[Justin]

One of the top issues that we are seeing now is should Devine Intervention be taugh along with Evolution in Biology Classes?

Evolution is the theory that humans evolved over time from a simpler organism

Devine Intervention is the belief that a higher being created earth and human existance.

_________________________________________________________


I believe that devine intervention should not be taugh along with biology because it is not an actualy science, as you cannot test it. However I do believe that evolution and devine intervention have taken place together throughout history.

[Advertisements]

I feel if you teach one religion then you must teach them all religions. People may disagree but evolution is a type of religion and it is not fair to other religions when you only teach one. In schools they often teach evolution as a fact when it is a therory and that is not right. Anyways thats my two cents cya.

[chirp]

I feel if you teach one religion then you must teach them all religions. People may disagree but evolution is a type of religion and it is not fair to other religions when you only teach one. In schools they often teach evolution as a fact when it is a therory and that is not right. Anyways thats my two cents cya.

[Justin]

(Not trying to sound rude with this)

Evolution is taught in Biology classes because it is the foundtation of bio. Without teaching it, biology basically makes no sense. I am not opposed to religion being taught in school, however I do not believe that it should be taugh with evolution in science classes.

[warriorscot]

You can call science a religion, but if you do its basically the religion of the planet you are hard pressed to find a person to argue that the earth doesnt revolve round the sun or that mass has gravity.

Evolution is a theory yes, but theory is a word non scientists dont understand the meaning of, relatvitity is a theory yet we no it to be true, electricity is a theory yet we know it to be true.

I think religion should be taught in school, but every religion should be taught a child should never be told this is your religion, i have always believed that when they reach a certain age and are in possesion of a good knowledge and a sound mind they can decide wether religion is for them. In british schools now when you get to high school level religion goes out the door and its been like that for a while now. The result more people believe in ghosts than they do in a god or devine intervention.

Evolution is a theory, but it has evidence to prove it and back it up making it the accepted basis of modern biology, whereas devine intervention has no evidence to prove it and under the accepted laws of science cannot be taught as science.

Just the two cents of a scientist.

[chirp]

I'm not saying science is a religion that is totally not true(I support science). Evolution is a religion in my opinion. A religon is a belief system you go bye, in a nutshell. There are many gaps in evolution as there are in creation. I could get in a talk about evolution verses creation but that would go too off topic..... ps
I believe in micro evolution and not macro evolution....o and another side note this is the first forum I went to talking about this stuff and not getting flammed thanks.

[dsenette]

well...there are giant holes in the theory of relativity....but it's still accepted as fact....there aren't very many things that occur on this planet that can be fully explained....like...how your own brain works...we know the mechanics...as far as the chemical and electrical mechanics...but that's about it...but...it's accepted as fact that...the human brain works...

[fleamailman]

I am for both being taught if only because a child's mind should be faced with conflicting ideas and not formed into one camp or the other.

btw, thks admin for revamping the offtopics.

[warriorscot]

Polite discussion is the cradle of civilisation, without we would be alone with nothing but our ignorance, if people couldnt talk about important matters without being assaulted by the ignorant their would be no point in communicating at all.

I must say i havent seen the holes in evolution you talk of from what ive read and observed there is a significant amount of evidence to prove it whereas there is no evidence to back up devine intervention. There is a lack of evidence to prove the evolutionary path of every species but there is a fair bit of evidence in a few that can allow accurate conclusions to be drawn. We have a fair bit of evidence on our own species, i find it very interesting that there were in fact 4 distinct kinds of human. Us of course mostly descendant from the most distasteful kind of human of course.

They recently started packing the British natural history museum to move it to storage and then to its new premises and the move has been documented and recorded, you can actually see the development of some animals from the collections of skeletal remains, its really quite interesting even to me who isnt the biggest biology fan past how it can be used in chemistry.

The main point for me is that from a scientific point of view, evolution is a key part of the way biology is taught, it just doesnt work without it, and the biggest sticking point in the debate is that evolution has evidence to support it, and to a scientist evidence is the thing we spend most of our time searching for.

By teaching devine intervention in a science class it goes against the laws that a scientist holds dear, stating fact without evidence goes agains everything you are taught from year one science to postgradute degree.


PS on relativity(physics was a passion of mine before uni anychance to use my overqualification in a useless subject) Relativity has holes(basically we arent technically advanced enough to prove some parts of einsteins theory), but we can explain most of it and prove a a significant portion of it especially since einsteins death and construction of particle accelerators(eg true speed of light conversion of mass and energy) and accurately postulate upon the exceptions, alot of the holes arent really holes it is just convenient for us to ignore them, relativity is a royal pain to work with it would be so much simpler, and far cooler world without out but thats another topic entirely.And im not getting started with that again last discussion on relativity i had ended in lots of maths.

[Pi rules]

I think that evolution and Divine intervention could be taught together. Evolution is a theory, just like Divine intervention. I personally don't know why the two can't just be intertwined. Who says that there wasn't a "helping hand" guiding evolution? Also, where did life originate from?

PS: I love physics, and I'm thinking about becoming an astrophysicist or theoretical physicist, but I don't want to get off topic.

Edited by Pi rules, 01 November 2005 - 07:26 PM.

[LuNa7ic]

Hmmm, this an iffy one...

I agree with having having both theories taught (and as theories, not as fact), but that may just be because I am Christian. The has been a lot of 'scientific' evidence found that from my point of view could back either theory, but then again I beleive there are some things that science can't explain.

Personally I am yet to see any evidence that creatures are evolving and/or mutating new genetic sequences at all, but back on topic.

Both ideas as such should be taught in science because neither has been scientifically disproven.

*Edit*

I think that evolution and Divine intervention could be taught together. Evolution is a theory, just like Divine intervention. I personally don't know why the two can't just be intertwined. Who says that there wasn't a "helping hand" guiding evolution? Also, where did life originate from?

From a Christian point of view: In Genesis it says that after god created everything, he saw that it was good and that he was happy with it, ergo he didn't need evolution to make it better.

Edited by LuNa7ic, 01 November 2005 - 10:50 PM.

[Michael]

I don't thing they should teach evolution, because I don't believe evolution at all.

There is evidence for creation, well at least facts that make Genesis 100% true. I am not going to try an show any in the post but do what is more fun, try and disprove evolution.

First, there have been no missing links, that were not frauds, or just deformed humans. It is agree on both sides of the debate (at lease those that keep up to date, and don't keep saying thing that were admitted to be wrong 30 years ago!!) that every thing that has been found to be 100% man or 100% ape. Might also like to add that the "horse series" is wrong as well, most of the fossils come form the other side of the word form the one before it, and there are other problems with it like, the first one, is nothing like a horse at all.

Another problem is there is an almost impossible barria between signal celled animals and multi celled animals. Even the smallest multi celled animal has 500 cell and a full set of body systems (Digestive, Excretory, etc.)

How did the first cell come about? So far all proof sagest that this can not be done.

Also another thing I can make an example of is blood coting. It needs 20 or so proteins to work, take one out and the animal would bleed to death at the first scratch. Yet the system has to, if you believe evolution, evolve over millions of years from one or two proteins.

Please don't bash me, the only reason that any one would do that is bacause they can't answer what I have said.

I am going to tell every one why they world is not 4.3 billion years old, next.

Edited by Michael, 02 November 2005 - 06:39 PM.

[Pi rules]

Just look at the order of things in Genesis, and you'll see that it coincides with the idea of evolution. Who said how long a "day" is for God?

I believe that the Bible shouldn't be taken completely word for word, but is there for us to try and understand the lessons that it contains.

[warriorscot]

Yes but how do you explain the evidence of four very distinct sub species of human alongside that of divine intervention based upon genesis.

Well on the first cell, we can safely postulate upon its first creation as we know a cell is a collection of proteins that have formed together into what we know as a living organism, the exact circumstances of this happening are so infintesimally low yet also so great as to be a certainty. We exist in a universe that tends towards entropy, the very nature of this means that random stuff is going to happen and thus is the basis of modern evolution.

And blood clotting, well you made the point on evolutions behalf, in so many millions of years it would be pretty unlikely that there wasnt some kind of defence developed, you say well what happened to things without the ability to clot blood, evolutions answer they died.

To my opinion as someone that doesnt believe in a god, devine intervenion is a lazy way out, yes there are questions science cant answer YET, but we have answered so many that before were only given the explanation that god did it, and in this day and age there is nothing that soon wont be beyond our reach as the development of our civilisation is increasing at a very rapid rate, at that point if you can show me the "mark of god" then ill believe it. And mathematically you can express the chances of evolution to something rather acceptable whereas the mathematical chances of a divine intervention are even lower as such a being would require far greater set of circumstances than ourselves to come into being.

And there lies the rub science is based soundly upon the applications of probabilities and mathematics and above all logic, devine intervention is both unlikely and illogical(says he in best mister spock impression).