There is no consensus in science. Free thinkers don’t follow a set pattern of thought. They go their own way and think for themselves. Rational thinking, debate and reasoned outcomes are the by-product of such open-minded and reasoned debates. This is the liberalism of a by-gone era.

To wit: Teach all sides of the argument: ie Atheistic Materialism, Theistic Evolution and Special Creation. Let the hearers decide for themselves what they believe after presenting all sides of the argument equally.

Return to the old-school ideals of liberality in thought and in teaching.

Teaching only one side of an argument all the time in schools is not condusive to critical thinking..it is more along the lines of indoctrination.

Rather than waddle like little intellectual ducks, we should teach our children to look at all sides of an issue and reason out their own solutions…as good scientists would.

Learn from the great scientists of the past? Did they follow one way of thinking on a problem? No. They looked at all sides of a problem, and all possible iterations and developed their own well-reasoned solutions.

Stifling debate is for communists, Marxists and Islamofacists. So, let the debate begin in earnest.

Well, “rational, reasoned debate” is based upon a set of moral and philosophical assumptions that have their roots, dually, in the moral principles of Christianity and the dialectic of Greek philosophy (whose own original pagan foundations are far closer to Christianity than atheism). Moreover, the foundations of science–from the invention of the university to the modern scientific method–issues out of historical Christian intellectual culture. Any coming to this debate should take note of that.

But this debate is not simply over a theory of origins, or the role of religion in the public square. It is a conflict over the essential questions of man; the mind, the soul, and the nature of reality itself. It is a debate that has been going on since at least ancient Greece and probably far longer.

So, yes, by all means, let us debate (it is, after all, much of what separates from the jihadis), but to use one of my favorite quotes (Jürgen Habermas, a German leftist philosopher and former secularist), “Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this day, we have no other options. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter.”

I’m talking about an era is school, where all views on a topic were welcome. That is not the case today. Anyone who thinks otherwise, might try to enroll on any campus and immediately ID themselves as a conservative. They would find out real fast, just how unwelcome that their views are.

Irrespective of where reasoned agumentation comes from, the point is that Creationism vs Evolution IS NOT debated in schools; except as much as one is deemed right and the other deemed ridiculous.

My contention is that the children and young adults are smart enough to reach their own conclusions if all sides of this argument were presented equally…and each given equal weight as a possible solution or iteration.

The atheists seem to have a heckler’s veto on the issue at the moment. That veto would come to a screaching halt if children and young adults were given a fair opportunity to hear all sides without some Carl Sagan-esque veto being sustained over the concept of debate.

I was also implying that atheism (or militant atheism, to differentiate between some of of the atheist readers here), consistently followed, does not lend itself to reasoned debate, but must rely upon external moral foundations for that. This is the school of philosophy that birthed Marxism and Fascism, so the soft tyranny of the “Carl Sagan-esque veto” is of little surprise.

When the day and hour return that tolerance means tolerance as defined in the dictionary, and not tolerance of only non-conservative views, then I will belive that we as a society have advanced to the real progressive ideas of liberality; and have thrown the ideas of Chompsky and Zinn…where they belong…on the shitpile of History.

Debate and argument are one thing. Indoctrination is another. In the era that I grew up in, indoctrination was not possible. A Thesis without foot notes and references, was mere opinion and a failing grade.

But I digress….

I got your points. I think you got mine. This is what I expect in a free society. A teacher might say “well y’all said the same thing…but in your own words.”

My reply would have been. Yep, teach. That’s what you get when people are able to think for themselves and have been able to come to their own conclusions because you so wisely presented all sides fairly; rather than parrot some teacher just to pass a course.

“Arguments créationnistes : 17 réfutations”

from a Belgian Mensa, relation of mine (in french I am afraid, but his links are in english) ;

well he doesn’t buy the creationism ideal, nether me (though he is more likely able to explain it than me)

from his site :

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton2.html

http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idmovement.htm

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

We’re already aware of “refutations” related to Creationism.
That’s not the point of the argument. The arguments presented here are about presenting all sides of the “origins” arguments equally, with equal veracity and equal weight. By doing so, the highest traditions of liberality and education are upheld. By not doing so, only gives a heckler’s veto to one side. This is not in keeping with the traditions of true tolerance and enlightened education which were hallmarks of the education system in America for 150 years.

When all sides are given fair treatment, children and adults are given the opportunity to make a reasoned choice because they have been shown every concievable iteration availabble. Education is about learning, not indoctrination.

If one fails to learn all sides of an argument in school, then the system has failed the student and has not lived up to the tenants of true liberality as expressed by teachers and students in the past. Nor is it in keeping with the ideals of higher education as expoused by the founders of the American educational systems.

Only in a Marxist society is one side of an argument taught. In a free society all sides should be given equal weight, rather than indoctrinating students to just one view.

Science doesn’t belong to a society or a religion, but to passionated persons, that have an adventurous spirit

would you say that the “enlighten century” that had inspired the “founding fathers” (in a nowadays argumentation where “creationism” would have the opportunity to find ears) could have produced all these brillant minds ? I bet they would be condamned as Galileo in earlier times.

http://www.nature.com/nature/newsvideo/news.2007.317.1.mpg

In that video he beats the students !

“The researchers say the sea anemone has about 18,000 genes, while humans have about 20,000. The sea anemone’s genes are distributed across its 30 chromosomes in patterns similar to related genes on the 46 chromosomes of humans”

http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0705-anemone.html

You missed the point again. Try paying attention. I said NO ONE SIDE of the argument for “origins” should have a veto over the other side. ALL sides should be given equal weight. That includes your side. That also includes the other two theories of origins as I mentioned in my first posting.

Must of lost something in the translation huh? (Maestro please cue the Twilight Zone theme)

@nfidel
I’ve heard him on the radio…and I belive he was featured on D James Kennedy’s TV programs a few times. A Brilliant guy.

@Gary in Midwest
Absolutely.

Here is the opinion of an American Mensan, namely me. I am a scientist by education (chemistry) and I like to boil/reduce things down to simple statements or questions when explaining something. Incidentally the most important equations for the explanation of the natural world are primarily simple equations.

My first statement/question is simply this, take a look around at the almost infinite complexity of life on earth including the human brain. In order for all that life to exist it had to come from nonliving chemicals. That is a fact of life if you believe in evolution and the last time I checked chemicals are not alive. Simply preposterous isn’t it.

Second statement/question is this, in order for the big bang theory to have worked all the known laws of thermodynamics, chemistry and physics have to be set aside and unknown never before demonstrated or understood laws must come into play. It would take an infinite number of years to form the trillions and trillions of galaxies from the chaos that is the would be big bang. And therefore it would then take an infinite amount of energy as well since it would take an infinite number of years. Anyone who says it would take a few billion years is just making up a fairy tale number so as to make it believable.

If a person doesn’t want to serve God or live by an absolute authority, fine, that’s their choice. But don’t come up with fanciful, fair tale, comic book science theories for explaining how the world and life came into being. To believe that life came from chemicals is laughable and that planets and stars and galaxies came from a cloud of dust is not short of insanity.

Prior to the mid 19th century most scientists had no trouble believing in God. Now the arrogance of man has clouded the mind’s eye of so many.

My first statement/question is simply this, take a look around at the almost infinite complexity of life on earth including the human brain. In order for all that life to exist it had to come from nonliving chemicals. That is a fact of life if you believe in evolution and the last time I checked chemicals are not alive. Simply preposterous isn’t it.

Second statement/question is this, in order for the big bang theory to have worked all the known laws of thermodynamics, chemistry and physics have to be set aside and unknown never before demonstrated or understood laws must come into play. It would take an infinite number of years to form the trillions and trillions of galaxies from the chaos that is the would be big bang. And therefore it would then take an infinite amount of energy as well since it would take an infinite number of years. Anyone who says it would take a few billion years is just making up a fairy tale number so as to make it believable.

If a person doesn’t want to serve God or live by an absolute authority, fine, that’s their choice. But don’t come up with fanciful, fair tale, comic book science theories for explaining how the world and life came into being. To believe that life came from chemicals is laughable and that planets and stars and galaxies came from a cloud of dust is not short of insanity.

I happen to agree with your thesis. Most of us are well aware of the three versions of origins. I happen to agree with yours.

However, in order to teach the fallacies of evolution and thereby give students the tools to shoot it down, I belive that all theories of “origins” should be taught equally.

To me, presenting all the different teachings on origins is the only way to be fair to the students. And then they would be free to make up their own minds on the subject.

Imagine having a course divided by semesters that featured a rabid evolutionist, a rabid Theistic evolutioniost, and a rabid Special Creationist…all being given equal access, and equal time to teach their views.

That’s what made school interesting 40 years ago. It’s what is wrong with education today. No one should be allowed a veto in education. School should be about learning, not indoctrination.

If this were the case, kids would have the tools that they need to become the critical thinkers that they are not.

And the evolutionists would have to present scientific evidence to support their positions instead of just teaching words out of a book…or expressing mere opinion on the matter.

Same with Creationists. What is the evidence. Poke holes in the evolutionary thesis of Darwin…by all means, but back it up with science.

Ah man, it would be a beautiful thing to see. Even I would be willing to take such a science class and I freaking hate science.

I see that “creationism” is operating much of a “conviction” that there is a “great ordinator”, thus a theory, and that scientists of independant mind operate with logical facts, implying that new discoveries could contradict the previous ones ;

see the Gmo, that is a “creationist” design, that the humans operated.

well, I can’t see that “theoricians” can all agree, they employ their ego-energy to demonstrate that they are right, idem in philosophical domains.

yeah, John, I had once the nightmare vision of the big bang

yes, the students must be aware of the both sides, sceptiscism should be their leit-motiv on any point of view that has to go through their prism

my-be the Effel tower will be aspired by magnetic winds

I don’t see why a the majority of Christians can’t interpret genesis any other way then literally. There’s really no basis to Creationism, I’m kinda disappointed to see it mentioned favorably here. I thought we were a tad smarter then that.

That’s right Darwin had a Divinity degree and on his way back from the university met a geologist who influenced his thinking.

His wife on the other hand was a Christian, who kept after Darwin all of his life to not turn his back on Christianity.

On his death bed, he told his wife that he was wrong about origins. Whether or not he went back to his religion or not…no one is sure.

@ John Cunningham

“In the beginning, God created the Big Bang.” So you are a Theistic evolution proponent?

Creationists understand that evolutionists when faced with the facts of science as Prof Bill so ably disclosed, have to have as much faith in their theory as a Creationist has in Genesis.

Creationists realize that to deny the Genesis account of origins is to deny that the word of God is true. Let God be true and every man a liar…etc…When I say Creationists I mean Special Creationists, not Theistic Evolutionists.

Either the Word of God is true (And I ain’t talking about Jihadis or their damed moon-god or their false prophet here)…or it isn’t. We believe that it is since the Pentateuch(sp) was dictated by the only eyewitness to Creation…we take that eyewitness account as being factual.

Whether people believe it or not is a matter of faith.

But so is Darwin…who’s basic precepts, are easily shot down by natural science as explained by Prof Bill.

Love to see a real debate happen in a school. And I don’t mean one side getting short shrift either. I mean a real robust debate where the students themselves after hearing all sides have to divide into three groups and defend the opposite view from their own as one would defend a client in court.

Now that’s the way to learn and defend a position on a issue. That’s an environment where educational indoctrination would die of its own weight and critical thinking would thrive and be encouraged.

By all means, let students have an opinion. But show them all sides and treat all sides with equal equanimity.

Creationism is silly? You just validated my points.

And what do you use as a basis to date the universe John? How do you know with certitude that the universe is that old? Has someone gone out to one of those stars and carbon dated it? Or did he/she use radiometrics on said star?

john

I’m off the rails? Why? Because I asked a good question or because you can’t prove your statement?

I’m not interested in links. I can defend my own arguments without links. I’ve studied each of the origins theories in depth, to satisfy my own curiosity.

But saying I’m off the rails on the issue is not what I call a debate. Prove your points evolutionists, with your own knowledge and in your own words. If you can. Let’s hear your science as you yourself understand it. Back it up with your so-called facts and I’ll shoot holes in arguments.

Otherwise, I’m left with the impression that you don’t know shit about it.

Let the games begin again.

1. Irreducible complexity - It was necessary for trillions of simultaneous mutations to occur just to achieve a cahnge in a single system We know from cancer patients that mutations destroy a host. Nature itself rejects all mutations? So how is this possible?

2. Contradiction of the first law of thermodynamics and general relativity - The first law indicates that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. But general relativity along with supporting observations indicates that there was clearly a beginning of everything. They can’t be reconciled without the intervention of the superntural IMHO.

3/ Lack of any proven mechanism for transmission from lower life forms to higher life forms. Theories of positive mutational change have been shown to be statistically impossible.

Moreover, attemping to cross-breed one family of species (say an ape) with another species (say a human) will at best yield a still born fetus in the lab.

Louis Leaky, Heinkle’s embryos, Judy or Julie the missing link have all turned out to be frauds.

The fossil record - it dooesn’t support evolution. Case in point: There is a large above ground coal deposit in the midwest. In some places it is 300 feet thick. Why is that deposit above ground instaed of underground and why is there no clay on it? It does not match up with the Darwinian charts that I’ve seen.

And why is it that diamonds have been found in Africa that have been previously exposed to sunlight? I thought that diamonds weren’t suppose to have ever been exposed to sunlight since they are formed underground?

And where is your missing link? Matching up a bone or two taken from one place or the other to some model of the missing link, neither correctly matches up the bones or proves that those bones belong to any particular homo sapiens.

Of course a forensic cross-section of bones can always tell if the bones are animal or human. But why disturb the myth eh?

Perhaps John would like to discuss the issue of chirality?

your my favorite neerdanthal warrior,bonus :

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1035111282729232040&hl=en

“evolutionally” speaking, did the neardanthals interbreed with the cro-magnons ?

as a cromagnon I suspect that I have neerdanthalien DNA in the brain too

Dan, there are many museums in the world’s wide that have witnesses of “evolution” fossils

as far as diamonds are concerned, you can recreate them in a laboratory, it’s a question of high and lengh of temperature

as far as witnesses of remains in a given place, bizarre that in center of France, we have many sea shells, insects, small fishes, pieces of exotic vegetals… that are “prisonners” in stones, stratified clays and sands ; the sea was there ; dunno how many millenariums or million years ago though ; but naturally none of the apparented human (because of the sea)

so, I am not trying to convice you more (I am not a specialist, neither you are, au-secours Sully ) ;

we can “talk” about these facts without fighting each others

I’m three-fourth Irish and one-fourth Polish, total knuckle dragger.

I think that today almost the whole world could admit this diagnosis.
If you say that evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology, and that it is supported in multiple forms of scientific evidence, I must agree. But I have to say that the most fundamental thing is to avoid the present confusion between “the fact of evolution” and “the theory of natural selection”.
Today increases the number of American School Board’s resolutions urging the wording be changed to allow for balanced, objective and intellectually open instruction in regard to evolution, teaching the scientific strengths and weaknesses of this theory, rather than teaching it as dogmatic fact. I agree as well, because a true scientist will always allow any theory to be undermined by further scientific findings.
Dan has said: “Learn from the great scientists of the past. Did they follow one way of thinking on a problem? No. They looked at all sides of a problem and all possible iterations and developed their own well-reasoned solutions”.
Following that same idea I have developed my own well-reasoned solutions. As a conclusion, I affirm that Darwin’s theory of evolution is at a very critical point. Thus, I’m one of the scientists who think that natural selection is an inadequate theory to explain the emergence and the evolution of the living beings.
If you are interested on the foundations of a new theory of evolution and ready to rethink some laws of physics and of biology, you are invited to visit the blog:
http://www.cosmosandgaia.blogspot.com (and the Spanish web page linked to it)
There you can find some excerpts from the book “Cosmos y Gea. Fundamentos de una nueva teoría de la evolución” (Cosmos and Gaia. Foundations of a new theory of evolution). This book is not yet translated into English, but many people already have found it as an essential scientific issue, far beyond of the sterile and ideological controversy between Darwinism and creationism.