painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Evolution incites passion and debate right off....
wa:do
wa:do
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I need really good information.
- Thread starter Shadow Wolf
- Start date
TurkeyOnRye
Well-Known Member
I'm just a bit shocked how someone who is a professor in any art or science can know so little about biology and evolution.
Rakhel
Well-Known Member
I was going to add that Mr. Roe considered the argument won if the opponent started with "nah-uh," "yah-uh."
We could have argued against evolution and he would have argued for it, and we would still not have known what he believed because he would switch the argument around, at the next class, so that he was arguing against evolution.
We could have argued against evolution and he would have argued for it, and we would still not have known what he believed because he would switch the argument around, at the next class, so that he was arguing against evolution.
Rakhel
Well-Known Member
A philosophy major must know the arguments they are arguing. A good one will know how to win any argument regardless of the facts.
outhouse
Atheistically
all you have is imagination with this statement
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
If it's not relevant to their working knowledge of their particular field... then why should it matter?
wa:do
TurkeyOnRye
Well-Known Member
It is relevant, isn't it? Can you earn a PhD in any discipline and avoid taking a single biology class?
If her specialization within philosophy includes the philosophy of science, and she doesn't accept both the fact and the theory of evolution, then she's incompetent.
Depends on what you mean by "good". I think a good lawyer will know how to win any argument regardless of the facts. But I do not see that as a requirement of a good philosopher. It might only be a matter of personal taste, but I prefer to crap on philosophers who lack intellectual honesty and integrity than to admire them.
Rakhel
Well-Known Member
Again, there is no way of knowing which way her flag flies because she may be arguing for evolution in another class. To base your assumptions on what is going on in this one class is unreasonable.
Quite unreasonable. Very unreasonable. So unreasonable that I would probably -- not certainly, but probably -- take you to the cleaners if we were to bet a substantial sum on it. But then again, that is just my impression. Just as it is your impression, perhaps, that you yourself would win such a bet.
Rakhel
Well-Known Member
I probably would.:beach:
Oneatatime
Huh?
It doesn't matter if an organism can fossilise in less an a million years because estimates of a fossils age are based on its position in the geological strata and the strata composition not how long it took for an organism to fossilise. Carbon dating is just one or several radiametric dating techniques which vary in time periods they deal with based on differing half-lifes. Your teacher is clearly unqualified to offer opinions on this subject matter in the position of an educator. You were right to challenge her and I would raise the issue with someone higher up in the school authority so that action is taken and also to protect yourself from victimisation.
Last edited:
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
No, but passing biology in lower levels is not dependent on understanding evolution.
At least from my experience....Biology for non-majors is more like squeezing in a whole year of high school level classwork into a single semester. Fast, furious and not in depth at all.
wa:do
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Not in the slightest. I briefly talked to her after class one day and it seemed to me she didn't anticipate anyone to actually put up a strong and respectable debate.
That it pretty much how it was for me.
I'll explain my views: I do not doubt evolution at all. However, knowing we aren't always right, new observations change old ones, our perceptions can be very wrong, and good science has room for alterations, I see no reason to assume evolution (and many other theories) as we know it will always be assumed to be true. For all we know when we reach an advanced level of genetic analysis, I think it is highly probably it will provide several volumes worth of information on how evolution works, which may show we have some things right, some things way off, and otherwise.
But as it remains now, for a purely natural creation of life, or some designer, until we know more it can't be said with confidence either way.
Really?
I've had professors whose knowledge of the subject they were teaching was lacking. If a pavement design engineering prof gets things wrong when talking about traffic engineering, or if a construction engineering prof can't handle programming, I don't hold out a lot of hope for a philosophy prof talking about biology.
Alceste
Vagabond
Of course our understanding of evolution will change. That is the nature of empirical inquiry: what we know to be true is constantly (to borrow a term) evolving. New knowledge is being added, old ideas are being discarded. However, the usual effect with an empirical approach to discovery of the world is a refinement of our understanding. Not a complete upheaval. This is because a strict empiricist (which is what professional scientists aim to be, at least on the job) does what she can to avoid making assumptions: she strives to base all her conclusions on evidence. The stronger the empirical evidence, the stronger her conviction in her conclusions.
That the ToE is the most strongly evidenced scientific theory in the history of science makes the possibility that scientists will one day go "Oh! turns out Darwin was wrong after all!" infinitely small. Just think of the completely unforeseen discoveries since Darwin's time that his theory has both predicted and painlessly absorbed: DNA, for example. Such new discoveries have always made the theory stronger. They have never made it weaker. This track record makes the ToE an incredibly powerful truth claim: it would be impossible for humanity to know much in this world with greater certainty than we can know evolution is a fact.
Creationism is not at all in the same category. It is nothing more than fanciful speculation. No new evidence strengthens it, all new evidence weakens it. That makes it an incredibly flimsy truth claim: no matter how vigorously a believer wants it to be true, the moment she becomes aware of an accurate representation of the theory of evolution and the evidence supporting it, creationism (particularly YEC) dissipates as quickly as a fart in a breeze.
But it doesn't matter: evolution has nothing to do with the existence of god/s. It doesn't disprove or attempt to disprove the existence of god/s. It only disproves specific religious claims about our origins and things that a specific god was supposed to have done. So, even if new evidence found that there really is a god or gods of some kind, the ToE would remain untouched.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Too true... I hope to teach Biology some day... but don't expect me to be able to competently teach Chemistry or Physics.
wa:do
TurkeyOnRye
Well-Known Member
Even in high school, I learned about natural selection, mutation, and change over time. I guess I wasn't selectively learning though.
Last edited:
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Frankly you can't go into depth in high school. Biology is too large a subject.
wa:do
wa:do