No inciteful here. Amusing? Yeah, and more than a bit of irony but not really inciteful.

Evolution is a verifiable fact. To put it in terms that people can understand all you have to do is look at something like the AIDS virus. It adapts and changes over time. That is evolution.

The problem when evolution is applied to the earth and (here is the real stumbling block when discussing the subject with the devout religious aka Creationists) Man is that those of a conservative religious bent would have to, by definition, abandon their beliefs to even consider the subject. I'll stick to generality and not bother to quote verse, but the Christian religion teaches that Man was created in God's image and that Man is a higher form than anything else in the animal kingdom. Case closed. There cannot be any evolution for Man from a religious point of view.

In Kansas (among other places) the Christians would like to ban the teaching of evolution all together. To get around the court system and at the same time undermine the science curriculum in schools they are proposing the idea of "intelligent design", that some invisible incorporeal being (they are very careful not to mention God) in fact designed life in all it's forms. I guess it is convenient to ignore the fact that scientific method can be used to prove (or disprove) evolution. What CANNOT be tested by scientific method is the idea that an invisible incorporeal being is the cause of everything.

Oh well, the whole discussion of creationism vs. evolution is generally a waste of time in this type forum.

Bring on the vouchers, then you can send your kids anywhere you want that teaches what you want.

I have problems thinking we are all some kind of :COSMIC ACCIDENT: so Creationism is my belief THERE. Evolution is something I believe in also, in the sense we are evolving, Larger bodies, higher intelligence {except for democrats} heh heh heh j/k Cannot the 2 go hand in hand?

Reply By: PhilomedyPosted: Sunday, February 13, 2005Look:Philomedy has never attacked religion. Philomedy has never done anything but let religion be. I don't see how you get "Philomedy wants this" or "Philomedy wants that" from the original post, because Philomedy would be quite content to have the church leave him alone.

This is just typical the reader "seeing what they want to see" then commenting on what they wanted to see... I been pissy about this for long time.

"Isn't God a theory? What's wrong with stating that?"

No, God is not a theory. It is a hypothesis , which tries to explain the world just like relativity was initially a hypotheisis attempting to explain the nature of space & time. However, the crucial difference is that relativity has stood the test of scientific rigor. Its predictions have been confirmed by experiments to an amazing degree of accuracy and thats why it has been accepted as a bonafide theory in scientific circles. Relativity may not be truth(and most likely it is not as it is at loggerheads with another amazingly successful theory of quantum mechanics) and may be some future theory may replace it just like it replaced newtonian theory. This is where hypothesis of God and a theory like relativity differs. The hypothesis of God doesnot make any predictions which an impartial, independent person can verify or refute. To put it bluntly, God is a matter of faith devoid of rationality (which is not necessarily a bad thing, not everything in the world can be explained by rationality), however, science by its very definition stands on the foundation of rationality. Science has to observe something to verify or refute , which is its strength as well as weakness. It is its strength because this allows science to constantly evolve itself, keep itself progressing, it is a weakness because some matters are out of its reach particularly the matters of mind & heart. This is where faith comes in as it tries to deal with matters which are out of the reach of rational human beings and science. Faith is a personal matter, science is not . A scientific fact is a scientific fact regardless of your race, religion and beliefs.

God, in any culture, is the ultimate expression of life's mystery. It is our search for this mystery that led to the theory of evolution. It confounds me why creationists cannot accept that evolution, for which there is strong scientific basis, could very possibly be God's tool in the formation of man's earthly form. To reject evolution is to reject many of the same theories that we rely upon in our daily lives. Do away with evolution if you must, but cease the hypocrasy: throw out your cars, your computer... your electrical utilities. To reject one is to reject all, to accept one is to accept all. Its not magic kiddos, its just the way things work. Don't limit God just because you've been taught something ignorant.

Me, I don't think God enters into this discussion, strange as it may seem.

The problem, as I have stated, isn't that God needs to be taught in school. On the contrary, there's no reason to ever mention religion, religious beliefs, or God at all in a discussion of science. Why, then, does it always seem to?

You aren't seeing "I dint come frum no dern munky" here on this blog, and yet look at what we are dealt with in return. It is perfectly okay to call people of faith "irrational", evidently.

In many cases, as I have said, it is posed as an alternative to religious belief. I have witnessed it in three different state sponsered institutions, in two states, just in my own experience. As I said above, new findings were always framed as "Dispeling myths" or refuting religious superstitions.

That isn't teaching scientific fact, that is countering religious thought. That practice by someone in a public capacity is just as forbidden by the separation of church and state as a minister teaching Christian doctrine.

So sure, when people are allowed to insult and belittle people's beliefs, and those people are mandated by the state to keep their mouths shut and take it, there's going to be backlash.

Most Christians aren't upset about the facts of Darwinism being taught. Again, it is the fact that they are often taught as AN ALTERNATIVE TO RELIGION. The idea of Christianity being an alternative to Darwinism, though, is anathema.

Such an attitude is just as abusive as any excercise in state sponsered religion. Neither attitude has a place in school.

It confounds me why creationists cannot accept that evolution, for which there is strong scientific basis, could very possibly be God's tool in the formation of man's earthly form.

My thoughts exactly.

Most Christians aren't upset about the facts of Darwinism being taught. Again, it is the fact that they are often taught as AN ALTERNATIVE TO RELIGION. The idea of Christianity being an alternative to Darwinism, though, is anathema.Such an attitude is just as abusive as any excercise in state sponsered religion. Neither attitude has a place in school.

Well said...I think perhaps I missed your point when you stated it earlier.

Hahahaha...I love it!

You are one entertaining guy, Philomedy!

You are one entertaining guy, Philomedy!

Philomedy aims to please.

Most Christians aren't upset about the facts of Darwinism being taught. "Most" of the extreme right do! But I agree one has nothing to do with the other

Philomedy aims to please.

You've done that, fella, capital!

Although I appreciate the humour of this article I agree with BS for once. It is demeaning to non-evolutionist children to not have a little statement about this only being a theory. IOf course, practically everything in the scientific discipline should also carry this warning, most of it simply being based on Western philosophy with all its assumptions about the world.