine. Do you think they would enjoy any of this? The fed is in control of just about everything. You also bring up the history. Very true we can not ever truly know the hows and whys to the origin of evolution, but we can get a good idea as to the origin of the religion, since the beginning of organized religion almost everything has been documented
"There are many scientists who do not subscribe to that theory."
While "there are many scientists who do not subscribe to that theory", there are far more, if not most scientist who are readily willing to accept it as theory(i think someone earlier in the thread presented a percentage (85-90%)). if you ignore the large amount that supersede the small amount of scientists criticizing the validity of evolution, you are ignoring data. Not only is "Evolution is accepted in the evolutionary scientific community," it is accepted BY the scientific community.
"This is a seperate debate, but I would encourage you to look at the history of the US, and take an unbiased look at how schools were, and what was taught, when our forefathers were "running the show". You will see that the recent trend of taking intelligent design out of schools, is just that, recent, and it is in no way how the people who "designed" this country would have had it."
I agree that this is a separate, but connected argument. I am a product of the US public schools near a metropolitan area, Jersey. Through grade school and middle school, I accepted what I was taught. My parents are religious, yet they instilled in me the necessity and importance of gained knowledge b/c "it is the one thing that no one can take away from you." I also agree with you that the idea of "creationism/intelligent design" is a recent and new issue. But this is only b/c as a humans, we are "correcting" our ways to better fit our varied and diverse society. When we learned about the "discovery of the americas", we were told the wrong things (neither columbus nor the vikings founded the americas). Please understand that written history is based on the perspective of the writer and his/her society's accepted norms. Fortunately, there are people in the present who are beginning to publish textbooks without the biases, i.e. positions in wars, battles, slavery-cotton, and even the destruction of native american life.
So what exactly is my point? We are not our founding fathers. We cherish the gift they have given us, but we must work for "a more perfect union". Not only did our founding fathers knew that the existing laws/beliefs were more than imperfect, they aimed to adjust with the times, to adapt/adopt accordingly with future challenges.
But since it's not about our history in question, it is science that must be addressed. In terms of science, "intelligent design" does not fit in our public schools.
"I would agree with some of this, but this goes back to my posts earlier. The problem is, the origins of our planet cannot be "tested" to prove God made it, but also that means it can't be "tested" to prove that God didn't make it either, so I don't think thats a good argument. What this is, is starting at the middle (observing evolution in our time) and theorizing how it would have started, and then saying because I believe that the middle is is right and scientific, that means that how I view the begining must also be too. Unfortunatly, this also is not "scientific"."
It's not so much that we can't question the origin of everything, its more about what do we have to explain why/how we are here.
Intelligent design does not use empirical data to assert itself. Instead it uses an entirely different approach to explaining existence by having no evidence that can be tested. Simple as that. While I am no bigbang/stringtheory/dimensions expert, I do know that intelligent design fails scientific scrutiny.
"The problem is, evolution is still just a theory. Just because people are really excited and passionate about, isn't enough to push it over to the fact category. So, untill then, it should be regarded in the same sense as other theories, like intelligent design."
The statement "still just a theory" is disturbing. Not only must you differentiate ideas, assumptions, opinions, guesses or hunches from the scientific stand on theory, you must understand what a scientific theory really means. What we are excited and passionate about is "a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable"(wiki). So please don't equate what scientists have worked hard and tested time and time again to "just a theory". It is beyond what you have defined as "theory".
While "there are many scientists who do not subscribe to that theory", there are far more, if not most scientist who are readily willing to accept it as theory(i think someone earlier in the thread presented a percentage (85-90%)). if you ignore the large amount that supersede the small amount of scientists criticizing the validity of evolution, you are ignoring data. Not only is "Evolution is accepted in the evolutionary scientific community," it is accepted BY the scientific community.
"This is a seperate debate, but I would encourage you to look at the history of the US, and take an unbiased look at how schools were, and what was taught, when our forefathers were "running the show". You will see that the recent trend of taking intelligent design out of schools, is just that, recent, and it is in no way how the people who "designed" this country would have had it."
I agree that this is a separate, but connected argument. I am a product of the US public schools near a metropolitan area, Jersey. Through grade school and middle school, I accepted what I was taught. My parents are religious, yet they instilled in me the necessity and importance of gained knowledge b/c "it is the one thing that no one can take away from you." I also agree with you that the idea of "creationism/intelligent design" is a recent and new issue. But this is only b/c as a humans, we are "correcting" our ways to better fit our varied and diverse society. When we learned about the "discovery of the americas", we were told the wrong things (neither columbus nor the vikings founded the americas). Please understand that written history is based on the perspective of the writer and his/her society's accepted norms. Fortunately, there are people in the present who are beginning to publish textbooks without the biases, i.e. positions in wars, battles, slavery-cotton, and even the destruction of native american life.
So what exactly is my point? We are not our founding fathers. We cherish the gift they have given us, but we must work for "a more perfect union". Not only did our founding fathers knew that the existing laws/beliefs were more than imperfect, they aimed to adjust with the times, to adapt/adopt accordingly with future challenges.
But since it's not about our history in question, it is science that must be addressed. In terms of science, "intelligent design" does not fit in our public schools.
"I would agree with some of this, but this goes back to my posts earlier. The problem is, the origins of our planet cannot be "tested" to prove God made it, but also that means it can't be "tested" to prove that God didn't make it either, so I don't think thats a good argument. What this is, is starting at the middle (observing evolution in our time) and theorizing how it would have started, and then saying because I believe that the middle is is right and scientific, that means that how I view the begining must also be too. Unfortunatly, this also is not "scientific"."
It's not so much that we can't question the origin of everything, its more about what do we have to explain why/how we are here.
Intelligent design does not use empirical data to assert itself. Instead it uses an entirely different approach to explaining existence by having no evidence that can be tested. Simple as that. While I am no bigbang/stringtheory/dimensions expert, I do know that intelligent design fails scientific scrutiny.
"The problem is, evolution is still just a theory. Just because people are really excited and passionate about, isn't enough to push it over to the fact category. So, untill then, it should be regarded in the same sense as other theories, like intelligent design."
The statement "still just a theory" is disturbing. Not only must you differentiate ideas, assumptions, opinions, guesses or hunches from the scientific stand on theory, you must understand what a scientific theory really means. What we are excited and passionate about is "a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable"(wiki). So please don't equate what scientists have worked hard and tested time and time again to "just a theory". It is beyond what you have defined as "theory".
i believe in "species advancement"
IMO it takes just as much of a leap of faith to believe in evolution as it does in a creator. Niether have been PROVEN.
faith in science, or faith in god, it is the same.
IMO it takes just as much of a leap of faith to believe in evolution as it does in a creator. Niether have been PROVEN.
faith in science, or faith in god, it is the same.
