Expelled!

[JMS]

Looks like it will be a very good movie:http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.php

[xman]

Not to some. Links follow.

Actually Expelled

On Being Expelled

[JMS]

Hey X, I was wondering when you were going to pop up. It's good to see you out and about!
Thank you for those links, but I am sure the audience here at SRP are bright enough to make up their own minds!

[xman]

Hey X, I was wondering when you were going to pop up.

So you've resorted to trolling for me now?

I am sure the audience here at SRP are bright enough to make up their own minds!

AHA! You are an optimist.

[JMS]

So you've resorted to trolling for me now?

Egotist!

[xman]

Egotist!

[Don]

Gentlemen I would like to thank you. When some Mods and myself fist so this thread. It was something we thought it could expode. But I am very impressed how you have had a respectful conversation over a sensitive subject. This is a great example of what kind of site we want to be. Thanks
Don

[Seraphim]

To keep this razor related:
Why not apply Occam's razor to this debate?
"All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."

On the idea of keeping "religion" out of schools, that should also apply to Atheism as well.
When I was growing up (I still am, I suppose? ) It was refered to as "the theory of evolution", now they have dropped the "the theory" part, and put it forth as proven fact, now it is simply "Evolution". That's not right. Go right ahead and teach it for what it is- an idea, a theory of how things came to be, not a scientifically proven fact, because it certainly is not that.

So, the idea of evolution certainly is an attractive one, and you can show that there have been changes and or differences in creatures on this earth over a very long time period. "Survival of the fittest" and all that. Go ahead and teach "survival of the fittest" if you like.

But in my mind that does not therefore carry back to explain the creation of life through random occurance. There is a postulation of "irreducable complexity", that is to say that there is a certain level of complexity that is required for life to exist. Even the most "simple" living cells are rather complex: mitochondria, endoplasmic reticulum, nucleus, etc, etc.

So, evolutionists say that at some distant past, there was a nice protien soup floating on the ocean, swamp, or some such, and perhaps a bolt of lightning provided the energy for "the simplest early life". But if you stop to think about this hand waving argument, #1 if a bolt of lightning hits anything, it's toast. #2 this "first created life", even suppose it could be created in such a fashion, would require that in the merest infintessimal chance occurance that somehow even one cell was brought into being, which would require all of the above mentioned hardware (nucleus, mitochondria, ectoplasmic reticulum, etc....I just love saying ectoplasmic reticulum actually... ) to come into random occurance at one time, AND that cell would also be able to have full reproductive capabilities, so as to have progeny and thus start life as we know it on planet earth?

Wow! Now that is rather remarkable.



Or it may be as simple as there is a God, and He created everything.

[bjrn]

I definitely think there is room for opposing viewpoint of the origin of life as taught in schools. Especially since they now have to teach opposing viewpoints in sex ed so as not to offend the tiny minority of kids with two mommies. Why are people who entertain the notion of a Creator held in less esteem than those both the church and natural selection would deem unfit to reproduce.

I don't know what it's like in the US, but when I went to school in Sweden we had these classes about religion. We were taught about how the world began according to all the larger religions along with the Edda and the Kalevala (and probably some more I can't remember). I'm sure you've got something comparable that gives kids some basic understanding of various religions and what their impact has been and is.

If you want opposing viewpoints in a biology class, then I'm sure no one objects as long as scientific theories are discussed. You can have discussions about mutations, and self organising complex emergent systems and so on. But I wouldn't like to see intelligent design in a biology class, since it isn't a scientific theory.

I don't think there is much resistance against teaching people about intelligent design. I do think there rightfully is resistance against teaching it as if it were science, as opposed to a question of faith.

When I was growing up (I still am, I suppose? ) It was refered to as "the theory of evolution", now they have dropped the "the theory" part, and put it forth as proven fact, now it is simply "Evolution". That's not right. Go right ahead and teach it for what it is- an idea, a theory of how things came to be, not a scientifically proven fact, because it certainly is not that.

Evolution is a scientific theory. The word "theory" in this context is something different from the word "theory" as it is used in everyday language.

[Cobo]

I'm not going to wade in with much, because much of what I would have said has already been said, but I do want to say it's great to see that I'm not the only one who questions evolutionary theory. I know someone else mentioned it, but it really is amazing how many people will look at you like a mental deficient if they find out you don't necessarily believe in evolution.

As a side note, I went to public schools here in Canada. Evolutionary theory was taught simply as evolution. It was present as absolute and total fact.

Oh, also, it's pretty funny if you keep your eyes open... Wait until next time they find another 'early man' missing link type critter, like Lucy. There will be hooplah for a couple days about it, then the issue will kind of disappear. Get looking around and you'll usually find that the subject was discovered to be something much more mundane. The retraction however, is very rarely publicized in anyway. If you don't look for it, you won't find it.