"The Intelligent design hypothesis has one major flaw: it requires one to believe that a competent, thinking, omnipotent, divine being created the platypus: a venomous, egg-laying, duck billed mammal." Anon.
"As Christians, we know that naturalism is wrong." William A. Dembski, author: "The Design Inference."
As you all may know, there is a huge debate over whether evolution specifically, the theory of natural selection through survival of the fittest as developed by Charles Darwin, does or does not constitute a science to be taught in schools, as a part of an outstanding debate on whether to teach religion. After explaining the sides of the debate, we will form an "opinion spectrum" on this topic and let you choose the best among yourselves to represent each side in an open debate before the class during which you must all participate by asking questions and taking a vote.
9 comments:
A piece of science to begin the year, nice idea (yeah i only learn langages...) and nice picture to speak about a debate which will maybe never have an end.
Why say you that "the political meets science"?
To my mind we could also saying that the religion meets science" because it is a debate which has an historical idea like you repeated in your text : "As Christians, we know that naturalism is wrong".
So let me tell you my mind about this debate. For me, if you are a good scientific, you can't say that God doesn't exist. Because you can't prove it, so there is a part of you which must say that a becoming day has the possibility to show to you that i really exist. Or not. Nobody knows the true (and it's maybe not a bad thing...) and the question of naturalism can't be finished with the theory of creationism.
So Darwin. I think it is the type of person who was not a fan of the positivism ^^. The best will survive. His theory has a part of reality when we see the life of humans or animals, at work or at fight... But the question is not here. "Does or does not constitute a science to be taught in schools?" Yes, teach that only the best of the class will have success in their lifes is to say that all other children's lifes are convicted to things which will never be attractives. But is it a reason to not speak about it at all? To my mind the children have to be inform of all the ideas about our evolution and then to create their opinion.
For a freeer society.
Yes! I too believe that giving children a broad education will enable them best to make their own decisions about their beliefs, as we should! Be careful to re-read your response before you post it. Here are some of the mistakes you could have probably avoided:
-"...a debate which MAY never have an end"
children have to be informED
-"nobody knows the truTH"
-if you are a good scientIST
-children's liVes
Here are some stylistic corrections I would like to make:
-"a becoming day" does not translate
-"the question of naturalism" can't be ANSWERED...
"his theory IS a part of reality"
Your analogy of the classroom to the primordial struggle to survive is quite apt! You make an impressive point relating evolution to positivism, and pointing out that, of course, religion is what drives the politics of this debate.
One more little thing:
"attractive" is an adjective that does not need to agree with the subject in English! xx
I think that people do not have to be too narrow-minded. Some things can not be totally explained... and so this "animal" is !
As a french student I've always learnt evolution as something true. I don't believe in God (for the moment) and I only believed what I have experienced or what science has proved (though I think science will always have things to prove : there's no permanent truth in science).
Darwin's theory of evolution seems to me a far better way of explaining such a diversity in species than God's creation which I've had no proof of.
Teaching evolution in class is a way of giving an explanation to the world. It is not a way of driving children to despair, on the contrary it will encourage them to do their best in everything.
"if you are a good scientific (scientist), you can't say that God doesn't exist. Because you can't prove it"
it doesn't mean you have to brainwash kids with religious bullshit neither!!
creationism is just one more proof that a huge number of Americans find a way to lead their lifes in religious faith, because society gets them afraid and the only way they found is to put their faith in God instead of finding the strengh in themselves, a steady society can't be created if there are NEO CONS and RED NECKS!!! because it creates hatred, racism, fear, nationalism etc.
CREATIONISM IS DANGEROUS.
Antho I agree but you're not politically correct !
Anthony, you sound like an Objectivist! Have you ever read or studied Ayn Rand? You'd like her. You and she appear to have roughly the same philosophy.
However, I think you should ask yourself, is there anyway that the study of evolution can lead to racism just as well as you think creationism does? At least creationism teaches that we all come from the same supreme being, that we each have that in common. Eugenics, the forced mating practiced by the Nazis, was founded on the principles of evolution. Maybe Adrian is right that you should be more politically correct and respectful of other viewpoints, even if yours is very strong. You don't know whom you're really defending.
I just wanna say tha i think I'm just the ultimate state of evolution! I'm perfect
Post a Comment