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?

[Bust Nak]

...but it is just being right, and being right is not the same as being self righteous.

But that is exactly what a self righteous person would say.

It's no different from the claim that "getting my morality from family, friends, culture, society, conscience is just being right, and being right is not the same as being self righteous."

The 1st Amendment never meant that the USA was to be secular with a complete separation from God.

Note the difference between what you said here and "the government of USA was to be secular with a complete separation from God."

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 139 by JP Cusick]

What is it you like about evolution? I absolutely have to hear this one. Also because this might steer us back on topic.

[JP Cusick]

But that is exactly what a self righteous person would say.

It's no different from the claim that "getting my morality from family, friends, culture, society, conscience is just being right, and being right is not the same as being self righteous."

I agree that is can get a little complicated, which is why it is necessary to dig deeper into such things.

Self righteous really means being right based on thy self.

Using a source of authority means being Bible righteous.

By following the official drivers' manual then one will drive right.

By following our own ideas as right from wrong then one becomes self right.

By getting it from family, friends, culture, society, conscience, is just getting it from thy self without any real authority.

I know = obey the Police out of fear of going to jail - that is not self righteous - that is just servitude.

The 1st Amendment never meant that the USA was to be secular with a complete separation from God.

Note the difference between what you said here and "the government of USA was to be secular with a complete separation from God."

No - but you did make an excellent distinction there.

The US government was not to be completely separate from God.

The word secular is not in the Constitution and no synonym for that concept is there either.

I do however concede that the Constitution is flawed and defective and they made some big mistakes in its final draft.

[JP Cusick]

What is it you like about evolution? I absolutely have to hear this one. Also because this might steer us back on topic.

I like that evolution demonstrates and proves that there is an intelligent design, and that our Creator God is actively evolving life of all kinds into a better world.

What I did was when I said evolution then I failed to put a qualifier onto the terminology, as in saying that I like evolution based on Theology and God.

Perhaps the qualifier of = Godly evolution.

By just saying evolution it is not clearly defined.

So too Atheism needs to have a qualifier to differentiate from the morally bankrupt version as simply Atheism.

[Bust Nak]

Self righteous really means being right based on thy self.

Using a source of authority means being Bible righteous.

And yet there you are, following your own idea in labelling the Bible the official manual, judging it to be an "authority." What authority do you have for selecting which book is the right book?

The US government was not to be completely separate from God.

How do you know what the founding fathers intentions are for the US government, especially when your suggestion contradicts what they say elsewhere?

The word secular is not in the Constitution and no synonym for that concept is there either.

It doesn't mention God either, is that not the very concept of secularism?

[JP Cusick]

And yet there you are, following your own idea in labelling the Bible the official manual, judging it to be an "authority." What authority do you have for selecting which book is the right book?

I have my own human right and God given right to pick whatever suits me, and I am thereby required to face whatever consequences coming from my own choices.

The Bible is simply an authority outside of my self.

Any authority outside of our self or our own circle or self profit would thereby be an outside authority.

The Muslims use the Holy Qur'an and that is another authority.

Many people work at jobs where there is an authoritative manual = their work Bible - but that is not really an authority for one self.

For evolution people use Darwin as an authority, and so do I, but Darwin is not the ultimate authority for me.

In Atheism it is a real problem by being without any higher power than the self righteousness.

How do you know what the founding fathers intentions are for the US government, especially when your suggestion contradicts what they say elsewhere?

We all can read and study about those who wrote the Constitution, and we can apply the circumstances of those times in 1776, and that satisfies my view.

The final intention actually becomes irrelevant in many ways based on the final draft of the Constitution.

It doesn't mention God either, is that not the very concept of secularism?

Totally different.

God was already well established in the world, and so leaving the word God out of the Constitution was not an abolishment or elimination of God as is the modern concept of secular, and even the word secular only means separate from religion but not alienated from it.

If the Constitution was really intended to be contrary to God or alienated from God then it would never had been ratified, and it would have been required to say so.

But still I concede that the Constitution has big flaws.

[KenRU]

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

Fair enough, but considering that people tend to pick and choose which morals they follow from their respective holy book/religion, I fail to see a distinction.

For example, do you find it moral to stone to death children for cursing or disobeying their parents?

If not, then I submit you make your own moral distinctions just like an atheist.

It is not the same because I do use the Bible and other scriptures which means that I am required to live up to a far higher standard.

That is your completely subjective opinion of what is a "far higher standard". Again, there are many dubious behaviors sanctioned and endorsed by your bible that I and many others (both theist and non-theist) do not believe reflect a high moral standard at all.

In Atheism there is no truly "higher-power" and no "scripture" in order to have a higher standard in which to live up to.

While atheism obviously has no religious doctrine to live by, that does not preclude living one's life morally.

Morals are subjectively interpreted by people.

Otherwise when a person makes their own decisions based on their own feelings and their own judgments then the person becomes self-righteous because your self becomes the highest power.

Please show me where the bible condemns slavery. If not, my morality is higher than the bibles, as I openly and proudly condemn it.

Therefore, your argument fails. Unless you wish to argue that slavery is ok?

This self-righteousness is why in Atheism they can criticize God and religion because Atheism gives the person an attitude of superiority.

I have no attitude of superiority over god or religion anymore than I do over Thor and the Harry Potter mythology.

You keep stating that religion and a belief in god is necessary to live a more moral or good life. I challenge you to show you speak the truth. Remember, you will have the entire baggage of the bible to defend your assertion (slavery condoned, for example) for you to successfully make your case. If you can't, then I submit you decide what is moral and good just like an atheist.

The self-righteousness of Atheism includes the intolerance of the religious institutions.

Not for me, it doesn't. However, looking back on these many posts of yours, I'd say you come across way more intolerant and judgmental than many atheists here.

[Bust Nak]

I have my own human right and God given right to pick whatever suits me, and I am thereby required to face whatever consequences coming from my own choices.

That's no different to any one else, regardless of religion, or lack thereof.

The Bible is simply an authority outside of my self.

Any authority outside of our self or our own circle or self profit would thereby be an outside authority.

The Muslims use the Holy Qur'an and that is another authority...

In Atheism it is a real problem by being without any higher power than the self righteousness.

Exactly my point, there are any number of outside authorities. You chose one out of many. That's no different to me, an atheist, choosing to follow another book.

We all can read and study about those who wrote the Constitution, and we can apply the circumstances of those times in 1776, and that satisfies my view.

Can we though? Quote after quote, letter after letter, they point towards an intention to separate God from government.

The final intention actually becomes irrelevant in many ways based on the final draft of the Constitution.

Right, all the more reason to affirm secularism.

Totally different.

God was already well established in the world, and so leaving the word God out of the Constitution was not an abolishment or elimination of God as is the modern concept of secular, and even the word secular only means separate from religion but not alienated from it.

You say that but God wasn't left out of the declaration of independence. That the founding fathers put God in one document but left it out of another tells me they were making a point by not including God in the constitution.

If the Constitution was really intended to be contrary to God or alienated from God then it would never had been ratified, and it would have been required to say so.

You are still operating under the assumption that secularism is anti-God or anti-religion. It isn't anti, it is merely separate just as you pointed out above. This "modern concept of secular" you mentioned doesn't exist, secularism has always meant separate from religion but not alienated from it.

[Rufus21]

By following the official drivers' manual then one will drive right.

Imagine that someone took the official driver's manual and tore out the pages they didn't like. Now they take the remaining pages and rewrite/reinterpret them to suit their personal opinions of what they think good driving should be. Can that person claim to be using a higher authority? Are they really getting their laws from outside of themselves?

Any "manual" that requires personal interpretation and subjective evaluation is not going to be reliable. Certainly a "higher power" would never allow that.

In Atheism it is a real problem by being without any higher power than the self righteousness.

Would it surprise you to learn that Atheists get their morals and ethics from the same place everyone else does? Atheists, Theists, Agnostics, all from the same place.

[JP Cusick]

That is your completely subjective opinion of what is a "far higher standard". Again, there are many dubious behaviors sanctioned and endorsed by your bible that I and many others (both theist and non-theist) do not believe reflect a high moral standard at all.

The entire Bible is to be rightfully scrutinized for both its highest standards and the lower standards, and our job is to seek after the higher and reject the lower.

The Bible declares both when it tells us to seek the truth and do not lie - so that is both the higher and the lower standards.

The way is to be objective and not subjective.

The Bible and other scriptures do require us to live up to a far higher standard.

In Atheism there is no truly "higher-power" and no "scripture" in order to have a higher standard in which to live up to.

While atheism obviously has no religious doctrine to live by, that does not preclude living one's life morally.

Morals are subjectively interpreted by people.

When the higher standards come from an authority as like from the Bible or the Qur'an or other scriptures then it is not subjective, and nothing is more subjective then to have no higher authority.

Being morally bankrupt does not mean that Atheism has no morals of any kind - it means that the morals are very low and debased.

The ugly moralism of Darwinism is for the strongest to suppress or defeat those who are weaker and vulnerable.

Please show me where the bible condemns slavery. If not, my morality is higher than the bibles, as I openly and proudly condemn it.

Therefore, your argument fails. Unless you wish to argue that slavery is ok?

The word "slave" in the Bible is synonymous to employee or servant, and it did not mean slavery as known in old Rome or Greece or in the USA.

The system of Capitalism is based on the slave plantation system.

The Bible tells us to "Love thy enemies" and that condemns the western ideals of slavery, so that is one big counter reference.

The concept to "love thy enemies" is also contrary to the Capitalist system.

There is another problem from the Bible in that God is dealing with sinful humans, and so in example God did not want people to eat animals, per Genesis 1:29, but humans were barbaric as they keep demanding meat to eat and some people would kill an animal and eat it raw (with the blood) and so God taught them how to clean and to cook the meat as a compromise. As such God had to bend to the ignorant demands of humanity.

I have no attitude of superiority over god or religion anymore than I do over Thor and the Harry Potter mythology.

That is more than enough of the attitude of superiority.

The self-righteousness of Atheism is what views religion and God as inferior = subjective.

You keep stating that religion and a belief in god is necessary to live a more moral or good life. I challenge you to show you speak the truth. Remember, you will have the entire baggage of the bible to defend your assertion (slavery condoned, for example) for you to successfully make your case. If you can't, then I submit you decide what is moral and good just like an atheist.

You are mixing up two (2) very different concepts and I can hardly get around that mixture.

Being good or good life or doing good are based on arbitrary judgments of "good from bad" which can never be correctly defined, while moral or morality is a completely different category.

Morality can be based on right from wrong, but not from good or bad.

It was wrong to crucify Jesus, but Jesus was right to submit to the crucifixion. Whether any of it was "good or bad" would be an irrelevant and misleading judgment.

Forced slavery / forced servitude is always wrong to do, but it can not be judged accurately as good or as bad.

There is no such thing as good or as bad concerning morality.

The self-righteousness of Atheism includes the intolerance of the religious institutions.

Not for me, it doesn't. However, looking back on these many posts of yours, I'd say you come across way more intolerant and judgmental than many atheists here.

For me the Bible tells us to judge correctly and for us to make rightful judgments so the Bible tells us that we are to be the Judge of right from wrong based on the highest of standards.

The Bible declares in that famous text = that if I do not Judge then I will not be Judged - and I want to be rightly judged.

Also tolerance of evil is not right, because we are not to tolerate evil, and so intolerance is not always wrong.

Society puts criminals in jail and life in prison because we are intolerant of the worst of crimes.