Feinder
Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
|
That part's the kick.
There are actually several "flavors" of evolution. And technically, Darwinism is a subset of Evolution, but not entirely the same.
One of the fundamental problems is, you have people on both sides of the issue arguing for against the other, with only 3 paragraphs of a high-school text book, or a few Sunday school classes under their belt.
They in-fact know little or nothing of the merits or weaknesses of the the other's argument. It ends up being an emotionally charged situation, where neither side can be objective.
Evolution works on the small scale that we can measure. That much is known. But again, we cannot PROVE that it is the originator of life (whether it's 1.6 billion years ago, or 6000, depending on your perspective). Therefore, despite the fact that we know things evolve, the Theory of Evolution, which descibes the originator of life on Earth as having come from a goo of amino acids; is inded a theory, because it cannot be proven as the originator of life.
Creationism, by it's very defintion, requires faith. Again, all that we have to go on for Creationism, is a book that says it happened 6000 years ago (if you take it litterally). Or even if you're more liberal in your interpretation of Creationism, and say that God set things in motion (even if it was 1.6 billion years ago, which is what I happen to believe by the way), it still requires -faith- because you're believing in something that cannot be proven (that a higher power actually started the ball rolling, and that it wasn not random chance).
Which then brings the circle of "Why not teach creationism in schools?"
It is quickly argued that "Separation of Church and State" precludes the teaching of Creationism in schools, because it assumes (by it's very definition), that a higher power created things to begin with. The belief in this higher power, is by definition religeon, and thus should be kept out of school. Quick and simple.
But the other side of the argument is that, since Evolution cannot be proven as the origin of life, it too requires -faith- that it is indeed the origin of life. The fact that you're not assigning the credit to God is irrelevent. It still requires faith that it is true, because it cannot be proven. Faith in "science" (aka Humanism), is just as much as a religeon as Buddism, and obviously produces zealots just as enthusisic as any of the other world religeons. So if Evolution requires faith, and is taught in schools, then why can't Creationism be taught? (or at least the disclaimer that Evolution is only a theory). And so the argument goes.
Like I said. I think God has more important things for us to worry about, than stickers in text books. But all the same, I'm fairly well-versed on both sides of this issue, and can play this game for either side.
-F-
_____________________________
"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me  |
Printable Version
RE: [OT] Charles Darwin - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread