Evolution in schools; legal trap (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, June 14, 2012, 10:51 (4523 days ago) @ dhw


> I am getting confused. The two articles you have linked us to come under "scienceagainstevolution", offering us a woeful distortion of the theory of evolution, which the author clearly thinks incorporates abiogenesis. It does not. Since you agree with him, let's forget about his website and concentrate on what you believe! If you reject the notion that all living organisms are descended from earlier living organisms (whether through chance processes or by means of a designed mechanism, perhaps with occasional interference from the designer), and you regard as silly the idea that God created every organ and species separately, what alternative hypothesis can you offer us?-The idea that God created everything in 6 days and that the world is only 6k years old IS silly, just as silly as claiming that will all our complexity we were able to go from a single cell (ignoring abiogenesis for the moment) to the complex organisms we are today by pure chance. -A few weeks ago I was talking with a friend of mine and made the rather obvious statement that, at least in the areas where they overlap, science and religion must agree, other wise one or the other are wrong.-While I do not profess to any one religion, I have never made any bones about my theism, nor about my extreme interest in the life sciences. I do not see them as opposites or even opponents. In my world view, theism analyzes the nature of a UI from the religious/philosophical standpoint, its personality for lack of a better word, while science studies its actions and the results of its actions. In my world view, one can, in some ways, be used to analyze and critique the other, but not in the destructive manner that exists between atheist and religious fundamentalist. -I have no issue with evolution as adaptation within a given family of creatures. I also have no issue with the creationist belief of 'God created them according to their kind'. One describes variation, which is a well known and well observed fact. The other describes the physiological differences that can not be explained by random chance, mutation, or epigenics. In other words, there was no reason for a UI to create a Jersey, a buffalo, and a ox. Creating a single breedable bovine species with the ability to adapt would have been sufficient. The question for me is, why does it have to be one way or the other?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.