This one? Remastered it seems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catspaw_(Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series)
Need to cut and paste for some reason, sorry.
c
Nice documentary, 10 Days
- Thread starter cgroupman
- Start date
This one? Remastered it seems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catspaw_(Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series)
Need to cut and paste for some reason, sorry.
c
I don't think that belief in evolution precludes belief in a deity.
It is pretty well understood that the story of Adam and Eve is just an allegory, a symbolic expression meant to convey a concept of good and evil. The vast majority of people do not believe it is a literal account of the history of life on Earth.
There is scientific evidence for evolution. There isn't scientific evidence for creationism, or none that I know of.
Yes, most people believe it to be an allegory, but creationism isn't necessarily attached to Christianity, and if they want it to be legitimately taught in schools alongside scientific theories, it should not exclusively reflect Christian views.
There are multiple theories of evolution besides Darwinism, one example is Lamarckism, which is disputed. Also, in my opinion, Lamarckism is more important to teach in a high school level science class because that theory opens up questions about the scientific method. Teaching students how and when to question a theory themselves will be much more useful in a world where creationism and evolution are seen as opposing views rather than simply learning which views they should or should not believe. Darwinism, on the other hand, is seemingly a majority view, so it is taken as fact instead of a strongly supported theory.
TL;DR Who cares what they teach in school? Your kids won't know how to think critically.
Teaching creationism alongside evolution is teaching Harry Potter alongside math.
It is the scientific method itself which opens up questions and enquiry and critical thinking.
'Lamarckism' is an evolutionary theory. Comparing Lamarck with Darwin is interesting in as much as biology is interesting. Previous findings and then genetics, DNA and genome discovery made Darwin overwhelmingly paramount.
In any case, the evolution they and others discovered, is fact.
Why is it a problem if creationism isn't taught in schools. I wouldn't send my children to school to be taught about faith. That is what parents and organized religion are for.
In the end, science eventually figures it out. A religious person like myself isn't threatened by science or evolution. I see it as an opportunity to learn how God accomplishes things. I guess what I am getting at is that accurate science leads to true religion.
There are many religions teaching that "God" utilizes the principals we know as physics and chemistry, to accomplish his designs. Pretty much every religion that I'm aware of teaches that God provided us with intelligence in order to somehow become "enlightened", which either means an overall understanding of the nature of the universe, or a perfect knowledge and acceptance of who god is. True believers in deity must then accept the idea that scientific accomplishment will bring them closer to a knowledge of how god operates, not drive them further from it.
If the science is well conducted and reliable, it will build on itself to a more perfect understanding.
In the end, science eventually figures it out. A religious person like myself isn't threatened by science or evolution. I see it as an opportunity to learn how God accomplishes things. I guess what I am getting at is that accurate science leads to true religion.
There are many religions teaching that "God" utilizes the principals we know as physics and chemistry, to accomplish his designs. Pretty much every religion that I'm aware of teaches that God provided us with intelligence in order to somehow become "enlightened", which either means an overall understanding of the nature of the universe, or a perfect knowledge and acceptance of who god is. True believers in deity must then accept the idea that scientific accomplishment will bring them closer to a knowledge of how god operates, not drive them further from it.
If the science is well conducted and reliable, it will build on itself to a more perfect understanding.
I am not defending creationism. But as I said before, if they present it without the religious overtones, because creationism is not inherently religious, then it would be seemingly reasonable to teach creationism. However, without religious overtones, the theory would just be: "Some unknown force created life in some capacity that lead to our world today."
Also, I'm not sure if you were trying to use hyperbole, but Harry Potter and math don't try to explain the same things (although probably for the average American student these days, magic and math are both mysterious). While at this point, evolution is fact but there is no single theory of evolution that is universally accepted.