Creationism in schools?

[rusra02]

Then do me a favor and explain how it is relevant seeing as ToE does not concern itself with the origin of life.

I suggest you read my previous posts where this issue is addressed.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I suggest you read my previous posts where this issue is addressed.

Except that it isn't.
All you keep saying is that it should matter, that it matters to at least some people, and that the origin of life is important. All of which is correct, but also irrelevant to the point that was made.
You also claim that it is a necessary foundation, although that is not correct.

As I've shown, the first forms of life could have come about in any number of ways, and neither would have any effect on whether ToE is correct or not.

Now will you please address the above point and explain why it matters for the correctness of ToE whether the first forms of life was created by a good, came from replicating molecules or was seeded by aliens?

 

[Valjean]

An automotive engineer doesn't need to understand metallurgic chemistry, mining, or the stellar genesis of metals to design an engine.
Yes, everything is connected. Chemistry, and biology can be combined into biochemistry, but this doesn't invalidate either chemistry or biology -- nor any of their subdivisions.

DNA? What's so special about DNA? It's a four base polymer. It's components can be formed by natural processes. They can combine by natural processes. No magic needed.

What's with this human need to see agency in everything?

 

[Draka]

Do you need to know the exact process that is used to make paper in order to write a book or draw a picture? Must you know how exactly a crayon is made in order to color in a coloring book? The knowledge and skill the artist has of how to paint a glorious painting is not diminished by the fact that he knows not exactly how his canvas was made.

Evolution is. It is not diminished by not knowing the exact information of HOW life began. One has nothing to do with the other. Life is, so it evolves. We know that much. As the artist knows how to paint without knowing the particulars of how his canvas is created, we know that life evolves without knowing the particulars of how life came to be. To insist on connecting the two is akin on insisting that the artist does not know how to paint without knowing exactly how to create his own canvas from scratch. It is not necessary for him to know in order for him to paint. One has nothing to do with the other. The sooner that that is realized, then the sooner education on the subject of evolution can truly proceed.

 

[kylixguru]

Do you need to know the exact process that is used to make paper in order to write a book or draw a picture? Must you know how exactly a crayon is made in order to color in a coloring book? The knowledge and skill the artist has of how to paint a glorious painting is not diminished by the fact that he knows not exactly how his canvas was made.

Evolution is. It is not diminished by not knowing the exact information of HOW life began. One has nothing to do with the other. Life is, so it evolves. We know that much. As the artist knows how to paint without knowing the particulars of how his canvas is created, we know that life evolves without knowing the particulars of how life came to be. To insist on connecting the two is akin on insisting that the artist does not know how to paint without knowing exactly how to create his own canvas from scratch. It is not necessary for him to know in order for him to paint. One has nothing to do with the other. The sooner that that is realized, then the sooner education on the subject of evolution can truly proceed.

And, the sooner those who use the TOE to discount all views of Creationism stop doing so, the sooner eduction on the subject of evolution can more fully proceed.

 

[Draka]

And, the sooner those who use the TOE to discount all views of Creationism stop doing so, the sooner eduction on the subject of evolution can more fully proceed.

Don't usually see that though. Theistic evolution is a view many people hold and accept. That evolution is the process that Deity has used to bring about life as we know it. It is really only the literal biblical interpretation of Creation that really falls counter to evolution and it is they that adhere to it that tend to be the ones pitching the fit. Since evolution does not touch upon the beginning of life then it does not really say that life could not have been plopped here by an alien or a god or whatever. That argument can be taken up against abiogenesis. The problem is, that so many people that do adhere to literal Creation do not want to separate evolution from abiogenesis and think they are the same thing when they aren't. They rant and rail against evolution with the argument about the "beginning" when evolution doesn't even have anything to do with it. They aren't even arguing against the right thing. They never do. Evolution says, here is life...here is how it evolves. It doesn't even begin to say HOW life came about. That is not needed. Just as we do not need to know HOW paper is created in order to say, here is a book...here is how you read it.

 

[rusra02]

An automotive engineer doesn't need to understand metallurgic chemistry, mining or the stellar genesis of metals to design an engine.
Yes, everything is connected. Chemistry, and biology can be combined into biochemistry, but this doesn't invalidate either chemistry or biology -- nor any of their subdivisions.

DNA? What's so special about DNA? It's a four base polymer. It's components can be formed by natural processes. They can combine by natural processes. No magic needed.

What's with this human need to see agency in everything?

Ah, yes. What's so special about DNA? What indeed? Just the ability to create YOU, down to the color of your eyes and hair, your height, your heart, your lungs, your entire body down in writing. How much information is captured in DNA?
If transcribed onto paper, the book would fill 200 volumes the size of a 1,000 page telephone book.

Molecular biologist Michael Denton said of DNA: “It is so efficient that all the information . . . necessary to specify the design of all the species of organisms which have ever existed on the planet . . . could be held in a teaspoon and there would still be room left for all the information in every book ever written." (quote from W94 10/1)​

DNA is as Psalm 139:16 states: "Your eyes [God] say even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing, as regards the days when they were formed and there was not yet one among them."
Based on the above, I find DNA strong evidence for a grand Designer and master engineer. And that just scratches the surface of DNA's wonders.

​

​

​

 

[Wirey]

Ah, yes. What's so special about DNA? What indeed? Just the ability to create YOU, down to the color of your eyes and hair, your height, your heart, your lungs, your entire body down in writing. How much information is captured in DNA?
If transcribed onto paper, the book would fill 200 volumes the size of a 1,000 page telephone book.

Molecular biologist Michael Denton said of DNA: “It is so efficient that all the information . . . necessary to specify the design of all the species of organisms which have ever existed on the planet . . . could be held in a teaspoon and there would still be room left for all the information in every book ever written." (quote from W94 10/1)​

DNA is as Psalm 139:16 states: "Your eyes [God] say even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing, as regards the days when they were formed and there was not yet one among them."
Based on the above, I find DNA strong evidence for a grand Designer and master engineer. And that just scratches the surface of DNA's wonders.

Do you vote in elections?

 

[kylixguru]

Don't usually see that though. Theistic evolution is a view many people hold and accept. That evolution is the process that Deity has used to bring about life as we know it. It is really only the literal biblical interpretation of Creation that really falls counter to evolution and it is they that adhere to it that tend to be the ones pitching the fit. Since evolution does not touch upon the beginning of life then it does not really say that life could not have been plopped here by an alien or a god or whatever. That argument can be taken up against abiogenesis. The problem is, that so many people that do adhere to literal Creation do not want to separate evolution from abiogenesis and think they are the same thing when they aren't. They rant and rail against evolution with the argument about the "beginning" when evolution doesn't even have anything to do with it. They aren't even arguing against the right thing. They never do. Evolution says, here is life...here is how it evolves. It doesn't even begin to say HOW life came about. That is not needed. Just as we do not need to know HOW paper is created in order to say, here is a book...here is how you read it.

Yes, I agree. Your points are very clearly stated.

What I find is unfortunate is that because there are yet very large numbers of Christians and others who try to impose a false interpretation of the Bible that is at odds with scientific discovery they bring the Bible into a discredited status in the eyes of scientists.

The Bible becomes viewed as irrelevant and outmoded and is dismissed as myth and folklore. It only remains of value as a literary work of prose, inspiration and moral guidance.

But, as I have come to understand it, there is incredible relevance to what it says when you take it as addressing the geneopolitical strata of the world instead of trying to apply it to the cosmological realm. If the Bible were understood as I have come to decipher it, you can see that everything happening in the geopolitical realm today as having been entirely predictable. You can also look back over the course of history and see how it has laid out a very clear blueprint and followed it with precision.

Those who are sincerely trying to address our world's woeful condition of being on the brink of massive calamitous destruction due to war over religiously motivated issues are not going to help matters by trying to outright dismiss the relevance of the Bible.

What is desperately needed is a breakthrough in understanding the Bible in such a way that all of the contentions surrounding religion can be put to rest. As I see it, religion itself just becomes a cauldron where people inject all kinds of things that are merely projections of their own fears and fantasies. Addressing things in this realm is where we truly need effective and productive tools to help alleviate our tensions towards one another. Fresh innovation is desperately needed here for the good of humanity much more so than we need a better handle on what is happening via evolution. It's not like we are going to cease to evolve if we don't understand evolution.

 

[rusra02]

Do you need to know the exact process that is used to make paper in order to write a book or draw a picture? Must you know how exactly a crayon is made in order to color in a coloring book? The knowledge and skill the artist has of how to paint a glorious painting is not diminished by the fact that he knows not exactly how his canvas was made.

Evolution is. It is not diminished by not knowing the exact information of HOW life began. One has nothing to do with the other. Life is, so it evolves. We know that much. As the artist knows how to paint without knowing the particulars of how his canvas is created, we know that life evolves without knowing the particulars of how life came to be. To insist on connecting the two is akin on insisting that the artist does not know how to paint without knowing exactly how to create his own canvas from scratch. It is not necessary for him to know in order for him to paint. One has nothing to do with the other. The sooner that that is realized, then the sooner education on the subject of evolution can truly proceed.

Exactly how his canvas was made may not be necessary, but an artist knows his canvas has a maker, as do his paints and brushes. A person viewing a beautiful painting does not conclude that the painting resulted from chance accumulations of pigment upon a canvas. Rather, they rightly conclude the painter, perhaps unknown to them, is both intelligent and artistically brilliant. I believe honest people draw the same conclusions when they see the works of the Creator. It is, I think, as Psalm 104:24 declares: "How many your works are, O Jehovah! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions."

​

​

 

[rusra02]

Do you vote in elections?

What does that question have to do with DNA? Why are you asking?

 

[mycorrhiza]

Exactly how his canvas was made may not be necessary, but an artist knows his canvas has a maker, as do his paints and brushes. A person viewing a beautiful painting does not conclude that the painting resulted from chance accumulations of pigment upon a canvas. Rather, they rightly conclude the painter, perhaps unknown to them, is both intelligent and artistically brilliant. I believe honest people draw the same conclusions when they see the works of the Creator. It is, I think, as Psalm 104:24 declares: "How many your works are, O Jehovah! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions."

The difference is that paintings don't evolve over a period of 3.5 billion years .

So do you agree now that it doesn't matter how the first life forms appeared for evolution to be true? Since you agree that the painter doesn't need to know how the canvas got made? If not, then explain why evolution doesn't work if the first life-form was created!

If everything has a maker, what makes you conclude that it is specifically your God and not any other religion's God(s)?

 

[Draka]

Exactly how his canvas was made may not be necessary, but an artist knows his canvas has a maker, as do his paints and brushes.

So, you admit that how the canvas is made is not necessary to knowing how to paint or studying painting? Then, it should logically fall, that knowing how life began is not necessary to study the process of how it evolves, right? Just like one doesn't need to know how the book was formed in order to learn how to read it?

A person viewing a beautiful painting does not conclude that the painting resulted from chance accumulations of pigment upon a canvas. Rather, they rightly conclude the painter, perhaps unknown to them, is both intelligent and artistically brilliant. I believe honest people draw the same conclusions when they see the works of the Creator. It is, I think, as Psalm 104:24 declares: "How many your works are, O Jehovah! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions."

Have you never seen a painting done by throwing paint randomly? That it can still create beauty in its randomness?

 

[darkendless]

And, the sooner those who use the TOE to discount all views of Creationism stop doing so, the sooner eduction on the subject of evolution can more fully proceed.

Creationism has no relevance outside history. Creationism is a case of "this is how it happened" and provides no intellectual challange.

The TOE has trillions of processes and methods which are essential to many areas of development.

 

[otokage007]

Ah, yes. What's so special about DNA? What indeed? Just the ability to create YOU, down to the color of your eyes and hair, your height, your heart, your lungs, your entire body down in writing. How much information is captured in DNA?
If transcribed onto paper, the book would fill 200 volumes the size of a 1,000 page telephone book.

Molecular biologist Michael Denton said of DNA: “It is so efficient that all the information . . . necessary to specify the design of all the species of organisms which have ever existed on the planet . . . could be held in a teaspoon and there would still be room left for all the information in every book ever written." (quote from W94 10/1)​

DNA is as Psalm 139:16 states: "Your eyes [God] say even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing, as regards the days when they were formed and there was not yet one among them."
Based on the above, I find DNA strong evidence for a grand Designer and master engineer. And that just scratches the surface of DNA's wonders.

​

​

​

Complexity of structure =/= complexity of function.

Exactly how his canvas was made may not be necessary, but an artist knows his canvas has a maker, as do his paints and brushes. A person viewing a beautiful painting does not conclude that the painting resulted from chance accumulations of pigment upon a canvas. Rather, they rightly conclude the painter, perhaps unknown to them, is both intelligent and artistically brilliant. I believe honest people draw the same conclusions when they see the works of the Creator. It is, I think, as Psalm 104:24 declares: "How many your works are, O Jehovah! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions."

​

​

Again, you are assuming that because artificial items are made by a human, natural items must have a similar designer too (God). But truth is, natural items are beyond human's crafting hability, that's why natural items are designed by nature, not by humans, gods or any other intelligent being.

 

[kylixguru]

Creationism has no relevance outside history. Creationism is a case of "this is how it happened" and provides no intellectual challange.

The Biblical Creationism doesn't even directly pertain to the cosmos.
My point is, something totally unrelated and not in contention with the Bible is being used as a basis to discredit it.
I'm saying that is an unfortunate thing and it is due mostly to ignoramuses who do not understand the Bible properly and pit it against things it isn't actually against.

The TOE has trillions of processes and methods which are essential to many areas of development.

That are in the least bit dependent upon our knowledge of them.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Exactly how his canvas was made may not be necessary, but an artist knows his canvas has a maker, as do his paints and brushes. A person viewing a beautiful painting does not conclude that the painting resulted from chance accumulations of pigment upon a canvas. Rather, they rightly conclude the painter, perhaps unknown to them, is both intelligent and artistically brilliant. I believe honest people draw the same conclusions when they see the works of the Creator. It is, I think, as Psalm 104:24 declares: "How many your works are, O Jehovah! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions."

​

​

So, you are calling everyone who does not believe the same as you 'dishonest'?
How very charitable of you... :sarcastic

Well, let me return the favor, seeing as I try, unlike you, to act with ruthless honesty when it comes to my own thoughts;
Why is it that you avoid the questions raised to you and instead change the subject?
Why is it that you do not address the issue at hand rather than spouting quotes from an old book?

Why is it that you are so afraid of opening your mind?

 

[rusra02]

The difference is that paintings don't evolve over a period of 3.5 billion years .

So do you agree now that it doesn't matter how the first life forms appeared for evolution to be true? Since you agree that the painter doesn't need to know how the canvas got made? If not, then explain why evolution doesn't work if the first life-form was created!

If everything has a maker, what makes you conclude that it is specifically your God and not any other religion's God(s)?

Well, if the first life form was created, evolution is off to a bad start....

As to which God is the Creator, I believe only the God of the Bible proves his Godship by acting to make his word come true. False gods cannot foretell the future with accuracy. Jehovah has acted throughout mankind's history to establish his Godship and continues to do so today. Jehovah challenges the false gods to prove their godship at Isaiah 41:22-24: "Produce and tell to us the things that are going to happen. The first things—what they were—do tell, that we may apply our heart and know the future of them. Or cause us to hear even the things that are coming. Tell the things that are to come afterward, that we may know that you are gods. Yes, you ought to do good or do bad, that we may gaze about and see [it] at the same time. Look! you are something nonexistent, and your achievement is nothing. A detestable thing is anyone that chooses you."

 

[mycorrhiza]

Well, if the first life form was created, evolution is off to a bad start....

Why? I don't see how it clashes with evolution at all.

 

[Draka]

Why? I don't see how it clashes with evolution at all.

It doesn't. He just wants it to. He wants evolution to say something it doesn't so he can rant and rail and basically throw a temper tantrum against it. Evolution has never been a Theory which makes any claim to the origin of life itself. All it is is the explanation of how life changes and evolves. That's it. He just can't deal with that.