You would think more people would know what a scientific theory is, but apparently not.
2007-09-28 04:12:11 · 16 answers · asked by Kharm 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Inspired by:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aqh5mTsHxOfxFG4rkHQY9aHsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20070928080423AANTZ2p&show=7#profile-info-iUkc6nAuaa
2007-09-28 04:13:11 · update #1
Jeez people... I asked a tongue-in-cheek question and you got all grumpy about it. Lighten up.
2007-09-29 02:15:05 · update #2
Well when idiots like the one who wrote that question think they can play scientist, it's time to tune them out and remember that no matter how much they rant and rave, they'll never affect scientific progress one iota. And that is a comforting thought.
2007-09-28 04:15:10 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Evolution is more of a paradigm than anything else. Creationism is a polar-opposite paradigm that comes into direct conflict with the teachings of evolution. As a result, we are now going through a major paradigm shift. Like any such shift, it is noisy, irritating, and rough. Just ask Galileo. He had a big problem with the professors who were teaching the geocentric paradigm.
The winning paradigm, be it Evolution or Creation, would have to be able ALL of the questions that researchers present to it. It would have to account for everything that we see around us. It would not be allowed to accept some evidence and ignore others. It would not be allowed to lie or use outdated information. It would have to be free from bias or preconceived interpretations. It should be supported with facts.
To find out which one is the best study both with a critical mind. Don't give your own bias too much power. Study the pros and cons of each paradigm. Then decide where you stand...
2007-09-28 04:32:29 · answer #2 · answered by kdanley 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
On many levels I do enjoy the couch scientist. That is the person who reads one article and considers themselves to be an expert on the subject without completely understanding the vast number of mechanisms that go into formulating a theory.
I would greatly enjoy if a creationsit could explain to me speciation or endosymbiosis and how those two mechanisms do not provide credence to the theory of evolution.
A theory is not just an idea, a theory requires basis and research to be accepted by the scientific community. A theory requires tangible evidence. A theory requires data. Simply not understanding data or ignoring it is not evidence that the theory is invalid.
Creatiosnism is a theistic belief specific to one faith. it is not taught in the classroom because it is a theistic belief based upon one faith. Evolution on the other hard is a non faith based theory based upon several things such as the fossil record, speciation, endosybiosis . It is a theory that is based in evidence, not blind faith which is why it is presented as a potential explanation for the origins of mankind.
2007-09-28 04:20:46 · answer #3 · answered by smedrik 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
NO! it is not. There are some who think that religion is anti-science and that science is anti-religion. On the contrary religion and science can and do exist in harmony with each other. There are some who think that Christianity is the only religion (it is not),or that it represents religion(it does not).
Islam encourages scientific activity. Islam encourages us to use our brain; to be logical, and to search for the truth. There is tremendous evidence through-out creation which supports the fact that there is a God....ONE GOD!
People use your brains...think... meditate... search for the truth. If you are sincere perhaps The Creator will give you guidance.
2007-09-28 04:29:00 · answer #4 · answered by Rebecca 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Before everyone goes spouting off on how evolution happens all the time, just remember the difference between evolution and Evolution. Between micro and macro. Micro evolution happens all the time, and many textbooks use micro evolution as 'proof' for macro Evolution. Macro Evolution has never happened, there is no proof for it (but a lot of passionate people who will kill for it!). Personally, I believe Macro Evolution is more amazing then Creationism. Creationists at least had an almighty God, but Evolutionists have, dirt!
2007-09-28 04:24:48 · answer #5 · answered by Josh 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
That's a ridiculous question. Reasonable people do not have trouble with evolutionary theory being presented as that - theory; as long as creationary theory is presented as well. We cannot expect our children to form reasonable opinions of their own unless they get all the information.
If creationists presented only that in the classroom, there would be an uproar; but those supporting the evolutionary theory seem to think it's okay to do the opposite.
2007-09-28 04:16:46 · answer #6 · answered by Terri J 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Evolution is NOT education.There is plenty of education outside of the evolution belief.
2007-09-28 04:38:52 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Terri you are right there should be a proper debate. The answer to your question is no that is a ignorant statement but reflects narrow minded beliefs of militant atheists who believe that only there view of the world should be allowed time in the classroom. By the way im a Christian who has a Theistic Evolutionist standpoint .
2007-09-28 04:23:35 · answer #8 · answered by jack lewis 6 · 0⤊ 5⤋
No.
Simplistic equations don't prove anything. I personally think that evolution should taught. Yet those who do not think that evolution should be taught are not against education as a whole
2007-09-28 04:15:55 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I'm thinking the opposite of "pro-evolution" is just pro-stubbornism.
Too stubborn to learn more about an idea different from your own before judging it and calling it untrue.
2007-09-28 04:15:49 · answer #10 · answered by Heck if I know! 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋