Evolution vs. Creation being taught in schools

[Doom Shepherd]

(When we don't even know how the pyramids were built (2500 years ago)

 

We know exactly how the Pyramids were built. The only people who still dispute that are the ones who desperately want to believe that aliens or wizards did it.

 

(Kind of exactly the same way the remaining people who dispute evolution believe that aliens or a wizard did it.)

 

When your only alternative "theories" are aliens and wizards, you're not talking about science anymore.

[ProHypster]

(When we don't even know how the pyramids were built (2500 years ago)

 

We know exactly how the Pyramids were built. The only people who still dispute that are the ones who desperately want to believe that aliens or wizards did it.

 

(Kind of exactly the same way the remaining people who dispute evolution believe that aliens or a wizard did it.)

 

When your only alternative "theories" are aliens and wizards, you're not talking about science anymore.

That's a good post, now I want to say if you believe that monkeys magically turned into humans while there is no human-monkeys today (middle step between humans and monkey) because he died some billion years ago (precisely) than I call that not science anymore.

 

Let me ask you a question.

 

Do you believe in Auras? Soul? Prophets?

 

Or do you reject "magic" overall.

[Eedo Baba]

(When we don't even know how the pyramids were built (2500 years ago)

 

We know exactly how the Pyramids were built. The only people who still dispute that are the ones who desperately want to believe that aliens or wizards did it.

 

(Kind of exactly the same way the remaining people who dispute evolution believe that aliens or a wizard did it.)

 

When your only alternative "theories" are aliens and wizards, you're not talking about science anymore.

That's a good post, now I want to say if you believe that monkeys magically turned into humans while there is no human-monkeys today (middle step between humans and monkey) because he died some billion years ago (precisely) than I call that not science anymore.

 

Let me ask you a question.

 

Do you believe in Auras? Soul? Prophets?

 

Or do you reject "magic" overall.

 

I was going to step out of this thread, but I can't stand by and watch someone say "monkeys magically turned into humans". Do your research before turning down science. The words your looking for are "extinct prehistoric apes naturally turned into humans". There wasn't a day a million years ago where a spider monkey birthed a healthy baby boy. It's called evolution. It's not magic, it's just the nature of genetics and extremely long periods of time. Don't call something magic just because you don't know how it works.

[ProHypster]

I was going to step out of this thread, but I can't stand by and watch someone say "monkeys magically turned into humans". Do your research before turning down science. The words your looking for are "extinct prehistoric apes naturally turned into humans". There wasn't a day a million years ago where a spider monkey birthed a healthy baby boy. It's called evolution. It's not magic, it's just the nature of genetics and extremely long periods of time. Don't call something magic just because you don't know how it works.

First of all thank you for your response, but, re-read my post, understand the emphasis properly and then answer if you want, I'm not forcing you. This thread is indeed very aggressive in nature so I won't think anything of you if you will.

 

Secondly, I live philosophy, of course we may be much different from the rest of the young, aggressive sciences but nonetheless philosophy is a science too and in no way do I turn science down, I only may turn theories down with my opninion.

[Eedo Baba]

Secondly, I live philosophy, of course we may be much different from the rest of the young, aggressive sciences but nonetheless philosophy is a science too and in no way do I turn science down, I only may turn theories down with my opninion.

 

Science is a part of the way the world works. I'm a very philosophically minded person, and my personal philosophy incorporates science into my world view. Anyway, science isn't something where you can skim a textbook and say "no". Hundreds of fields of science have been intensely studied for hundreds of years. You think modern scientists just take evolution for granted because one experiment proved it right? No, it was tested and updated in hundreds of ways throughout the 20th century. All I'm saying is, don't just turn it down when you obviously don't and can't understand it. There is no one in the world who is an expert on every field of science, and that's because it's an additive field. Theories are proposed and tested many many times before they are accepted, then new generations of scientists use these new scientific laws in new fields.

 

You can't just turn down hundreds of years and thousands of scientific findings with your "opinion".

I might sound angry, but I'm just trying to explain why it is I vehemently disagree. Science is in no way "young". Fields of science go back thousands of years, and some laws introduced then still stand today.

 

A theory by definition cannot be turned down by opinion. It can only be proven wrong with sufficient repeatable evidence.

[Eedo Baba]

I remembered this part from Carl Sagan's Cosmos, and I thought I'd link to it here. Carl Sagan had a great attitude about the universe, and formed an optimistic philosophy around science, cherishing the work to study every part of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZpsVSVRsZk

[ProHypster]

Anyway, science isn't something where you can skim a textbook and say "no".

 

I know, I can't just say no to the "Communist Manifesto" after reading it...

 

Hundreds of fields of science have been intensely studied for hundreds of years.

 

And they changed their view for hundreds of years.

 

You think modern scientists just take evolution for granted because one experiment proved it right? No, it was tested and updated in hundreds of ways throughout the 20th century.

 

And the results were.... World War 2, Fascism, Neo-Nazis, "Caucasian dominance theory"....

 

You can't just turn down hundreds of years and thousands of scientific findings with your "opinion".

I might sound angry, but I'm just trying to explain why it is I vehemently disagree. Science is in no way "young". Fields of science go back thousands of years, and some laws introduced then still stand today.

 

First of all that's misleading to say scientists believe in evolution, if it actually is most and not many, there is monotheist scientists too. Have you checked?

 

Secondly, these theories were taken for granted by scientists at one time:

 

"Women are intellectually stupid", "Cocaine is healthy" by Sigmund Freud, "Communist Manifesto" theory by Karl Marx and the "Book of Economics" by Adam Smith.

 

All those theories must be 100% right?

Again, I'm not denouncing science, I'm trying to say natural selection is just as scientific (and for some less scientific) as monotheism

 

A theory by definition cannot be turned down by opinion. It can only be proven wrong with sufficient repeatable evidence.

 

Not in philosophy. Philosophers can turn down any theories.

[ProHypster]

All I'm saying is, don't just turn it down when you obviously don't and can't understand it.

 

 

I can't understand evolution??? You can't explain how life formed.

 

PS: Xp for this debate.

[ProHypster]

Finally, I don't see a point of continuing this debate, we can both just agree that there is two major theories of the world and existence and numerous other theories.

 

But this is really one topic that depends on personal opinion aka philosophy.

[Alyxx Thorne]

Finally, I don't see a point of continuing this debate, we can both just agree that there is two major theories of the world and existence and numerous other theories.

 

But this is really one topic that depends on personal opinion aka philosophy.

You just said what I said about one page into the topic.

[Eedo Baba]

And they changed their view for hundreds of years.

Exactly. Why wouldn't they. Science advances as we learn more about the universe. Unlike religion which stubbornly contradicts everything we know about science.

 

And the results were.... World War 2, Fascism, Neo-Nazis, "Caucasian dominance theory"....

 

Uh, no. WW2 was caused by Hitler. Fascism is a system of politics. Neo-Nazis, once again, caused by Hitler. "Caucasian dominance theory" is a case of racists using a twisted version of scientific principles for their own agenda.

 

Here are some things that were caused by religion:

The Crusades

The Spanish Inquisition

The Holocaust

The Attacks on 9/11

 

First of all that's misleading to say scientists believe in evolution, if it actually is most and not many, there is monotheist scientists too. Have you checked?

 

Not that there was any doubt that scientists accept evolution, but to humor you, here's an accepted statement from a court ruling from 2005. "Evolution is more than a theory of origin in the context of science. To the contrary, evolution is the dominant scientific theory of origin accepted by the majority of scientists."

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science#Page_83_of_139

 

Secondly, these theories were taken for granted by scientists at one time:

 

"Women are intellectually stupid", "Cocaine is healthy" by Sigmund Freud, "Communist Manifesto" theory by Karl Marx and the "Book of Economics" by Adam Smith.

 

All those theories must be 100% right?

Again, I'm not denouncing science, I'm trying to say natural selection is just as scientific (and for some less scientific) as monotheism

 

Those first two are theories yes. The other two are political agendas, with no relevance to the subject of science. And at this point I'd like to stress that a theory is not accepted by scientists to be right. Those first two theories were poorly thought out and were of course found many times to be false. Unlike evolution, which has been proven time and again and deserves to be treated and labeled as a law of nature, not a theory.

 

A theory by definition cannot be turned down by opinion. It can only be proven wrong with sufficient repeatable evidence.

 

Not in philosophy. Philosophers can turn down any theories.

 

Sure. But the philosophy you speak of is based on personal opinion and conjecture, which is all well and good, but when talking about theories which are based on absolute fact, personal opinion and philosophical conjecture should not come into play. They are biases, which any good scientist would disregard.

 

 

I can't understand evolution??? You can't explain how life formed.

 

I'm saying that the entirety of evolution is complicated and no one is an expert on it's entirety. This is where you have to give the hundreds of years of scientific method the benefit of the doubt. As for how life formed, there are several theories for abiogenesis. Any one of them could be true for all I know. I'm not an expert.

Here are a few:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models

 

Finally, I don't see a point of continuing this debate, we can both just agree that there is two major theories of the world and existence and numerous other theories.

 

But this is really one topic that depends on personal opinion aka philosophy.

 

We can't agree on that, because as I've made very clear and backed up heavily, evolution is not a theory, it is an accepted scientific law. Religion is based on myths with no logical basis. A concrete view of the world cannot depend on opinion. Opinion is bias. Philosophy should not form facts. It should form around them.

[Alyxx Thorne]

Reality is subjective.

[Eedo Baba]

Reality is subjective.

 

That's an excuse for not understanding reality.

[Alyxx Thorne]

How can anyone understand something incomprehensible? Even with science we cannot fully comprehend it. There will always be unanswered questions and philosophical issues that science alone cannot give answers to.

 

As far as I'm concerned, science is a good way of explaining how. I just feel that it can never explain why. It's just our tool for understanding how the world works and exploring it. For me, evolution just makes no sense because... it doesn't explain why. It's a scientific theory that explains HOW we ended up as who we are today and HOW species are related to each other.

 

For me, that is not enough.

[Eedo Baba]

If the nature of reality is incomprehensible (which I'll agree that it is), then how are you so certain it's subjective. I wasn't saying that reality is objective, I was saying that claiming it is subjective goes against it's incomprehensibility.

 

Also, who says there needs to be a "Why"? Religious minded people seem to think that life must have some purpose, when we have no tangible reason to think that it does. I'm not some sort of Nihlist, but it annoys me when people try so hard to find meaning when there very possibly could be nothing there.

Edited April 28, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[Alyxx Thorne]

I'm more a philosopher than a scientist, I think. I think everyone are subjective to reality and everyone are unique in how they perceive it.

[danielsangeo]

That's a good post, now I want to say if you believe that monkeys magically turned into humans while there is no human-monkeys today (middle step between humans and monkey) because he died some billion years ago (precisely) than I call that not science anymore..

 

No one is claiming that "monkeys...turned into humans".

[ProHypster]

@eedobaba

I will continue this debate once at home then

[Alyxx Thorne]

Also, who says there needs to be a "Why"? Religious minded people seem to think that life must have some purpose, when we have no tangible reason to think that it does. I'm not some sort of Nihlist, but it annoys me when people try so hard to find meaning when there very possibly could be nothing there.

Then I think you misunderstand religious people greatly. I'm not trying to find a meaning, since through religion I have already found a meaning. Besides, I only spoke for myself. Personally I don't understand the reason to NOT search for a purpose. For me, a life without purpose is unacceptable.

[Eedo Baba]

Also, who says there needs to be a "Why"? Religious minded people seem to think that life must have some purpose, when we have no tangible reason to think that it does. I'm not some sort of Nihlist, but it annoys me when people try so hard to find meaning when there very possibly could be nothing there.

Then I think you misunderstand religious people greatly. I'm not trying to find a meaning, since through religion I have already found a meaning. Besides, I only spoke for myself. Personally I don't understand the reason to NOT search for a purpose. For me, a life without purpose is unacceptable.

 

Unacceptable? Meaning it can't happen? Who are you to say that? Just because you want life to have a purpose, it has one?

I try to understand my own dispositions and move past the self. Humans, including myself, are predisposed to try to find meaning in everything. As a philosopher, I try to move past this false disposition.