West Virginia man sues education officials for teaching his daughter 'religion' of evolution

[Oceander]

Evolution is not a proven fact sorry but it is not.

No theory is ever proven fact.  Facts are merely evidentiary observations.  Theory explains facts, facts do not explain themselves.

Gravity "is not a proven fact sorry but it is not."  That material objects tend to accelerate toward the ground - or, more generally, that a lighter material object tends to accelerate toward a heavier material object - is a fact, but it is not gravity.  For example, that simple factual observation, by itself, can also be explained by the theory of electromagnetism.  It takes further, more detailed observations, plus experimentation based on hypothesis - i.e., theory - and then explanation through theory before you ever get to gravity.

If you want strong evidence of evolution you need look no further than the local hospital where antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections on are the rise.  Bacteria that have developed antibiotic resistance have evolved.

[Oceander]

Science is not wrong about evolution and nothing has ever indicated otherwise.

Not so.  Science has repeatedly shown that the then-prevailing theory of evolution is wrong in one aspect or another.  The reason evolution is science and not religion is that it is amenable to such falsification, and that it is therefore improved upon as a result of such falsification.  So far, evolution has survived the various rounds of falsification and has emerged a stronger theory.

[Oceander]

Well said.

Real scientists shouldn't always be surprised, and always be wrong about everything they've believed so strongly in the past.



From the outside looking in, evolutionists look kinda dense.  ^-^

Do you believe that various strains of dangerous bacteria have developed resistance to antibiotics?

Then you believe in evolution whether you admit it or not.

[Dexter]

Not so.  Science has repeatedly shown that the then-prevailing theory of evolution is wrong in one aspect or another.  The reason evolution is science and not religion is that it is amenable to such falsification, and that it is therefore improved upon as a result of such falsification.  So far, evolution has survived the various rounds of falsification and has emerged a stronger theory.

You misinterpreted my post. I wasn't implying that we've always had a perfect understanding of evolution. The legitimacy of the theory was never in question even though aspects of it changed.

[MACVSOG68]

I believe evolution should be taught, and creationism can be as well. Let them both make their best possible and convincing presentations. Compete in the marketplace of ideas.

I favor my enlightened upbringing, whereby science and God are not mutually exclusive.

"Scientism" is a goofball word, from those who would have us validate Rev. Benny Hinn and 6,000 and 10,000 year old earth proponents, in a world and in a time of moon walks, modern medicine, etc.

No thanks.

I agree that evolution should be taught in schools along with physics and the other sciences.  Unless one is going to a Christian school of some type, the discussion of "creation" should be left for the churches and homes to discuss.  There are numerous versions of creation, and if the Christian version is taught alongside science, then why not the Hindu, Islamic, Taoist, and perhaps a number more such stories?  Gonna get kinda confusing...

I tend to support social conservatives because I believe they help stave off or at lest slow down the insane cultural changes rapidly taking place here pushed by the left and the media.  But occasionally I'm at a loss to find a reason for such support.  This case is one of them.

[musiclady]

Do you believe that various strains of dangerous bacteria have developed resistance to antibiotics?

Then you believe in evolution whether you admit it or not.

Now you're trying to make me sound like a know-nothing flat-earther, Oceander.

OF COURSE there is 'evolution' that has occurred, and is occurring.

I'm talking about the macro-evolution of species, and of human beings from primordial ooze that has never been proven, but is taught as "Scripture" in classrooms.

Those who believe that one animal developed and branched out and became another, and that it all happened from nothing take it on faith.

That's fine, as long as evolutionists know that their faith in something they've never seen and can't prove in a test tube is greater than mine in a Divine Creator, and the unique creation of human beings apart from animals as is taught in Scripture.

I'd like complete and honest education in classrooms; in science and in history.

It's not being taught in either discipline.  There's not any more openness and honesty in science than there is in history.  And in both cases, people who don't swallow the agenda are being called stupid.

And we're not..........

[aligncare]

I personally see no conflict between evolution theory and creationism. There is, of course, conflict between creation stories based on the Christian bible (and the sacred texts of other religions), and the scientific (Darwinian) account of evolution, based on the fossil record and other evidence that organisms evolve (antibiotic resistance, animal breeding, plant hybridization, etc).

Science even conjectures the universe was created in a moment they like to call the Big Bang. Okay. Scientists believe that in that nanosecond the universe was created. Fine. I believe it was the creator who did that. Prove me wrong.

[GourmetDan]

For heaven's sake, Truth_seeker, I said no such thing. I said evolution ought not be taught as fact because it is unproven., nothing more.

               

[alicewonders]

Now you're trying to make me sound like a know-nothing flat-earther, Oceander.

OF COURSE there is 'evolution' that has occurred, and is occurring.

I'm talking about the macro-evolution of species, and of human beings from primordial ooze that has never been proven, but is taught as "Scripture" in classrooms.

Those who believe that one animal developed and branched out and became another, and that it all happened from nothing take it on faith.

That's fine, as long as evolutionists know that their faith in something they've never seen and can't prove in a test tube is greater than mine in a Divine Creator, and the unique creation of human beings apart from animals as is taught in Scripture.

I'd like complete and honest education in classrooms; in science and in history.

It's not being taught in either discipline.  There's not any more openness and honesty in science than there is in history.  And in both cases, people who don't swallow the agenda are being called stupid.

And we're not..........

 

[Free Vulcan]

Science is ever evolving as our understanding of the universe around us grows, but I guarantee you can't show me one piece of data that has made science question the legitimacy of evolution.

Your statement is self-contradictory. Science wouldn't have to 'evolve' if it weren't for the fact that new data comes in that doesn't fit the model.

A great example was the recent discovery that what was thought to be junk DNA was actually another layer of replication that controlled expression. So what seemed quite random was far more ordered than previously thought.

So add another 15 billion years to the evolutionary timetable so that those random changes can happen.

[Paladin]

"Scientism" is a goofball word, from those who would have us validate Rev. Benny Hinn and 6,000 and 10,000 year old earth proponents, in a world and in a time of moon walks, modern medicine, etc

.

Indeed. Let's look at a few of the goofballs who use the term, none of whom are Benny Hinn.

Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints. Accordingly, philosopher Tom Sorell provides this definition of scientism: "Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture."[1] It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society."[2] The term scientism frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism[3][4] and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,[5] philosophers of science such as Karl Popper,[6] and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam[7] and Tzvetan Todorov[8] to describe the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable.[9] "Scientism" has also been taken over as a name for the view that science is the only reliable source of knowledge by philosophers such as Alexander Rosenberg.[10]

For social theorists in the tradition of Max Weber, such as Jürgen Habermas and Max Horkheimer, the concept of scientism relates significantly to the philosophy of positivism, but also to the cultural rationalization of the modern West.[9][21] British writer and feminist thinker Sara Maitland has called scientism a "myth as pernicious as any sort of fundamentalism."[22

Non-religious scholars have also linked New Atheist thought with scientism. Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel argues neuroscientist Sam Harris conflates all empirical knowledge with that of scientific knowledge.[39] Marxist literary critic Terry Eagleton argues Christopher Hitchens possesses an "old-fashioned scientistic notion of what counts as evidence" that reduces knowledge to what can and cannot be proven by scientific procedure.[40] Agnostic philosopher Anthony Kenny has also criticized New Atheist philosopher Alexander Rosenberg's The Atheist's Guide to Reality for resurrecting a self-refuting epistemology of logical positivism and reducing all knowledge of the universe to the discipline of physics.[41]

Michael Shermer, founder of The Skeptics Society, draws a parallel between scientism and traditional religious movements, pointing to the cult of personality that develops around some scientists in the public eye. He defines scientism as a worldview that encompasses natural explanations, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason.[42]

The Iranian scholar Seyyed Hossein Nasr has stated that in the West, many will accept the ideology of modern science, not as "simple ordinary science", but as a replacement for religion.[43]

Gregory R. Peterson writes that "for many theologians and philosophers, scientism is among the greatest of intellectual sins

I could go on but I won't. Stating "Scientism" is a goofball word, from those who would have us validate Rev. Benny Hinn and 6,000 and 10,000 year old earth proponents, in a world and in a time of moon walks, modern medicine, etc." is not only an erroneous statement in and of itself, but is also an example of the unwarranted assumption fallacy in logic.

[GourmetDan]

Do you believe that various strains of dangerous bacteria have developed resistance to antibiotics?

Then you believe in evolution whether you admit it or not.

This is how ridiculous the 'science' of evolution is.  Bacteria do not 'develop' resistance to antibiotics.  The 'resistance' (failure to die from the antibiotic) was always there.  The antibiotic simply killed off the susceptible bacteria leaving those that are not susceptible.

All 'support' for evolution is based on this type of faulty logic...

[aligncare]

A quick read from tufts.edu explaining how some bacteria develop resistance (yes, some are naturally resistant, but others develop resistance).

http://www.tufts.edu/med/apua/about_issue/about_antibioticres.shtml

[GourmetDan]

A quick read from tufts.edu explaining how some bacteria develop resistance (yes, some are naturally resistant, but others develop resistance).

http://www.tufts.edu/med/apua/about_issue/about_antibioticres.shtml

The word 'develop' is used to imply an 'advance' to a higher or more effective state (implying teleology), rather than the word 'acquire' which correctly describes the pre-existing nature of the information.  This makes evolution seem plausible to laymen while evolutionists deny that evolution is teleological.

In reality, bacteria constantly mutate and horizontally share genetic information.  A mutated form may not be susceptible to a specific chemical attack (which is what antibiotics are), but those mutated forms exist whether antibiotics are present or not.  It is only the presence of antibiotics that allows their numbers to increase.  There is no 'evolution' going on, merely mutation of and sharing of genetic information by previously-existing complex systems.

It is a non-sequitur to believe that artifacts of an existing complex system actually created that complex system.

Re-defining what exists as uniquely supportive of evolution is the fallacy of affirming the consequent...

[musiclady]

Science is not wrong about evolution and nothing has ever indicated otherwise.

So then, you believe that Africans are lower on the evolutionary chain than Europeans, and thus closer to the apes, as Darwin did?

That's not wrong?  Hmmmmm.......   

Just as an anecdote, my Dad was in med school in the 1930's and was force-fed the evolution of the day by his profs.  If you look at what he was taught as "fact" you'd fall on the floor with laughter.  It was wrong.

To add to the discussion here...... the Scriptural account of Creation explains the uniqueness of humanity in our creativity, imagination, compassion, intellect, language, reasoning.  We were created separately, in the image of God.

Evolution doesn't even have viable guesses for the most critical aspects of being human.  (The left is pushing on us that animals are the same...... remember that some are seeking 'rights' for animals?  Agenda).

Once again, modern-day 'science' is, at least in this area, an agenda seeking 'facts' to back it up.  When those 'facts' are disproven, they come up with more 'facts' to support their agenda.

It takes far more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God as Creator.

[Dexter]

So then, you believe that Africans are lower on the evolutionary chain than Europeans, and thus closer to the apes, as Darwin did?

That's not wrong?  Hmmmmm.......   

Just as an anecdote, my Dad was in med school in the 1930's and was force-fed the evolution of the day by his profs.  If you look at what he was taught as "fact" you'd fall on the floor with laughter.  It was wrong.

To add to the discussion here...... the Scriptural account of Creation explains the uniqueness of humanity in our creativity, imagination, compassion, intellect, language, reasoning.  We were created separately, in the image of God.

Evolution doesn't even have viable guesses for the most critical aspects of being human.  (The left is pushing on us that animals are the same...... remember that some are seeking 'rights' for animals?  Agenda).

Once again, modern-day 'science' is, at least in this area, an agenda seeking 'facts' to back it up.  When those 'facts' are disproven, they come up with more 'facts' to support their agenda.

It takes far more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God as Creator.

Like Oceander you have misinterpreted my post; perhaps I should have worded it differently. Some aspects of the theory have changed over time, but the theory itself has never been in question. At no point did scientists discover evidence that made them think we didn't actually evolve. Such evidence will never be discovered because evolution is real and we are simply one more species that has evolved on this planet.

[Dexter]

Also, anybody that actually believes there is no solid evidence to back up evolution has obviously never studied it. A theory cannot exist without substantial evidence to back it up.

[ABX]

Also, anybody that actually believes there is no solid evidence to back up evolution has obviously never studied it. A theory cannot exist without substantial evidence to back it up.

Exactly. The order goes: Hypothesis > Testing > Evidence > Theory

[Dexter]

Your statement is self-contradictory. Science wouldn't have to 'evolve' if it weren't for the fact that new data comes in that doesn't fit the model.

A great example was the recent discovery that what was thought to be junk DNA was actually another layer of replication that controlled expression. So what seemed quite random was far more ordered than previously thought.

So add another 15 billion years to the evolutionary timetable so that those random changes can happen.

No new data has ever suggested that evolution isn't real. Every scientist on the planet would know your name if you stumbled across evidence that put the entire theory into question.

[GourmetDan]

Also, anybody that actually believes there is no solid evidence to back up evolution has obviously never studied it. A theory cannot exist without substantial evidence to back it up.

Exactly. The order goes: Hypothesis > Testing > Evidence > Theory

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons"

[Dexter]

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons"

That's a nice quote Dan. Do you have evidence to show that the theory of evolution is a sham?

[GourmetDan]

That's a nice quote Dan. Do you have evidence to show that the theory of evolution is a sham?

"Well... other than that... how was your trip to Dallas, Mrs. Kennedy..."

[Dexter]

I thought not.

[GourmetDan]

I thought not.

Still don't understand that it is not about evidence... but the philosophies guiding the interpretation thereof, eh...

[Dexter]

Still don't understand that it is not about evidence... but the philosophies guiding the interpretation thereof, eh...

I understand exactly what you're saying Dan; I simply think it's asinine.