Is evolution a controversial science?

[McCulloch]

Both religion and controversial science could be taught in elective College courses where they belong.

He was referring to evolution as controversial science. While there may be quite a number of legitimate controversies within the science of biology regarding evolution, evolution itself is not a controversy at all among biologists.

Question for debate: Is evolution as taught at the high school level, a controversial science? Is there any controversy among currently practicing biologists regarding the basic science behind evolution?

[JP Cusick]

Apparently it is okay to kill babies "sometimes." And although I do not personally support the practice of abortion, I would like to point out that one of the reasons those who do support abortion gave for that support is exactly the many years of ongoing slaughter of women and babies that was occurring at the hands of untrained abortionists prior to Roe v Wade. A back alley practice that would naturally be resumed were Roe v Wade to be overturned, and which rabid anti-abortionists seem to be hypocritical in not recognizing.

I myself was only referring to the continuous violent warfare of the USA killing and murdering non combatants and civilians.

But here of course your own anti Theist mentality jumped into defending and justifying the abortion industry, and yet again it is only the religious people who try to stop that immorality too.

It is only the science of evolution that views an embryo as not being a person.

It would be unexpected to ever hear any Atheist to say that abortion is either immoral or just plain wrong, because Atheism has no moral guidance.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to JP Cusick]

Your entire argument is falsified by the fact that the more educated a person is the more likely they are an atheist and the less likely that they harbor racist beliefs. Sorry, but you appear to be making it up as you go.

[catguy00]

The white power was based on Christian racism which shifted over to Darwinism just after the civil rights movements of 1954-1968, when the white power based on Christianity got overthrown and Darwinism was its replacement.

Evidence?

Darwinism did not start the racist bandwagon but Darwinism certainly justified and empowered the racism from the first publishing of the "Origin of Species" (1859) and onward as now still ongoing in the 21st century.

Yes, some did you evolution to justify their racism. But like you said such racist ideas already existed. Those who use evolution to justify their racism are wrong.

[catguy00]

It would be unexpected to ever hear any Atheist to say that abortion is either immoral or just plain wrong, because Atheism has no moral guidance.

Atheism in itself says nothing about morality. But atheist can make objective moral decisions on subjects.

[McCulloch]

It is only the science of evolution that views an embryo as not being a person.

Evolution, like all of the sciences, has nothing to say about personhood or morality. Anti-abortionists, however, like to use science using biological life and genetic identity as a proxy for personhood. Pro-life advocates generally don't use scientific arguments but moral arguments based on rights.

It would be unexpected to ever hear any Atheist to say that abortion is either immoral or just plain wrong, because Atheism has no moral guidance.

It would be unexpected to ever hear any Theist to say that abortion is either immoral or just plain wrong, because Theism itself has no moral guidance. Some theisms have been provided with moral guidelines from their respective gods. These guidelines are arbitrary and at times anachronistic.

Humanism, on the other hand, is an approach to life based on reason and our common humanity, recognizing that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone.

[Bust Nak]

The only ones I ever hear saying to stop the slaughter are religious people.

Stop the slaughter!

Now you can no longer claim that "the only ones I ever hear saying to stop the slaughter are religious people."

The USA has an ongoing doctrine of over 300 years and continuing today of slaughtering helpless women and children and babies, but the USA includes the murder of anyone in our scopes - and only religious people ever tell the USA to stop this.

Incorrect on two counts - many religious people are not telling the USA to stop this but actively encouraging the USA to continue the slaughtering. Many non-religious people are telling the USA to stop also.

The Bible is complex in that it tells us both of what we are to do and what we are not to do, and the Bible tells us to stop the slaughtering.

It also tells us to continue the slaughtering, it doesn't help at all.

There is no bigger claim to morality than that.

Sure there is - humanism does morality better than the Bible.

evolution has no morality = and that is my point too that evolution is morally bankrupt.

The same with Atheism that it has no morality = and that is my point too that Atheism is morally bankrupt.

Would you say "this cook book has no morality = this cook book is morally bankrupt?"

It makes no sense to saying X is morally bankrupt, when it is not expected of X to provide moral guidance. You need to distinguish the difference between amoral (not related to morality) and morally bankrupt (immoral.)

[JP Cusick]

Your entire argument is falsified by the fact that the more educated a person is the more likely they are an atheist and the less likely that they harbor racist beliefs.

I agree that the more educated people are more likely to be Atheist, and that is because the schools teach the Atheism brainwashing and so the more schooling anyone gets then the more ignorant brainwashing they get too.

It would be like the more a person gets beat-up then the more bruises they will have.

And I really do see the modern version of racism to have become much more complicated and perplexing than it use to be, because regular people just fail to recognize the racism in their own doctrines of Atheism and in evolution and in science and in the abortion industry and in the warmongering of the USA, because the more educated brainwashing given to the people then the less that they see or acknowledge the racism which is so obvious to the rest of the world.

The educational system of racist ideals is a truly powerful force in our evil society.


---------------------------------------------

Those who use evolution to justify their racism are wrong.

That might be true for some people, but the scientific version of evolution has the racism included, so that it just keeps indoctrinating the racism into every new generation.

The evolution does not just justifies the racism - because the secular scientific version of evolution is a racist concept in itself.

[Bust Nak]

The educational system of racist ideals is a truly powerful force in our evil society.

Anti-intellectualism at its worse. Never mind the fact that educated people are less racist, just dismiss it out of hand as they not recognising themselves as racists.

The evolution does not just justifies the racism - because the secular scientific version of evolution is a racist concept in itself.

How so? The secular scientific version of evolution teaches that skin color is not related to any other character traits. That's the very opposite of racism.

[McCulloch]

I agree that the more educated people are more likely to be Atheist, and that is because the schools teach the Atheism brainwashing and so the more schooling anyone gets then the more ignorant brainwashing they get too.

I believe that you have been corrected on this issue before. Public elementary and high schools do not teach atheism. They are very careful not to teach about God's existence, either for or against. I know a number of teachers. Some of those who are Christian resent the prohibition against teaching their religion in public schools. Some of those who are atheist also resent the prohibition against teaching their irreligion in the public schools. Please stop propagating the falsehood that schools teach atheism. They don't.

The evolution does not just justifies the racism - because the secular scientific version of evolution is a racist concept in itself.

So the problem is not evolution, you have stated previously that you believe evolution. The problem must be secular scientific evolution. Is there a religious unscientific version of evolution? Would that be the one that claims that the sons of Ham were cursed by God?

[JP Cusick]

Anti-intellectualism at its worse. Never mind the fact that educated people are less racist, just dismiss it out of hand as they not recognising themselves as racists.

* * * * * * * * * *

How so? The secular scientific version of evolution teaches that skin color is not related to any other character traits. That's the very opposite of racism.

That is like putting candy in front of a baby.

Tell the white people that color does not make any difference - as if that was ever going to stop the white superiority complex.


----------------------------------------------

I believe that you have been corrected on this issue before. Public elementary and high schools do not teach atheism. They are very careful not to teach about God's existence, either for or against. I know a number of teachers. Some of those who are Christian resent the prohibition against teaching their religion in public schools. Some of those who are atheist also resent the prohibition against teaching their irreligion in the public schools. Please stop propagating the falsehood that schools teach atheism. They don't.

The idea is that each of us needs to be honest about realistic points in order to have a realistic discussion.

So here is a link (one of many) which declares the same message, CONSERVOPEDIA.

The denials of pushing Atheism into the schools is unworthy of a discussion - as why are you not proud of it?

So the problem is not evolution, you have stated previously that you believe evolution. The problem must be secular scientific evolution. Is there a religious unscientific version of evolution?

There is a religious scientific version of evolution which shows an intelligent Designer who created life for a reason and a purpose, and humans have moral responsibilities to follow.

Would that be the one that claims that the sons of Ham were cursed by God?

That is what racist Christians have said for centuries, but even the Christians did not tell it correctly.

It was only Canaan who was the youngest son of Ham who was made a servant of servants and only to his cousins Genesis 9:22-26 and Genesis 10:6

And that really says nothing about the skin color or the racial distinction, see Canaanites, and this picture Map

Christian racism is hard to uphold, and it was replaced by the racism of Darwinism.