Creation debate going Global. Sigh.

[Plane]

Hey great! I didn't know that the Theroy of Evolution had this as a feature.

Then you haven;t read enough about it.

If a creature were discovered , which had a phisical feature or a behavior that could not have evolved ,would the theroy be disproven?

That is highly probable to stemf orm and devolve into circular thinking, so I'll bow out.

   In what way would Evolution include a means of disproof?

"....  most people readily hold their faith as "infallible" and to paraphrase Ingersoll, keep it locked tight, free from debate or question(and to agree with Ingersoll, if it can't stand the rigours of free debate, it shouldn't stand at all). "

"..........and as long as one doesn't argue a "supernatural force" and instead rationally attempts to seek evidence, than they have my attention."

How do you limit yourself so narrow mindedly when you seem to know better?
Why do you hold the non- existance of superntural power to be infallible and above all need for free debate?

I don't hold an existence or a non-existence of any power to be anything, unless scientifically proven. Err on the side of rationality, I suppose. Maybe you should read some Spinoza.
[/quote]

If you have read Spinoza then why would you reject out of hand any argument that included a supernatural element?

[BT]

I don't see a reason why creationism and evolution can't co-exist.

[modestyblase]

Plane-Many of evolutions theories have been incorrect. The fact remains that it is one of the most solid observational sciences.

BT-I don't give much of a damn about ID, etc. Just don't call it science, and don't refute science based on its myth.

[_JS]

I don't see a reason why creationism and evolution can't co-exist.

Bt, there is no reason to believe that God did not create the world and mankind, yet did so by also creating the biological system of evolution. The only real requirement then is that one believes that at some point God infused man with a soul.

For some reason there are those who have to believe that the book of Genesis must be accepted in literal interpretation only. Yet, there is clearly no reason why that is the only way to interpret Adam and Eve and The Fall.

No one interprets the entire Bible literally, yet some insist that certain segments must be read as such, and this is one.

[BT]

BT-I don't give much of a damn about ID, etc. Just don't call it science, and don't refute science based on its myth.

I'll call it what i want.

But I will make deal with you. I won't question the possibility that the theory of evolution is correct if you don't use the power of the state to pick sides in what is clearly a faith based belief system.

And from what i see from my perch is that both sides are guilty of urging the state to do just that.

[modestyblase]

BT-I don't give much of a damn about ID, etc. Just don't call it science, and don't refute science based on its myth.

I'll call it what i want.

But I will make deal with you. I won't question the possibility that the theory of evolution is correct if you don't use the power of the state to pick sides in what is clearly a faith based belief system.

And from what i see from my perch is that both sides are guilty of urging the state to do just that.

When it(creationism, id) is introduced in the public education curriculum, it should(and subsequently is)an issue. It is unfounded, and can't even be held to any standing scientific rigours. As I have said, it points to current gaps in understanding, but that does not a scientific theory create. To introduce it as something as valid as evolution or in lieu of, is frightening.

Now "both sides" wouldn't have been involved if one side hadn't initially proposed its inclusion into public curriculum at the expense of logic and science.

[Plane]

BT-I don't give much of a damn about ID, etc. Just don't call it science, and don't refute science based on its myth.

I'll call it what i want.

But I will make deal with you. I won't question the possibility that the theory of evolution is correct if you don't use the power of the state to pick sides in what is clearly a faith based belief system.

And from what i see from my perch is that both sides are guilty of urging the state to do just that.

When it(creationism, id) is introduced in the public education curriculum, it should(and subsequently is)an issue. It is unfounded, and can't even be held to any standing scientific rigours. As I have said, it points to current gaps in understanding, but that does not a scientific theory create. To introduce it as something as valid as evolution or in lieu of, is frightening.

Now "both sides" wouldn't have been involved if one side hadn't initially proposed its inclusion into public curriculum at the expense of logic and science.

So if you were king you would introduce logic and science to the unwilling.
You would be a harsh king.

The state has no right to enforce the understanding of the truth , no matter how true it is.

[modestyblase]

BT-I don't give much of a damn about ID, etc. Just don't call it science, and don't refute science based on its myth.

I'll call it what i want.

But I will make deal with you. I won't question the possibility that the theory of evolution is correct if you don't use the power of the state to pick sides in what is clearly a faith based belief system.

And from what i see from my perch is that both sides are guilty of urging the state to do just that.

When it(creationism, id) is introduced in the public education curriculum, it should(and subsequently is)an issue. It is unfounded, and can't even be held to any standing scientific rigours. As I have said, it points to current gaps in understanding, but that does not a scientific theory create. To introduce it as something as valid as evolution or in lieu of, is frightening.

Now "both sides" wouldn't have been involved if one side hadn't initially proposed its inclusion into public curriculum at the expense of logic and science.

So if you were king you would introduce logic and science to the unwilling.
You would be a harsh king.

The state has no right to enforce the understanding of the truth , no matter how true it is.

Plane. Are you serious. Logic and science to the unwilling? In the interests of a wellrounded public education, yes I would. If the parents don't like it, they can circumvent that at home. And yes, I imagine I would be a very harsh and cruel Queen 

That the state has no right to enforce truth, ie education, is something I can't even counter, it falls so far out!

[Amianthus]

The state has no right to enforce the understanding of the truth , no matter how true it is.

But the state does have the responsibility to teach accurate science in science class. Intelligent design (or creationism) is not accurate science.

[domer]

It wouldn't be the first time my thoughts traveled the road to the absurd, but can't evolution and intelligent design be conclusively reconciled by saying, from the scientific data supporting the theory of evolution: this is the truth as we know it, and then adding: there could be a Divine Agent guiding this process, or not?

[Amianthus]

It wouldn't be the first time my thoughts traveled the road to the absurd, but can't evolution and intelligent design be conclusively reconciled by saying, from the scientific data supporting the theory of evolution: this is the truth as we know it, and then adding: there could be a Divine Agent guiding this process, or not?

Sure, as long as the last part is taught in a theology or comparative religions class. It does not belong in a science class.

[BT]

But the state does have the responsibility to teach accurate science in science class. Intelligent design (or creationism) is not accurate science.

They can teach evolution all they want in science class.

But do these same teachers have the right to say creation beliefs are bunk in those same science classes?

[Amianthus]

But do these same teachers have the right to say creation beliefs are bunk in those same science classes?

They have the right to say that creation myths are not science.

[Plane]

The state has no right to enforce the understanding of the truth , no matter how true it is.

Plane. Are you serious. Logic and science to the unwilling? In the interests of a wellrounded public education, yes I would. If the parents don't like it, they can circumvent that at home. And yes, I imagine I would be a very harsh and cruel Queen 

That the state has no right to enforce truth, ie education, is something I can't even counter, it falls so far out!
[/quote]


When my faction wins an election , and we inherit the power to enforce the teaching of truth as you have set it up, you will understand why humiliy is good for freedom.

[BT]

They have the right to say that creation myths are not science.

That sidesteps my question. Do they have the right to say that religious beliefs are bunk?