There are many mysteries about evolution that are difficult to explain (how did proteins, which require exact series of amino acids to randomly join together with statistically miniscule probability even given the length of time proposed by evolution, come about; how did self-replicating DNA come about; lack of transitional fossils between amphibians to reptiles (as just one example); the fact that standard theories that seem to have compelling arguments have to be revised [canonical diagram of the evolution of horses]; disagreement by leading evolutionists about methods of evolution when interpreting the fossil record (punctuated equilibrium vs gradualism), if you read the article on bombadier beetles on talkorigins there's an elaborate set of 15 steps which may be plausible but has no proof and somewhat circumstantial evidence... could be creativity at work). If you look at the article about the origins of man on talkorigins, one interesting point that stands out to me is that some of the humanoid fossils are agreed upon to not be direct ancestors on humans. Why? Because they don't line up with what evolutionists think the progression must have been. Therefore, with those fossils explained away, the fossil record does match what evolutionists would predict. There is a danger of circular reasoning. While it is good for people to look into and make confident decisions about big things like where did all life come from based on evidence, it is dangerous to say your mind is closed since we're talking about things which cannot be proven according to the scientific method (since it happened in the past which is subject to interpretation which is subject to presupposition).
Perhaps, but even if every evidence of evolution is proven false today (to be replaced by a different theory), that still doesn't make it acceptable IMO to cross the line between faith and science. Perhaps they're both true in ways I/we can't understand... but, no matter how any one group tries to spin it, they are still DIFFERENT things and should be treated as such. Of course, I'll change my mind and admit I'm wrong when/if the rapture comes. Actually, even if angels came down from the heavens, it still won't change the difference between faith and science. It's a dis-service to the American education system to mash the two together. An example is the difference between a philosophy class and a rocket design class. One is abstract and one is concrete. Both can be be proven true or false, but you can't build rockets using philosophy no matter how hard you try. If the rocket professor is wrong about rocket theory, the philosophy teacher won't be able find the solution... and vice-verse. Again, they are just different things, and it will be a dis-service to the SCIENTIFIC progress of America if we combine the two.
Shes about the age where paranoid schizophrenia generally starts to manifest itself. One of my college roommates was a paranoid schizophrenic and he was a huge pain in the ass to deal with.
Yeah, it's a complicated issue for sure. I think you're kind of tracking with Gould's idea of NOMA. However, as the article says, Richard Dawkins believes that at some point, you can't really keep them separate, and I tend to agree. Religion in general is quite compatible with science (as Kepler, Newton, Leibniz, Pascal, Boyle, Kelvin, Faraday, Maxwell, etc. are evidence of; Galileo's treatment by the church being a counter-example), but when you start talking about a universe created by a super-natural being as opposed to one that has a purely naturalistic origin, you're bound to run into some conflicts. How rockets fly is scientifically testable, so all people should believe it. If we're talking about the educational system, in a non-religious setting we should not teach as fact something which comes purely out of a religious book. However, to say we should not mention them since they are going to lead people astray is based on the belief that all creation stories are certainly untrue and that evolution is certainly true. Evolution is a plausible way to explain the origin of life and has demonstrated that it has been useful in predicting some discoveries, but again, there are some major difficulties with it and to confidently claim that remaining mysteries will be stripped away one-by-one as more discoveries are made is, to me, exercising some measure of faith, regardless of how much the faith is founded on evidence. If we could prove it in the laboratory, then we should teach it alone as fact. I am not purposely trying to cloud the issue, but that's why they call it a theory. Personally, I'm fine if it is the primary thing that is taught but think other creation ideas should be admitted. Historically, given the list of people above, that has not hindered scientific progress.
i don't think it's right for a guy to hit a girl, exempt when that girl hits first. i don't care what gender you are. you throw the first punch, you deserve to receive a counter punch.
Her defiant stand against this white devil is reminiscent of Rosa Parks refusing to sit on the back of the bus.
I never said creationism shouldn't be taught, just that they should be separated and taught as different disciplines. I'm fine with a religious class which interprets the bible, as long as it's clear to the students that it's not its not a hard science. Faith doesn't hinder science because a good scientist knows how to separate the two, including some really good historic Catholic priest, or at least within the scope of their scientific experiments. I'm not an atheist, but I do believe that if creationism is true, it's at a level that's either too old, too small or too large to be of any scientific significance. That also includes scientific curiosity as well.
What I was thinking: Dangerous Psychotic Outburst + 47 students with smartphones = 47 YouTube videos, from slightly different angles 0 calls to 911 First sentence: Agree, yep. Second sentence: nice reversal! I was expecting a note of sympathy for this student, anyone with mental illness, but nope. Not "she can't help herself," but "yeah, those people suck." I laughed.
^^ What does Nicolas Coppola, "Brad's Friend," from Fast Times have to do with this? Are you saying the schizophrenic student's dialogue should also have been cut out?
