Creation Science Institute to Teach Texas Teachers

[netslave]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[GT WT]

Net Slave,

Modern evolutionary theory, is one of the scientific theories described by Red Five's post. It isn't a 'best quess', it isn't a 'place holder' for TRUTH, evolutionary theory is a well developed explanation for a mass of carefully collected and analyzed data. Evolutionary theory is the theory, the only theory, that accounts for biological diversity. New data may cause it to be modified, even conceivably replaced. That is true of any theory in science. But for now the only explanation for the diversity of life that belongs in a science classroom is the theory of evolution.

 

[netslave]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[GT WT]

Net Slave, I think we're in basic agreement. Only currently accepted scientific theories should be taught in science classrooms.

I think our only argument may be in the definition of the term 'theory'. For me a theory is a statement that explains everything we know about a subject and is contracdicted by no current information. That definition is important. It separates 'theory' from 'guess'.

 

[netslave]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[MaduroUTMB]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[pmg]

So apparently under Netslave's "reality" he may wake up tomorrow morning and drop a baseball from his hand, and it will rise to the ceiling; as the theory of gravity will have been modified.

 

[THEU]

How many of us have jobs that depend on our position on ID v. Evolution?

I would guess it would be less than 1 in 100.....

 

[scottsins]

^
^

why ask that? what are you driving at?

 

[netslave]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[THEU]

sorry all, my last post was in response to horns in the house, who referenced an article about people wanting to take American jobs.

pretty directly stated that they would take our jobs if we were taught and then believed in ID.

This debate is relevant, but I don't think many have jobs that depend on if they believe in ID v. Evolution.

 

[HornsInTheHouse]

THEU, since the neo-Darwinian synthesis (traditional Darwinism plus our knowledge of Mendelian genetics) is the basis for all modern biological fields, if you don't think it's occurring/has occurred you are going to have a lot of trouble in those fields. Why do we test drugs on mice before humans? Why not snakes? Because mice are closer to our evolutionary branch than snakes, and thus more biologically similar. Of course the god-fearing Christian fundamentalists might say you don't need drugs, just pray!

Returning this debate over what's a theory, Ken Miller, the Roman Catholic biologist I referenced in my first post, discussed this. (He has a great two hour lecture on Youtube.) He says everyone knows evolution's a theory, in fact Miller's introductory biology textbook has a chapter called evolutionary theory. But some people make it seem like theories and facts are opposite things, when in fact theories are a higher level of understanding than facts. The scientific definition of a theory by the way is different that is used every day in society, creating some confusion I think. We toss around the world 'theory' like it's nothing; for example, I might say "My theory is that Mack Brown has a personal loyalty to Greg Davis that goes beyond his job performance." Did I do any research or draw on others' research? Nope. OK, so I read some internet message board opinions. But a scientific theory is more narrow and to be accepted in the scientific community requires a high standard of evidence and logic.

Evolutionary theory has that in spades. There is probably more evidence for evolution than any other biological theory because it draws from so many fields: geology, paleontology, biochemistry, molecular biology, anatomy, physiology, zoology, some even argue psychology. The evidence from these fields meshes in really beautiful ways. This is one reason evolution is such a remarkable and beautiful idea in my opinion, it explains so much about biology and biodiversity.

 

[THEU]

HornsinTheHouse,
That is perhaps the worst characterisation of Xians that I have seen on Hornfans.
There are many Xians in scientific fields and I don't know that any of them are less sucessful in their work because of their religios belief

 

[GT WT]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[THEU]

GT, I just guess that as a Xian I see most of the posts on here against a small percentage of Xians who often just get lumped together at 'Xians.'
I guess I just take the attacks against a small group of Xians, who view the Bible as a science text, as an attack on all Xians and I shouldn't do that. Thank you for the clarification on this matter.

 

[GT WT]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[theropods]

In reply to:

---

---