[OT] creationism/evolution.. right to choose?
- Thread starter Scion
- Start date
- Status
Scion said:sorry all, but with hivemind being as it is and has been and will always be I cant really see anything being said no to or even being disallowed. so long as people see it and smile its all good
As far as I've seen, the Hivemind is generally pointless off-topic, generally not flame worthy. Religion/politics is a topic the Powers that Be have specifically asked us to stay away from, for it frequently causes flames. The two aren't in any way similar, so teh HIvemind is no excuse for you being naughty.
Lurks-no-More
First Post
In evolution / creationism discussion, as elsewhere, the following rule holds true:
Everyone has the right to their own opinion but not to their own facts.
Everyone has the right to their own opinion but not to their own facts.
Drawmack
First Post
Evolution vs. Creation does not have to be a religious or theological discussion. If you followed the above link and then the link to the profesors web-page with the actual criteria on it you would have seen this:
He is specifically asking for the scientific origin of man. You could formulate an answer something like the following.
All life on the planet had to begin somewhere, most probably with a single celled organism. This point of the begining of life was creation. From this point many species evolved. There is fossil evidence which proves a certain amount of evolution. For example the homo-sapien has gotten taller and leaner over the course of time. However, there is no scientific evidence that proves man evolved from a single celled organism, or even from apes or the neandrathal. Therefor I conclude that life was created in some form or another by a force beyond the current comprehension of man and then continued to evolve from this point. Going into anymore detail about this point of creation of the priciples of evolution from that point would be unscientific and simply personal conjucture on my part, therefor I will conclude my answer here.
So tell me is that religious?
The most none biased creation vs. evolution class I ever had was 7th grade biology which was taught by a devote jehova witness. This question does not need to be religious in nature, as long as personal conjecture is kept out of it and I honestly believe that is what this professor is asking for. Matter of fact I'm going to email him and ask him.
He is specifically asking for the scientific origin of man. You could formulate an answer something like the following.
All life on the planet had to begin somewhere, most probably with a single celled organism. This point of the begining of life was creation. From this point many species evolved. There is fossil evidence which proves a certain amount of evolution. For example the homo-sapien has gotten taller and leaner over the course of time. However, there is no scientific evidence that proves man evolved from a single celled organism, or even from apes or the neandrathal. Therefor I conclude that life was created in some form or another by a force beyond the current comprehension of man and then continued to evolve from this point. Going into anymore detail about this point of creation of the priciples of evolution from that point would be unscientific and simply personal conjucture on my part, therefor I will conclude my answer here.
So tell me is that religious?
The most none biased creation vs. evolution class I ever had was 7th grade biology which was taught by a devote jehova witness. This question does not need to be religious in nature, as long as personal conjecture is kept out of it and I honestly believe that is what this professor is asking for. Matter of fact I'm going to email him and ask him.
Mark Chance
Boingy! Boingy!
Hmm...
I found this quote by Dini most interesting:
"'Good scientists would never throw out data that do not conform to their expectations or beliefs,'' he writes. '"
This is eminently falsifiable. Good scientists do just this all of the time. Dini himself obviously does, for he apparently throws out non-evolution data because it does not conform with his expectations.
Examples:
Nobel Laureate in physics Paul Dirac: "It is more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit [an] experiment."
Murray Gell-Mann (another physicist): "Frequently a theorist will throw out a lot of data on the grounds that if they don't fit an elegant scheme, they're wrong."
Dini also ignores the delightful fact that such an eminent physician as Louis Pasteur was...*gasp!*...a creationist. Other examples could easily be found by anyone with eyes to look.
The man sounds like he's got an ideological axe to grind. I suppose he does have a right to do so, but to paint his ideological axe with the colors of scientific objectivity smacks of rank hypocrisy at best.
As for his contention that a student must provide a scientific explanation for origins of life and that evolution is biology's "most important theory": If I were a student seeking a letter of recommendation, I'd bring along copies of the works of Michael Behe and William Dembski, both of whom show via biochemistry and information systems theory that current mainstream evolutionary theory is bankrupt and provide alternative theories that can be scientifically tested by anyone willing to put aside his or her "expectations or beliefs."
And now, after barely referencing religion at all, I respectfully bow out of this thread entirely.
I found this quote by Dini most interesting:
"'Good scientists would never throw out data that do not conform to their expectations or beliefs,'' he writes. '"
This is eminently falsifiable. Good scientists do just this all of the time. Dini himself obviously does, for he apparently throws out non-evolution data because it does not conform with his expectations.
Examples:
Nobel Laureate in physics Paul Dirac: "It is more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit [an] experiment."
Murray Gell-Mann (another physicist): "Frequently a theorist will throw out a lot of data on the grounds that if they don't fit an elegant scheme, they're wrong."
Dini also ignores the delightful fact that such an eminent physician as Louis Pasteur was...*gasp!*...a creationist. Other examples could easily be found by anyone with eyes to look.
The man sounds like he's got an ideological axe to grind. I suppose he does have a right to do so, but to paint his ideological axe with the colors of scientific objectivity smacks of rank hypocrisy at best.
As for his contention that a student must provide a scientific explanation for origins of life and that evolution is biology's "most important theory": If I were a student seeking a letter of recommendation, I'd bring along copies of the works of Michael Behe and William Dembski, both of whom show via biochemistry and information systems theory that current mainstream evolutionary theory is bankrupt and provide alternative theories that can be scientifically tested by anyone willing to put aside his or her "expectations or beliefs."
And now, after barely referencing religion at all, I respectfully bow out of this thread entirely.
Darkness
Hand and Eye of Piratecat [Moderator]
I have seen this course of events more times than I care to recall.Azure Trance said:
But then, that comes with the job, I guess.
Anyway - thread closed.
Scion, if you want to say something, please e-mail me and/or the administration. Thanks.
- Darkness
- Status
