Majority of Republicans believe in literal creationism

Rana said:
The problem arises when they want it taught in school instead of biology! or along with biology! It isn't a good thing in my opinion when this happens.
Click to expand...

I understand that all to well Rana. That's why I stated "as long as us biologist are allowed to teach by the standards of our profession with out undue interference from uninformed lay people." which, technically speaking, would include creationist.
 
christiefan915 said:
Exactly. The problem is with them saying it's an "alternative scientific explanation" when there's no science involved.

If they must then teach it as a comparative religion , but don't try to bamboozle us that it's science.
Click to expand...
Again, I addressed that point. As long as Creationist don't interfere with Biologist right to teach by the standards of the biology profession (and creationism certainly isn't a part of the field of biology), what's wrong with Creationist being free to believe what ever they want to? It's a free country after all.
 
Dixie said:
So we should avoid teaching about black holes, dark energy, anti-matter, and quantum physics? Because these are also things that we can't make useful predictions, test, or independently verify. From a biological standpoint, your imagination can not be proven to physically exist, does that mean it doesn't? e=mc2 doesn't seem to apply to worm holes, does that mean we should stop teaching it?

You're right, the existence of a spiritual being is beyond the capacities of Biology, so there is little you can do with it. However, a biologist has to recognize the results of independently verified tests and predictions. In every species of life we have ever studied, inherent behavior is defined by fundamental purpose, and this does not waiver. No living thing does something inherently, without a fundamental purpose. It's been tested over and over, with millions of living things, it has been verified and confirmed independently by thousands of peer reviews. Human beings have the propensity to worship a supreme power or spiritual entity. They have had this apparent trait for as long as we can find remains of human civilizations. It is something we are inherently drawn to as humans, and while it has taken many forms, it has not diminished over time, as a fundamental human behavior. How can a biologist explain this, without supposing the inherent behavior serves a fundamental purpose in function? To deny that, is to defy everything we understand about the scientific methodology and biology.
Click to expand...

Well let's see if I can give a concise response to your claims Dixie. How about this. You're factually wrong nor do you have that first clue as to what you are talking about.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
but this has never been proposed.....there were attempts to teach it as an alternate description of origin, but never as a substitution for biology.....that was nothing more than a liberal fantasy.....
Click to expand...
Yes that's true but unfortunately those attemps by creationist were also outside the frame work of science.
 
Dixie said:
Evolution theory does not address origin. It is entirely possible for creation theory to be absolutely true, and evolution theory still be absolutely true as well. One doesn't negate the other, one doesn't preclude the other. They are two different theories dealing with two different things. No one (that I am aware of) has ever suggested we stop teaching biology or replace teaching of evolution theory with creationism. It has been suggested we teach creation theory as a legitimate theory of origin. Whether you teach it or not, it is knowledge, and we should be teaching knowledge, regardless of our personal viewpoints of that knowledge.
Click to expand...
No it's not Dixie. All science is tentative in nature and their for nothing can be known with absolute certaintity. It is this fact and the falsification principle of science which makes it self correcting. It's equally true that science only attempts to explain natural causation. Any invocation of supernatural causation would be, by definition, something other than science. Does that discount "creation" as the possible origin of life? No it does not, it just means that "creation" can not be considered science but I think I've made that point to you a zillion times.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
then you would still be wrong.....speaking about the origin of the universe and life (creation) has nothing to do with evolution......
Click to expand...

For once I agree with you. Biological origins and biological evolution are two seperate topics. The former is a hypothesis that tests the beginning of life on our planet and the later is a theory which models speciation.
 
Damocles said:
To make you ask silly questions. Do you think an all powerful god of some sort might use evolution to create the world? What if that god isn't done yet?
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting the humble appendix will one day emerge from it's worthless human cocoon to dominate the Earth?

(I do hope so)
 
Damocles said:
To make you ask silly questions. Do you think an all powerful god of some sort might use evolution to create the world? What if that god isn't done yet?
Click to expand...

No. I dont think he would do that. For one thing, he doesnt exist. But you masons get real peeved about people pulling apart your well constructed house of lies, don't you.

"Complexity proves god!" Sure it does, codpiece.
 
Damocles said:
To make you ask silly questions. Do you think an all powerful god of some sort might use evolution to create the world? What if that god isn't done yet?
Click to expand...

Actually there's this myth that the appendix is a vestigial organ (Which is what I'm assuming Asshat is refering too). It is not. It is a lymphoid organ which assists in the maturation of b lymphocytes (a type of white blood cell) and in the production of Immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies. In lay terms the appendix acts like a switching station by producing antibodies that direct the movement of lymphocytes to other parts of the body when and where they may be needed, particularly in the gastrointestinal tract where there are a large variety of antigens and foreign bodies. In this way the appendix helps to promote local immunity.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
Actually there's this myth that the appendix is a vestigial organ (Which is what I'm assuming Asshat is refering too). It is not. It is a lymphoid organ which assists in the maturation of b lymphocytes (a type of white blood cell) and in the production of Immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies. In lay terms the appendix acts like a switching station by producing antibodies that direct the movement of lymphocytes to other parts of the body when and where they may be needed.
Click to expand...

sounds like something a theocrat would say...
 
Dixie said:
Evolution theory does not address origin. It is entirely possible for creation theory to be absolutely true, and evolution theory still be absolutely true as well. One doesn't negate the other, one doesn't preclude the other. They are two different theories dealing with two different things. No one (that I am aware of) has ever suggested we stop teaching biology or replace teaching of evolution theory with creationism. It has been suggested we teach creation theory as a legitimate theory of origin. Whether you teach it or not, it is knowledge, and we should be teaching knowledge, regardless of our personal viewpoints of that knowledge.
Click to expand...

You are a better educated conservatives than your fundamentalist counterparts.
I think you need to read a little more on this subject and attend school board meetings if your don't know of anyone who wants to do away with the teaching of evolution, there have been people do not want evolution taught to their children. You are right, they get evolution confused with the big bang and creation, but it also conflicts with their Biblical beliefs that all things were created by God at once and not over billions of years of time. They think it was done in the 7 days period as outlined in the Bible.

It creation stories don't belong in science, teach it, as Christie has suggested in a class that compares origin theories or religions. There are people who believe that evolution negates a high power's involvement, just because you aren't one of them, doesn't mean there aren't those types!

It is knowledge the same way that the story of Zeus and the gods and goddesses on Olympus is knowledge.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
then you would still be wrong.....speaking about the origin of the universe and life (creation) has nothing to do with evolution......
Click to expand...


this is where the fundamentalist are misguided, along with many other things.
I know this, you know this, but some people are very confused.
 
What about those who say god is creating through evolution? Why do they insist on sullying science with their unproven associations of stupidity?
 
AssHatZombie said:
No. now theocrats say "complexity proves god" too...



My point is "don't fall for the same theocrat traps".
Click to expand...
Translation:

Well, I thought I had proof of something. Then I found out I that I had made a bad assumption, instead of just moving on I thought I might try to throw an insult to distract from my embarrassment.

Maybe, if god exists, he is a scientist. We're just an unfinished experiment, maybe even a failing one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top