Monday, August 25, 2008
Posted by:
Faith Ammen
at
4:49 PM
Even though "Gallup polls over the last 25 years, nearly half of American adults have consistently said they believe God created all living things in their present form, sometime in the last 10,000 years", there is still constant debate over what should be taught in public schools. Some teachers decide to take a stand and teach alternative theories to evolution: “I don’t think we have this great massive change over time where we go from fish to amphibians, from monkeys to man," biology teacher, Teresa Yancey said. “We see lizards with different-shaped tails, we don’t see blizzards — the lizard bird.” Even the students that were interviewed understood the implications of evolution better than most scientists: “Evolution is telling you that you’re like an animal,” Bryce agreed. “That’s why people stand strong with Christianity, because it teaches people to lead a good life and not do wrong.” Exactly. If you tell kids they are animals, they will act like animals....If we evolved from flotsum in the sea, who can tell us that anything is wrong? If we evolved from animals then nothing immoral can bother us...Abortion, murder, terrorism...all are just natural parts of living out "survival of the fittest."
Kevin didn't write this post...
And no - that dinosaur has NOT been proven to be a million years old. And no such FACT can be proven.
|
|
Why don't we let teachers teach whatever "alternative theories" they want? If an English teacher, say, doesn't believe that "Xylophone" should start with X, why not teach students to spell it with a Z? And there are just TONS of people with alternate views on history! Why not let teachers throw out their history textbooks and just teach some "alternative theories" on American History?
And how interesting that you quoted a student! Why don't we allow the students themselves to decide what they should be taught? What could possibly go wrong there?
Well, I hate to break it to you, but humans ARE mammals. We breathe air, drink water, and reproduce sexually. Now, clearly this information is going to cause you to go out and murder someone, but |
|
That belief does not negate the concept of God, a Creator, or the underlying message of the Bible and the Gospels. That is why most mainstream faiths, including the Roman Catholic Church and most Protestant Churches accept it.
I find the idea that the Universe was nothing until it was something, which occurred in a span of time that makes the difference between Michael Phelps and that Serbian swimmer seems an eternity, and then out of that swirling chaos over billions of years the planet earth formed and sprang forth life pretty miraculous. But that is me. Getting beyond the Gospels, some want to accept literally the words that were orally passed down for generation by illiterate sheep and goat herders, who only started writing it down about 3500 years ago as the literal word of God. I am skeptical of doing that.
We obviously share something with monkeys--a cursory glance at our physical charactoristics, let along our shared DNA tells us that (along with genetic throwbacks like Carrot Top and Dennis Kucinch). What makes man different from the animals is the metaphorical "eating of the tree of knowledge."
If people tried to read Genesis above a second grade level they might learn something. |
|
Between Macro-Evolution and Micro?
And while some proof exists that micro continues to occur - although usually slanted in diminutive processes...
But the "evidence" for macro-evolution is even more fact free than the theories being pushed for intelligent design. For instance - at least the ID people have demonstrated the near statistical impossibility it is for a cell to "evolve" its own propulsion process complete with self enclosed fan... |
|
Do you make same asinine assumption that Hugh writes all of the entries?
Even if they are penned by Carol, or Duane, or Mary Katharine, or Dean?
Do you have an eyesight condition where you simply can not see the font for the name of the poster (asking in all sincerity)? Because I could possibly have the TownHall gurus enlarge the font on the label heads across the top of the posts.
I just feel badly for you because you come off looking so honest to God dumb that you don't even know who is writing what... |
|
But whether human beings evolved from random bio feedback loop from some earlier protohumanoids on the plains of Africa or were formed out of clay and the breath of God is really not the point (both are rather remarkable no matter how you look at it). Our physical animal bodies are what they are.
The point is we had an awakening when we became human. It was not only Hebrew prophets who noted it--our Greek and Romnan philosophical ancestors had a pretty good grasp on the human condition too (without understanding the science behind it). And the archeological evidence suggests human awakening was sudden and immediate. Whether you believe in God and a Creator, are a secular humanist, or even an athiest, it is that point that seems the most interesting in contemplating our history.
And that is not even getting into all the physics being looked at right now. Explanations of the outer edges of science are so amazing, so beyond our ken and comprehension (do to the dizzying math and multi-dimension understanding required) to be the equivalent of any religious faith.
I have no problem spliting religious and philosophical studies on one side, science and math on the other. A degree of humility would do well proponents of either method. Both schools of thought often get to the same place via very different paths. I want my kids to be taught how to critically think, not a fixed dogma that cannot be challenged. That is the reason Muslims are so screwed up, they cannot critically challege anything.
Plato, Marcus Aurelius and the Bible have as much to say about our lives today as the discoveries of Newton, Einstein, and Feynman. |
|
|
...and I'm the other one. Doesn't TownHall monitor this sort of thing? Sheesh! Guess I'll have to come up with a new avatar... |
|
First of all, there actually is a "blizzard", it's called Archaeopteryx. While it had a backwards-pointing fourth claw able to hold onto branches, wings (as shown by feather impressions), and arms as long as its legs, like modern birds, it also had clawed hands, a long tail, teeth, no beak, and a theropod-like hip rather than an avian one, all more like theropod dinosaurs than modern birds.
In the sixth paragraph, you imply that evolution and Christianity are mutually exclusive, which they are not. There are many christians (myself included) who accept evolution as the most well-founded theory in biology.
Finally, the answer to your question "who can tell us that anything is wrong?" is God. As I've already pointed out, there is no conflict between evolution and belief in God. |
|
Sorry, beg to differ, but the "Archaeopteryx" does not qualify as a "blizzard" (in the sense of a transitional form from reptile to bird):
"In 1985 University of Kansas paleontologist Larry Murray wrote: 'Archaeopteryx is not ancestral of any group of modern birds.' Instead, it is 'the earliest known member of a totally extinct group of birds.' And in 1996 paleontologist Mark Norell, of the American Museum of Natural History in New York, called Archaeopteryx 'a very important fossil,' but added that most paleontologists now believe it is not a direct ancestor of modern birds."
So, maybe Ms. Yancey knows her Biology after all :-) |
|
Sorry - got distracted and forgot to include the source of the quote in my comment above:
"Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells |
|
|
While it is true that Archaeopteryx is not a direct ancestor of modern birds, it is still the oldest and most primitive known fossil bird, so it shows us what very early birds were like, and the many similarities to dinosaurs show its reptilian ancestry. |
|
|