Because teaching about religion in a public school classroom is illegal. No body does it any more. That was what the Wedge Document was all about. The attempt to get religion back into the classroom. Today if a public school teacher taught religion in a public school, he/she would be fired before the end of the school day. It is that simple. Every public school teacher knows this. Football coaches are learning this also about team praying.
Try taking a look at this. This seems like a pretty clear refutation of your claim: " First , while it is constitutional for public schools to teach children about religion, it is unconstitutional to use public schools to advance particular religious beliefs" . Itâs possible that you understand constitutional law better than the ACLU, but Iâm skeptical.
In any case, I await your citation of a relevant statute or ruling.
Are you genuinely unable to grasp the distinction between teaching religion and teaching about religion? If so, thereâs no point to continuing this conversation.
Believe me, FFRF knows TE/EC well, as well as Biologos and Dr. Collins. As I have said before Biologos and Dr. Collins plays by the rules. In no case has Biologos or Dr. Collins attempted to insert TE/EC into the public schools. There is a big difference between rhetoric and grandstanding and actually doing an action in a public school.
1 Like
And take a look at how it turned out:
I am certainly able to grasp the distinction. In theory a neutral world religion class could be taught in a public high schools. Also, in theory, a Bible as Literature or the Bible as History class could be taught in a public high school. Several school districts have attempted to establish such classes usually with private donations from Evangelical Christian groups for the extra teachers/staff and materials required. But in the end the results are the same. The classes arenât neutral and arenât taught as literature, history or unbiased survey of world religions. It usually turns into a mess and it is either forced to be canceled because of expensive lawsuits or due to the acrimony and divisiveness between students (different denominations of Christians, Catholics, Jews, and Muslims) and teachers on how to teach it doctrinal correct.
1 Like
Already did.
âPhylogenetics. If humans evolved from a common ancestor shared with other species then you should see a correlation between phylogenetic trees based on morphology and genetics.â
Mutations filtered through natural selection. These mechanisms produce a nested hierarchy, and a nested hierarchy is exactly what we observe.
Mutations produce the differences. We observe them happening all of the time.
Come on⌠I wasnât talking about teaching evolution in philosophy. I was talking about using philosophy to teach students how to dialogue. The right and wrong ways of doing so. How to understand and make arguments and how to respond to them. Which would help in science discussions
1 Like
So your claim is that mutation to DNA can build lungs, muscles, brains? Please support this claim.
I have often found that these types of discussions get diverted into culture war territory. This is because the science is settled on the issue. Those who are fighting against evolution have no chance in a scientific debate, so they try to use the rhetoric of politics and religion to argue against it.
2 Likes
I agree then. I guess I misunderstood you, thinking that you were suggesting the philosophy class as an alternative to an actual discussion in science class. I think that, apart from having a philosophy class, encouraging the discussion when there are controversial topics is good either way, because proper dialog can be modeled. Even if one never gets to attend a philosophy class, the positive experience will have occurred.
Already did. The correlation between molecular and morphological phylogenies is that evidence.
The similarities and differences match the pattern that mutation and selection produce. Itâs just like matching fingerprints. The fingerprint of evolution is a tree like pattern of both similarities and differences, and it is all over biology.
1 Like
A post was split to a new topic: Is Science Tentative or Settled?
What I am suggesting is that the theory of evolution is so well supported by mountains of evidence that there is no serious debate on the issue. At most, there are arguments about the very fine details of how evolution works, such as the impact of niche construction or the impact of methylation patterns on selection of specific sequences, but the major parts of the theory are so well supported that scientists donât waste their energy on debating them. In the same way, no one debates the Germ Theory of Disease because there is so much evidence demonstrating that infectious diseases are caused by microorganisms.
I think we all enjoy your enthusiasm and you seem like a wonderful person. However, I donât think you realize just how much science you are arguing against. When you say that evolution is speculative and not testable . . . well, it just isnât true. It sounds really foolish, and I mean that in the most friendly manner possible. Itâs a bit like someone jumping on a forum with NASA engineers and telling them how the moon landings were faked.
If you are interested, I would suggest that you read this essay:
It was written by Dr. Francis Collins who headed the human genome project, is the current head of the NIH, and is also a devout christian. That essay was written by a christian for christians, and I think there is a lot in there that you would benefit from.
This is merely an assertion. I can also assert that the pattern of mutation only shows sequential differences and no evidence how new anatomical features are formed.
Mutation is much more likely to break down a sequence then improve it. Mutation alone as a creative force is a very weak claim.
How do you account for genes that are common to humans and Zebra fish but do not exist in mice? How do you account for genes that exist in rats and chimps but not in humans and mice.
1 Like
With all due respect this is a marketing pitch. Why does the theory need a marketing pitch?
I should also add that @colewd has been uncommonly respectful, compared some of the others that have pressed this case. He has also conceded points. He is not merely a polemicist. He appears to be giving an honest effort to engage this, even if we think he is wrong.
Thank you @colewd.
No, it is a scientifically measurable fact. We can see this pattern forming through the mechanisms of evolution in known populations, such as lab mice:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S156772491400097X
Moreover, it is one of the most logical and obvious outcomes of evolutionary outcomes. Due to the lack of gene flow between species there will be an accumulation of different mutations in each species. This causes lineages to diverge. You also have vertical inheritance which passes down common DNA that lineages will share. So you have shared DNA and lineage specific mutations that form a tree like pattern. This is the unavoidable consequence of evolutionary mechanisms.
Then how do you account for the physical differences between chimps and humans? What causes those physical differences? In biology, we have concluded that it is the differences in the DNA sequence of our genomes. Do you have a different conclusion?
Genes can be lost through deletion in any lineage. What we shouldnât see is a gene shared by chimps, humans and mice where humans and mice have 100% similarity between their genes while the same functional chimp gene differs by 50%. If species were separately designed/created this could certainly be one of the outcomes, but evolution canât do that.
You have not come close to supporting your claim that mutations can create new anatomical features. The reality is you cannot.
You maybe able to support a lessor claim but that is not the Grand claim of evolution that random genetic changes along with selection pressure is responsible for the diversity of life.
You are throwing out words like fact which shows an attempt to sell an unsupported claim.
Human evolution is a different question and I have had discussions with Josh on this subject. I think one of the big challenges is reconciling the splicing code and gene expression pattern differences.
You are ignoring contradictory evidence. This is a pattern I see with evolutionists which only adds to my skepticism. Common descent only explains similarities at the mutation level it does not explain large gene and morphological changes.
Functional information is a real issue that needs to be dealt with.
It explains the mutation-level similarities and differences so well that it is sufficiently strong evidence for me. It does not explain everything, but it explains a lot.
I have yet to see any contradictory evidence. Gaps in knowledge are not evidence against common descent.