Rather than them being forced into the eduction syllabus of the US by fundamentailist christians in an attempt to feed children religous belief in the face of overwhelming rational and scientific evidence.
2006-09-20 11:02:06 · 20 answers · asked by dust 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=4298
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evolution/blfaq_evolution_evidence18.htm
should i go on?
2006-09-20 11:10:32 · update #1
As a scientist and physician, I have studied evolution extensively. There is some good evidence for natural selection, but I'd hardly call it "overwhelming rational and scientific" evidence. Not only are there multiple logical failures and missing links, but the hypothesis is completely untestable in the laboratory. In terms of pure observational science, it once again fails because random mutations have only ever been observed to cause LOSS of traits, not addition of them (consider beetles with wings who cannot fly - a step "down" the evolutionary ladder!)
Do mutations occur? Yes. Does natural selection occur? Yes. But neither has been shown to lead to a different, more advanced species, which is the entire basis of darwinian theory.
2006-09-20 11:13:54 · answer #1 · answered by Eric 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
This statement is failed logic! There is no overwhelming rational and scientific evidence. Just a lot of guesswork and supposition. Radio isotope dating is flawed, because the measurement is actually a probability rather than observable, especially with those isotopes with assumed half-lives greater than a person's life span. (Uranium 235, for instance, is said to be 713,000,000 years). Radio isotope dating also depends on assumed values for the initial amount of isotopes in a sample.
Connections are made between creatures of differing chromosome counts and blood chemistry which cannot be supported by observable or experimental evidence.
Evolution does not explain how species can develop in such a way as to be totally dependent on another species. Orchids are a prime example being designed for particular insects and hummingbirds down to appearance in visible and ultra violet light and even smell.
Evolution would suggest there should be an abundance of creatures at various stages of transition into other creatures. this, patently, is not the case. Those changes that have been observed are explainable by processes other than evolution (such as selection and controlled breeding)
2006-09-21 00:34:21 · answer #2 · answered by waycyber 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What about the biased view that evolution is a fact instead of the THEORY that it is?
This is fed to our children (at least in the UK it is) in schools
When Darwin publicized those views on evolution he also added that in the future there would be found proof to back up his THEORIES, that what he expected.
Has time proved him right? - NO
If Darwin was alive today he would retract his views because of lack of proof.
The trouble with evolutionists is - they discard the idea of a Creator straight away - and then try to find the answers for how life came about, with what they have left.
By not considering creation they therefore show themselves biased. An unbiased person seeking to find the truth about life would consider ALL the evidence before deciding - therefore making an informed choice.
2006-09-20 18:55:24 · answer #3 · answered by New ♥ System ♥ Lady 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Oh, I think not. You're waving a red flag. It would only stir up a hornet's nest and alienate a lot of parents. There are other ways to teach logic and critical thinking. Maybe some of those lessons will carry over...one can hope.
2006-09-20 18:06:23 · answer #4 · answered by keepsondancing 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
"The heavens declare the glory of God" said King David long ago. "He that planted the ear, shall He not hear? He that formed the eye, shall He not see? . . . He that teacheth man knowledge, shall not He know?" (Psalm 94:9-10). The evidence for Intelligent Design everywhere and in everything is so obvious that only "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalm 53:1), and those who refuse to see it and desperately seek some evolutionary way of explaining it are "without excuse" (Romans 1:20).
2006-09-20 18:08:32 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
The subject of creation should be taught to students as a matter-of-fact. In other words, the education syllabus on the subject should present what the different "theories" are present the proof or evidence believed to support them. It should also be given, as a matter of fact, that "Creationism" is not science.
Being a believe in the scientific approach, I don't believe in Creationism, and don't believe it should be taught as science in the schools. However, there are many that belive in it, and that fact should means enough to discuss it in schools. However, a clear line should be drawn that one is science and one is not.
2006-09-20 18:10:13 · answer #6 · answered by g0at_cheez™ 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
If either is taught in schools, it should be subjugated to "Comparative Religion" or "Philosophy" courses, and stricken from "Science" curriculum, since it is not a true science and is predicated on faith-based supposition, and is unsupported by empirical evidence.
2006-09-20 18:11:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
In a word... Yes.
But it has great and significant value, as does mythology and other "religious" ideas, because it has molded so many events in history and caused so many actions which might otherwise not have ever taken place (i.e... war, pestilence, revolution, burnings, crusades, cold-blooded murder...)
2006-09-20 18:08:06 · answer #8 · answered by C P R 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
What is wrong with teaching them things that we have prooven as fact? What is taught in science is what is the most accuret info we got to date. If you dont want them to be taught it then dont go to the schools where rationality is taught. Everything makes 1000000000% more sence then anything any christian has to say.
2006-09-20 18:05:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Intelligent design is most certainly illogical in that it proposes that:
Complexity is proof the universe was created, and, the creator was not created.
And offers no explanation as to how their uncreated creator came into existence.
That isn't just illogical, it's idiotic.
2006-09-20 18:08:13 · answer #10 · answered by Left the building 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋