Correlation between Education and Evolution

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
I was not specifically referring to young earth creationism in that post. My point in that post was simply that if students are taught only about evolution, then they are not likely to consider opposing views.
There are no scientific opposing views to consider.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
You can teach about a creator without having to mention one in particular. However, it does make sense to talk about Jesus since we live in nation that was created by Christians. If I lived in a Hindu nation, I would expect their colleges to teach Hindu creation myths.

I am fine with colleges teaching science.
No, you're not. You want them to teach creationism and theistic beliefs. Neither are science.
My problem is when they force their secular worldviews on clueless students.
If students don't want to learn about science, they shouldn't take science classes.
 

Andy Sist

Active member
Gender has nothing to do with biology. Wooh, how would anything reproduce aside from asexual E. coli?
Do you really need that explained to you? Multicellular eukaryotes make copies of themselves through sexual reproduction, not gender reproduction.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member

What is Meant by "Scientific Evidence" for Common Descent?​


Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions.

What a humongous cop-out

Scientific evidence is put in parenthesis
It states that empirical testability is the hallmark of science, then proceeds to break that statement down.
It starts by changing the definition of testability and talks about making predictions.........

And you really really clever guys eat this up for breakfast........
Praise Chuck from whom all tautologies flow.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
They reproduce once then how will they reproduce again?
All organisms that reproduce sexually have a sex, including all humans. All humans also have a gender, which is usually, but not always the same as their sex. Sex is biologically determined, usually but not always by genetics. Gender is socially determined, usually but not always by the external genitalia as apparent at birth. Gender has nothing to do with reproduction. It refers to the way in which the individual interacts with society, adopting societal norms of clothing and behaviour. It is also not the same as sexual preference.

Things are more complicated than the simple male/female division you want it to be. Not being able to get your head around the situation is a problem with you, not reality. It doesn't matter. If the situation doesn't apply to you personally, all that is asked of you is the good manners to refer to people in the way that they wish to be referred to. Not too much to ask really.
 

rossum

Active member
Natural selection is your form of "Maxwell's demon" and leave out the fact that random mutations still have to provide all the possible ramifications from a vast sea of possible sequences in order for natural selection to make a choice.
Not as difficult as you may think. There are seven billion (7e9) humans on the planet. On average, each of us has about 75 mutations. That is a total of 7e9 x 75 = 5.25e11 mutations in the whole population. The human genome has three billion (3e9) base pairs. 5.25e11 / 3e9 = 175 mutations per base pair. For any given base pair there are 3 possible mutation, changing it from its current value. 175/3 = 58. Every possible point mutation is present in the human population 58 times on average.

Bacteria have smaller genomes and much larger populations -- in the trillions and more. They have even more examples of every possible point mutation in their populations.

Every generation a new set of mutations arrives. Finding a suitable mutation is not a big problem with a large population.
 

Manfred

Active member
Yes. Some places teach that Jesus was God, other places teach that He was a Prophet of Allah whose message was later distorted. At least one of those teachings must be wrong.
Both would be wrong.

A place that teaches Jesus is God is on the right track, but Christ revealed as Lord and Savior is not taught by flesh and blood, but revealed by God.
No matter, God chose that which is foolishness to the world to save those who believe.

Christ crucified and raised, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to gentiles.
 

Cody

Member
Sure.

Like the the world being round is "parroted by a lot of college students". They "parrot" it because it is true.
Your opinion about the origin of life is not the same as claiming that the earth is round. The fact that you cannot see this is evidence that you parrot whatever your biased college professors taught you.
 

Cody

Member
No, you're not. You want them to teach creationism and theistic beliefs. Neither are science.
Yes, this statement has already been parroted in this thread multiple times. You guys really do have a religious like devotion to the evolutionary theory.
If students don't want to learn about science, they shouldn't take science classes.
Your beliefs about the origin of the universe are not science. You can believe whatever nonsense you want. But you should not force your godless worldview on college students.
 

rossum

Active member
You guys really do have a religious like devotion to the evolutionary theory.
Ah, yet another example of "science is better than religion" from a religious person who wants to denigrate the bits of science they disagree with.

If you want to counter evolution, try showing that birds (Genesis day 5) appeared before land animals (Genesis day six).
 

Cody

Member
Ah, yet another example of "science is better than religion" from a religious person who wants to denigrate the bits of science they disagree with.
I have no idea what you mean by this.
If you want to counter evolution, try showing that birds (Genesis day 5) appeared before land animals (Genesis day six).
That is a historical question. The Bible's answer on that is perfectly clear.
 

The Pixie

Active member
Your opinion about the origin of life is not the same as claiming that the earth is round. The fact that you cannot see this is evidence that you parrot whatever your biased college professors taught you.
Both are extremely well supported by evidence, both are accepted as part of mainstream science by people of numerous faiths and no faith.

The fact that a small minority of people reject one or the other for religious reasons does not change that one jot.
 

rossum

Active member
I have no idea what you mean by this.
You are criticising the science of evolution. As part of your criticism you are making evolution look like a religion: "a religious like devotion to the evolutionary theory."

Here you are, in effect, saying that evolution is not real science, but is instead a religion. Also you are saying that evolution/religion is inferior to science. Hence we have you saying evolution is religion and religion is inferior to science.

You are by no means to first person to fall into this trap. I have seen it from a lot of anti-evolutionists.

That is a historical question. The Bible's answer on that is perfectly clear.
Both clear and wrong. Birds first appeared a long time after the first land animals. There is no evidence supporting the sequence given in the Bible.
 
Top