US textbook omits evolution

[bombermick]

http://richarddawkins.net/foundation_articles/2012/8/23/censorship-of-a-textbook-to-remove-evolution

It's a strange place, the US. The only western country that has a problem with us coming from apes.

Does anyone think there is a case to be made for "teaching the controversy" or teaching creation/intelligent design alongside evolution in the US, or elsewhere?

As someone who grew up a Christian, like most I think it's a load of shit. It's pseudoscience, and it's entire philosophy comes from "God said so", rather than the evidence.

edit: Should religious schools here be allowed to teach creationism and omit evolution, if that's what parents want?

 

[Pie eyed]

http://richarddawkins.net/foundation_articles/2012/8/23/censorship-of-a-textbook-to-remove-evolution

It's a strange place, the US. The only western country that has a problem with us coming from apes.

Does anyone think there is a case to be made for "teaching the controversy" or teaching creation/intelligent design alongside evolution in the US, or elsewhere?

As someone who grew up a Christian, like most I think it's a load of shit. It's pseudoscience, and it's entire philosophy comes from "God said so", rather than the evidence.

edit: Should religious schools here be allowed to teach creationism and omit evolution, if that's what parents want?

America is infected with fundamentalist cancer.
I hope it dies soon.

 

[Gus Poyet]

People should be able to believe what ever they want.

The end.

 

[rayven]

the out of africa theory is not the whole story, so whose to say both don't hold truths?

 

[Pie eyed]

People should be able to believe what ever they want.

The end.

So long as they keep it to themselves.

 

[Chief]

the out of africa theory is not the whole story, so whose to say both don't hold truths?

Anyone with a frickin brain!

 

[rayven]

Anyone with a frickin brain!

i know that the creation story is a half arsed attempt at covering a poor plot, however there's a race of human been found in this country that has frack all to do with African monkeys. people stick there head in the sand about that one as much as creationists..

 

[Chief]

i know that the creation story is a half arsed attempt at covering a poor plot, however there's a race of human been found in this country that has frack all to do with African monkeys. people stick there head in the sand about that one as much as creationists..

Link me, I haven't heard a thing about this miraculous human ancestor.

 

[Admiral Byng]

the out of africa theory is not the whole story, so whose to say both don't hold truths?

If it can be proved with scientific evidence, the theory gets updated and revised. So far this hasn't happened. It's still in the uncertain category.

 

[rayven]

Link me, I haven't heard a thing about this miraculous human ancestor.

http://forgottenorigin.com/our-theory A starting point.

Many may not know that Professor Alan Wilson, the person responsible for the claim that we evolved from Africa, recanted his theory and now believes a small group of Homo erectus got to Australia 400,000 years ago. He believes they evolved into Homo sapiens and then spread from Australia well before the African

 

[Sydney Bloods]

i know that the creation story is a half arsed attempt at covering a poor plot, however there's a race of human been found in this country that has frack all to do with African monkeys. people stick there head in the sand about that one as much as creationists..

He's talking about the Asian line of human evolution, its been awhile since I've been at school so someone else will no doubt correct me, but I believe it does lend credence to the idea of convergent evolution, rather then creationist theory (of course both lines could also be linked to a common ancestor I'm unaware of)

 

[Pie eyed]

http://forgottenorigin.com/our-theory A starting point.

Time scales like "50,000" years are simply evidence that the sites authors are mental short people.
Lucy, Australopithicus, is 3.2 million years old.

I often wonder if people actually read even the basic tenants of the theory of evolution when it comes to man?

 

[_JC_]

Also, the fact that no evidence is available to prove that they came from anywhere but out of Africa. The dates for fossils all get younger the further away from Africa you go. This is true if you look at any of the Homo's.

 

[LouisCK]

My favourite one is how Scottish people are part Neanderthal.

 

[bombermick]

Amazing we shared the world with dinosaurs, yet the only "proof" is an obscure passage of the bible.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I know a bloke who is a Christian, believes in evolution but reckons God kicked it off anyway. Reckons God is behind whatever Science can discover both now and in the future.

He reckons his viewpoint is safe. "So's agnosticism," I say. Does the burden of proof always fall to the person making the accusation?

 

[bombermick]

I know a bloke who is a Christian, believes in evolution but reckons God kicked it off anyway. Reckons God is behind whatever Science can discover both now and in the future.

He reckons his viewpoint is safe. "So's agnosticism," I say. Does the burden of proof always fall to the person making the accusation?

It's possible God kicked it off or helped abiogenesis. But life without a supernatural cause is no more unlikely than an eternal god.
Besides, they're separate issues to whether we evolved or not.

 

[Gus Poyet]

So long as they keep it to themselves.

Do as I say, not as I do for you then...

 

[Upton Sinclair]

It's a strange place, the US. The only western country that has a problem with us coming from apes.

But fits right in with, say, fundamentalist Islamic states

 

[Bennett.]

from the australian museum website..

Humans did not evolve from an ape - we are apes, and our closest living relatives include chimpanzees and gorillas.

 

[Moo]

the out of africa theory is not the whole story, so whose to say both don't hold truths?

Me.

 

[CharacterFirst]

I know a bloke who is a Christian, believes in evolution but reckons God kicked it off anyway. Reckons God is behind whatever Science can discover both now and in the future.

He reckons his viewpoint is safe. "So's agnosticism," I say. Does the burden of proof always fall to the person making the accusation?

It's at least 1500 years old as a Xian doctrine.

Augustine - possibly the greatest Christian theologian of all time (besides Jesus and maybe Paul), was on this line of thinking long, long, long before Darwin.

Many Xians, perhaps most, have no problem with evolution as a process used by God for creation of life on earth. Some of the worlds most prominent scientists hold this type of view as well. Francis Collins for one, who started this group to help people understand other Xian understanding of Genesis - http://biologos.org/

 

[Max zero]

I know a bloke who is a Christian, believes in evolution but reckons God kicked it off anyway. Reckons God is behind whatever Science can discover both now and in the future.

He reckons his viewpoint is safe. "So's agnosticism," I say. Does the burden of proof always fall to the person making the accusation?

Religious types love that kind of reasoning.

Everything needs a origin, except God obviously.

 

[CharacterFirst]

Religious types love that kind of reasoning.

Everything needs a origin, except God obviously.

What about the "scientific types" who adhere to Darwin's "Origins of the Species"? Or those scientists looking at discovering the "Origin of the Universe"?

Or perhaps you mean people who reason that only those things that begin to exist, have a cause for that existence?

And then they fairly posit that God did not begin to exist, unlike our material Universe and everything in it. 'Eternal' is an accepted property of God by definition when discussing a maximally great being.

 

[Max zero]

What about the "scientific types" who adhere to Darwin's "Origins of the Species"? Or those scientists looking at discovering the "Origin of the Universe"?

Or perhaps you mean people who reason that only those things that begin to exist, have a cause for that existence?

And then they fairly posit that God did not begin to exist, unlike our material Universe and everything in it. 'Eternal' is an accepted property of God by definition when discussing a maximally great being.

Eternal is an accepted property of God? Says who?

Or is it just another way of saying 'not applicable'?

It just like how WLC uses deductive reasoning as proof that God is the most like cause of the universe. Easy to be the last theory standing when you have no observable or measurable properties.