Just so that we are clear, when I use the term ''evolution'' it is meant in the darwinistic sense, 'over time one kind of animal turns into another
(e.g. whale evolution), not small adaptive changes within the same kind.
Darwin's theory limits itself to the causes of speciation. The fact of whale evolution is a consequence of cladistics, which is the result of paleontology. Cladistics overturns the Creation Myth regardless of Darwin's theory.
In this sense ''evolution'' is a theory, and while it may be a ''matter of science'', it isn't science.
Evolution as theory is Darwin's theory, as amended. Evolution as a process of nature is
descent from common ancestry with genetic modification through natural selection. Evolution as science is Evolutionary Biology. Evolution in the sense you mean it is cladistics, which a work product of paleontology, which is science.
So don't act as though folk aren't into science because they accept the theory of evolution.
Not sure what that means. People accept whale evolution for the same reason they accept cladistics. They accept cladistics for the same reason they accept paleontology. They accept paleontology for the same reason they accept science. People accept science because science works.
I mean it's an extension of something that is a fact, but it itself has not been effectively shown to occur without the aid of a lot of
imagination.
Whale evolution is not an extension of fact or imagination. It's a fact of nature revealed by classifying specimens in the fossil record.
Using that logic explain the brutal attacks made by Stalin, Pol Pot, and so on.
-In this case we would examine the history of attacks on science by Christian fundamentalists.
Why would we?
The rationale used by Stalin and Pol Pot to repress and murder human beings does not comport with the freedom and dignity that Science endows through knowledge and discovery; by contrast Creation Science is best characterized as the murder of knowledge and the repression of academic freedom.
and fanatically pushed to be taught to children.
-It's the law. Children must receive an education. There really is no alternative.
I'm not disputing that children must have an education.
-You are advocating against the teaching of science, which is a vital part of the curriculum.
No I'm not. You are implying that the theory of evolution IS science, so if you don't include it, you are not teaching science.
The teaching of evolution is a
national standard which defines the minimum requirements for classroom science curricula. You are advocating against these standards.
That's no different than the idea that Christianity IS religion, therefore anything other than Christianity is NOT religion. Can you see how
you guys are so similar that it's uncanny.
Christianity is indeed religion, which is why a class in World Culture could no sooner omit an introduction to the teachings of Christianity than a school science curriculum can omit Evolution from school Biology classes as these things are established standards of educational curricula.
I happen to agree with the ID'ists that it should be taught as a theory, and the students should be allowed to hear objections to it
As you will see, at the end of chapter 1, section 3 of this book, there is a module entitled
"Objections to Evolution", This is standard fare in the curricula.
That is the Creation Science claim which is contradicted by nature, as we have seen in the evidence for whale evolution.
Once the theist accepts the darwinian theory of evolution, he/she accepts the idea that God's sovereignty can be diminished.
-That appears to the represent the Fundamentalist view, which is a minority view.
It's neither fundamentalist or non fundamentalist, it is a truth based on the fundamentals of the said concepts.
-Only a strict literal interpretation of the Islamic/Protestant* creation myths leads to that conclusion, hence Fundamentalism.
As I said before ''It's neither fundamentalist or non fundamentalist, it is a truth based on the fundamentals of the said concepts.''
Religions outside of Fundamentalism disagree with you because they neither accept the Creation Myth, nor Creation Science, as truth. The sovereignty of God is contradicted by the invariance of the laws of nature from quantum scale to cosmic scale; in this regard evolution is minuscule to the reduction in God's powers by physics.
If you understand God in the same way as deists, then that allows for the theory of evolution, but it means that God is nothing but a
creator.
Deism was initially a reaction to the overturning of the Creation Myth by discoveries that the Earth is not flat, it's not at the center of the universe, and that nature exists in and of itself without divine intervention. This left God "nothing but a creator" because they had not yet (18th c.) discovered evidence of the Big Bang. Today a Deist might simply conclude that God caused the Big Bang, then withdrew.
The choice to reduce God to a creator, is made with the understanding that God is understood to be more than a creator, therefore there is a greater God but we choose not to acknowledge the ''greater'' because it does not fit with out world view.
The choice Deists made was to remove the denial of science from their belief system, long before this became a conflict over the presumed inerrancy of the Creation Myth.
This means there is no belief in God
-As far as I knew every survey ever done always shows a large population who accept science and religion.
Science isn't darwinian evolution so don't even go there.
-Darwin's work is pure science.
But the theory of evolution is NOT science itself, just as Christianity isn't religion itself. That's my point.
Your point was that acceptance of evolution negates a belief in God, which is contradicted by surveys show a large population who accept both.
God ISN'T an idea, God IS, therefore one has to believe this, or not (as the case may be). An idea can be chopped and screwed around with.
It's one thing to say "God Is" and quite another to say "the Creation Myth Is" and still another to say "Evolution Isn't" which is the smaller group of religious believers you are referring to.
. . . theism . . .
-You mean monotheism. Your remarks are advocating for Fundamentalism, which narrows the definition further.
My remarks pertain to the literal meanings of the word, against mine and others actual thoughts and actions. If we don't mind sharp we will muddy the meanings into obscurity, and while that may constitute an explicit atheists wet dream, it will mean that in a few generations God will not even be a memory which, IMHO, will be very bad for human society.
In order to not muddy the waters we should keep separate the most general of terms, theism, from the most specific, Fundamentalism.
Given that the term ''fundamentalist'' has a dual meaning, why don't you replace with something that explain the essential quality of ''theism''? Nowadays ''fundamentalist'' can mean ''religious crack-pottery'', so as you are not an advocate of theism or religion, I'm not sure if you are using in that way. So a please give a clear definition of what you mean by it.
The common usage (google) is
1. A form of Protestant Christianity that upholds belief in the strict and literal interpretation of the Bible.
2. Strict maintenance of ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion or ideology, notably Islam.
Science is born out theism, as is religion,
Science was born out of natural philosophy. Theism is (google) "belief in the existence of a god or gods, esp. belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures"; religion: "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods" which means theism and religion are equivalent.
but it has to be regulated properly (hence the scientific method). A scientist cannot do science and hold strong view to the point where he disregards his discipline, the two just don't go together. You will find that true doctors who hold to their ethic will suspend prejudice when it comes to treating patience. It's a matter of intelligence, not smartness.
The scientific method is (google)
systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. It is intrinsic to all of science as is math, or as logic is to math. A scientist who cannot do science is not properly called a scientist and would not be able to maintain employment doing scientific work. Regulation is not the principle that holds science together, but rather the inscrutable honesty that is necessary to develop the skills needed to make accurate assessments and calculations.
Theism still remains one thing ''belief in God''. All the diversities occur because there are diversities among humans. It is the humans who have to sort themselves out.
All we see being sorted out are the diverse interpretations in religious lore which lead to the kind of sectarian views that Fundamentalists have adopted. During this "sorting out" process, a large segment of the religious population have established their distance from Fundamentalism by publishing their doctrines, collected
here by the National Center of Science Education, as well as the nearly 13,000 clerics of mixed denominations who have participated in the
Clergy Letter Project.
-In order to inquire about the underpinnings of cosmic machinery, an intelligent person would study science. It would entail the study of evolution. Monotheists can find such a program at an accredited seminary or college of Theology.
Yes, and that would be part of trying to understand God. So science is there so we can understand the cosmos, and understanding the cosmos
helps us to understand more about God.[/quote]
While finding God in these institutions of higher learning, the students will also find the truth of science, including the reality of common descent, genetic modification, natural selection and the random nature of human origins, as well as the exegetical basis for attributing their religion's creation account as the syncretic fusion of mythology from cultures of ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, Greece and Rome.
Most who accept evolution do so because they think it has to be correct because the scientists say so
The opposite is true; the Fundamentalists say Evolution is false
because they say so, whereas Science provides facts and evidence for students, and teaches them to think for themselves by teaching them how to apply logic, theorems and proofs in order to arrive at the truth of a matter, whether it involves the randomness of human origins, or the pagan origins of the Judeo-Christian Creation Myth.
and it is literally everywhere in schools, tv, radio, comedy, bill boards, even the Pope I'm constantly reminded, etc...
Besides learning the skills to interpret the facts which led to Darwin's Theory, people are receiving guidance from the approx. 13,000 clerics who have signed the letter stating, among other things, "We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. "
If they don't accept it they will be seen as stupid, and anti-scientific.
If they are reasonably intelligent, they will be able to examine the facts and evidence by application of the thinking skills they acquired in their math and science classes - namely: logic, theorems and proofs - in order to make up their own minds.
Most do not have a clue what [Evolution] is,
Taking the folks posting here as a representative sample, the only ones who demonstrate illiteracy in Science are Creationists. How do you think that reflects on the population as a whole, and to what do you attribute to their weakness?
and have not been exposed properly to alternative views or critical analyses of it's obvious flaws.
The only alternative view to Evolution is the Creation Myth, the only critical analysis is Creation Science, and the only flaws are the ones claimed by Fundamentalists which are based on the Creation Myth and Creation Science, which are false and incorrect.
There is a powerful and concerted effort to change to average thinking, especially children.
There has been a powerful and concerted effort to overcome illiteracy and to increase critical thinking skills, especially in childhood education, but there has also been a powerful and concerted effort to maintain scientific illiteracy within Fundamentalism by using the Creation Myth to deter children from unfettered access to the truths about Nature provided by a proper education in Science.
But despite that, people still don't accept it as fully as you'd think (with the opportunities available for comprehension).
In the US, approx. 13,000 clerics, 98,000 schools and 7,000 institutions of higher learning stand in disagreement with you. In countries where literacy is higher and Fundamentalism has not gained a foothold, denial of Evolution is negligible.
That tells me it has little or no merit, and further I think you know it.
What I know is that Darwin discovered evolved life forms on Galapagos, and that he correctly articulated the two principles--common descent through genetic modification and natural selection--which explains the origins of all species. I know that since this discovery has more merit than most singular scientific theories, it stands as one of the main pillars of Science and is therefore a vital learning module in the school curriculum, and that nothing but Fundamentalism, Creation Science and strident belief in the Creation Myth are to blame for the interference with that educational objective.
