Zogby Poll: Most Americans Want Strengths and Weaknesses of Darwinism Taught In Schoo

[billwald]

>If I had never seen a Bible or heard of Jesus Christ, or never been to a science class, anyone with half sense can see this was put together by a Creator. It takes a real idiot to think this just started from nothing and evolved.

This what?

 

[Jedi Knight]

>If I had never seen a Bible or heard of Jesus Christ, or never been to a science class, anyone with half sense can see this was put together by a Creator. It takes a real idiot to think this just started from nothing and evolved.

Amen Brother:thumbsup:

 

[targus]

>If I had never seen a Bible or heard of Jesus Christ, or never been to a science class, anyone with half sense can see this was put together by a Creator. It takes a real idiot to think this just started from nothing and evolved.

This what?

This everything - obviously.

 

[Aaron]

Science is not a popularity contest. Maybe Alchemy should be taught alongside Chemistry as an alternate viewpoint. Or maybe the stork theory of reproduction.

This misses the point entirely, and either betrays a colossal ignorance of the binding and gagging of dissent that is regulary imposed in educational and "scientific" circles, or you're complicit in it.

The point was, the weaknesses of Darwinism in all it's forms should be openly discussed when it is taught.

 

[Revmitchell]

This misses the point entirely, and either betrays a colossal ignorance of the binding and gagging of dissent that is regulary imposed in educational and "scientific" circles, or you're complicit in it.

The point was, the weaknesses of Darwinism in all it's forms should be openly discussed when it is taught.

Probably should have been "portrays"

 

[billwald]

The basic problem is this nonspecific use of the word "Darwinism." We don't call physics "alchamedesism." Medicine is not called "Galenism."

An east coast power reactor was built using a river water for cooling. The down stream river water was several degrees warmer than the upstream river After 10 years or so some kind of little fish was found living up stream and down stream of the plant. It was discovered that when the cool water fish were transplanted into the warmer water, they died. Apparently the down stream fish evolved into a new breed of fish. This demonstrates the weakness of which hypothesis?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Apparently the down stream fish evolved into a new breed of fish. This demonstrates the weakness of which hypothesis?

So a fish "evolved" into a fish? That's not the claim of Darwinism (a term widely recognized in the scientific community as a valid description of evolution), and it's not the way that "evolve" is typically used. "Evolve" has a much more loaded meaning.

The Bible is fully consistent with fish "evolving" into other kinds of fish. However, Darwinism teaches that fish evolved into other kinds of animals, something completely unproved by science.

 

[Jedi Knight]

The Bible is fully consistent with fish "evolving" into other kinds of fish. However, Darwinism teaches that fish evolved into other kinds of animals, something completely unproved by science.

Totally right and science has "evolved" into theory only because of the lack of facts to back up their theory. Science according to Richard Dawkins is based on facts.....so what has become of real science?

 

[Revmitchell]

The basic problem is this nonspecific use of the word "Darwinism." We don't call physics "alchamedesism." Medicine is not called "Galenism."

An east coast power reactor was built using a river water for cooling. The down stream river water was several degrees warmer than the upstream river After 10 years or so some kind of little fish was found living up stream and down stream of the plant. It was discovered that when the cool water fish were transplanted into the warmer water, they died. Apparently the down stream fish evolved into a new breed of fish. This demonstrates the weakness of which hypothesis?

"Darwinists" such as Richard Lewontin recognize that your example is not relevant to the evolutionary discussion and holds no evidence for it. In his book "What is Creation Science?"Henry Morris quotes Lewontin's article "Adaptation" written in the "Scientific American" book, "Evolution" :

".....evolution cannot be described as adaptation because all organisms are already adapted."

"......adaptation leads to natural selection, natural selection does not necessarily lead to greater adaptation."

".......natural selection operates essentially to enable the organism to maintain their state of adaptation rather than to improve it."

"........natural selection over the long run does not seem to improve a species' chances of survival but simply enables it to track the constantly changing environment."

The failure of your example is that it does not explain the "origin" of the ability to adapt. Therefore evolution is not supported or proven. Even creationists believe in and hold firmly to this type of adaptation.

 

[just-want-peace]

Just one more feeble attempt to "PROVE" that God really didn't know what He was talking about!! ("But not to worry, us moderns have straightened it out for you "literalists"!)

Sheesh!!!!!!!!!! The arrogance of "man" (some anyway) is astounding.:sleep:

 

[rbell]

The basic problem is this nonspecific use of the word "Darwinism." We don't call physics "alchamedesism." Medicine is not called "Galenism."

An east coast power reactor was built using a river water for cooling. The down stream river water was several degrees warmer than the upstream river After 10 years or so some kind of little fish was found living up stream and down stream of the plant. It was discovered that when the cool water fish were transplanted into the warmer water, they died. Apparently the down stream fish evolved into a new breed of fish. This demonstrates the weakness of which hypothesis?

That's the best you've got to prove your unbelief? Micro, intra-species "evlolution?"

Wow. You're just looking for excuses to discount the Bible you already don't believe.