Why does this argument keep coming back up??
When it is stated that the human brain itself is a gift from God, therefore it proves that God must exist, well, how does one argue against logic like that?
I am getting tired of reading letters in the newspaper and hearing some people on TV say that evolution is not a science, or that creationism is a science, and that both should be treated equally in the public schools.
Excuse me but do any of these people even know the definition of the word "science?"
From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, the word "science" means: "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."
From Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary it states 'science' is: "Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena."
On the one hand, we have the written records of men and women going back centuries who have studied their physical surroundings and have come up with ideas of how things got to be the way they are that have either stood the test of time and countless investigation and questioning or have been discarded. We also have the geologic studies of rocks, again, written by men and women going back centuries, investigated and questioned over and over, that tell us the age of this planet is a much more than six thousand years old. We have fossils showing us animals that once existed otherwise undreamed of (dinosaurs, anyone?) I will admit that the fossil record beginning with the first amoeba leading right up to the guy living across the street from me is not complete, but someday it may. Think about it; science never stops.
We look to the sky and with tools made in the pursuit of science, see other planets around our own sun; we see other stars. With tools made by humans guided by science we see not only our own galaxy but countless other entire galaxies, the size and distance of which makes our own world look like a dust mote on an endless ocean.
On the other hand, we have written stories, really second and third-hand eyewitness accounts of people and events that supposedly happened between two and six thousand years ago. (Think about how second and third-hand eyewitness accounts are treated in a court of law) We have the words supposedly spoken by a higher being between two and six thousand years ago but when you come down to it, the words themselves were written down by who? People.
But we're told that these stories and words are what they are, and to believe in them it takes faith, which in fact is what religion is based on.
So isn't that the main difference evolution and creationism? One is based on experimental investigation and constant questioning. The other is based on faith.
Isn't THAT why evolution and creationism are NOT THE SAME and should not be treated the same?
It's very simple. Evolution is a science. Creationism is faith.
Do I even need to say which one doesn't belong in the public schools?
I am getting tired of reading letters in the newspaper and hearing some people on TV say that evolution is not a science, or that creationism is a science, and that both should be treated equally in the public schools.
Excuse me but do any of these people even know the definition of the word "science?"
From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, the word "science" means: "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."
From Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary it states 'science' is: "Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena."
On the one hand, we have the written records of men and women going back centuries who have studied their physical surroundings and have come up with ideas of how things got to be the way they are that have either stood the test of time and countless investigation and questioning or have been discarded. We also have the geologic studies of rocks, again, written by men and women going back centuries, investigated and questioned over and over, that tell us the age of this planet is a much more than six thousand years old. We have fossils showing us animals that once existed otherwise undreamed of (dinosaurs, anyone?) I will admit that the fossil record beginning with the first amoeba leading right up to the guy living across the street from me is not complete, but someday it may. Think about it; science never stops.
We look to the sky and with tools made in the pursuit of science, see other planets around our own sun; we see other stars. With tools made by humans guided by science we see not only our own galaxy but countless other entire galaxies, the size and distance of which makes our own world look like a dust mote on an endless ocean.
On the other hand, we have written stories, really second and third-hand eyewitness accounts of people and events that supposedly happened between two and six thousand years ago. (Think about how second and third-hand eyewitness accounts are treated in a court of law) We have the words supposedly spoken by a higher being between two and six thousand years ago but when you come down to it, the words themselves were written down by who? People.
But we're told that these stories and words are what they are, and to believe in them it takes faith, which in fact is what religion is based on.
So isn't that the main difference evolution and creationism? One is based on experimental investigation and constant questioning. The other is based on faith.
Isn't THAT why evolution and creationism are NOT THE SAME and should not be treated the same?
It's very simple. Evolution is a science. Creationism is faith.
Do I even need to say which one doesn't belong in the public schools?
posted by David at
2:52 PM
2 Comments:
Did you hear about the tornado that ripped through a Detroit auto plant in 1935 and left behind a fully assembled, never before seen Buick Roadmaster? It is believed that the powerful winds of the storm randomly assembled auto parts until this new model of Buick stood shiny and perfect in the middle of the city. The incident is called the Origins of the Buick Roadmaster and it should be taught in school physics classes. Sure, nobody actually saw the car being assembled and nobody has proof of what happened, but what other theory fits???
Do you know how the Preamble to the US Constitution was written? Well, it seems that the young son of Gouverneur Morris dumped a box of letter blocks on the floor and they tumbled out perfectly spelling the Preamble.
Not buying any of this? Then why do you believe that something as infinitely complex as the universe -- as infinitely complex as just the speck of dust that is our corner of the universe -- could just randomly come together like a box of letter blocks dumped on the floor?
I detect inconsistencies in your thought processes. Seems to me it takes a lot less faith to believe the universe was created by God than it does to believe the universe was created by some random act of nature.
By
Lone Ranger, at 11:06 PM
The only point I was trying to make is that evolution is a SCIENCE (see definitions) and SHOULD be taught in a SCIENCE class and that creationism is NOT a SCIENCE and should NOT be taught in a SCIENCE class. That's all. Not whether one idea is correct and the other is not.
But since you've gone that way....
Yes, as with ANY SCIENCE there are inconsistencies. That's why we never stop questioning everything. SCIENCE very rarely claims to be the ULTIMATE TRUTH, unlike creationism, which some overzealous people seem to feel is the one and only final answer and no questioning it, that's it. It just seems to me that on the scales of balance, evolution seems to have a whole lot more evidence for it than creationism does.
And I disagree that "it takes a lot less faith to believe the universe was created by God than it does to believe the universe was created by some random act of nature." Unlike some people, my mind is open. Given several billions of years, random acts of nature would have to happen. Each day we learn more and more about how the universe works. Ideas are thought through, evidence is gathered, talked about, questioned, verifed, questioned some more. Again, this is SCIENCE.
Is this done with creationism? No. That's why is is not a SCIENCE and should not be taught as such.
By
David, at 11:02 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home