Tough Assignment: Teaching Evolution To Fundamentalists

Ft. Wayne Journal Gazette ^ | 03 December 2004 | SHARON BEGLEY

[Godzilla]

>>Where are the "entire sects" of Christianity that believe that diseases are not caused by germs? << The following is a summary of the basic religious beliefs of Christian Science; it is based on an evaluation of the religious text of Christian Science, Science and Health With the Key to Scriptures (1971 edition) by Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science:

Beg your pardon, Christian Science is a cultic spinnoff of Christianity and can ONLY be associated with Christianity because THEY chose to incorporate the word into their identity (thus in name only). They are not a part of Christianity proper.

[D Edmund Joaquin]

he goes lalala I can't hear you

[Wallace T.]

Christian Scientists are not orthodox Christians who agree on the common set of doctrine agreed upon by traditional Roman Catholics, conservative Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox believers, as outlined by early church councils like Nicaea and Chalcedon. There are doctrinal similarities between orthodox Christians and Christian Scientists on some points, no doubt. There are also similarities between Marxists and Objectivists in the areas of metaphysics and epistemology. However, no one would ever mistake Ayn Rand for Karl Marx.

[PatrickHenry]

I particularly appreciate your self-evaluation. That is priceless.

The Crackpot Index, by John Baez.

[WildTurkey]

However, the fact that they hold a certain body of statements founded in the Bible, to be truer than the theories and laws of scientists does not make them anti-science.

Uh, I think you just stated that the are anti-science.

[js1138]

Do you have a question about something related to evolution?

You asked about redoods. I am unaware of any problem related to redwoods and evolution. I said s and you did not follow up.

You asked about extinction and I asked why this is a problem. I simply don't understand why extinction is a problem. The concept of evolution was formed in an era of science that was, for the first time, documenting extinction as a fact. It is built into all the assumptions about evolution. What exactly is the problem.

Species do not change for any particular purpose, nor do they change in anticipation of need. These concepts have never had anything to do with evolution.

[Wallace T.]

Isn't is sad? The author and comedian Jean Shepherd once said that if there is one certainty, it is that in 4000 years, no one will know who you are, even if "you" are someone famous like George W. Bush, Nicole Kidman, Warren Buffett, or Tiger Woods. I hope and believe, that in the final sense, Shepherd was wrong.

[Wallace T.]

No, just certain positions held by mainstream science. For example, I oppose President Bush's immigration position, but I supported his reelection and wish him all success in his second term.

[VadeRetro]

No creationist has criticized the idea that momentum conservation requires all planets to spin the same way. I assume that they thus support this idea.

The lack of response doesn't really show that, of course. It shows something else.

When you're concerned about whipping up on the Evil, Dumb Enemy, you don't correct a guy on your own side just for being wrong. When truth is a side issue--it's not on your side anyway--and winning a point is the whole deal, that's how you play.

[D Edmund Joaquin]

I simply don't understand why extinction is a problem.

Well, I just simply don't understand why it isn't a problem. If evolution is true, nothing should go extinct, it should adapt and change, especially the fittest, which you would think sabertooth tigers, for one, would be

[js1138]

LOL.

[BJungNan]

Your point is not meaningless, however, a faith-based debate is. Evolution is not faith based.

I'm not following you at all. The discussion, at least as I raised it, is that both should be taught. Heck, throw in the big bang theory if you want. But, teach about them. Don't say one or the other is correct. Just leave it up to the kids to decide.

The point being, why is one excluded over the other. As far as I am concerned, it is as much a stretch of faith to accept evolution as it is to accept creation. Call if science or whatever if you want. To me, though, it sounds like you are fooling yourself when you do. Evolution does not explain how the world got here.

[js1138]

Have you paid attention to anything I've said? Species do not change in anticipation of need. Never have. Never will.

[BJungNan]

What specifically about redwoods needs explaining?

How does it get water to the top?

[VadeRetro]

Some creationists make mistakes. So do some evolutionists. There was an instance of school textbooks issued in the 1990s that claimed that the development of the human fetus reflected the course of evolution from single cell life upward through ever higher species until reaching primate and finally human status.

Embryological evidence is still considered in biology as a clue to evolutionary history. It's part of a growing area of study called evolutionary developmental biology ("evo-devo"). You seem to have spun all that out of existence. Good trick!

[Junior]

Placemarker.

[D Edmund Joaquin]

I see. They just die off as Nature intended all along

[D Edmund Joaquin]

lol

[Junior]

How does it get water to the top?

Capillary action.

[PatrickHenry]

[What specifically about redwoods needs explaining?]
How does it get water to the top?

Each tree has a tree fairy at the top, who sucks the water all the way up. Every now and then they come down to the forest floor and take a break. Sometimes, when you're walking alone in the woods, you can get lucky.