Is Labeling Evolution as Just a Theory in Textbooks a Reasonable Approach?

[LowlyPion]

Hell is awesome! all the intense heat and energy... the ideal place to study high energy physics (or plasma physics)! you don't even need an accelerator!

Yes, but you can be sure if physics is your love, Satan will task you with verifying Bose-Einstein condensation.

Miss South Carolina gets to study high energy physics.

 

[Gokul43201]

The other motivation for ignoring the science is the idea that life is a test of faith. Many religions teach that our very reason for existing is so that each of us can make a choice. Evolution theory and science in general can be viewed as just another part of the test. So yes, it is pointless to argue these issues with someone who has based their life on faith and who takes the bible literally. You will only be seen as another part of the test.

How do these people come to the conclusion that everything in life is a test other than the story their preacher tells them? If you ask me, it's a lot easier to believe that the one story the preacher is feeding me is the hoax, rather than every single other thing in all of the universe except for that one story.

Whether life, the universe and everything is a hoax or not is immaterial - what is true is that even if it were, science does a pretty darn good job of explaining how things work within this hoax. If you don't want to believe evolution because of this hoax nonsense, then you ought not to also believe that computers work or that gravity might have something to say about your well-being if you walk out of your sixth floor window.

 

[Hurkyl]

How do these people come to the conclusion that everything in life is a test other than the story their preacher tells them?

Probably the same way that some people come to believe in a massive scientific conspiracy to stop new ideas from coming forth, or others that all dissenting political opinions is nothing more than liberal/neo-con propaganda (depending on which side of the fence he is).

 

[baywax]

If you don't want to believe evolution because of this hoax nonsense, then you ought not to also believe that computers work or that gravity might have something to say about your well-being if you walk out of your sixth floor window.

I've never had gravity speak to me that way!

I think the real split in the human evolutionary tree was when Darwin offered us such an insightful look at the machinations of life. Some agreed and some did not.

The theory, if not the "theorem", of Evolution was the mutation in modern humans that was expressed or "accepted" in some and not in others. Today its not the "knuckle dragging" that separates the creationist from the "evolutionists", its the creationist's stubborn adherence to unfounded literal beliefs in mythological tales.

In this case, who has the "fittest" traits to survive the changing environment in which we find ourselves today?

 

[t1nick]

Hypotheis vs. theory
Posted Jan17-09 at 11:26 PM by t1nick
I was a scientist for a decade and have been a science teacher for two decades. I was wondering if it bothers anyone besides myself the way people (scientists included) misuse the terms, "hypothesis" and "theory" all the time. I'm constantly hearing other scientists and media use the word "theory" when they should be using the word "hypothesis".

I was taught that a "hypothesis" becomes a theory, only after it has been tested tens of hundreds of times by competent science peers, who have acquired identical or near identical results. As such, once this "hypothesis has a body of data that is substantial (thousands to hundreds of thousands of corroborating data points), a statement can be made that is about as near a scientific fact as one can get.

I am constantly hearing people throw out the term "theory" to any idea that has recently occurred to them. This may seem like an insignificant point in which to make. However, as a science instructor whose job is to teach the scientific process and the differing levels of data reliability, this distinction becomes quite important.

The new dialogue involving science in our everyday life, and the bandying about the reliance of science at the highest levels of our government impacts the creation of policy and laws governing us all. The lack of understanding of the significance of this essential difference allows the politicians and the general public to off-handedly disregard or dismiss many important scientific ideas and fields of research. It keeps the debate of "evolution" alive by relegating the entire field to, "its just a theory after all".

Even the so-called cable Science stations (National Geographic, Discovery Channels, TLC,
History, etc), and popular science/math -based serials (Numbers, CSI ad infinitum, etc), misuse these terms. They have tremendous influence on students and make our job as science educators much more difficult. Does anybody besides myseld find this trend troublesome, if not ultimately dangerous for Science in general?

 

[baywax]

Hypotheis vs. theory
Posted Jan17-09 at 11:26 PM by t1nick
I was a scientist for a decade and have been a science teacher for two decades. I was wondering if it bothers anyone besides myself the way people (scientists included) misuse the terms, "hypothesis" and "theory" all the time. I'm constantly hearing other scientists and media use the word "theory" when they should be using the word "hypothesis".

I was taught that a "hypothesis" becomes a theory, only after it has been tested tens of hundreds of times by competent science peers, who have acquired identical or near identical results. As such, once this "hypothesis has a body of data that is substantial (thousands to hundreds of thousands of corroborating data points), a statement can be made that is about as near a scientific fact as one can get.

I am constantly hearing people throw out the term "theory" to any idea that has recently occurred to them. This may seem like an insignificant point in which to make. However, as a science instructor whose job is to teach the scientific process and the differing levels of data reliability, this distinction becomes quite important.

The new dialogue involving science in our everyday life, and the bandying about the reliance of science at the highest levels of our government impacts the creation of policy and laws governing us all. The lack of understanding of the significance of this essential difference allows the politicians and the general public to off-handedly disregard or dismiss many important scientific ideas and fields of research. It keeps the debate of "evolution" alive by relegating the entire field to, "its just a theory after all".

Even the so-called cable Science stations (National Geographic, Discovery Channels, TLC,
History, etc), and popular science/math -based serials (Numbers, CSI ad infinitum, etc), misuse these terms. They have tremendous influence on students and make our job as science educators much more difficult. Does anybody besides myseld find this trend troublesome, if not ultimately dangerous for Science in general?

Yes?

The same thing is happening to a number of words. For instance, no one knows what "love" means anymore because its used in so many opposing contexts.

 

[tribdog]

I was taught that a "hypothesis" becomes a theory, only after it has been tested tens of hundreds of times by competent science peers, who have acquired identical or near identical results.

I've told you a million times not to exaggerate.

 

[phyzmatix]

And even if you never make a mistake, without a common frame of reference, your arguments will not be seen as compelling. They will be taken as nothing but a bunch of double-talk and mumbo jumbo.

The irony of my experience is that, even WITH a common frame of reference, your arguments can be taken as nothing but wordplay. Now, I am the first to admit that words and sentences are very often ambiguous, but a discussion that I've had on a previous occasion comes to mind (to give an example of what I mean):

Me: According to the bible, god is the alpha and the omega, right?
Other: Yes
Me: So you're saying god is everything?
Other: Yes
Me: Also, god is perfect.
Other: Yes

*frame of reference established*

Me: So then even rape and murder are acts of god and therefore perfect acts?
Other: No, that's the devil.
Me: But surely the devil is part of god seeing that god is everything and we've established that there is nothing "outside of god" and that god is perfect, so the devil must be perfect and therefore all the "work of the devil" must also be perfect through extension of these definitions.
Other: It doesn't work like that. We cannot understand these things.

Needless to say, that was the end of that discussion.

How do these people come to the conclusion that everything in life is a test other than the story their preacher tells them? If you ask me, it's a lot easier to believe that the one story the preacher is feeding me is the hoax, rather than every single other thing in all of the universe except for that one story.

You're applying logic and reason again

 

[The Dagda]

Yes?

The same thing is happening to a number of words. For instance, no one knows what "love" means anymore because its used in so many opposing contexts.

No one ever knew what love means, that we leave to poets and other artists.

t1nick: couldn't agree more. String theory anyone?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The irony of my experience is that, even WITH a common frame of reference, your arguments can be taken as nothing but wordplay.

My point was that since they have no scientific training, many people have no confidence in scientific theories.

Now, I am the first to admit that words and sentences are very often ambiguous, but a discussion that I've had on a previous occasion comes to mind (to give an example of what I mean):

Me: According to the bible, god is the alpha and the omega, right?
Other: Yes
Me: So you're saying god is everything?
Other: Yes
Me: Also, god is perfect.
Other: Yes

*frame of reference established*

Me: So then even rape and murder are acts of god and therefore perfect acts?
Other: No, that's the devil.
Me: But surely the devil is part of god seeing that god is everything and we've established that there is nothing "outside of god" and that god is perfect, so the devil must be perfect and therefore all the "work of the devil" must also be perfect through extension of these definitions.
Other: It doesn't work like that. We cannot understand these things.

Needless to say, that was the end of that discussion.



You're applying logic and reason again

These are age-old arguments that theologians and philosphers have debated for centuries. Note that we still have theologians. In part, these sorts of logical paradoxes are the reason that we have different religions. So in order to respond in any definitive sense, I would have to choose a particular religion and give your their answer. But, yes, if we accept the next definition of God - onmiscience - then we can justify the position that the limitations lie with us and our use of language. There is also the view that the significance of events are artificially inflated by our own limited view of the grand purpose of life,the universe and everything. What we see as terrible suffering will eventually be seen as part of a clockwork solution, if you will - that in the end, it will all be good. Recall that suffering is seen as a required aspect of serving God. The essential concept of Christianity is that Christ suffered for us. According to some beliefs, we are expected to suffer for God.

Beyond that, the easiest escape is to ask the question: Does light contain dark? You are taking evil to mean "a thing", when many see it as the "essence" of the absence of God. Note that even Satan is believed by most to have once been the greatest angel of all. He [it?] is not considered to be essentially "evil". What makes him evil is that he has rejected God. It is all about free will - not the corporeal object.

 

[baywax]

The whole dilemma reminds me of when you ask a kid why the sky is blue and they say... "because its blue".

 

[mgb_phys]

The whole dilemma reminds me of when you ask a kid why the sky is blue and they say... "because its blue".

Well now you know - its because God makes it blue

 

[Nereid]

Hell is awesome! all the intense heat and energy... the ideal place to study high energy physics (or plasma physics)! you don't even need an accelerator!

But will you still need equations, numbers, and stuff?

What? No crackpots in hell?!?

 

[baywax]

Well now you know - its because God makes it blue

Oh, and I thought it was Sir Isaac Newton.

 

[turbo]

Oh, and I thought it was Sir Isaac Newton.

Aunt Nettie answers questions like this. Check her archives of May 3, 2001 to find out why grass is green.

http://www.dearauntnettie.com/

 

[phyzmatix]

...then we can justify the position that the limitations lie with us and our use of language. There is also the view that the significance of events are artificially inflated by our own limited view of the grand purpose of life,the universe and everything...

I have no problem with faith/belief in esoteric topics or a god figure. In fact, a part of me truly hopes for some form of afterlife and that our lives are somehow the result of the wishes of a divine being. Perhaps this stems from an inherent fear of ceasing to exist upon death, that I wish for continuation. Be that as it may, my dislike of organised religion can probably be said to stem from what you mentioned above. Whatever is out there is probably beyond the scope of our ability to understand it (logically), nevermind trying to explain it verbally. I get irritated with people who are so ignorant of their own limitations that they insist they know what the truth is. This is why I always try not to attack a belief (I am the first to admit that I do not know the truth of the matter either) but rather inconsistencies in their chosen dogma and in this surety that things must "definitely be just so".

 

[Focus]

Guys I think someone needs to prove evolution from ZF in order for creationists to finally believe in it.

 

[vivesdn]

Evolution is proven.

What remains to be proven is the origin of evolution, the origin of life.
1) Appeared as a simple nucelotide that increased in complexity until gained the ability to self-replicate?
2) or maybe it started on a soup of products that was an incipient metabolism?
3) or was God performing an experiment and created a first cell?
4) or maybe life came once or several times riding on a comet?

Third and fourth points do not solve the real origin of life. If it came from outside, how was created there? And if it was created by god, who or what created god at its turn?

But the point that started the thread is clear enough nowdays.

 

[mgb_phys]

Evolution is proven.

Evolution isn't proven - proven isn't a word in science.
what you could say is that evolution is accepted by all reputable scientists working in the field and no observational evidence has been found that cannot be explained by it.
There are detailed aspects that are disagreed on by different people but the overall theory is remarkably well tested.

What remains to be proven is the origin of evolution, the origin of life.

The details need to be determined - which might not be possible if no evidence remains from that far back. But there are plausible theories of the mechanisms for self catalyzing reactions becoming inherited traits.

Yes - you are right, but using loose language is almost as bad as the 'it's only a theory' lot on the other side.

 

[NeoDevin]

Guys I think someone needs to prove evolution from ZF in order for creationists to finally believe in it.

I doubt even that would help. It might help prevent them from convincing others of their nonsense, but I don't think most of the creationists would accept it, no matter how bullet-proof the proof is.

 

[mgb_phys]

All 'evidence' for evolution was planted by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in an effort to test Pastafarians' faith. When scientific measurements, such as radiocarbon dating, are made, the Flying Spaghetti Monster "is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage."

You can't post messages which are only a quote

 

[The Dagda]

You can't post messages which are only a quote

Heretic. Who can question the words of the divine?

 

[z0rn dawg]

Couldn't the Bible be more of an allegory than a real story? The story of God creating the universe in 6 days disagrees with common belief...DUH! However, the order of the creation of life agrees with modern belief. He created sea creatures, then land animals, then humans. Works with modern theory I think.

 

[mgb_phys]

Couldn't the Bible be more of an allegory than a real story?

Yes - except when it talking about gays, then it must be taken literally word for word (assuming a chosen translation)

The story of God creating the universe in 6 days disagrees with common belief...DUH!

God (blessed be his noodly appendage) created the world in 4 days - thus also inventing the long weekend.

However, the order of the creation of life agrees with modern belief. He created sea creatures, then land animals, then humans. Works with modern theory I think.

God (the one with the white beard, not the noodly appendages) got a few things wrong.

Day One
Watery, formless planet Earth suspended in the darkness and void of space. No stars, no sun, no moon, no planets (except for Earth) = wrong
Light = wrong light was first
Day and night, first indication that the planet is rotating = Wrong the nebula rotated before forming planets.

Day Two
Formation of Earth's atmosphere, separating the water into two parts

Day Three
Dry land and oceans = after seperating the water?
System to water the entire land = rain came after oceans, so what fileld oceans
Vegetation, seed-bearing plants, trees that bear fruit. = flowering plants most postdate dinosaurs

Day Four
Sun = rather older than earth
Moon = younger than Earth but older than daffodils
Stars and other planets = nope

Day Five
Water creatures of all kinds. = Water creatures were pretty much first
Birds = From dinosaurs, and should be before most flowering plants

Day Six
Land animals = after birds? So where did dinosaurs come from
Man = Yeah finally
Woman = there's going to be trouble over that one

 

[WhoWee]

This discussion only encourages me to write that book I keep threatening..."I Believe, Yet Darwin Was Right".

Basically, God is an alien (not FROM this planet) and man (original aliens) came here from somewhere else (don't know where - far, far away). At some point breeding with monkeys happened (maybe became necessary) and the rest is in our textbooks...starting to sound like a best seller?

This argument allows EVERYONE to be a little bit right and nobody is 100% wrong...again, starting to sound good?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How do these people come to the conclusion that everything in life is a test other than the story their preacher tells them? If you ask me, it's a lot easier to believe that the one story the preacher is feeding me is the hoax, rather than every single other thing in all of the universe except for that one story.

It is an essential aspect of biblical teaching. Recall that Peter was tested three times before the cock crowed. The apostles were tested. Jesus was tested and tempted by Satan. By some beliefs, the whole point of our existence is that we are being tested; that we are here to make a choice. And some would argue that the most important words spoken by Jesus were "let not my will, but your will be done" - surrendering to the divine plan.

Whether life, the universe and everything is a hoax or not is immaterial - what is true is that even if it were, science does a pretty darn good job of explaining how things work within this hoax. If you don't want to believe evolution because of this hoax nonsense, then you ought not to also believe that computers work or that gravity might have something to say about your well-being if you walk out of your sixth floor window.

If you are worried about your immortal soul and you believe that your salvation is dependent on accepting the "word of God" literally, then the science is what's irrelevent. Understanding science has no bearing on your salvation.

How do I know that the bible is the word of God? Easy; God made sure that happened. It doesn't matter who actually wrote the Bible.

I'm not defending these beliefs but I understand them. And from a philosophical point of view there is logic to their madness. Again, once you accept the notions of omniscience and omnipotence - the notion of an all-powerful God - the rest is moot. Almost any belief can be rationalized.

 

[baywax]

This discussion only encourages me to write that book I keep threatening..."I Believe, Yet Darwin Was Right".

Basically, God is an alien (not FROM this planet) and man (original aliens) came here from somewhere else (don't know where - far, far away). At some point breeding with monkeys happened (maybe became necessary) and the rest is in our textbooks...starting to sound like a best seller?

This argument allows EVERYONE to be a little bit right and nobody is 100% wrong...again, starting to sound good?

The past has been recorded in such great detail that we will eventually know everything about where we came from, when and how etc... at some point... in the future. We simply have to discover how to best use the evidence to tell the story.

Speculation is not going to help much... unless it's used as motivation to do more research into our origins. So far we have found common links with an ancestor from around 7 million years ago in Kenya.

Beyond this sort of work, physics can help a lot in our search to understand our constitutional make up.

Beyond physics there is only poetry and prose and fluffy pictures of a big guy watching over every grain of sand and every child, woman and man. I think this is a misleading picture though... it is spawned by the fact that everything in nature is connected by overlapping event horizons. This may or may not be better explained in Chaos Theory, I'd have to read up on it.

 

[z0rn dawg]

God (the one with the white beard, not the noodly appendages) got a few things wrong.

Day One
Watery, formless planet Earth suspended in the darkness and void of space. No stars, no sun, no moon, no planets (except for Earth) = wrong
Light = wrong light was first
Day and night, first indication that the planet is rotating = Wrong the nebula rotated before forming planets.

Day Two
Formation of Earth's atmosphere, separating the water into two parts

Day Three
Dry land and oceans = after seperating the water?
System to water the entire land = rain came after oceans, so what fileld oceans
Vegetation, seed-bearing plants, trees that bear fruit. = flowering plants most postdate dinosaurs

Day Four
Sun = rather older than earth
Moon = younger than Earth but older than daffodils
Stars and other planets = nope

Day Five
Water creatures of all kinds. = Water creatures were pretty much first
Birds = From dinosaurs, and should be before most flowering plants

Day Six
Land animals = after birds? So where did dinosaurs come from
Man = Yeah finally
Woman = there's going to be trouble over that one

The Bible was written by humans, mortals, men, NOT by God. Humans are not infallable and made a mistake when writing it down. I just read the beginning of Genesis and realize that some things are off, but that's due to men not God.

 

[Gokul43201]

The Bible was written by humans, mortals, men, NOT by God. Humans are not infallable and made a mistake when writing it down. I just read the beginning of Genesis and realize that some things are off, but that's due to men not God.

So how many more mistakes did these men make?

Did they only get 2% of the story wrong, or did they get only 2% right?

 

[WhoWee]

So how many more mistakes did these men make?

Did they only get 2% of the story wrong, or did they only get 2% right?

It's a good thing Biden wasn't involved (30% margin of error).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So how many more mistakes did these men make?

Did they only get 2% of the story wrong, or did they get only 2% right?

According to which religion?

 

[WhoWee]

The past has been recorded in such great detail that we will eventually know everything about where we came from, when and how etc... at some point... in the future. We simply have to discover how to best use the evidence to tell the story.

Speculation is not going to help much... unless it's used as motivation to do more research into our origins. So far we have found common links with an ancestor from around 7 million years ago in Kenya.

Beyond this sort of work, physics can help a lot in our search to understand our constitutional make up.

Beyond physics there is only poetry and prose and fluffy pictures of a big guy watching over every grain of sand and every child, woman and man. I think this is a misleading picture though... it is spawned by the fact that everything in nature is connected by overlapping event horizons. This may or may not be better explained in Chaos Theory, I'd have to read up on it.

So, you're willing to run with my theory until someone has a better idea to help us all get along? (I'm trying to lighten the discussion...not suggest an alternative theory)

 

[TVP45]

Yes - except when it talking about gays, then it must be taken literally word for word (assuming a chosen translation)


God (blessed be his noodly appendage) created the world in 4 days - thus also inventing the long weekend.


God (the one with the white beard, not the noodly appendages) got a few things wrong.

Day One
Watery, formless planet Earth suspended in the darkness and void of space. No stars, no sun, no moon, no planets (except for Earth) = wrong
Light = wrong light was first
Day and night, first indication that the planet is rotating = Wrong the nebula rotated before forming planets.

Day Two
Formation of Earth's atmosphere, separating the water into two parts

Day Three
Dry land and oceans = after seperating the water?
System to water the entire land = rain came after oceans, so what fileld oceans
Vegetation, seed-bearing plants, trees that bear fruit. = flowering plants most postdate dinosaurs

Day Four
Sun = rather older than earth
Moon = younger than Earth but older than daffodils
Stars and other planets = nope

Day Five
Water creatures of all kinds. = Water creatures were pretty much first
Birds = From dinosaurs, and should be before most flowering plants

Day Six
Land animals = after birds? So where did dinosaurs come from
Man = Yeah finally
Woman = there's going to be trouble over that one

mgb, Don't be starting that literal stuff unless you're willing to help me stone to death everybody wearing a cotton/polyester shirt.

 

[Emanresu56]

The Bible was written by humans, mortals, men, NOT by God. Humans are not infallable and made a mistake when writing it down. I just read the beginning of Genesis and realize that some things are off, but that's due to men not God.

Like how god separated light from darkness, eh? What's that supposed to mean?

 

[WhoWee]

Like how god separated light from darkness, eh? What's that supposed to mean?

It's probably symbolic...maybe cognitive thought?

 

[Gokul43201]

According to which religion?

According to z0rn dawg.

 

[Gokul43201]

It's probably symbolic...maybe cognitive thought?

Symbolic? Does this sound symbolic too?

Genesis 1:5 "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night."

What are Day and Night supposed to symbolize then?

 

[russ_watters]

So how many more mistakes did these men make?

Did they only get 2% of the story wrong, or did they get only 2% right?

Perhaps more to the point, how does god even explain such things as science to people who have no concept whatsoever of what it is/how it works? How do you explain cosmology to someone 6000 years ago who doesn't know where the sun goes at night?!

 

[Gokul43201]

An omnipotent god?

 

[russ_watters]

An omnipotent god?

Well supposedly, god made a choice to let people be people, which would seem to preclude suddenly imbuing them with such knowledge...though I guess since that doesn't happen until the next book, he could have made Genesis an Encyclopedia Galactica. Hmm, maybe that explains what happened to the library of Alexandria...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

According to z0rn dawg.

That would be an appeal to his specific beliefs. For him to engage in that discussion would be a violation of the guildelines. Also, given that theologions have debated these questions for centuries, it's hardly fair to base a discussion on one person's opinion. Much like beliefs about science, the average person's religious beliefs are based on the teachings of the high priests [elders, leaders, etc], which are usually based on centuries worth of debate that most people know very little about.

 

[rcgldr]

The fact that "all living things have common factors" does not translate into "all living things have a common ancestor".

Is there any way to know if the creation of life was single event, instead of many events at different times in different environments?

Why is there an apparent trend to transition from lower life forms to higher life forms instead of speciation of lower life forms without ever producing a higher life form?

How do senses, such as touch, sight, and hearing evolve? If somehow a life form with light sensing nerves but no brain function to recoginize light or vice versa is created, how does that life form have any advantage over any other life form with no sight at all? Wouldn't the extra but useless partial sensory functions be an overhead and detriment to such a life form?

Assuming that evolution and macro-speciation exists, is it due to a flaw (random) or feature (design or inherent constraint) of liviing things?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well supposedly, god made a choice to let people be people, which would seem to preclude suddenly imbuing them with such knowledge...

Part of the divine plan that we aren't supposed to understand.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The fact that "all living things have common factors" does not translate into "all living things have a common ancestor".

Is there any way to know if the creation of life was single event, instead of many events at different times in different environments?

Why is there an apparent trend to transition from lower life forms to higher life forms instead of speciation of lower life forms without ever producing a higher life form?

How do senses, such as touch, sight, and hearing evolve? If somehow a life form with light sensing nerves but no brain function to recoginize light or vice versa is created, how does that life form have any advantage over any other life form with no sight at all? Wouldn't the extra but useless partial sensory functions be an overhead and detriment to such a life form?

Assuming that evolution and macro-speciation exists, is it due to a flaw (random) or feature (design or inherent constraint) of liviing things?

According to the high priests and my lowly understanding of "the word", all life on Earth can be traced back to a common ancestor through DNA. Whether we have direct evidence for this or assume it to be true based on compelling evidence, I'm not sure. I would have to go to science church and ask.

 

[z0rn dawg]

Perhaps more to the point, how does god even explain such things as science to people who have no concept whatsoever of what it is/how it works? How do you explain cosmology to someone 6000 years ago who doesn't know where the sun goes at night?!

Exactly. How can you give a detailed explanation of the universe to someone 5000 years ago...or even 500 years ago? It wouldn't happen.

That would be an appeal to his specific beliefs. For him to engage in that discussion would be a violation of the guildelines. Also, given that theologions have debated these questions for centuries, it's hardly fair to base a discussion on one person's opinion. Much like beliefs about science, the average person's religious beliefs are based on the teachings of the high priests [elders, leaders, etc], which are usually based on centuries worth of debate that most people know very little about.

The Bible acting as an allegory is one interpretation. If you look at it that way, it could explain evolution (or at least the order). Sea creatures, land animals, then humans. I don't think that anyone can compare the Bible to modern science as it was written thousands of years ago. Plus the Bible is extemely vague and can basically mean whatever you want it to mean.

As for evolution, I wouldn't say that it's proven, so it is only a theory right? A theory becomes fact when it's 100% proven. The fact is that evolution is not 100% proven. No one knows where man came from. (Last time I checked, some company in the UK would pay you $250,000 if you found out). There are other oddities in nature that don't make sense either. For it to be banned in a school is a bit extreme though.

 

[vivesdn]

The fact that "all living things have common factors" does not translate into "all living things have a common ancestor".

Is there any way to know if the creation of life was single event, instead of many events at different times in different environments?

True, but at the same time it is unlikely that life appeared in many events and at the end all living beings share the same architecture.

Why is there an apparent trend to transition from lower life forms to higher life forms instead of speciation of lower life forms without ever producing a higher life form?

Both trends are observed.

How do senses, such as touch, sight, and hearing evolve? If somehow a life form with light sensing nerves but no brain function to recoginize light or vice versa is created, how does that life form have any advantage over any other life form with no sight at all? Wouldn't the extra but useless partial sensory functions be an overhead and detriment to such a life form?

There are eye structures that are already present on certain bacteria.
DNA is much longer than needed for just coding the information. There are extensive areas apparently useless, but useless as they are it is possible to insert fragments of DNA, sometimes carried by viruses, sometimes accidentally duplicated, etc. It is no just simple mutations that drive evolution.

Assuming that evolution and macro-speciation exists, is it due to a flaw (random) or feature (design or inherent constraint) of liviing things?

Evolution and speciation is an inherent feature of life. No matter if it appeared as a replicating microenvironment, as a replicating molecule or as a complete cell as designed on a lab (God's lab?), its key point is the possibility to multiply in nearly exact copies. And nearly exact is important and useful as a living being that was able to multiply in exact copies would have disappeared long time ago as it is not able to adapt (as a species) to environment changes.

 

[WhoWee]

Symbolic? Does this sound symbolic too?

Genesis 1:5 "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night."

What are Day and Night supposed to symbolize then?

If aliens landed at the White House and explained they traveled a great distance and have been watching our planet and our development for a long time and that their civilization was millions of years old. Then they further described their belief in God based on BELIEF ONLY...no proof...would you question their belief?

This is a serious question.

 

[TVP45]

If aliens landed at the White House and explained they traveled a great distance and have been watching our planet and our development for a long time and that their civilization was millions of years old. Then they further described their belief in God based on BELIEF ONLY...no proof...would you question their belief?

This is a serious question.

I would assume that Obama had lost his race for a second term.

 

[WhoWee]

I would assume that Obama had lost his race for a second term.

It's probably the only way Obama would lose power...but notwithstanding, would YOU question the BELIEFS of an alien race millions of years old and technologically advanced?

Would they have an inherent greater level of creditability or would they be asked for proof of their BELIEFS?

 

[Gokul43201]

As for evolution, I wouldn't say that it's proven, so it is only a theory right? A theory becomes fact when it's 100% proven.

This is exactly the kind of ignorance about what a theory is that the title of this thread is parodying.

So, to answer your question: no, wrong.