Support NeoGAF

[Sianos]

I blame Pokemon for the masses having an ignorant idea about evolution.

Really? No.

I guess evolution is a lot like Poke'mon when you strip away the details.

No, apes did not just magically EVOLVE into humans when they reached level 55. Over time the species went through gradual changes, developing characteristics that differentiated them from other organisms in our taxonomy system.

Here is a simplified version of Evolution that does not clash with your belief in God nor confuse you with too many important details.

Imagine God made all the organisms, and they all had to do the basic organism things: obtain energy and make more organisms. You can't just obtain energy out of nowhere: you either have to synthesize it out of nowhere or eat other organisms.

But it turns out that God imbalanced some of the organisms, so they're better at being organisms than other organisms, and some other organisms are worse at being organisms than other organisms. So the bad-at-being-organisms organisms die and don't get to make more organisms and the good-at-being-organisms organisms live long enough to make more organisms.

But how do these organisms turn into even better organisms?

You know how when two humans get married and have kids the baby isn't exactly like the parents, with subtle differences? Well this applies to all organisms, so their kids aren't exactly like them. Over a long, long, long period of time these subtle differences add up, and you might classify this different organism as different from it's ancestors from a long, long, long time ago. Over an even longer time, these organisms are really different from the original organisms.

And that's all there really is to evolution on a basic level. Low-tier organisms die before they can reproduce and high-tier organisms live long enough to reproduce. When these organisms have kids, they're slightly different. Over time these differences add up to the point where we decide "Hey, this is a pretty different organism, let's classify it as a new species!" And so on, and so on.

But wait, you ask! This theory is incomplete! This doesn't explain WHY when two organisms have kids they're slightly different, HOW asexual bacteria change over time, and WHY if the dinosaurs were so awesome at being organisms they all died! If you're asking these questions you've taken the first step to being a scientist! Observe the natural world, create your own experiments, and verify the work of your colleagues. Together we can solve the mystery!

Spoiler

We've already solved this one, so feel free to Google it. But there's other mysteries we need YOUR help to solve!

 

[Emwitus]

That's how science works. As someone who is currently working on their PhD there is no way I can just pull "I don't believe your results" out of my ass and get my paper published.

Good for you MT. As someone who is about to start his that is good to know.

 

[MThanded]

Good for you MT. As someone who is about to start his that is good to know.

I know you are trying to be funny but this is just sort of scary. I just wanted to here a substantive argument about why evolution could not possibly occur.

There are theists that believe in evolution. I don't consider myself an atheist. I am probably far less religious than you though. I will admit that.

 

[Alligatorjandro]

You can still be religious and believe/understand/etc evolution

 

[Log4Girlz]

what is the source of evolution?

Big bang + physical laws + time.

Everyone should play Life 32.

 

[Raist]

If anyone wants some further reading on this:

The two documents most people point to as expressing the Church's current view on evoluton are Pope John Paul II's 1996 Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which is available HERE...

And Humani Generis, a Papal Encyclical issued by Pope Pius XII in August 1950 which is available HERE...

Another important document is the International Theological Commission Statement, which is available HERE... This statement was approved by Pope Benedict XVI while he was the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, so it likely reflects his views.

The main idea of these three things is that the theory of evolution is not incompatible with Catholic faith, which addresses the who and why of human origins, not the how or when. Pope Benedict XVI has also spoken out several times on evolution in various sermons and addresses, basically saying the same thing.

If you want further reading on it you could look into:

Vatican I Documents(24 Apr 1870)
Papal Encyclical by Pope Leo XIII - Providentissimus Deus (18 Nov 1893)
The Catechism of the Catholic Church Canons 279-324 (15 Aug 1997)

I've read John Paul's. There's still a good amount of bullshit and it's basically 50 years late at the very least.

As for the statement approved by Benedict... Seeing stuff like this

the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.

or this

A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted.

makes me cringe big time. In essence, there's a huge amount of backpedalling and playing around to try and make people think it's working alright. Something the catholic church has done in the past many times.

But I guess it's better than nothing. Maybe a couple hundreds more years is required for them to see that the "interesting hypothesis that deserves more work"-stage happened some decades ago already.

 

[Emwitus]

I know you are trying to be funny but this is just sort of scary. I just wanted to here a substantive argument about why evolution could not possibly occur.

I'm trying to let the argument go MT. You came off as being too aggressive and i'd rather not get into that right now. The premise of my argument on this board was Bill claiming that an acceptance of evolution was a requirement to study life sciences. I disagreed with that based on my career path. I agree with your comment that past data should drive your questions, no problem with that. But you and I both know that an argument based on my differences with evolution especially on gaf would not end well. lol. No ill intentions involved here...sorry if my comments came off snobbish.

EDIT: And you did come to the conclusion on how religious i was rather quickly. I'm not that type of person tho...i wish i was.

 

[Flash]

False. I can understand and accept genetic changes and their effects on population, without having to look back at a single phylogenetic tree from millions of years ago. It's fun, just not particulary useful. Once again, I respect those who choose that to be their line of work and interest.

Here's the major problem in your argument...you accept the consequences of the mechanism but you don't accept the mechanism itself? This means that if evolution wasn't a scientifically accepted theory, then you would not be able to understand or accept genetic changes and the effects on a population. Under no circumstances could you make those predictions with any degree of confidence.

But then you claim the mountain of evidence doesn't really matter, it's just fun. Accepting evolution =/ you personally taking graduate courses in evolution and studying taxonomy. What I am arguing is that it is a necessary to accept that it is a unifying theory and absolutely necessary for biological and medical sciences.

So do you understand why it's important that people learn evolution over creationism? Because if we eventually reach a point where creationism is more widely regarded as a truth over evolution, then we've fucked ourselves over very badly.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I'm trying to let the argument go MT. You came off as being too aggressive and i'd rather not get into that right now. The premise of my argument on this board was Bill claiming that an acceptance of evolution was a requirement to study life sciences. I disagreed with that based on my career path. I agree with your comment that past data should drive your questions, no problem with that. But you and I know both know that an argument based on my differences with evolution especially on gaf would not end well. lol. No ill intentions involved here...sorry if my comments came off snobbish.

You seem like a nice guy, smart, polite, but seriously, start believing in Evolution, its the only way.

 

[Pctx]

Here's the thing. Bill Nye's war on religious beliefs and their lack of accepting evolution is about as valid as the next guys opinion on religion. Does it make him right? Not really. His theory on religious people not accepting evolution within the realm of science indicates a direct threat to our scientific community of future generations. Really? I'm pretty sure that kids these days should be taught or at least exposed to everything and let them make the decision on what they believe.

Me personally, Christian, I believe in the Genesis story in the Bible as an interpretation of how God created the heavens and the Earth but I also believe a supreme being also created science for our minds ability to try and interpret what God made; Enter evolution. This is a total non-issue and it seems his agenda is to state that one camp is better than the other of which I disagree.

 

[danwarb]

Evolution is bullet proof. If anything is true, evolution is as true. There are no holes, as in contradictory evidence. Everything fits.

 

[MThanded]

I'm trying to let the argument go MT. You came off as being too aggressive and i'd rather not get into that right now. The premise of my argument on this board was Bill claiming that an acceptance of evolution was a requirement to study life sciences. I disagreed with that based on my career path. I agree with your comment that past data should drive your questions, no problem with that. But you and I both know that an argument based on my differences with evolution especially on gaf would not end well. lol. No ill intentions involved here...sorry if my comments came off snobbish.

EDIT: And you did come to the conclusion on how religious i was rather quickly. I'm not that type of person tho...i wish i was.

No matter how religious you are, you are probably more religious than me.

 

[Emwitus]

You seem like a nice guy, smart, polite, but seriously, start believing in Evolution, its the only way.

hahaha Thanks logz. I find the topic interesting tho. I don't know about believing it but it's always an interesting convo to have.

 

[Kinitari]

what is the source of evolution?

Source? Evolution is an encompassing term that includes a lot of different processes. Selection, mutation, genetics, speciation - they all have their own 'sources' I guess.

But I guess think of it this way - all organisms mutate when they 'replicate', and in these mutations, code level changes occur (genetics) if the change is 'positive' this organism will have an increased ability to replicate. If it is negative, it will have a decreased ability to replicate/procreate or whatevs.

Obviously, the animals we see now have positive changes occurring more often then negative - because if they didn't, we wouldn't be seeing them, they'd be 'extinct'.

Now these changes can pile up over thousands of generations, and all these little changes can result in drastic changes, so now suddenly it doesn't look like it used to, that's a super simplification, but it should roughly describe speciation in evolution.

And that's 'the source of evolution' - necessity

 

[Log4Girlz]

Evolution is bullet proof. If anything is true, evolution is as true. There are no holes, as in contradictory evidence. Everything fits.

The more we delve into evolution, the more amazing the theory is. Now, as we keep adding more and more data points, creationists see more and more gaps.

Look below

. . .

A few data points, only a few gaps, now look

. . . . . . . . . . . . .


More data points, but omg more gaps therefor magic.

 

[Neko Mimi Mode]

You can still be religious and believe/understand/etc evolution

Bingo.

 

[jerry113]

Here's the thing. Bill Nye's war on religious beliefs and their lack of accepting evolution is about as valid as the next guys opinion on religion. Does it make him right? Not really. His theory on religious people not accepting evolution within the realm of science indicates a direct threat to our scientific community of future generations. Really? I'm pretty sure that kids these days should be taught or at least exposed to everything and let them make the decision on what they believe.

Me personally, Christian, I believe in the Genesis story in the Bible as an interpretation of how God created the heavens and the Earth but I also believe a supreme being also created science for our minds ability to try and interpret what God made; Enter evolution. This is a total non-issue and it seems his agenda is to state that one camp is better than the other of which I disagree.

You're saying kids should be taught evolution and creationism in school, both presented as factual equals? One promotes critical thinking and logic, while the other promotes blind faith.

And it's a total valid issue when there are legislators in certain states pushing for creationism over that of evolution in school curriculum.

 

[Emwitus]

No matter how religious you are, you are probably more religious than me.

lol I catch your drift then. No worries. I might have derailed the topic a bit so y'all get back to it.

 

[Aeris130]

I'm pretty sure that kids these days should be taught or at least exposed to everything and let them make the decision on what they believe.

That's a great idea! Let's start with evolution and [insert religion you don't believe in] when they're still young, and save christianity for when they become adults and can make up their own mind.

 

[Pctx]

You're saying kids should be taught evolution and creationism in school, both presented as factual equals?

And it's a total valid issue when there are legislators in certain states pushing for creationism over that of evolution in school curriculum.

Factual to whom? My point is that is up to the kids to decide. Since when has Faith been based on fact? To your second point, that usually is something voted on isn't it?

 

[BruiserBear]

You can still be religious and believe/understand/etc evolution

It makes very little sense, but you most certainly can.

 

[RankoSD]

Science is a philosophy of discovery, intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance.

 

[Flash]

Me personally, Christian, I believe in the Genesis story in the Bible as an interpretation of how God created the heavens and the Earth but I also believe a supreme being also created science for our minds ability to try and interpret what God made; Enter evolution. This is a total non-issue and it seems his agenda is to state that one camp is better than the other of which I disagree.

Your reasoning as to how religion and evolution work together is perfectly acceptable to me and would draw no criticism. Evolution does not support nor reject the presence of a supreme being - the concept of a god does not overlap with the theory of evolution.

But claiming that creationism is more of a truth is complete bullshit. Creationism 100% conflicts with what evolution says, and evolution rejects many of the conclusions creationists come to. There is zero evidence supporting creationists claim while there is a ton supporting the reverse. So it's not so much as the "evolution camp" is better than the "creationist camp" as but rather this creationist camp should not exist all together

 

[MThanded]

Factual to whom? My point is that is up to the kids to decide. Since when has Faith been based on fact? To your second point, that usually is something voted on isn't it?

Why should they be instilling faith in school? Especially when there are other religions besides Christianity that one can believe in.

 

[IISANDERII]

What? The Vatican has indeed accepted the possibility of Evolution.

The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution should not have been dismissed and claimed it is compatible with the Christian view of Creation.

 

[mannerbot]

Factual to whom? My point is that is up to the kids to decide. Since when has Faith been based on fact? To your second point, that usually is something voted on isn't it?

Erh, so you don't see anything wrong with teaching children (as indisputable truth) something that may or may not be entirely made up, and by definition has no basis in fact?

 

[jerry113]

Factual to whom? My point is that is up to the kids to decide. Since when has Faith been based on fact? To your second point, that usually is something voted on isn't it?

I just don't think religion has a place in public education, if we live in a country with a secular government (which religions would you even choose to cover? all of them?). At home and churches/mosques/etc though, sure. That or unless it's taught under a historic context, but not at face value as fact.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I just don't think religion has a place in public education, if we live in a country with a secular government (which religions would you even choose to cover? all of them?). At home and churches/mosques/etc though, sure. That or unless it's taught under a historic context, but not at face value as fact.

Nothing religious should be ever be taught or discussed in school in my opinion. That can be learned at home.

 

[Flash]

Factual to whom? My point is that is up to the kids to decide. Since when has Faith been based on fact? To your second point, that usually is something voted on isn't it?

It's way too confusing to teach them both. And honestly I would have to guess a lot of kids would "choose" creationism because it's a hellueva lot easier to comprehend than evolution.

Creationism does not belong in the school setting. This shouldn't be alternatives offered by school because one is based in academia whereas the other than no place in it.

 

[Mengy]

Factual to whom? My point is that is up to the kids to decide. Since when has Faith been based on fact? To your second point, that usually is something voted on isn't it?

Faith isn't based on fact, but science is. That's the whole point that Bill was trying to make in the video. We need to teach our future kids the scientific method and the factual evidence that we (as a society) know to be true today. And evolution is a fact, it happens, it exists, it is real.

On the contrary, creationism is neither scientific nor factual, it is entirely faith based. Teaching it in schools as a fact supported by data and evidence is simply lying to our children. And Bill wants us to stop lying to our children. He wants us to prepare them to look at the world from an inquisitive and scientific mind so that they can understand and appreciate the wonder of where and how they live and came to be.

He is concerned for America falling behind the rest of the modern world similar to how the middle east dropped out of the modern scientific world (after being the leaders of it) simply because of faith and teaching ignorance. Bill doesn't want history to repeat itself. He doesn't want America to move backwards, he wants us to go forward.

 

[Pctx]

Your reasoning as to how religion and evolution work together is perfectly acceptable to me and would draw no criticism. Evolution does not support nor reject the presence of a supreme being - the concept of a god does not overlap with the theory of evolution.

But claiming that creationism is more of a truth is complete bullshit. Creationism 100% conflicts with what evolution says, and evolution rejects many of the conclusions creationists come to. There is zero evidence supporting creationists claim while there is a ton supporting the reverse. So it's not so much as the "evolution camp" is better than the "creationist camp" as but rather this creationist camp should not exist all together

The idea that one is lorded over the other or that one is by default more correct and to be know by us, non-supreme beings defaults to what we find our faith in. The evolution camp finds faith in science. I have no problem with that. Creationists, crazy or not, find their faith in the Biblical story of Genesis. Is there more information now than there was in a 2,000+ year old book? You bet. Implying that one is more right than the other isn't for any one person to decide for everyone however when one claims being "more" right than another is where conflict lies.

That's a great idea! Let's start with evolution and [insert religion you don't believe in] when they're still young, and save christianity for when they become adults and can make up their own mind.

Really?

Why should they be instilling faith in school? Especially when there are other religions besides Christianity that one can believe in.

You assume that I mean to instill Christianity in school. That is not my argument. I think all faiths should be taught and explored in the learning setting because as a global world, we need our kids to know what people believe and why they believe it.

 

[Wickerbasket]

Factual to whom? My point is that is up to the kids to decide. Since when has Faith been based on fact? To your second point, that usually is something voted on isn't it?

Facts don't suddenly become less true because of a certain opinion. All the creation stories can be taught equally in religious and classical literature classes and the children can decide between them.

Meanwhile, in the science classroom, important topics of science such as evolution should be taught.

I think it's important not to confuse kids with what science is and isn't. Putting something that isn't science in a science class would just cause problems.

Edit: This seems to be a particularly US phenomenon, I've never heard of it being a 'controversy' anywhere else.

 

[mannerbot]

It's way too confusing to teach them both. And honestly I would have to guess a lot of kids would "choose" creationism because it's a hellueva lot easier to comprehend than evolution.

Creationism does not belong in the school setting. This shouldn't be alternatives offered by school because one is based in academia whereas the other than no place in it.

It's not merely confusing, it's detrimental to children's education because by "teaching the controversy" (where there is none) lends credibility to the idea that these are equally plausible frameworks for how the world works. Might as well offer an option for alchemy courses instead of chemistry.

 

[dLMN8R]

Factual to whom? My point is that is up to the kids to decide. Since when has Faith been based on fact? To your second point, that usually is something voted on isn't it?

Fuck this shit. No. Your kids, my kids, no one's kids should "decide" anything. Parents should be fucking teaching kids verifiable science. That's what parents are for. Not to sit back like passive aggressive little shits and let little timmy "decide" what's best.

If the parents are too incompetent to do it, then the schools should be doing it for them.

 

[DarthWoo]

Good luck finding time in the curriculum for that. Also kind of runs counter to the concept of critical thinking if we're trying to teach faith for the sake of faith. Then again, I suppose the Texas Education Agency would be just fine with that.

 

[mannerbot]

You assume that I mean to instill Christianity in school. That is not my argument. I think all faiths should be taught and explored in the learning setting because as a global world, we need our kids to know what people believe and why they believe it.

I can respect this. Of course, it's not exactly possible to teach ALL faiths and it wouldn't be the best use of time.

The idea that one is lorded over the other or that one is by default more correct and to be know by us, non-supreme beings defaults to what we find our faith in. The evolution camp finds faith in science. I have no problem with that. Creationists, crazy or not, find their faith in the Biblical story of Genesis. Is there more information now than there was in a 2,000+ year old book? You bet. Implying that one is more right than the other isn't for any one person to decide for everyone however when one claims being "more" right than another is where conflict lies.

Science does not require faith. Whether or not you "believe" in the theory of gravity, you will fall to your death if you jump out of a building.

 

[Dude Abides]

Bingo.

Uh, that nonsense actually contradicts evolution (to the extent it even addresses it), because it assumes there was a guy named Adam who was created.

 

[Sanky Panky]

Here's the major problem in your argument...you accept the consequences of the mechanism but you don't accept the mechanism itself? This means that if evolution wasn't a scientifically accepted theory, then you would not be able to understand or accept genetic changes and the effects on a population. Under no circumstances could you make those predictions with any degree of confidence.

The point that I'm trying to make is that the mechanism that leads a virus to adapt, and the consequences, can be derived from an understanding of genetics and DNA alone. Not agreeing that we should extrapolate millions of little changes to say that dinosaurs evolved into birds, does not hinder the understanding of the first.

So do you understand why it's important that people learn evolution over creationism? Because if we eventually reach a point where creationism is more widely regarded as a truth over evolution, then we've fucked ourselves over very badly.

Will the medical field come to a halt? will geneticists close up shop and not be interested in looking at another gene again? Will we give up on understanding ecosystems? how will we be fucked exactly?

 

[Pctx]

Faith isn't based on fact, but science is. That's the whole point that Bill was trying to make in the video. We need to teach our future kids the scientific method and the factual evidence that we (as a society) know to be true today. And evolution is a fact, it happens, it exists, it is real.

On the contrary, creationism is neither scientific nor factual, it is entirely faith based. Teaching it in schools as a fact supported by data and evidence is simply lying to our children. And Bill wants us to stop lying to our children. He wants us to prepare them to look at the world from an inquisitive and scientific mind so that they can understand and appreciate the wonder of where and how they live and came to be.

He is concerned for America falling behind the rest of the modern world similar to how the middle east dropped out of the modern scientific world (after being the leaders of it) simply because of faith and teaching ignorance. Bill doesn't want history to repeat itself. He doesn't want America to move backwards, he wants us to go forward.

Of which I get his point of which science compliments the holistic nature of human existence, however, for some people, science is not the end all be all of what we believe. Also, anyone (not saying you) that claims religion holds back societies at large are opening themselves to a larger criticism of a societal world view of which I'm pretty confident that smart and talented people come out of religious communities as well as agnostic communities as well.

 

[Omegasquash]

You assume that I mean to instill Christianity in school. That is not my argument. I think all faiths should be taught and explored in the learning setting because as a global world, we need our kids to know what people believe and why they believe it.

If by teaching you mean saying what they are and referencing their historical importance, then yes. But if you're going to be inclusive, then you'd need to be all inclusive and that would take loads of time in school.

 

[Log4Girlz]

The point that I'm trying to make is that the mechanism that leads a virus to adapt, and the consequences, can be derived from an understanding of genetics and DNA alone. Not agreeing that we should extrapolate millions of little changes to say that dinosaurs evolved into birds, does not hinder the understanding of the first.



Will the medical field come to a halt? will geneticists close up shop and not be interested in looking at another gene again? Will we give up on understanding ecosystems? how will we be fucked exactly?

Studying genetics and DNA leads to observations that support evolution. Remember, evolution was theorized in a time before modern concepts of genetics and DNA. These fields have STRENGTHENED evolution. This is because evolution is real.

 

[WorriedCitizen]

I think all faiths should be taught and explored in the learning setting because as a global world, we need our kids to know what people believe and why they believe it.

That's what religion or ethics classes are for. In science classes this stuff has no place.

 

[MThanded]

You assume that I mean to instill Christianity in school. That is not my argument. I think all faiths should be taught and explored in the learning setting because as a global world, we need our kids to know what people believe and why they believe it.

Who is going to pay for this? Where in the curriculum is this going to fit?

 

[Flash]

The point that I'm trying to make is that the mechanism that leads a virus to adapt, and the consequences, can be derived from an understanding of genetics and DNA alone. Not agreeing that we should extrapolate millions of little changes to say that dinosaurs evolved into birds, does not hinder the understanding of the first.



Will the medical field come to a halt? will geneticists close up shop and not be interested in looking at another gene again? Will we give up on understanding ecosystems? how will we be fucked exactly?

If evolution wasn't accepted in the first place, would the ,medical field be in the current state its in? It it just stopped, would there be as much progress as there could potentially be? If people didn't believe in evolution, I would assume that previous truths learned from evolution would no longer hold true. And thereby we'd be fucking our selves over by severely impeding our progress.

 

[Nameless]

Here's the thing. Bill Nye's war on religious beliefs and their lack of accepting evolution is about as valid as the next guys opinion on religion. Does it make him right? Not really. His theory on religious people not accepting evolution within the realm of science indicates a direct threat to our scientific community of future generations. Really? I'm pretty sure that kids these days should be taught or at least exposed to everything and let them make the decision on what they believe.

Me personally, Christian, I believe in the Genesis story in the Bible as an interpretation of how God created the heavens and the Earth but I also believe a supreme being also created science for our minds ability to try and interpret what God made; Enter evolution. This is a total non-issue and it seems his agenda is to state that one camp is better than the other of which I disagree.

How is saying "Hey, children shouldn't have facts dismissed in lieu of ancient unsubstantiated claims" the same as believing in an unsubstantiated claim? And yes, unless you're going to argue for solipsism, it sorta does make him right.

We live in a society where science education, our space program, stem-cell research, cloning, etc... have all been targeted & attacked. How one doesn't see that an environment where as many people as possible have the best understanding of reality as possible is preferable to a society where understanding is viewed as a barrier if not a direct enemy to faith, is beyond me. Beliefs matter. How billions of people view & interact the world we all share matters.

 

[Dilly]

Finding faults in Evolution thus embracing Creationism.

I...can't...process

 

[Seanspeed]

The evolution camp finds faith in science.

I hate this misleading use of the word 'faith'. It in no way is the same sort of 'faith' that religious people use and teach as some sort of virtue. With science, we have facts and evidence and can test hypothesis to tell us if we're right or not. No faith is required.

Faith, in the way that theists use it, is a 'blind' faith, meaning believing in the absence of evidence. Its completely different and its intellectually dishonest to say that 'faith in science' is anywhere close to the same thing.

 

[Pctx]

Fuck this shit. No. Your kids, my kids, no one's kids should "decide" anything. Parents should be fucking teaching kids verifiable science. That's what parents are for. Not to sit back like passive aggressive little shits and let little timmy "decide" what's best.

If the parents are too incompetent to do it, then the schools should be doing it for them.

I agree, but when I say "decide" I mean are you going to force your kid to believe something against their will? That doesn't work. As a parent, I'm teaching my kid all realms of the world we live in so hopefully that will allow him to understand that the world he lives in is made up of certain limits and facts while faith can compliments one's factual world view.

I can respect this. Of course, it's not exactly possible to teach ALL faiths and it wouldn't be the best use of time.



Science does not require faith. Whether or not you "believe" in the theory of gravity, you will fall to your death if you jump out of a building.

I agree as well. To my point though, science as a religion or replacing God by saying he doesn't exist based on factual information is generally what Creationists get up in arms about. I don't think I've been arguing that science doesn't prove that certain facts of gravity, air, water etc. aren't applicable to those who believe in Creationism.

 

[mannerbot]

Of which I get his point of which science compliments the holistic nature of human existence, however, for some people, science is not the end all be all of what we believe. Also, anyone (not saying you) that claims religion holds back societies at large are opening themselves to a larger criticism of a societal world view of which I'm pretty confident that smart and talented people come out of religious communities as well as agnostic communities as well.

You're right. Science is how we KNOW things, not believe. Faith is not as good as knowledge, and the idea that it is hurts society.

 

[Quackula]

I agree as well. To my point though, science as a religion or replacing God by saying he doesn't exist based on factual information is generally what Creationists get up in arms about. I don't think I've been arguing that science doesn't prove that certain facts of gravity, air, water etc. aren't applicable to those who believe in Creationism.

Creationists are the ones who decided that Evolution leaves no room for God.