Pages: 1 2 3

 

Poll

Should they be allowed to hold a phD?

Yes53%53% - 42
No46%46% - 36
Total: 78
2006-11-08 16:12:52
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6839|SE London

dubbs wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

dubbs wrote:

Lets me back Stingray up here.  Evolution is a theory that tries to determine where the orgin of life began.  Adaption is the theory that says that live changes because of it environment.
That's not what evolution is. A lot of people seem to have trouble grasping this, I can't see why.

wiki wrote:

Evolution is the change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes.
By adaption to the environment, such as tempature, does not have to do anything with the changing of your genes.  I have the same genes, and live in America, as someone who was born in Kenya, or China.  The have adapted to the difference in the environment where they are, but we have the same genes.

Also, if you were to reseach evolution in depth, it does try to explain where life on Earth came from.
Oh dear, you've made some horrible mistakes there.

dubbs wrote:

I have the same genes, and live in America, as someone who was born in Kenya, or China.
No, you don't. Everyone has different genes. Unless you have an identical twin or clone in Kenya or China, you are wrong.

I have researched evolution, quite a lot. Adaptation to an environment over a large number of generations is known as natural selection. It is the Darwinian theory of Natural Selection that you are calling adaptation. It has been shown that natural selection occurs on a genetic level, how could it do otherwise the very notion is contradictory to the way in which evolution works.

If you are talking about the theory of adaptation then you really are behind the times. Lamarcks theory has been replaced with Darwins. There are big important differences between the two, the primary one being genetics.

Biological evolution does not try to explain the origins of life on Earth. That steps over the boundary into chemical>biological evolution, which is pure theory at the moment. Experiments like the Miller Urey experiment have shown that various amino acids can be produced in environments similar to that of the young Earth.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-11-08 16:21:29)

2006-11-08 16:39:14
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6839|SE London

Stingray24 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

stryyker wrote:

Do you agree with what Christian phD's are teaching.
Absolutely not!

They should be allowed to get PhDs though, if they do the work they need. The teachings of many of these Creationist scientists is just nonsensical though and should be banned. Spreading misinformation is a very bad thing. It is easy for anyone with any sort of scientific background to laugh off the theories of Creationists, who always make blatant mistakes (or deliberate ommisions) from the science backing them up. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is one they like to misquote all the time, they always leave out the part about it applying within  a closed system. People with no scientific background could be (and often are) taken in by this type of pseudo-science. That should not be allowed.
If "creationist" theory is so nonsensical and evolutionary theory is so convincing, then there is no issue and no need to ban it.  The whole subject of our origins will be debated until the end of time and both sides should be able to speak.  Banning the side one disagrees with is wrong, from either end of the spectrum.  Evolution and intelligent design should be compared side by side to allow people decide for themselves.  Otherwise, if one side is entrenched in our schools and universities, it's indoctrination, not learning.
That's what learning is. Learning things that are right. That is why it is illegal to teach intelligent design in the UK and I expect in the rest of Europe. ID is not science.

The Vatican wrote:

The theory of "intelligent design" is not science and teaching it in schools alongside Darwinian evolution only confuses pupils.
Told you.

ID is not a scientific theory. It is a religious one. Perhaps it could be taught in religious studies classes, but it has no place in a science classroom. There is no scientific evidence for ID and as such it remains pure religious speculation. In the UK you probably could get a PhD in ID, but it would be a theology PhD, not a science PhD. The both sides of the argument theory is stupid, in that case you would have to also be taught that the holocaust may or may not have happened, or learn alchemy in chemistry classes. Schools are there to teach what is right (or at least what the consensus of leading experts globally says is right).

The weight of evidence on evolution makes it as much a fact as plate tectonics or the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun. Would you prefer that we also teach our children that the Earth is at the centre of the universe?

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard