Evoloution: What's The Real Controversy?

[hunhee]

Quite aside from the question of the 'veracity' of evolution (which pretty much the entire scientific community accepts as the best explanation we currently have for how species developed), evolution is based on scientific principles. So-called Intelligent Design, Creationism in disguise, is not. The hypothesis itself appears in no peer-reviewed journals, and the scientific community considers it a complete nonstarter.

Therefore, it has no business in a biological sciences class. None, nada, zilch, zip, get it out now. When it establishes itself in the scientific community, maybe we can talk. If you want to put it into a different class, one of the literature classes, history, even sociology as a soft science, I personally would be willing to countenance that. But in biology class? No. No No No No No.

BINGO!!!

I have absolutely no problem with religionS being taught in schools. I think it's a great idea. Let the children understand and realize all the different religions out there, and allow them to be open minded enough, to make their own decisions. OR, they can ask their parents specific questions about things they're thinking about in the class being taught, (and this class wouldn't last the semester).

The funny thing is, religion IS taught in schools, they call it Mythology. We get to read all the juicy stories on creationism from the Japanese, the One of the Greek Creations Stories,

Navajos Creation Myth.. Great book by the way.

These are just to name VERY few, (I could go on for DAYS about the different creationism beliefs out there). They all have an explanation as to where we came from, how we got here. None of them can be proven. But they definitely add enjoyment out of learning about them, at least by someone like me.

As science? I don't think so, as works of literature/art? sure.

I think what we need to think about here is, evolution has tangible facts (we can test them, touch them, we can physically dissect them, and learn more about them) and can eventually be 100% proven, with each and every piece of knowledge being gathered. The creationism cannot be tested, it can't be dissected, we just have to take a centuries old book's accounting of what they "believed" to have happened. If this were the case, I want ALL the creationism myths to be studied in our science class.

Now who's sounding more absurd?

[phee]

Some of the questions about god/orgins of everything talked about here are more or less linear in nature.... I would be interested in hearing more on the side of cyclical philosophy/science....

**Hunhee actually brought up some of this above**

[freydis]

Truth has always been a subjective, and ever-changing thing. It's really only meant: whatever we believe to be true at a given point in time. A good discussion on scientific truth and well-ordered science is Phillip Kitcher's Science, Truth, and Democracy. It's a bitch of a book to read, but once you get through it, it really gets you thinking.

[Destroit]

Thats what most people that believe in ID want to happen. Evolution has holes in it, but you cant teach that. You cant even mention that some people don't believe in it. You can;t even mention any other ideas because... GASP.. they require belief in God.

Just take it back farther. The Big Bang. Almost everyone agrees that is how the Universe came into being. Way back 15billion years ago.. everything was in one super particle in perfect synergy. And then, against all logic and the laws of physics.. it exploded into the Universe... Which is where you should be asking "Why". Thats the important part nobody like to talk about... because there was no reason for it to explode... There was no reason for it to change. Infact... for it to change.. it had to interact with something... but nothing else existed. Which is why so many physisits believe in God. Skip forward a few minutes... all the matter that has ever been has spread out instantly to fill the entire Universe evenly... Un-oh... Here comes another problem... If it is all spread evenly.. like the Big Bang models all show it would do... Why did it condense into stars and galaxys.... something "other" had to stir it up so some stuff was closer together than other stuff...

It just goes on and on... and leads to my signiture.

Hmmm...I like that...alot actually. For as much as I sit around and just think all day, I actually came to the same conclusion awhile ago, I've just never heard it come out of anyone else before.

But then again, I don't get out much.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I'd caution anyone from confusing what they "like" or "want" to be true, to actually be true. Very bad way to find conclusions. Starting point? Sure. Evidence for a conclusion? Nao. Not that anyone was specifically saying that, but its weaved in and out of several thoughts indirectly above.

Truth has always been a subjective, and ever-changing thing. It's really only meant: whatever we believe to be true at a given point in time. A good discussion on scientific truth and well-ordered science is Phillip Kitcher's Science, Truth, and Democracy. It's a bitch of a book to read, but once you get through it, it really gets you thinking.

In an epistemological sense i agree, but from a practical sense, to make communication less cumbersome things we hold to be "very, very likely to be true" to be "facts." Any fact, no matter how hard the evidence, say something like... the "fact" that liquid is wet, could be called into question if we get uber philosophical. Its an interesting intellectual pursuit, but makes discussion very difficult , if not impossible, if we cant make generalized assumptions about the meanings of words.

I'm aware of that book you mention. Its gotten some good reviews. I'm a longtime reader of hard "bitch to read" books, althogh the more of them you read the easier it gets. We just have to train ourselves to not be so used to watching/reading "fluff" all the time... *holy crap hardcore off topic alert batman!!*

So back on topic:

So... Evolution is horribly weak and has no good demonstrable evidence, and biblical creation should be taught as a valid alternative "scientific" theory? Honestly, i was of this opinion for ages, and it was because i never did my homework without the religious blinders on until recently.

[Pandora]

Religion has the problem with evolution, not science or scientists. My BFF is a dissertation away from both an Anthro Ph.D and History Ph.D. I asked him if there were holes in evolution in the scientific community, and if there was any sort of in-fighting. I could barely get the question out when he said Nope. It's all about dotting I's and crossing T's.

As a man who is highly educated in the field of biology and anthropology, I'm gonna go ahead and accept his statement.

Oh and then he asked me if the topic was related to the Discovery people. Hahahahaha.

Tszura posted this:

So what’s more plausible? A god or some other supreme being having planned out life to include human beings, or life having evolved on its own without initiation or direction of some intelligent force?

With a god, it’s very hard from me to believe that a supreme being couldn’t come up with anything better that a human being. Seriously. Have we really looked at ourselves lately?

There Was an initiation of life on this planet with deep roots in science.

As for looking at ourselves, we look a lot like gorillas, as we should considering we come from them. We're animals, we aren't meant to be perfect machines.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Religion has the problem with evolution, not science or scientists. My BFF is a dissertation away from both an Anthro Ph.D and History Ph.D. I asked him if there were holes in evolution in the scientific community, and if there was any sort of in-fighting. I could barely get the question out when he said Nope. It's all about dotting I's and crossing T's.

As a man who is highly educated in the field of biology and anthropology, I'm gonna go ahead and accept his statement.

Oh and then he asked me if the topic was related to the Discovery people. Hahahahaha.

Yeah the Discovery Institute and The Templeton Foundation are often linked with various pushes for this sort of stuff on the larger-scales from what I've been reading over the last few years. Both are often sited as negative, disruptive, anti-scientitfic orginizations masqurading as sources of open minded scientific query.

The controversy seems even less and less plausible the more i read about it. I still feel uneasy about the subject though, after 18 or so years of totally unscientific emotional , traditional (via mom, dad, grandma, grandpa) and religious instruction telling me that talk about evolution was in one way or another related to the devil or apostasy, then another 10 or so of feeling that both evolution and creation were somehow both "equally plausible" based on no research, just a "feeling" i had basically.

I'm actually a bit upset i was so suspicious of evolution for so long that i missed out on learning about a fascinating subject.