Spirituality
15 Sep 05
21 Sep 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerI think a more important question is: Do you feel that it is necessary to teach the theory of evolution differently than other scientific theories which are equally accepted by the scientific community? These would include atomic theory and theories on the properties of light, among many others.
Do you think it would be objective of me to teach Evolution as a fact?
* If so, why is the theory of evolution different?
* If not, do you have a problem with the way these other scientific theories are being taught in public schools?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
21 Sep 05
Originally posted by echeceroI would say that the TOE is unique in a way. Unlike other Scientific theories the TOE is used to explain the origin of man. (I know some people will disagree, but in most cases this is the case).
I think a more important question is: Do you feel that it is necessary to teach the theory of evolution differently than other scientific theories which are equally accepted by the scientific community? These would include atomic theory and theories on the properties of light, among many others.
* If so, why is the theory of evolution different?
* If no ...[text shortened]... have a problem with the way these other scientific theories are being taught in public schools?
Unlike the atomic theory which is accepted by almost 100% of the scientific community, the TOE is being rejected by many prominent scientists and a large (even if it is less than half) portion of the scientific community. There are however many people that cling to it because the very foundation of their belief is built upon it. I personally feel that the TOE does not sufficiently explain the origin of man and I feel that it is important that an alternative perspective be given as well.
21 Sep 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI noticed that you'd gotten it wrong too, dj. It's sad that you editted your response to pretend you got it right though! That's just...pathetic.
You've covered your tracks neatly--editing your previous post from
Actually a, b, and c are wrong
to
Actually a, b, c and d are wrong.
after the Goat pointed this out...your first response to that was an admission of your error...but you chose to edit that out (6 edits!)...scared people would laugh at you? They already do.
21 Sep 05
2 edits
Originally posted by dj2beckerUnlike the atomic theory which is accepted by almost 100% of the scientific community, the TOE is being rejected by many prominent scientists and a large (even if it is less than half) portion of the scientific community.
I would say that the TOE is unique in a way. Unlike other Scientific theories the TOE is used to explain the origin of man. (I know some people will disagree, but in most cases this is the case).
Unlike the atomic theory which is accepted by almost 100% of the scientific community, the TOE is being rejected by many prominent scientists and a large (eve ...[text shortened]... origin of man and I feel that it is important that an alternative perspective be given as well.
Where did you get these numbers? The best number I can find is that 95% of scientists believe in some form of evolution, though many think it was divinely guided (this was looked at in 1997).
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm#earth
EDIT - That number includes "scientists" who are not in biological or earth science fields.
Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html
EDIT2 - Way back when, creationists came up with a list called "1000 Scientists Against Evolution" or something like that. The evolutionary community responded with a list called "1000 Scientists Named Chris or Christina For Evolution" or something similar. Does anyone have links to these lists or at least their correct names so I can Google them?
21 Sep 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungBob I think i was.
[b]Unlike the atomic theory which is accepted by almost 100% of the scientific community, the TOE is being rejected by many prominent scientists and a large (even if it is less than half) portion of the scientific community.
Where did you get these numbers? The best number I can find is that 95% of scientists believe in some form of evolution, ...[text shortened]... ar. Does anyone have links to these lists or at least their correct names so I can Google them?[/b]
21 Sep 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhich Atomic Theory is he talking about?
[b]Unlike the atomic theory which is accepted by almost 100% of the scientific community, the TOE is being rejected by many prominent scientists and a large (even if it is less than half) portion of the scientific community.
Where did you get these numbers? The best number I can find is that 95% of scientists believe in some form of evolution, ...[text shortened]... ar. Does anyone have links to these lists or at least their correct names so I can Google them?[/b]
since he rejects Quantum Mechanics it's difficult to guess what he means .
21 Sep 05
2 edits
Originally posted by frogstompActually, it's Steve. Looking for Bob helped me find it though 🙂
Bob I think i was.
The NCSE's "Project Steve" grew out of a statement signed by 52 intelligent-design proponents that appeared last year in Ohio, during a heated review of the state's science education standards.
The National Center for Science Education (NCSE), an Oakland, California-based nonprofit organization affiliated with AAAS, issued a 90-word statement firmly supporting evolution education and asserting that "there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred" within the scientific community. The mini-manifesto was signed by 220 scientists. And in a clear case of intelligent design, every one of them is named Steve.
The list, which includes Steves, Stevens, Stephens, Stefans and Stephanies, is in part homage to the late Stephen Jay Gould. And as Steves make up about one percent of the US population according to the Census Bureau, the assumption is that the 220 signatories represent about one percent of the 22,000 scientists who would endorse the new statement.
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20030217/07
So, in light of Project Steve, where do you get this idea that "a large portion" of the scientific community rejects the TOE?
21 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungCheck out the Steve-o-meter:
Actually, it's Steve. Looking for Bob helped me find it though 🙂
The NCSE's "Project Steve" grew out of a statement signed by 52 intelligent-design proponents that appeared last year in Ohio, during a heated review of the state's science education standards.
The National Center for Science Education (NCSE), an Oakland, Californi where do you get this idea that "a large portion" of the scientific community reject the TOE?
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/meter.html
Note: Steves constitute roughly 1% of working U.S. scientists.
23 Sep 05
his thread needs a boost. a resurection so to speak.
So lets start with the forgotten . Giordano Bruno.
"This entire globe, this star, not being subject to death, and dissolution and annihilation being impossible anywhere in Nature, from time to time renews itself by changing and altering all its parts. There is no absolute up or down, as Aristotle taught; no absolute position in space; but the position of a body is relative to that of other bodies. Everywhere there is incessant relative change in position throughout the universe, and the observer is always at the center of things."
27 Sep 05
Originally posted by frogstompIs there a link between Bruno & abiogenesis?
his thread needs a boost. a resurection so to speak.
So lets start with the forgotten . Giordano Bruno.
"This entire globe, this star, not being subject to death, and dissolution and annihilation being impossible anywhere in Nature, from time to time renews itself by changing and altering all its parts. There is no absolute up or down, ...[text shortened]... hange in position throughout the universe, and the observer is always at the center of things."
27 Sep 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerThe American Astronimical Society, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Science Teachers’ Association, the American Geophysical Union, the American Chemical Society, and the American Association of Physics Teachers all are of the opinion that evolution should be taught in schools and ID should not. I'd say thats a pretty unified scienfic community. Just because a few crackpots with degrees from "patriot bible university" or some phd by mail program doesn't mean they represent a significant amount of the scientific comunity.
I would say that the TOE is unique in a way. Unlike other Scientific theories the TOE is used to explain the origin of man. (I know some people will disagree, but in most cases this is the case).
Unlike the atomic theory which is accepted by almost 100% of the scientific community, the TOE is being rejected by many prominent scientists and a large (eve ...[text shortened]... origin of man and I feel that it is important that an alternative perspective be given as well.