“Debunking” may have been too strong a word. I have, however, encountered him in a couple of interviews (for which I do not have transcripts, of course), in which he pretty clearly indicated that there could be no point to believing in God. His big argument, of course, is that the discoveries in natural science have undermined the notion of the “argument from design” (as separate from Intelligent Design) and I have heard him state that such observations inexorably force one away from belief or agnosticism and toward atheism.
There can be plenty of consequences to being ignorant about the theory of evolution. If that leads you to support politcal diluting of science education to the point where high school students are unprepared for college level science study I think that can easily degrade the general welfare and foreclose any chance that such students can enter the field of science.
This is a darn good point. And why the ‘great unwashed’ listen to televangelists, as well.
(Note to bobthebuilder. Insofar as the lack of internal contradiction for the New Testament goes… what were Jesus of Nazereth’s last words?)
Alarmist much? We’ve been over this many times before, and it’s just ludicrous to claim that students are going to shy away from science or be unprepared for college level science because of “diluting” the teaching of evloution in schools. It’s already so miniscule as to be insignificant. No one needs to know about evolution in order to get into college-- not even someone planning to major in biology.
I sincerely hope that your argument is that they will be taught evolution once they get to college, not that one can do college-level biology without knowing about evolution.
And, for that matter, would you say “No one needs to know about arithmetic in order to get into college - they all have calculators these days.”?
Yes, that’s what I expect, and that’s what happens.
Oh, I don’t think the sky will fall if high school students are not given a basic understanding of the scientific method and outlook. However, I do contend that one result could easily be a steady erosion of support for science by the public. And that result can just as easily be made impossible by not diluting the early education in biology by teaching non or junk science in science classes. Technological advances depend upon science and if the science is better elsewhere I think technological leadership will follow.
There is alarmism and there is also sticking of the head in the sand. If the attacks on evolution were just here and there I agree that they could be dismissed. However, the attacks aren’t scattered and they are increasing. I’m not a Boy Scout but I do believe in Be Prepared and I don’t accept that mixing science and mytholgy in early education will be without consequences just because most people aren’t specialists in biology.
If your saying that we can observe the results of evolution arent you already assuming that evolution happened in the past?
No I disagree I think we can see a definition in those three…and I think Mega is the a major difference.
And you start off assuming that the Bible is wrong. Im not telling you the Bible is right but Im say the possibility is there.
Some people will not chaulk up living breathing thinking things to pure chance, where as I find that as a faulty arguement it meets some peoples criteria for thought coercian if you will. I have yet to feel enough evidence on either side to be rational coerced to believe in anything, but I understand people desire to believe in something the created them that is watching and protecting them.
Creationism and intelligent design are based on religious beliefs and the premise that a Creator and/or Intelligent Designer exists. If creationism or intelligent design are taught as “science” then young students are being taught that the existence of God is supported by scientific evidence.
and if they are taught evolution they are often taught the science has proven that God does not exist which is no way a true statement. (Im not saying this is neccesarily always true, you can be taught evolution without rulling out God and you can be taught evolution without being taught that science has disproven God) Both should be taught but niether in the science class. (some aspects of evolution should be taught, the aspects of evolution that we have actually recorded, aka seen, not the one extrapolated from assuming that evolution is true in the first place.) Philosophically speaking I would say that ID or creationism is just as rational as that of evolution.
No, I’m saying we can see the effects evolution has had on life and the world; disbelieving in evolution requires either great ignorance or a conspiracy theory mentality.
It’s “possible” the way that it’s “possible” that Thor is the One True God. No rational person would consider it worth worrying about.
I’m…not quite sure what you’re trying to say.
Nonsense. Evolution is one of the most confirmed theories in science; with enormous amounts of evidence. ID/creationism ( which are the same thing anyway ) have zero evidence and no credibility. Creationism is a fairy tale; it doesn’t belong anywhere but a class about mythology/religion.
Your first statement up there is a quite a statement. It still seems to me that your assuming that evolution is what caused those things. You say we see the effects of evolution when something else could of caused what appears to be those effects.
It is completely possible that “Thor” is the one true God, and your statementabout a rational person is negated by your agreements.
I was basically trying to say in that last part that some people want to believe in a God so they do, but that doesnt work for me. Which is why im agnostic, evolution doesnt answer the problem either, I in some way do want to believe but being rational I cant without more solid evidence, thus agnosticism.
Evolution is the only rational answer, as it’s the only one with evidence behind it. It’s also the only one we know actually exists.
It’s a silly possibility; not worth serious consideration.
What does evolution not answer ?
Evolution in the sense that things evolve does have evidence for it I would agree, but evolution having caused what we see to day has no evidence, unless you assume that the past has been ran in the same way as the present which is something that I can not assume.
The reason you view it as silly is because you are throwing out the supernatural, I can not throw out any theory the is internally consistent with its self for the creation of the universe.
Evolution has never shown us any addition of genetic material.
If the past had not “been ran in the same way as the present” there would be evidence; there is none.
With no evidence, it’s not worth considering; nor is it a theory. Besides; it’s useless. Creationism is a sterile belief which produces nothing of use or interest.
Incorrect. Retroviruses add new DNA all the time; so does flawed copying.
your first statement is not an entirely true statement, the edvidence we have a. only goes back so far and b. is hard to interpret due to its nature.
Maybe I should rephrase it say that no idea about origins can be widely cast out, even one that says we originated moments ago with memory intact. well if creationism is true and one of these religions happens to be true than it should be considered of interest, and If I can not cast out and view on creation out of hand I can not cast out the rest of the view out of hand either.
Adding new dna is different that adding new genetic information. Most beneficial mutations we have seen are the LOSS of datta not the addition of data, two distinct things.
By this logic public schools can’t teach kids that George Washington was the first President of the United States, because an omnipotent God could have created everything and everyone Last Thursday, including adult human beings with navels, trees with growth rings in them, textbooks which talk about George Washington, the Washington Monument (including the bit where it changes color because they ran out of money and had to stop working on it for several decades), one dollar bills and quarters (with dates stretching back years or even decades), and of course everyone’s memories of Last Wednesday.
I didn’t even see this when I was posting the above. So, you are arguing that schools shouldn’t teach any form of history class then?
No, I think that you can teach it, but I think kids need to be taught philosophy as well, that way they understand that everything they are being taught is quite possibly wrong.
complete and true knowledge is impossible to come by.
And history is different from science…different criteria must be met for something to be history, and as des cartes said Maybe a demon is deceiving me, its completely possible.