Darwin or not?

  • Thread starter EL
  • Start date
  • #26
EL
Science Advisor
547
0
Smurf said:
:biggrin: I don't usually care where a team is from. I mean, here I am having been a fan of the wings since I was 10. But yeah, I refuse to have anything to do with Alberta.
So, you're a fan of an american team?! That's really "unpatriotic" (and I think I like it :smile: ).

Yeah, whatever, neither Hakan Loob or Theo Fleury play for the Flames anymore, so I'll dump them.
Go Flyers!
 
  • #27
356
3
Well the only reason I really liked the wings was because of Dominik Hasek
 
  • #28
471
241
This extract seems relevant to the original question.
The western world outside the United States
Because most vocal creationists are from the United States, it is generally assumed that creationist views are not as common elsewhere. Statistics are not clear on the issue.
According to a PBS documentary on evolution, Australian Young Earth Creationists claimed that “five percent of the Australian population now believe that Earth is thousands, rather than billions, of years old.” The documentary further states that “Australia is a particular stronghold of the creationist movement.” Taking these claims at face value, “young-earth” creationism is very much a minority position in Western countries other than the USA.
In Europe, creationism is a less well defined phenomenon, and regular polls are not available; however, the option of teaching creationism in school has never been seriously considered in any Western European country. In Roman Catholic-majority countries, papal acceptance of evolution as worthy of study has essentially ended debate on the matter for many people. Nevertheless, creationist groups such as the German Studiengemeinschaft Wort und Wissen[1] (http://www.wort-und-wissen.de/) are actively lobbying there as well. In the United Kingdom the Emmanuel Schools Foundation (previously the Vardy Foundation), which owns two colleges in the north of England and plans to open several more, teaches that creationism and evolution are equally valid “faith positions.” In Italy, the prime minister Silvio Berlusconi wanted to retire evolution from schools in the middle level; after one week of massive protests, he reversed his opinion. [2] (http://www2.onnachrichten.t-online.de/dyn/c/19/01/33/1901336.html [Broken])
Of particular note for Eastern Europe, Serbia suspended the teaching of evolution for one week in 2004, under education minister Ljiljana Colic, only allowing schools to reintroduce evolution into the curriculum if they also taught creationism. [3] (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai....xml&sSheet=/news/2004/09/09/ixworld.html) "After a deluge of protest from scientists, teachers and opposition parties," says the BBC report, Ms. Colic's deputy made the statement, "I have come here to confirm Charles Darwin is still alive," and announced that the decision was reversed. [4] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3642460.stm) Ms. Colic resigned after the government said that she had caused "problems that had started to reflect on the work of the entire government". [5] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3663196.stm)
Source: http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Creationism [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29
356
3
Yeah well we already knew Australia is becoming the 50th (51st?) state.
 
  • #30
62
0
Phobos said:
believe/accept - It's semantics that confuses everyone, but Moonbear is right that a scientific theory is presented to be accepted or rejected and not "believed in" as a matter of faith or an instinct/gut-feeling.
Sure, WhiteWolf has a point that some people can "believe" in evolution in that they accept it as a matter of worldview without ever opening page 1 of a biology textbook. But that is not the intent of the theory. The theory is built up from various lines of verifiable evidences with the only "belief" being the scientific philosophy (axioms) that reality exists, is understandable, and that it follows natural laws.
So if you've studied it, you should accept/reject it. If you believe/don't believe in it, you should study it. In other words...everyone should study it! Yay science education! :)
Yes, that is what I think as well. However, again, some people consider what is written in the Bible to be solid fact. I think that is rediculous, but they consider everything in biology textbooks to be 'theory'. So sometimes you can 'believe' in it, without it being a religion. Faith is really nothing more then believing and hoping something is true. If you go with the biology textbook and you were formerly a devote Christian, then that usually means you are dumping the Bible. (Only in the sense that some parts conflict with each other.) So not considering evolutionism is a religion, you take faith in it being true because you left something that you once considered fact to accept something that conflicts with the facts that you formerly believed in. Also, after you make that decsision, you have faith in it being true, because you were taught that you would go to hell for 'believing' in it. So in some cases it goes into a faith based thing even if the particular person knows all the facts about it and accepted it. My point was that I dont htink that anyone should generalize and say that faith in evolutionism is unscientific. Due to outside sources in society, this may have to be the case.
 

Related Threads on Darwin or not?

  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
665
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
1K
Top