Science in the classroom

[memebag]

The problem is that the drive isn't really to understand "why", it's to stop worrying about "what if?". Religion's explanation for "why" (which ultimately boils down to "God did it") has poor predictive ability, but it's good at easing worry.

[TheNiche]

The problem is that the drive isn't really to understand "why", it's to stop worrying about "what if?". Religion's explanation for "why" (which ultimately boils down to "God did it") has poor predictive ability, but it's good at easing worry.

I agree, but I would assert that this statement is supportive of my hypothesis.

[Marksmu]

I agree, but I would assert that this statement is supportive of my hypothesis.

Without jumping into the argument of evolution - which I admittedly know absolutely nothing about - the whole point of the original post was that there is a large group of people who do not believe that it exists. We have a large group of scientists on one side saying that it is a fact - evolution is a certainty. But it is as pointed out earlier just a theory. There is no way for us to actually know how it happened, we can hypothesize till were blue in the face but at the end of the day its still a theory. Why not simply state that in the text book? State - it is widely viewed by scientist that humans evolved from __________. Why not also state that religious people do not share this belief, and believe _________. Then the school has taken no stand at all, and has introduced the students to both. Later in life, when the student is older they can decide what they believe and what they want to pursue. If they are intrigued by evolution, they can go that route in college. It should not be up to the schools to decide what Theory to believe - they need to present all popular theories and allow the student to decide.

It reminds me of my particular favorite issue - Global Warming - All the do-gooders, hippies, and liberals, and what not state that it is a FACT - no argument allowed the earth is going to heat up till we all drown. Despite the fact that there is an enormous collection of scientist who disagree with this proposition who also have facts to support their hypothesis. Does the non-global warming crowd get any attention? Nope - its not on the news agenda. The news likes doom and gloom not flowers and butterflies.

I for one would absolutely oppose any teachings of global warming to my children (if I had any) b/c its not a fact, and its not proven. So why not allow Christians to make the same decision about evolution?

The schools need to present FACTS & THEORIES - explain both. That is it! They need to stay out of the business of interpreting the facts.

[memebag]

Why not simply state that in the text book? State - it is widely viewed by scientist that humans evolved from __________. Why not also state that religious people do not share this belief, and believe _________. Then the school has taken no stand at all, and has introduced the students to both.

But the school has taken a stand if it only singles out this theory and those believers. You can find people around the planet who will disagree with vast chunks of scientific knowledge. That's a good thing to know, but it isn't germane to a biology class. You could fill a semester or two of comparative religion just studying the way religions diverge from science.

Later in life, when the student is older they can decide what they believe and what they want to pursue. If they are intrigued by evolution, they can go that route in college. It should not be up to the schools to decide what Theory to believe - they need to present all popular theories and allow the student to decide.

But there's only one popular theory right now. Belief in a literal Genesis isn't a theory, and it isn't even very popular.

I for one would absolutely oppose any teachings of global warming to my children (if I had any) b/c its not a fact, and its not proven. So why not allow Christians to make the same decision about evolution?

How can a school stop a Christian from making a decision?

[Don Julio]

Chimpanzees are higher primates.

Am I the only person that finds irony that someone so condescendingly preaches the theory of evolution as it pertains to humans without actually having an especially firm grasp on the scientific evidence?

Thanks, Niche. I deserved that. I know that chimpanzees are, indeed, higher primates, but overzealousness brings with it chimp-like outbursts like mine.

Considering just how much damage has been done to organized religion in this tiny fraction of human existence, spanning only the most recent hundreds of years, I would tend to believe that the population is genetically programmed to be more or less as smart and as dumb as ever along a normal distribution with the change having absolutely nothing to do with the process of evolution. And personally, although I am not inclined to concur with religious beliefs, I am a student of history; if the expanse of mythology, religion, mysticism or its myriad interpretations are to be described as "limited", then I would be inclined to ascribe a lessor descriptor to the whole of the body of scientific knowledge. It doesn't make them more objectively correct than science, but I am convinced that the abstract thought that has been devoted to them is cumulatively greater by several orders of power.

Also, please provide the context of that quote. I think that I've heard it used before but recall it being more in reference to human behaviors that Darwin himself considered morally wrong.

Your second paragraph is the finest piece of writing I've ever seen on this or any other forum. It would be ludicrous for me to even respond, except to say thank you.

The Darwin quote is from his concluding paragraph to The Descent of Man. Here is the entire paragraph:

"Man may be excused for feeling some pride at having risen, though not through his own exertions, to the very summit of the organic scale; and the fact of his having thus risen, instead of having been aboriginally placed there, may give him hope for a still higher destiny in the distant future. But we are not here concerned with hopes or fears, only with the truth as far as our reason permits us to discover it; and I have given the evidence to the best of my ability. We must, however, acknowledge, as it seems to me, that man with all his noble qualities, with sympathy which he feels for the most debased, with benevolence which extends not only to other men but to the humblest living creature, with his god-like intellect which has penetrated into the movements and constitution of the solar system -- with all these exalted powers -- Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin."

[barracuda]

Without jumping into the argument of evolution - which I admittedly know absolutely nothing about - the whole point of the original post was that there is a large group of people who do not believe that it exists. We have a large group of scientists on one side saying that it is a fact - evolution is a certainty. But it is as pointed out earlier just a theory.

There's a difference between a scientific theory and what us laymen consider a theory. I wouldn't characterize the theory of evolution nor any scientific theory as "just a theory".

There is no way for us to actually know how it happened, we can hypothesize till were blue in the face but at the end of the day its still a theory. Why not simply state that in the text book? State - it is widely viewed by scientist that humans evolved from __________.

That seems to be the crux of the issue for the religious folks. How preposterous that the human race wasn't created by some magical deity. But what I wonder is if they can acknowledge the fact that lower life forms are evolving. This is much easier to observe since microscopic life forms like bacteria and viruses can evolve quickly.

Why not also state that religious people do not share this belief, and believe _________. Then the school has taken no stand at all, and has introduced the students to both. Later in life, when the student is older they can decide what they believe and what they want to pursue. If they are intrigued by evolution, they can go that route in college. It should not be up to the schools to decide what Theory to believe - they need to present all popular theories and allow the student to decide.

What religious people believe, as per their faith, is their business and not the school's. Families can teach their children whatever BS they want at home. It's not the state's role or responsibility to be teaching religion in school.

Evolution, on the other hand, is a very basic scientific theory that belongs in an appropriate science class. Students don't necessarily have to believe in it, but they should at least understand it so they can make up their own, better educated mind.

It reminds me of my particular favorite issue - Global Warming - All the do-gooders, hippies, and liberals, and what not state that it is a FACT - no argument allowed the earth is going to heat up till we all drown. Despite the fact that there is an enormous collection of scientist who disagree with this proposition who also have facts to support their hypothesis. Does the non-global warming crowd get any attention? Nope - its not on the news agenda. The news likes doom and gloom not flowers and butterflies.

I for one would absolutely oppose any teachings of global warming to my children (if I had any) b/c its not a fact, and its not proven. So why not allow Christians to make the same decision about evolution?

The schools need to present FACTS & THEORIES - explain both. That is it! They need to stay out of the business of interpreting the facts.

Hmm, but most scientist are certain that global warming is happening. Those that do disagree are more often disagreeing about the cause and not the existence of global warming itself. They may not understand the issue as completely as they'd like, but the best data available indicates serious changes to the climate, some of which is already very noticeable. Seems to me that it's an important enough issue that I'd want my children to understand, especially when it's something that will have effects in their lifetimes more than ours.

[Don Julio]

Without jumping into the argument of evolution - which I admittedly know absolutely nothing about - the whole point of the original post was that there is a large group of people who do not believe that it exists. We have a large group of scientists on one side saying that it is a fact - evolution is a certainty. But it is as pointed out earlier just a theory. There is no way for us to actually know how it happened, we can hypothesize till were blue in the face but at the end of the day its still a theory. Why not simply state that in the text book? State - it is widely viewed by scientist that humans evolved from __________. Why not also state that religious people do not share this belief, and believe _________. Then the school has taken no stand at all, and has introduced the students to both. Later in life, when the student is older they can decide what they believe and what they want to pursue. If they are intrigued by evolution, they can go that route in college. It should not be up to the schools to decide what Theory to believe - they need to present all popular theories and allow the student to decide.

It reminds me of my particular favorite issue - Global Warming - All the do-gooders, hippies, and liberals, and what not state that it is a FACT - no argument allowed the earth is going to heat up till we all drown. Despite the fact that there is an enormous collection of scientist who disagree with this proposition who also have facts to support their hypothesis. Does the non-global warming crowd get any attention? Nope - its not on the news agenda. The news likes doom and gloom not flowers and butterflies.

I for one would absolutely oppose any teachings of global warming to my children (if I had any) b/c its not a fact, and its not proven. So why not allow Christians to make the same decision about evolution?

The schools need to present FACTS & THEORIES - explain both. That is it! They need to stay out of the business of interpreting the facts.

There are few certainties in life, but one of them is this: if a person prefaces their comments on evolution by stating that "it's just a theory," there is a 100% certainty that the rest of what they say will be specious nonsense.

[RedScare]

Another certainty is that if they say they know absolutely nothing about a subject, they most certainly will prove themselves correct.

[20thStDad]

The Genesis creation myth has a moral lesson, that is its main purpose within the Bible. I wish Christians could just accept that for what it is instead of reading it like history.

Another thing I don't understand is why some Christians think science is out to prove there is no God. To me, science, creation of the universe (big bang science version), formation of our solar system, geology, the beginning and evolution of life - that is much more amazing to me than some magical story. If you believe in God as the creator, you should find him even more impressive with every amazing scientific discovery. I'd much rather a God who incorporated math, science, and physics in creating a universe than a simple fairy tale. The God that did it with science is bad ass.

[Fringe]

It's all a moot point since the world will end in 2012.

[lockmat]

There's a difference between a scientific theory and what us laymen consider a theory. I wouldn't characterize the theory of evolution nor any scientific theory as "just a theory".

According to wiki, in science, theory and fact are considered synonymous:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

That seems to be the crux of the issue for the religious folks. How preposterous that the human race wasn't created by some magical deity. But what I wonder is if they can acknowledge the fact that lower life forms are evolving. This is much easier to observe since microscopic life forms like bacteria and viruses can evolve quickly.

Just wondering if you could also replace that word with "do" and it still be true?

Hmm, but most scientist are certain that global warming is happening. Those that do disagree are more often disagreeing about the cause and not the existence of global warming itself. They may not understand the issue as completely as they'd like, but the best data available indicates serious changes to the climate, some of which is already very noticeable. Seems to me that it's an important enough issue that I'd want my children to understand, especially when it's something that will have effects in their lifetimes more than ours.

I'm not saying you're doing this, but it seems to me when we/many people talk about "scientists", most are speaking out of ignorance. It may be true, but many seem to just accept what the Geographic channel, PBS or some Harper's article told them. How much is "most" anyway? Are they the scientists we choose to read when learning about the subject? The opposition could be greater in number than we realize but don't really know just because we've never checked them out before to see for ourselves; that and the NY Times told me so.

[lockmat]

The Genesis creation myth has a moral lesson, that is its main purpose within the Bible. I wish Christians could just accept that for what it is instead of reading it like history.

Another thing I don't understand is why some Christians think science is out to prove there is no God. To me, science, creation of the universe (big bang science version), formation of our solar system, geology, the beginning and evolution of life - that is much more amazing to me than some magical story. If you believe in God as the creator, you should find him even more impressive with every amazing scientific discovery. I'd much rather a God who incorporated math, science, and physics in creating a universe than a simple fairy tale. The God that did it with science is bad ass.

At what point in reading their bibles are they supposed to start taking things as history and fact? Same goes for any other religion. Who decides to pick and choose what is history, fairy-tale or simply "inspiration?" I guess when it clashes with science? I'm honestly just asking.

And most Christians do look in amazement in science. I remember taking biology in college and being amazed at how every singe part of the human body (and any other living thing) needs to work together to take each breath. Thousands of things have to go right for us to live. Pretty amazing.

edit: one reason Christians might think some scientists are out to prove there is no god is because many top scientists don't believe in a god. And, consciencly or not, they're going to do their science according to their world view. That's where they'll get their presuppositions, premises, logic and hypothesis' from.

[memebag]

edit: one reason Christians might think some scientists are out to prove there is no god is because many top scientists don't believe in a god. And, consciencly or not, they're going to do their science according to their world view. That's where they'll get their presuppositions, premises, logic and hypothesis' from.

Unless they stopped believing in god(s) because of what they found via science, which is frequently the case. I was raised as a Christian and believed wholeheartedly until I was 14, when I realized I couldn't reconcile what I had learned from science with what I had been told to believe since I was born. I didn't set out to impose a godless world view on anything; I accepted a godless worldview because it makes more sense.

And the intention of the scientist doesn't really matter in the long run. A scientist can set out to prove or disprove the existence of gods, and if the theories can be tested and the experiements reproduced, then they are scientifically valid. The author's intention is of no importance at all.

[sunsets]

And most Christians do look in amazement in science. I remember taking biology in college and being amazed at how every singe part of the human body (and any other living thing) needs to work together to take each breath. Thousands of things have to go right for us to live. Pretty amazing.

And we also have a lot of stuff we don't need. Like a functional appendix. Or heck, even a spleen. We can do without that. So why, if there is a grand design for us all, do we even HAVE an appendix? Biology is incredible, and we're still understanding how everything works. But there is a lot of redundancy, and yes, a lot of characteristics that we share with "lower" organisms. You can choose to decide if this supports evolution or not.

edit: one reason Christians might think some scientists are out to prove there is no god is because many top scientists don't believe in a god. And, consciencly or not, they're going to do their science according to their world view. That's where they'll get their presuppositions, premises, logic and hypothesis' from.

Talk about a manufactured argument.... How many "top" scientists (with the exception of Richard Dawkins) go around proclaiming their disbelief in God???? I've been to three Nobel laureate lectures and countless conferences, and I don't think anyone has opened their talk with "My name is Big Shot Scientist, and I am an atheist". Grad school requirements do not include a class on "turn your back on God". There is no form for "state how your hypothesis refutes the idea of the one true creator" on the NIH grant application.

Faith is a private matter, and I know plenty of devout church-goers who are fantastic scientists. But their science is not influenced by faith, and vice versa. Really.

A good science education should teach students to THINK. And to think critically. And to understand how we humans make sense of the world around us. This is important, because we need to be able to make our own decisions about how to live and how to get along on this planet, and they should be INFORMED decisions, not just parroting of the screeching of the television talking heads. And how do we do that? We look at evidence, and we decide. Evidence is not blind faith.

[lockmat]

And we also have a lot of stuff we don't need. Like a functional appendix. Or heck, even a spleen. We can do without that. So why, if there is a grand design for us all, do we even HAVE an appendix? Biology is incredible, and we're still understanding how everything works. But there is a lot of redundancy, and yes, a lot of characteristics that we share with "lower" organisms. You can choose to decide if this supports evolution or not.

I would venture to say the things we do need highly outnumber the things we don't. And "needing" may also include "useful" things, like fingernails, 5 toes instead of four etc. We don't need them but they are very helpful.

Mr. Wiki tells me a spleen is not essential but useful as it..."filters the blood by removing old or damaged blood cells and platelets, helps the immune system by destroying bacteria and other foreign substances by opsonization and producing antibodies."

I'd rather have it than not, just like my eyes, nose, tongue etc. I don't need those things but they sure make life a whole lot easier and better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruptured_spleen

And the appendix...

"...the appendix is traditionally thought to have no function in the human body. However, new studies from surgeons and immunologists at Duke University Medical School show that the appendix produces and protects bacteria that are beneficial in the function of the human colon."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiform_appendix

Looks like we need to catch up on our appendix functionality reading. jk!

[barracuda]

This is much easier to observe since microscopic life forms like bacteria and viruses can evolve quickly.

Just wondering if you could also replace that word with "do" and it still be true?

It has been observed, so it is true. Whether every possible strain of bacteria or virus has been observed mutating is another question. I don't think anyone knows, but it's likely that some strains evolve while others die out depending on various factors, like their environment.

I'm not saying you're doing this, but it seems to me when we/many people talk about "scientists", most are speaking out of ignorance. It may be true, but many seem to just accept what the Geographic channel, PBS or some Harper's article told them. How much is "most" anyway? Are they the scientists we choose to read when learning about the subject? The opposition could be greater in number than we realize but don't really know just because we've never checked them out before to see for ourselves; that and the NY Times told me so.

It's generally accepted that the vast majority of scientists who study the issue have acknowledged it. But I don't believe every single scientist has been surveyed on the issue.

There's also the question of reputable scientists vs. those that are paid by organizations that stand to lose due if legal restrictions tied to global warming pacts or legislation are enacted. Scientist paid by such organizations generally try to seed doubt about global warming.

Here's a better explanation than I can give: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qi...13075509AApZYez

[20thStDad]

At what point in reading their bibles are they supposed to start taking things as history and fact? Same goes for any other religion. Who decides to pick and choose what is history, fairy-tale or simply "inspiration?" I guess when it clashes with science? I'm honestly just asking.

That is a good point, and to me it is just something that gets handled by each person differently. I understand that the Bible is a compilation of history/stories spanning hundreds of years, and that lore and legend have certainly made their way into it. The "church" decided what pieces would end up in the official text, which is fine, but doesn't mean it's the whole story or that the entire thing is factual. I have spent time reading it and it is very clear that there is a great difference between the writers of the old testament and the liberties they took in injecting drama and personifying God compared to the new testament. That might beget a much longer discussion, but my point is that the Bible can mean different things to each individual and still be meaningful. I just think Christianity shouldn't have quit after the first book they released - there's so much more.

Unless they stopped believing in god(s) because of what they found via science, which is frequently the case. I was raised as a Christian and believed wholeheartedly until I was 14, when I realized I couldn't reconcile what I had learned from science with what I had been told to believe since I was born. I didn't set out to impose a godless world view on anything; I accepted a godless worldview because it makes more sense.

Interesting, I'm the opposite. I went through a period of religious indifference, but the more advanced I got in my physics and engineering courses the more I became sure that there was something deeper that none of us have a firm grasp of yet. The concepts of time and infinity alone are enough to cement my belief that while the universe exists and acts on its own at this point, it got here somehow and ends somewhere, somehow. Combine time and infinity and start to ask the question "...and before that?", and science (granted, as we know it) will run out of answers quickly (15 billion years, but still). I like to ponder such things, and when I do I always conclude to myself that there is a greater something...whatever people decide to call it is up to them.

[sarahiki]

I would venture to say the things we do need highly outnumber the things we don't. And "needing" may also include "useful" things, like fingernails, 5 toes instead of four etc. We don't need them but they are very helpful.

Mr. Wiki tells me a spleen is not essential but useful as it..."filters the blood by removing old or damaged blood cells and platelets, helps the immune system by destroying bacteria and other foreign substances by opsonization and producing antibodies."

I'd rather have it than not, just like my eyes, nose, tongue etc. I don't need those things but they sure make life a whole lot easier and better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruptured_spleen

And the appendix...

"...the appendix is traditionally thought to have no function in the human body. However, new studies from surgeons and immunologists at Duke University Medical School show that the appendix produces and protects bacteria that are beneficial in the function of the human colon."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiform_appendix

Looks like we need to catch up on our appendix functionality reading. jk!

But whales have five fingers, too. The bones are there, within their fins. Certainly they don't need five fingers. But the whale, and other mammals, have a common point of origin in the distant past. Hence, we all have five fingers. This is the kind of thing I love about evolutionary theory... it is so elegant.

[lockmat]

I just think Christianity shouldn't have quit after the first book they released - there's so much more.

Christians believe the bible is true. To Christians, the bible is more than just a book to make them happy or see some meaning in life(although some(or many) try to make it out to be that way. Actually, if someone just wants to go through life being happy, there are other religions that make it much more easier on them.). It

[memebag]

But whales have five fingers, too. The bones are there, within their fins. Certainly they don't need five fingers. But the whale, and other mammals, have a common point of origin in the distant past. Hence, we all have five fingers. This is the kind of thing I love about evolutionary theory... it is so elegant.

And without evolution's elegance, biology is just confusing. If you get rid of evolution you're left with a multitude of unanswered questions. That's why it inspires so much passion in its defenders. There's so much evidence pointing directly at evolution that it seems obvious now, like we should have figured this out long before Darwin.

[lockmat]

But whales have five fingers, too. The bones are there, within their fins. Certainly they don't need five fingers. But the whale, and other mammals, have a common point of origin in the distant past. Hence, we all have five fingers. This is the kind of thing I love about evolutionary theory... it is so elegant.

From a different point of view, if one was to believe in a single creator, they could also attribute this to the fact that there was one designer. Right? I don't think it's illogical for one to think that from that point of view.

[memebag]

From a different point of view, if one was to believe in a single creator, they could also attribute this to the fact that there was one designer. Right? I don't think it's illogical for one to think that from that point of view.

Why would a single designer explain whale fingers? Or are you saying that the single designer is a real prankster and wants to trick us by filling biology with evidence for evolution?

[sarahiki]

From a different point of view, if one was to believe in a single creator, they could also attribute this to the fact that there was one designer. Right? I don't think it's illogical for one to think that from that point of view.

I am not used to thinking about it from a "design" perspective, though it's certainly interesting to consider. However, why, then, would whales be designed with five useless fingers, instead of having a more fish-like skeleton? It defies the logic of design. For that matter, why not design the whale as a fish entirely, rather than as a mammal. It lives in water, after all.

I realize that from the perspective of belief, one shouldn't ask "why" the Designer designed things, one should just accept that it must have been done for very good reasons that are none of our business. But in that case, we really can't examine the case for design. So it really can't be considered in a classroom. And thus, another very good reason that religion doesn't belong in a science classroom.

[lockmat]

Why would a single designer explain whale fingers? Or are you saying that the single designer is a real prankster and wants to trick us by filling biology with evidence for evolution?

Haha...no. What I'm saying is that if there is one designer, it might be logical that all of his creation would have similar features. Of course if the designer wanted to make every creation completely different, that's his prerogative.

Buildings all have similar features, chairs do, cell phones, cars etc. There are many different models but the main components are either all the same or very similar.

Artists tend to make similar art, a la Picasso, Van Gogh, Monet etc...

And if that one designer wants to go Bo Jackson and play a different sport, that's possible too. So I wouldn't say one or some differences necessarily say it's not from one single designer either.

[lockmat]

I am not used to thinking about it from a "design" perspective, though it's certainly interesting to consider. However, why, then, would whales be designed with five useless fingers, instead of having a more fish-like skeleton? It defies the logic of design. For that matter, why not design the whale as a fish entirely, rather than as a mammal. It lives in water, after all.

I realize that from the perspective of belief, one shouldn't ask "why" the Designer designed things, one should just accept that it must have been done for very good reasons that are none of our business. But in that case, we really can't examine the case for design. So it really can't be considered in a classroom. And thus, another very good reason that religion doesn't belong in a science classroom.

Sorry if it seemed I'm arguing for creation to be taught in the classroom. I'm not. In fact, most of yall are right. It's not science, so leave it out. I agree that parents should be the ultimate teachers anyway. (so I guess I'm waaay of topic? )

I'm not necessarily in the boat that says, "it must have a very good reason so it's none of our business." I believe it's good and fine to wonder and to try and figure out. At the same time, some things in this world we'll never know, "why."

As to the statement that it defies the logic of design, I don't necessarily agree. haha...look at architects today, painters, jean designers, laptops, shoes. Sure things can have function but they can have things that seem useless or maybe we can even say, beauty, at times.

[20thStDad]

Christians believe the bible is true. To Christians, the bible is more than just a book to make them happy or see some meaning in life(although some(or many) try to make it out to be that way. Actually, if someone just wants to go through life being happy, there are other religions that make it much more easier on them.). It's the actual words of God (2 references: link link). If they are the words of God and then parts of it are to be found untrue, then the character of their God is flawed. He lies just like everyone else. He is not trustworthy. If the God of Christians lies from the beginning then why should they go past the first words, much less the first book? And if it's just a fairy-tale, then it's a very cruel joke, because the bible never hints that it's just a fairy-tale or simply some wise words to live by for a happy life. They are God's words...they are to be heeded and obeyed. Genesis and creation is the foundation for Christians. It shows that they were created by God and therefore have someone to be accountable to.

It may seem that the bible is just a hodge podge of wisdom books and stories put together but they're really not. It's one huge story and they all go together. From beginning to end it has one purpose.

For a Christian to be consistent in their beliefs, creation is foundationally critical; it's the beginning of the story. Evolution and the bible creation account do not jibe.

Hmm, interesting. It's the word of God, written down by men based on recounting of events by men. Anyway, I get your point, but this is where Christianity dives off the cliff for me. Within Genesis itself there are passages that indicate the creation myth of Adam and Eve isn't all there was to it. There are peoples not beget by them that show up near the end - so were they not created by God, only the Christians were? The Bible would be so much more powerful, even to the Christians, if they would not take it so literally but learn from it and the lessons it puts forth. And Christianity itself could benefit to exposure to other writings that were basically arbitrarily left out of the Bible.

I'm bowing out of this discussion now, but literal interpretations of the Bible at the expense of reason/logic are the reason I consider myself "spiritual" but not "religious".

[memebag]

Haha...no. What I'm saying is that if there is one designer, it might be logical that all of his creation would have similar features.

If all of his creations had similar features that might make sense, but they don't. Compound, camera-like eyes, for instance, seem to have evolved at least twice. Why wouldn't the designer just use the same eye design for all eyes?

[lockmat]

If all of his creations had similar features that might make sense(the eyes themselves aren't the similar feature?), but they don't. Compound, camera-like eyes, for instance, seem to have evolved at least twice. Why wouldn't the designer just use the same eye design for all eyes?

If the designer was all powerful and all knowing, he's wasn't limited to one design. It's prerogative, beauty, intelligence. He's not an assembly line. He's not limited in his abilities and creativity. If he had all these attributes maybe the question is not why, but why not?

I've actually checked out one of those books that was referenced the other day, so maybe I'll find the answer in there. But why didn't evolution produce just one single thing and then simply reproduce it over and over? I understand that things evolved according to their environment, right? Well, if they were all in the same environment, why did they change so drastically from each other? I guess they wondered off into different parts of the world? If there was a logical answer, I guess that's it?

[memebag]

If the designer was all powerful and all knowing, he's wasn't limited to one design. It's prerogative, beauty, intelligence. He's not an assembly line. He's not limited in his abilities and creativity. If he had all these attributes maybe the question is not why, but why not?

You can't have it both ways. Either whale fingers are evidence for a creator and squid eyes are evidence against it, or vice versa. If you're going to say that the creator makes everything the same way except when he doesn't, you really haven't provided any evidence for a creator.

I've actually checked out one of those books that was referenced the other day, so maybe I'll find the answer in there. But why didn't evolution produce just one single thing and then simply reproduce it over and over? I understand that things evolved according to their environment, right? Well, if they were all in the same environment, why did they change so drastically from each other? I guess they wondered off into different parts of the world? If there was a logical answer, I guess that's it?

Geography has a lot to do with it. So does the living part of the environment, i.e. the other individuals trying to survive in the same area.

[lockmat]

You can't have it both ways. Either whale fingers are evidence for a creator and squid eyes are evidence against it, or vice versa. If you're going to say that the creator makes everything the same way except when he doesn't, you really haven't provided any evidence for a creator.

I'm convinced the answer I gave is completely logical and acceptable. Why can't it be that way? Overall, things are created consistently. Some of the details can sometimes vary. All cars have a wheels but not all cars run on fuel. Picaso did not paint the same painting over and over again. If the creator is not a robot and not obligated to make everything the same exact way, does he not of his own free will have the ability to create variations? Also...maybe I'll to do some reserach, but are these fingers similar to what a fish has in it's fins? Are they just for stability and and ability to swim easier and with more force? I did a quick search and didn't find anything, maybe someone can give a link?

Geography has a lot to do with it. So does the living part of the environment, i.e. the other individuals trying to survive in the same area.

I'm thinking from the beginning here...

At one point in time, these "individuals" were probably very close to being the exact same, right? If at that time they were so close to being the same, why was there competition? It was most likely not like a lion vs. a gazelle but instead like a white person vs. a black person. They're both humans, yet they're able to coincide. So why the need to compete?

And say one animal/bacteria spawned off another, it would be laying right next to it in the same exact environment. I would think they'd continue to replicate in the same way. They're living, they're pretty much the same, so there's no need to compete, no need to evolve b/c they're surviving their current conditions. And at what point would it need to evolve to something more complex, or into a food or into a more complex animal. I can see how someone can believe this over millions of years, but I'm thinking in the context of a year, ten years, fifty years. I just don't see the need to evolve. It makes more sense if they all lived in the same exact environment and were pretty much close to exact replicas, there would be no need to evolve and would just continue producing the same thing.