tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14114569.post8729909730409340458..comments2023-10-28T08:10:09.173-05:00Comments on Alasandra's Homeschool Blog: I wish Elijah Friedeman was kiddingAlastriona, The Cats and Dogs http://www.blogger.com/profile/13233710830920626326noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14114569.post-51850340957017477272010-10-23T06:26:06.487-05:002010-10-23T06:26:06.487-05:00A few clarifying points. The theory of evolution i...A few clarifying points. The theory of evolution is about as proven as anything can be proven; it has a high confidence of being fact. Scientists who challenge evolution as a process are not taken seriously. This is not because they contradict a "religion" of evolution, but because they offer sloppy science. Evolution is real. It can easily be demonstrated. Nothing objectively scientific has called it into question, ever.<br />Evolution, indeed any form of science, cannot answer questions of origin. Nothing can. The only way to objectively say where something or everything came from would be to have been there at the time and recorded it (notary public present). Understand that religious faith cannot answer those questions either. Religious faith is not science. It offers not answers with a high confidence of being fact, but stories with a high confidence of feeling the voids that knowledge illuminates. To ofer that God created the universe does not show that it is probable that God created the universe. It only shows that you believe it so. Belief doesn't carry much weight in science.Stephan Loyhttp://http//:www.myartbox.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14114569.post-62621245599780370482010-09-09T17:28:32.647-05:002010-09-09T17:28:32.647-05:00It's valuable for parents to teach evolution a...It's valuable for parents to teach evolution as a scientific theory, even if they don't believe it answers creation. It is also their right to teach their religious beliefs to their children. The problem with the modern dogma of evolution is that it has "evolved" beyond science and become a religion all its own. Legitimate scientists are shunned and ridiculed for providing facts that might lend any credence to competing theories.Robert Thorntonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14114569.post-26612717850172714872010-07-27T15:09:17.060-05:002010-07-27T15:09:17.060-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14114569.post-4102253776075082332010-03-24T19:43:20.695-05:002010-03-24T19:43:20.695-05:00Kim,
And yet the HYPOTHESIS (not theory)of evolut...Kim,<br /><br />And yet the HYPOTHESIS (not theory)of evolution says nothing about *origins*, now does it?CaptiousNuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14440029537418230507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14114569.post-27762963472891671292010-03-22T19:52:04.476-05:002010-03-22T19:52:04.476-05:00Unfortunately, The Crimson Wife is using theory as...Unfortunately, The Crimson Wife is using theory as a stolen concept. Scientific use of the word "theory" is thoroughly different than a layman's use of the same term. Creationists have successfully confused many people by equating the two. <br /><br />It is similiar to using the word faith to mean you trust a friend & also using the word faith the mean unwavering belief in God. They are the same word but the context of the usage makes it clear that they do not mean the same thing. A scientific theory is not a supposition that kind of fits a small amount of known data and is on precarious footing. The type of theory that creationists would like their children and the public to think of is akin to waking up and only seeing blue cars out of your window and theorizing that all cars are blue even though there is nothing inherit in cars that would require color to be part of the definition, thus being easily toppled when a red car zooms by. <br /><br />Many creationists conflate that use of "theory" with an entirely different use by scientists. When science uses the word "theory", it is more of a convention than an attempt to indicate any uncertainty. When a scientific hypothesis has enormous amounts of supporting data and no contradictory evidence, it is certain. Evolution's history is a long one and it was accepted for almost a century prior to Darwin's discovery of the process of natural selection. <br /><br />It does not need to have proof for all possible cases. It is enough to know that there has never been another *scientific* answer for them to still be considered consistent with the theory.tmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15797561656420404838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14114569.post-86473416304277743582010-03-22T19:12:58.050-05:002010-03-22T19:12:58.050-05:00I mentioned evolution and intelligent design recen...I mentioned evolution and intelligent design recently, and got the most insulting response from somebody with the point of view that NOT teaching evolution is tantamount to "child abuse". I think that's taking it rather far. *sigh*<br /><br />With regard to evolution and intelligent design, I must agree. Evolution is a scientific theory, parts of which are provable or observable, but still which remains a hypothesis.<br /><br />Creation is a belief - not a fact or a science.<br /><br />So, in our household, we will teach our son the science of the theory of evolution, which parts are proven and which parts are still in question, etc. We will discuss adaptation, survival of the fittest, Darwin, etc. Will will teach the facts as facts, and the questions as something still to be answered (maybe our son will grow up to be a scientist and answer them!).<br /><br />And as for our personal theistic beliefs regarding creation, we will teach that as precisely that - a belief, not a fact.<br /><br />Phew. Long-winded way to say that I agree with you! <br /><br />We homeschool, and we also happen to be theistic, and we teach evolution. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14114569.post-22271215428226943492010-03-22T18:14:56.063-05:002010-03-22T18:14:56.063-05:00I think he does make a good point about the YEC te...I think he does make a good point about the YEC texts being up front about their POV while secular texts don't. I also get frustrated when secular books treat certain things as facts rather than qualifying them with "most scientists believe..." or "the best scientific evidence supports..."<br /><br />I do believe that the best scientific evidence supports an age of the universe in the billions of years and the evolution of species from a common ancestor. But no human knows for 100% certain and therefore I believe books should not treat them as "facts". I can prove or disprove a fact. When it comes to a theory, I can only say that the scientific evidence supports it or does not support it. And I think it's important to make that distinction.Crimson Wifehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03254830856234479999noreply@blogger.com