An odd evolution debate

[Flaherty]

I'm involved in an unusual evolution debate at the following link.

http://pub203.ezboard.com/ffloridastate19007frm29.showMessage?topicID=12428. topic

My handle there is Seminole Gene. The original poster's question is whether teaching evolution violates the separations clause. It's led to an interesting debate from angles I haven't seen before. I'm interested in your input.

[Ladewig]

I thought your arguments were well-reasoned, emotionally neutral, and completely ignored.

[spoonhandler]

Agreed. I don't think the original poster wanted a debate - a decision had been made and the poster was looking for supporting statements.

My first post on JREF addressed this same topic: when people use the word belief in reference to facts. I will be self-indulgent enough to quote myself:

"This is an old chestnut I know, but it still bugs me to hear people talking about belief in the theory of evolution, rather than using words like understanding, which does not automatically imply acceptance.

I can understand a theory - I may or may not agree that the evidence validates it.

I can also try to argue about a theory I don't actually understand and make a complete fool of myself.

Believing in theories is the worst error I can make. It means I'm not being objective, that I'm not prepared to adjust or abandon a hypothesis when evidence suggests I should."

Like the student I was referring to in this post, glommer is implying facts require our belief to be validated. Glommer was also making limited interpretations of the dictionary-based definitions of religion and religious, etc.

[fishbob]

Glommer sez:The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain one's ultimate reality through a set of principles. This statement is false. I find that these discussions often start out with false statements.

He also posted from a dictionary "observance" I] an act or instance of following a custom, rule, or law II] an act or instance of watching, then ignored the 2nd definition, which was the appropriate definition.

[Dymanic]

I was thinking, if we could just teach the kids what the theory of evolution does not say, we'd be way ahead of the game. So much of what creationists seem to find objectionable is based on misunderstandings about what evolutionary theory says.

[Flaherty]

Originally posted by Dymanic
I was thinking, if we could just teach the kids what the theory of evolution does not say, we'd be way ahead of the game. So much of what creationists seem to find objectionable is based on misunderstandings about what evolutionary theory says.

The old strawman argument, in other words.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Flaherty


The old strawman argument, in other words.

There are no greater masters of the art.