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?

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 170 by Aetixintro]

If we resort to magic or aliens, then sure, an organism can be engineered to mirror the genetic development of other organisms on a planet, and so appear to be naturally evolved from primordial ancestors while in fact being artificial.

But that isn't what the evidence shows, so the point is moot.

In fact, I think once we get some faster super computers, we'll start doing some of those "hard problems" regarding chemistry and see if we can't make a genome we can be proud of in a lab setting. We're already doing gene splicing, but that's a brute force and barbaric method of stitching whole chunks together. Technology has a way of adding finesse, so eventually, minute alterations at a moment's notice should be available for any experiment.

[JP Cusick]

Evolution is not harmless.

Teaching evolution without morality is like teaching about handguns without morality.

The handguns (or any gun) is not moral or immoral as they are just things without any morality - which is complete nonsense because the people who are taught are moral agents and so teaching the morality along with the subject is the right way.

The evolution is amoral but it is being taught to the students who are moral agents and so to exclude the morality of the subject is wrong.

Same with sex-education in school - that sex ed needs to include the morality or else it is just giving the children a loaded gun without instructions.

Most people can comprehend that words and ideas are far more powerful then guns or physical strength.

[Bust Nak]

The challenge is only to make the right choices and to avoid the wrong.

We each or all can damage our own authority by choosing wrong, and unfortunately we all buck our authority into each other causing endless problems.

I really do like parts of Atheism as being more accurate and true than many orthodox Christianity claims, and I do have a couple Atheist as friends, and I do not reject people or ideas just because they are wrong in some ways.

So when I am right about some things which others are wrong, then that does tend to make their authority less equal.

But you are wrong and have weaken your own authority in their eyes, so you are no better than atheists.

Because there are implications.

When a persons says they are a Christian then there are implications, and so too when some one declares their self to be an Atheist then there are implications.

Sure, but none of those implication are that we are immoral.

As like a person says that they have been to prison, then they need to put a qualifier as like = it was a non violent crime, or that they are now reformed, because if they do not put an acceptable qualifier then the implications alone will shut them out.

Right, because being in prison means you were convicted of a crime. The same isn't true for atheists.

I always qualify any Christian in real life by asking them as to what kind of Christian? or what Church? or which denomination? because the qualifier matters.

What implications did you have in mind, for a generic Christian without a qualifier, and also for an atheist without a qualifier? I am trying to figure out why you would presume that we are immoral.

Whichever God that the person declares is the deciding factor for me.

Or whatever God makes itself known works too.

We were not talking about the deciding factor for you, we were talking about the separation of religion from Government. You said that does not imply separation of God from Government, to which I said as soon as you identify God, it becomes a religion. Your response here doesn't seem to deal with that.

I must say that you and I view such things differently, just any Atheist views such things differently from a religious person.

Politicians seeking or playing on the religious vote does not make the government any less anti God or anti religion.

It does when said politicians make laws that are pro God and pro religion.

Donald Trump did not win the election as our religious leader, and yet I myself do see Trump as being the better choice then that horrible woman.

And yet Trump is doing things that are pro God and pro religion.

Teaching evolution without morality is like teaching about handguns without morality.

It's not up to a shooting instructor to teach morality exactly because guns are not moral or immoral as they are just things without any morality. A gun instructor is there to teach you how guns operate and he is there to teach you how to fire it safely.

[JP Cusick]

... so you are no better than atheists.

I do not claim to be better than Atheist or better than anyone.

I claim to be equal with everyone, but I am more accurate and true then some others in some regards.

The Atheism is accurate and true in lots of things and it is just wrong about the existence of the Creator Father God.

These discussions are not a competition for me, so no one needs to be better and no one needs to win or to loose - in my perspective.

You are competing which is why our discussion keep stalling and misdirecting.

[Bust Nak]

I do not claim to be better than Atheist or better than anyone...

You say that but at the same time, you assume atheists are immoral by default!

[JP Cusick]

You say that but at the same time, you assume atheists are immoral by default!

What I really say is that Atheism implies immorality - and it does.

When one declares that they do not accept the notion of God then that strongly implies that by being an Atheist then they do not believe in the commandment and do not accept Biblical morality and thereby it implies nothing - implies no morals.

As such my suggestion was very considerate that if an Atheist put a qualifier to their declaration of Atheism that they do maintain higher standards of ethics - then their "ethical Atheism" would be far better received without the negative implications.

I do this myself as I am not just a Theist or a Christian because I qualify my own as unorthodox, and I do that to stop the negative implications which I do not want attached to me.

My version of evolution is Theist evolution - because the qualifier counts.

[Bust Nak]

When one declares that they do not accept the notion of God then that strongly implies that by being an Atheist then they do not believe in the commandment and do not accept Biblical morality and thereby it implies nothing - implies no morals.

That doesn't follow because "Bible morality" is not the only source of morality.

As such my suggestion was very considerate that if an Atheist put a qualifier to their declaration of Atheism that they do maintain higher standards of ethics - then their "ethical Atheism" would be far better received without the negative implications.

No, you should not presume atheist are immoral because atheism does not imply no morals.

I do this myself as I am not just a Theist or a Christian because I qualify my own as unorthodox, and I do that to stop the negative implications which I do not want attached to me.

What negative implications? Why presume all these negativity for people at all?

My version of evolution is Theist evolution - because the qualifier counts.

And that presume theism is better than secularism.

[JP Cusick]

That doesn't follow because "Bible morality" is not the only source of morality.

Yes the Bible is not the only source, but Atheism is no source of any morality.

As such just pick a qualifier.

An ethical Atheist, a humanist Atheist, etc etc etc.

Otherwise Atheism alone means without any morality.

And that presume theism is better than secularism.

Okay - since you demand it that way then I concede to your interpretation.

Theism is better.

[Bust Nak]

Yes the Bible is not the only source, but Atheism is no source of any morality... Atheism alone means without any morality.

Right, but that does not imply immorality.

As such just pick a qualifier.

An ethical Atheist, a humanist Atheist, etc etc etc.

No, stop assuming the worse of others.

Okay - since you demand it that way then I concede to your interpretation.

Theism is better.

That was not a demand, it was an accusation.

[McCulloch]

[Theism is no source of any morality.

As such just pick a qualifier.

An Christian Theist, a Muslim Theist, etc etc etc.

Otherwise Theist alone means without any morality.

ATheism is better.