drankin said:Evolution has little to do with anything substantial impacting the scientific community.
chemisttree said:I've never had to use evolution or creationism in any scientific endeavor. We never talked about it in Physics, Chemistry, Engineering or Math. So how is it that this minor point is given so much importance?
cyrusabdollahi said:Who is against stem cell research, atheists?
mic check, microphone check, 1-2, 1-2. eeeeeeruuuuuuuu.
En France, l'Université interdisciplinaire de Paris (UIP), une association qui regroupe 1 250 adhérents[2], existe depuis 1995 et organise des conférences soupçonnées de défendre le créationnisme. Un certain nombre de scientifiques, tels que Jean Chaline, Rémy Chauvin ou Anne Dambricourt Malassé, défendent la théorie de la logique interne, proche du créationnisme.
cyrusabdollahi said:Are you serious? How about how animals have evolved over millions of years and adapted to their environments. Have you ever been to a natural science museum to see fossils slowly change over time?
I would call that pretty significant.
cyrusabdollahi said:Hello, stem cell reserach? Is this thing on -tap -tap -tap
Reshma said:Evolution is an ongoing process process in every stream of science I can think of. Even in the case of computers and softwares. Starting from Charles Babbage's analytical machine to the pocket-computers of today's time, evolution is a continuous process even in the field of technology.
chemisttree said:No, I've never seen a fossil change over time... It isn't a question of significance, it's a question of utility. How more USEFUL is it to know that species evolve to fill niche environments vs. God putting them there? All of the study of evolution seems more important to evolutionists than to anyone else as the study of biblical creationism is most important to biblical scholars.
vanesch said:However, there are many more people who like to adhere to a much softer form of creationism, which is just a philosophical stance: a deity "created" the laws of nature, and evolution is just a part of it. I know some catholic French people who say that they are "creationist" in this sense, but are entirely accepting a billions-year old Earth and humans-evolved-from-apes and all that, in as much as there is scientific support for that. Their stance is simply that the laws of nature where made such (by their deity) that the way evolution happened, was a (planified) result of them. This is of course an unfalsifiable position, but not in contradiction to science.
siddharth said:The whole field of evolutionary biology? Genetic algorithms? Explaining drug resistant bacteria, domestication of animals? drug discoveries?
In fact, you should read this
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html
Not quite.drankin said:It's all religion vs anti-religion,
chemisttree said:I've never had to use evolution or creationism in any scientific endeavor. We never talked about it in Physics, Chemistry, Engineering or Math. So how is it that this minor point is given so much importance?
Can anyone name a single unique useful scientific discovery that was based on evolution or creationism?
About one-third of the American adult population believes the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally word for word.
There is also a strong relationship between education and belief in a literal Bible, with such belief becoming much less prevalent among those who have college educations.
chemisttree said:Genetic algorithms? Leave out the word 'genetic' and nothing is lost. Perhaps you meant to say 'directed evolution'. Drug resistant bacteria can be completely understood without resort to evolution. Humans have been domesticating animals for thousands of years... you prove my point exactly!
I don't know how you get "drug discoveries" from knowledge of evolution. Do you?
Astronuc said:Not quite.
It is about the degree to which religion is involved in public education.
Church attendance is not mandatory, but attendance in school is. Religious instruction belongs in one's home and religious institution, not in the public classroom. Discussion of religion is an entirely different matter, and I don't see why a course in comparative religion or study of religion should be a problem, except where someone invokes the idea that one's religion or set of beliefs is the only 'right' or 'correct' one, and all others therefore are not.
The debate on evolution vs creationism is largely a philosophical conflict, but also one of public policy, which does affect the effectiveness of the educational system.
chemisttree said:I agree with most of this but disagree with some points (in a minor way). I think that religious belief has no place in a science classroom, however; it offers a spectacular opportunity to teach the scientific method and illustrate how the scientific method cannot be applied to prove or disprove an article of faith. A very useful lesson these days...
And this is what is scary, when religious groups want to require an entire nation to be forced to believe as they do and will go to just about any length to accomplish it.Astronuc said:Not quite.
It is about the degree to which religion is involved in public education.
Church attendance is not mandatory, but attendance in school is. Religious instruction belongs in one's home and religious institution, not in the public classroom. Discussion of religion is an entirely different matter, and I don't see why a course in comparative religion or study of religion should be a problem, except where someone invokes the idea that one's religion or set of beliefs is the only 'right' or 'correct' one, and all others therefore are not.
The debate on evolution vs creationism is largely a philosophical conflict, but also one of public policy, which does affect the effectiveness of the educational system.
Yes, it is a problem in the US.out of whack said:Those who make the decision to accept such unsubstantiated hypotheses on faith willingly abdicate their right to use reason and their ability to verify the validity of these beliefs against what is actually verifiable. Making this conscious decision is the saddest thing. Seeing the proportion of Americans who favor superstition over science is alarming.
