 Poll
|
| Question: |
Do you believe in evolution?
| Yes, but it's only a theory. Alternative theories should also be taught to children. |
| Yes, but it's only a theory. Alternative theories should also be taught to children. |
| No. I believe in creationism / Intelligent Design. |
| No. I believe an alternative theory. |
| Ann Coulter is hot and I believe anything she says. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: Evolution: Fact, Theory, or "Liberal Sham"? (Read 4691 times)
|
|
"Hagrid"
|
Where's the choice for Lysenkoism?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Friday
|
I voted for Creationism/ID since I do believe that god created the heavens and the earth.
Felix, I didn't realize until you signed my blog that you're in Germany. Do you have any idea of what percentage of Germans share your views? I was under the impression that the western European nations tended to be more secular than the U.S. But maybe I'm mistaken. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Free your mind, and your ass will follow. -- Parliament/Funkadelic
|
|
|
Revmar
FSP Participant
 Offline
Posts: 39
|
But, this poll aside, If we did not have public schools the issue of what to teach children would be moot. Send your kids to the school that teaches what you want them to learn. Oh, I chose #1
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
freedom's ideologue
|
If there is a god, then it's a natural part of the workings of the universe. There is no supernatural, unless you define "supernatural" to mean the things in the universe that our limited human minds don't yet or may never be able to understand. This is playing with definitions. You've eliminated the supernatural by defining it out of existence. By doing this, all you do is move the question further down the line. Instead of "Is there a supernatural", you've made the question, "Is there a natural that is far different than what we understand?" Alright, so here's my take on this. I voted for Ann Coulter too, Lloyd. She's hot. But she's evil. Its just perfect.  Kinda like my obsession with Condi Rice.  A woman that BAD shouldn't look that GOOD. On to the subject of evolution: I don't see why evolution has to be incompatible with a) design theory b) a God. It seems to me that evolution is a red herring issue. One of the things that irritates me is when people talk about evolution and relate it to cosmology. I've read The Origin of Species. For the record, I'm not much of a fan of Dawkins, but I do like Stephen Jay Gould, and somewhere in my piles of books I have two well worn books by Gould. The Panda's Thumb, in particular, I enjoyed immensely. But I digress. My point is that, as I read all these books, evolution is a biological theory only. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_%28disambiguation%29 This wikipedia article outlines other ways the term "evolution" is often used, inappropriately in my opinion. It irritates me when I hear people talking about "evolution" and they clearly are talking about stellar formation. On to the crux of my point: Evolution is a red herring issue even if 100% true, because it does not preclude the existance of God or the working of a God in designing the process. People sometimes ask, "Do you believe in evolution or creation" as if the two were completely incompatible. It seems to me that if God exists, and if he played a role in creating the universe, there would have to have been a method to creation. We wouldn't expect that things would just "pop" out of thin air, we would expect a method to form, and it makes sense to me that evolution is just the sort of method we might expect God to use. Most design theorists (serious ones, at least) ARE evolutionists. Design theory and creationism are NOT the same thing, as the design theorists keep screaming at the top of their lungs, while being ignored. Design theory postulates that we can calculate a) the odds of any particular event happening b) its level of specificity, and thereby conclude whether an event has "specified complexity". Since humans have only found one force in nature cabable of creating specified complexity, that is conscious intelligence, then the design theorists postulate that we can draw a "design inference". That is not a denial of the process by which the organism developed (evolution), but rather a simple claim that its ORIGIN must be from a conscious, intelligent design. Caleb |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
We've made too many compromises already; too many retreats. They invade our space and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no further! And I will make them pay for what they've done. - Jean Luc Picard
|
|
|
|
Friday
|
You know what irritates ME, Caleb? Uncredited Captain Picard signatures. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Free your mind, and your ass will follow. -- Parliament/Funkadelic
|
|
|
|
"Hagrid"
|
You know what irritates ME, Caleb? Uncredited Captain Picard signatures. Yeah, and everyone knows that Trek was just 'one big happy prosperous socialist hellhole where money was "irrelevant" because everyone was taken care of by the government and people worked because they just wanted to....' Caleb's a trekkie, Caleb's a trekkie. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Spencer
First 1000
FSP Participant
Offline
Posts: 51
|
But, this poll aside, If we did not have public schools the issue of what to teach children would be moot. Send your kids to the school that teaches what you want them to learn. Oh, I chose #1
Very well said. All of the disagreements about what / how / when various things should be taught in school could easily be solved by the free market. This, of course, is in addition to subjects like sex ed, political advocacy by some teachers, and compulsory K-12 schooling. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
" t is the fortune of a free people, not to be intimidated by imaginary dangers. Fear is the passion of slaves."
-- -- Patrick Henry of Virginia, speaking against ratification of the proposed Constitution, 7 June 1788 |
|
|
|
freedom's ideologue
|
You caught me Sandy. Yes. I'm Caleb. And I'm a Trekkie. Is there a support group for that? Caleb ps, I modified it for you. The last thing I want to be accused of is stealing quotes.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
We've made too many compromises already; too many retreats. They invade our space and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no further! And I will make them pay for what they've done. - Jean Luc Picard
|
|
|
|
Friday
|
But, this poll aside, If we did not have public schools the issue of what to teach children would be moot. Send your kids to the school that teaches what you want them to learn. Oh, I chose #1
Very well said. All of the disagreements about what / how / when various things should be taught in school could easily be solved by the free market. This, of course, is in addition to subjects like sex ed, political advocacy by some teachers, and compulsory K-12 schooling. I completely disagree. The poll has nothing to do with public schools vs private schools vs homeschooling. It doesn't specify how your children are taught. It asks what you, as the parent, think *should* be taught. If you don't wish to answer, then don't. But don't bring a completely different topic into the discussion as a way to skirt the issue i.e. evolution: fact, theory or liberal sham. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Free your mind, and your ass will follow. -- Parliament/Funkadelic
|
|
|
Spencer
First 1000
FSP Participant
Offline
Posts: 51
|
But, this poll aside, If we did not have public schools the issue of what to teach children would be moot. Send your kids to the school that teaches what you want them to learn. Oh, I chose #1
Very well said. All of the disagreements about what / how / when various things should be taught in school could easily be solved by the free market. This, of course, is in addition to subjects like sex ed, political advocacy by some teachers, and compulsory K-12 schooling. I completely disagree. The poll has nothing to do with public schools vs private schools vs homeschooling. It doesn't specify how your children are taught. It asks what you, as the parent, think *should* be taught. If you don't wish to answer, then don't. But don't bring a completely different topic into the discussion as a way to skirt the issue i.e. evolution: fact, theory or liberal sham. Okay, you got me: theory. Of course, by theory I don't mean that I think it to be untrue, but rather as "theory" is defined here: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. Any intellectually honest scientist will admit that what they have are theories -- which are constantly evolving (forgive the pun) to become better in the face of constant testing as new facts are found and applied. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
" t is the fortune of a free people, not to be intimidated by imaginary dangers. Fear is the passion of slaves."
-- -- Patrick Henry of Virginia, speaking against ratification of the proposed Constitution, 7 June 1788 |
|
|
|
Felix Benner
|
Felix, I didn't realize until you signed my blog that you're in Germany. Do you have any idea of what percentage of Germans share your views? I was under the impression that the western European nations tended to be more secular than the U.S. But maybe I'm mistaken.
In Germany it is considered impolite to talk about religious believes except in a very generic way, therefore it's impossible to tell. But because creation is not a topic here and because public school attendence is compulsory in Germany I think it can't be many.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
