|
Post by Dark Beauty on Jan 8, 2008 12:37:58 GMT -8
This is, to say the extreme least, is very interesting to me. There was actually a trial about theory of evolution versus the theory of intelligent design, and a law was made thanks to it. The points are very heated on either side. www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/I am not sure if you can access it as easily as I could - my biology teacher made every chapter of it separately available to us on our blackboard site. However, if you have the time, I strongly suggest watching it. I am very interested in everyone's opinions. Mine will come later, I suppose, though I know my opinion as it is now. (It won't change by anyone else's post, so it's not like I am waiting to agree/disagree with anyone. I just don't wanna post it before you watch this.)
|
|
|
Post by silentstranger on Jan 8, 2008 15:55:26 GMT -8
I am the same as Dark. No one elses opinion will change mine.
|
|
|
Post by Raiku on Jan 8, 2008 18:17:25 GMT -8
There really is no simple answer to this problem. Because when dealing with people, religion, and faith, there is basically nothing you can do to PROVE to them a point. You can show them the way down a certain perspective pathway, but they themselves, when it comes down to it, have to believe.
People will have opinions on either side, it's never going to change. Here's my proof that my faith is justified: I exist. We had to start somewhere, life didn't just HAPPEN. Whatever caused life to begin had to start somewhere. I mean, it's difficult to grasp the concept of something coming out of nowhere, because as a human being, we cannot comprehend the meaning of 'forever', we cannot go around time (yet), or anything of that sort.
Maybe we did change as time went by, but God made us in his image. Therefore, unless he undergoes plastic surgery every few thousand years to be less hairy, I am not so sure that we 'evolved'. Other creatures per-maybe-haps did, but we as a chosen people are, as far as I can see, who we are because of God.
Anywho, it's an interesting argument to get into. Bring on the opinions!
|
|
|
Post by Zeffa! on Jan 8, 2008 19:10:31 GMT -8
Well if you don't really care about others opinions as they won't change yours, then go ahead and skip past my post, but I thought I'd just throw my hat into the ring anyway. My opinion, my theory on this matter is that both are correct, but neither are the answer. I believe that everything god does he does not through supernatural divine intervention, but through divine intervention through natural law. Yes, science has found many bizarre occurances that "disprove" many of the acts throughout the bible. They've found that when Jesus reportedly walked on water there were circumstances where the water was partly frozen enough for man to be more buoyant on it than normal. They've found that there could have been pockets of CO 2 which were underneath the nile, similar to what happened at Lake Nyos ( Wikipedia Article ) or red tide, as well as volcanic activity from the Santorini eruption around that era. The lake Nyos Theory would also explain the death of the firstborn, as it's been found that often times children would sleep on the floor of houses while the babes would sleep with their mothers in the bed, and the gasses would therefor suficate those on the floor, but leave the ones along the bed safe. Science has done a good job of explaining, and debunking, but I dont think it disproves anything. I believe that God does not defy his own laws that he has set in place, that he uses natural law, he uses evolution, the volcanic activity, the frozen waters, the biological birth through the womb to do his work. What are the odds that that sort of cold front would be in place when Jesus walked on the lake? I believe that if man has evolved, it was God's intention. Why would he make a creation that would not adapt o it's surroundings, but die if it found something strange or new? That's like building a car without seatbelts, saying nothing's going to go wrong so they wont need them. By the way Raiku, I like that. But I don't think he undergoes plastic surgery, i think he just shaves now and then.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Beauty on Jan 9, 2008 12:35:21 GMT -8
I like your post, Zephyr... though I personally think the scientists are going a bit too far when trying to disprove the bible. *shrug*
This was my post that I was required to create:
(It’s long, but bear with me, please.)
Yes, I understand the points that both sides try to make. Yes, I understand how you can believe in both evolution and a religious entity. Yes, I do understand why you would not teach intelligent design in Biology 102. No, I do NOT understand why this is such a subject of rage. Frustration, sure, but rage? Death threats? Oh, that's really tactful. That'll prove your point.
Look, just as long as I don't get any death threats, I will post my opinions on the matter. Also, as long as my grade does not stem from my opinions, but strictly on my being able to make a credible post. (I only say that because it has happened to me before on this campus, and that was disgustingly unfair.) As a disclaimer, the way I illustrate my opinions is with humor. My humor is not me making fun of anyone - it is simply a way to magnify why I believe what I do. I have my own thoeries, and wish to, like any person would, show you how I came to those conclusions. That being said...
I believe in both theories, in a sense.
I believe God created the earth. I cannot accept any "Big Bang" to be the start of the universe because it simply does not make sense. As such, I cannot believe that one parent lifeform gave birth to every single species on this earth. It does not make sense. Where'd it come from, hm? To illustrate my point, imagine this humorous image with me: "*Poof out of nowhere* Hello, world! Here I am, ready to just hang out here on the planet that just poofed into its perfect balance of life-supportive substances until millions of different organisms can evolve from my body." No. Sorry. It makes no sense to me. I CAN, however, understand the theory of evolution on a smaller scale. I can see different species of the same category (different types of monkies) stemming from a "father organism" (in this case, father monkey). (...Don't you love my scientific terms? *Rolls eyes at self*) Different kinds of ducks could have evolved from one origional duck (too many radically different birds to be all evolutions from one origional thing called "bird" in my opinion), and so forth. However, being a firm believer in God, I believe that Adam and Eve were, yes, created in God's own image. I don't believe that God is some sort of blob-organism. I believe he looks like we do. Perhaps certain features and insticts have evolved over time, but I cannot believe that we were once a blob-organism (for lack of a better word, you understand).
As to the court case; I am a very strong believer of my Christian sect of faith, however, I am also a strong supporter of science, seeing as I have always wanted to know everything about how things work since I was a little child. Science has made wonderful advancements, but it is not always reliable. As discussed in the first day of class, many theories of science have stuck around for years, maybe even centuries, before they were disproved. Because of that, I put trust in my faith of a constant, unchanging being - God. Humans need a sense of security, and that is mine. It's my FAITH.
The definition of faith is "having a belief in something that is not seen which [one believes to be] true." It is not to have a perfect knowledge of something. You cannot prove faith. So, naturally, no, religion is not a science. I can see why we cannot teach the theory of intelligent design in biology classes, becuase it is not really scientific. Obviously, though, it will be brought up anyway. In a sense, we are learning about it in a science classroom, even if we are not being directly taught the exact theory on the whiteboard. Personally, I don't see why it is okay to teach Greek mythology, which was their faith, and not teach the majority of America's faith (not intelligent design per ce, but Christianity itself) in schools. Everyone's so hyped now about political correctness. Don't offend anyone. Isn't it obvious that people take offense to people trying to pluck God out of education and America as a whole (can't mention Christmas, "under God" is suddenly a problem, etc.)? Why is it okay, then, to not teach it?
America prides itself in our belief of being able to choose for ourselves. We have our free acency here. Doesn't teaching both of those theories make sense then? Let people choose for themselves which one makes more sense to them. Why is God a taboo in school (unless it is specifically a religion course)? I think some scientists are afraid of what they cannot prove. Fine. I respect that. But, you know, I would like to be respected as well, and so would the rest of the religious world. I can see how the theory of intelligent design should not be taught as "the way things are" becuase it is not scientific. That being said, I also don't think that the theory of evolution should be taught as "the way things are," either. It's a theory, not a law. Like that PBS special said, Darwin's theory is still faulty. It's not fact, so it should not be taught as such. I am sick of science teachers from my past trying to force the theory down mine and everone else's throats when it is not yet proven.
Now then, as to the point that they brought up about the time issue about the creation... well, it would take a VERY long time to describe what I believe exactly because there are so many factors. I have a theory of my own. Let's just leave it at this: I don't believe that the creation took six days - not in our understanding of the word, at least. I believe that God's time is different than ours - he is an eternal being, after all. Six days on the Earth is no way to measure eternity. Instead, I believe that one of God's "days" could be measured as at least 1,000 Earth years. It should not be too hard to think about, since there are 243 Earth days to every Venusion day. Therefore, I believe the earth could easily be older than 10,000 years. I just think it's just been about 10,000 years since the creation of man. (Emphasis on "about." I have no idea if this speculation is true. It could have been longer since then.)
So, as you can see, I have my own theories. No, they cannot be tested and are therefore not scientific, and therefore cannot be taught as science. But that's fine with me. You know why? Because we cannot be sure about ANYTHING, including science. I have my faith and my schooling, and I believe them both, and I make my own sense of whatever does not fit correctly in my brain. Nobody can blame me for that. I just try to get by in the world - I don't try to figure it all out.
Everyone has their own opinion. Everyone is entitled to it. So you can think I am insane if you wish to, but just don't attack my for my opinion, since I have a right to think what I want to as well. Disagree away, but don't attack. That's for politicians to do.
|
|
|
Post by Sorrows on Jan 9, 2008 13:19:11 GMT -8
I'll keep my head low on this subject, [for the most part, at least] because most of my opinion on the matter consists of disagreeing and offering nothing in its stead.
The only thing I'll argue for is for our constitution on the matter. I agree with Dark on one point and, at the same time, disagree. I think she's right that if Darwin's Theory of Evolution is taught in public schools, so should the Theory of Intelligent Design, but neither should be taught as fact, but merely as speculation in replacement, since we have no actual answer for aspiring minds. But, personally, I think neither should be taught, because as long as one or the other, or even both, are taught in our schools, there will be favor one way or another and arguements over the political correctness of the whole thing.
I will, however, defend the Greek Mythology's teachings in school. For one, they are branded as 'mythology', and as such, taught to be fiction. They tell interesting stories and teach interesting lessons, much like the stories from the Native American's heritage. I personally think that, for the sake of arguement, the reason that the Christian and Scientific perspectives on creation and life are removed from the public teaching lesson plans is BECAUSE they are the mainstream beliefs and therefor the most controversial. We, as a country, must be careful about Christian beliefs in school because it is the number one religion in the country, and our government is meant to 'keep God from State'. I agree, it's a little hypocritical to teach non-mainstream beliefs and ban those that are widely believed, but if you think of it in a logical perspective, it makes sense.
My point is, there is no perfect solution, so they only go for the one that creates the least controversy. That's not to say that there isn't a whole lot (The fact we're discussing it here proves that there is), but it's still a whole lot less than if they were both included in the public schools as fact or speculation.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Beauty on Jan 9, 2008 15:55:54 GMT -8
The funny thing is that it shows up in school anyway as a controversial subject. How many times have you had this discussion in a classroom? Or about the seeming fact that you cannot say God's name in this country unless it is in vain, for only then is it okay and not offensive? Or "Happy Seasonal Occurance" instead of "Merry Christmas?" Pff. "Happy seasonal occurance." Sounds like some unmentionable, barbaric ritual that some cult is keeping underground. I like the thought of not teaching either one. The problem is that Darwin's theory IS science. Just as long as they don't teach it as fact, I am fine. Oh, and if they don't try and convince me it is a fact, then I am also fine and dandy. Many times I have had instructors teach it as if it were not a fact, but because they believed it, they tried to convince us it WAS fact. It pissed me off. I do understand the mythology being okay (remember, I absolutely adore Greek Mythology). It just fit in the whole faith thing, though. The only reason it is called mythology is because WE don't believe it. If scientists had their merry way, our country's beliefs fifty years from now will be called "Christian Mythology" and taught the way Greek Mythology is. Think about it.
|
|
Cobalt-60
Gangsta'
Detrevni's Buddy
Sharks don't love you back.
Posts: 127
|
Post by Cobalt-60 on Jan 15, 2008 0:04:48 GMT -8
I'd like to offer my cents. I'm going to be a bad debater here and not really touch the main issue here (I assume it's the teaching of intelligent design versus evolution. I didn't go to the link. Bad me.) because I think the whole conflict is silly and unnecessary and I don't want to get caught up in it right now.
I'd just like to clear up a few side points and present some points of view for consideration.
On the teaching and study of Greek mythology in public schools: The reason it's taught in public schools despite being some long-dead culture's faith is because of the way it's gotten into virtually everything. You'll notice that it's studied almost primarily in english courses. This is because in classic literature (especially Shakespeare) there are so many allusions to Greek and Roman myths that a complete understanding of such works requires a working knowledge of it.
The bible is also studied in higher-level english classes for the same reason.
Other things: Why in the world not the Big Bang? What if that's how God decided to start everything out? There's quite a bit of evidence of something like the BB actually happening in our universe's past. Who are we to say how God creates? What if evolution is creation in progress?
God is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omni-freakin'-everything. Why not set everything up in a very small space exactly right, then just...let it go and do its thing? He'd know exactly where every bit of it would all go. He is infallible, so nothing would be out of place, and it would all happen exactly right. He could, if He wanted. How the heck do we know He didn't? All we have as an insight to the divine mind at this point is the Book of Genesis, which (save Revelations) is the most metaphorical book in the entire canon.
People constantly search for miracles as proof of God's influence on the world, and no one ever sees the constant miracle that is the universe; that it all keeps going and going and going exactly as it should. Consider that even with immense incalculable odds stacked against its ever happening, life sprang up on a hunk of rock orbiting an insignificant star in our galaxy and flourished and grew until we came about. Is that not proof enough?
|
|
Detrevni
Gangsta'
"Balllttttttaaaaaaaaaarrr!!!"
I'm not a cylon!
Posts: 405
|
Post by Detrevni on Jan 15, 2008 10:12:35 GMT -8
Agreement. ^
I see no reason why science and religion cannot be reconciled.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Beauty on Jan 15, 2008 13:01:36 GMT -8
I agree to that as well... I posted something else, but it was a response to another student, so I would have to post BOTH up here, and I don't wanna do that.
Basically, however, I don't know why it is such a huge issue. Fact is, we will never know (in this life) if those two are linked. I think they are - there is proof of evolution occurring. *Shrug* I just don't believe in the extreme of the BLOB BEINGS!!!!! *Cue freaky music here* ...Well, not really blob beings, but that everything on the whole earth came from The Blob.
And the Big Bang being an act of God, sure. That's cool. But all of my science teachers have taught me that there is no correlation between its existence and an exulted being creating the universe that way. I don't know how a universe is created, but I don't think it just kind of "pops." I like writing my emotions, so I will do that now. This is what I make of what the extremists say about evolution:
Long ago... VERY long ago... there was nothing.
And it was nice. And it was wonderful. Just nothing. Not even space. Just - well, nothing. No sound. No suction. No balls of molten matter called stars.
Then, BANG! No, not even "bang!" because the new thing called "sound" could not be heard in this new thing called "the universe" because, for a reason that this new thing called "physics" can describe, sound cannot be what we refer to as "heard" out in this blackness littered with glittery things that we call "the universe." \
Anyway! I digress!
So after this thing referred to as "an explosion of sudden mass and matter," the thing called "space" was "created."
*Gasp!* Oh, no, no, my dear child. That is not what I meant. Forgive me... created is not the right word - it implies the presence of a creator... and that is NOT what happened. No, no. Do not fuss, dear child. It was a mistake - just a phrase... there, there. It came into being. There we go.
Anyway, this perfectly ordered thing came into being, with things called "planets" revolving around things called "suns" that burned so hot that the planets could feel the sensation of "heat" from it, even through their amazingly ordered "atmospheres" that surrounded only a select few of them. Only the ones that had the potential to create life, as it were...
And, lucky earth, had an amazing little "single-celled organism" that appeared on it. Appeared. From nowhere. Just like the universe. Over BILLIONS and BAZILLIONS of years, this little thing decided that it was going to split up and make gazillions of other organisms. It traveled over the whole earth, leaving little particles of itself that eventually grew over those bazillions of years into countless, totally different organisms depending on where on the earth that specific particle was. One became what we know as a tree over time because it decided to be a tree, though the one next to it developed into what we call a bird because it wanted feathers. The list goes on and on! It's a good thing one of them wanted to be a monkey. None of them wanted to be a human right off the bat, you see, so we had to come from a certain monkey that did not wanna be hairy.
Yes, my child. I know! It makes perfect sense, and I do not see how anyone could believe otherwise.
Now, I could poke fun at extremists on the religious side as well, but not about how they believe the universe started - it would have to be about the way they react to evolutionists today. Something to the effect of, "It does not matter what was found in those rocks or what technological advancements have proved - everything was ALWAYS this way. ALWAYS!" But that does not really give me much to go off of.
The extreme evolutionists and (this is gonna sound so naughty, but it adds to my humorous view toward them) Big Bangers are a whole lot easier to make fun of because their beliefs are unprecedented.
However, I could not find fault in someone who believed in both.
|
|
|
Post by silentstranger on Jan 15, 2008 18:47:42 GMT -8
micro evolution, fine. Macro evolution I can't swallow.
In my science class two years ago my teacher literally said this to me, I can't be sure if he realized how ridiculous he sounded.
All right, so there were apes, who had come from a long line of evolution, and they decided that they didn't want to live in trees anymore, and they noticed that they didn't need as much hair, so through out the years the genes of less hair and the need for a different skeletal structure until men came to be.
Having said nothing to this he gave me another example.
It was the same thing as fish to birds.
...
The fish decided that they needed to get out of the sea, so eventually their scales turned into feathers through years of flapping their fins and thinking they needed to change.
That is what many people believe and think it's fathomable, but put the species into a different situation you can see that it sounds even more crazy.
so I thought back at home. if I jump off my couch all day, flapping my arms frantically, and teach my kids to do the same, thinking I need to be a bird, then generations later my descendants will get wings and turn into birds.
Now I know that, for a fact, man has always wanted to fly. Ever since they were on the earth, no matter how they got here. We've been around for how long? Do you see people with feathers? any trace at all?
|
|
Cobalt-60
Gangsta'
Detrevni's Buddy
Sharks don't love you back.
Posts: 127
|
Post by Cobalt-60 on Jan 15, 2008 19:19:31 GMT -8
Please base your arguments on a working knowledge of evolutionary theory. Your science teacher is clearly an idiot.
Evolution is not a conscious process. Species don't wake up one day and think "Hey guys! Let's evolve now! Wouldn't that be cool?". It's based on the process of natural selection which states that as mutations spring up, as they have a habit of doing, those individuals with beneficial mutations will survive longer and pass those mutations to their offspring until that particular mutation is spread throughout the species.
The sheer odds against this happening on a very large scale is one of the major arguments against macro-evolution. And here we have yet another opportunity to insert God into the equation. How did macro-evolution happen on such a large scale with so many species when the odd are so stacked against it? God.
Problem solved.
|
|
|
Post by silentstranger on Jan 15, 2008 19:53:29 GMT -8
We're one big mutated species.
|
|
Cobalt-60
Gangsta'
Detrevni's Buddy
Sharks don't love you back.
Posts: 127
|
Post by Cobalt-60 on Jan 15, 2008 20:32:26 GMT -8
What? I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.
|
|
|
Post by Raiku on Jan 15, 2008 22:39:30 GMT -8
He's got a Ph.D, careful. This is a fun argument, I like reading it. Agreed with the whole, "conscious thought" thing. I never trust 'Big-Bangers'. And your science teacher, Ms. Silent, is he...special?
|
|