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]

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.

Theism really is a very modern terminolgy with a new meaning which the meaning of today would not be understood just 100 years ago = which is less than one Biblical generation of 120 years.

By default Theism always implies some form of morality.

Most Christians do give their qualifier as being their denomination, as in a Baptist or Catholic or Jehovah Witness or Mormon, etc, because their denominations defines the quality of their Christianity.

Atheism is just saying no to all of it, and as such Atheism is a rejection of the Theist moralities.

There is no Theism without some form of laws and ethics.

As like scientific Theism means to include the laws of physics as being the Theist scientific commandments = and I myself am in this category.

[H.sapiens]

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.

No, atheism means no god, not no morality.

[Bust Nak]

Read something from facebook that is relevant to the conversation:

The Master teaches the student that God created everything in the world to be appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson.

One clever student asks "What lesson can we learn from atheists? Why did God create them?"

The Master responds "God created atheists to teach us the most important lesson of them all - the lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right."

"This means," the Master continued "that when someone reaches out to you for help, you should never say 'I pray that God will help you.' Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine that there is no God who can help, and say 'I will help you.'

[scottlittlefield17]

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?

No. Evolution is not a controversial science within the sciences. It's only controversial among those who opposed it which is almost exclusively for theological purposes. And theology is most certainly controversial even among theologians.

Also those who speak out against evolution constantly reveal their ignorance of evolution by making statements that aren't even remotely compatible with evolution. One of the most common fallacies is to compare evolution with purely random accident, such as proclaiming that evolution is basically saying that if a tornado hits a junks yard evolution is saying that some percentage of the time this should randomly, by pure chance, produce a brand new Cadillac by pure accident. Of if a tornado hits a lumber yard is should be expected to produced a completed housing project randomly.

Clearly these kinds of analogies only demonstrate an extreme ignorance of evolution.

So these people who contest evolution clearly don't even understand it.

Another popular misunderstanding is that Entropy supposedly denies evolution. This is totally false and actually just the opposite is true. Entropy is actually the reason that evolution can proceed, and this is because the Earth is not a closed system and is being heated by the sun. So this process actually drive evolution rather than preventing it.

So people who rail against evolution are constantly revealing precisely why they don't even understand how it works.

~~~~~

Finally, I feel a very strong need to add the following insight.

Theologians who claim that evolution needs to be "guided" by a supreme being are only restricting the abilities of their deity. A deity who needs to babysit his creation and nudge it along to make it do what he wants would be far inferior to a deity who can simply design a universe that can evolve on its own. So evolution should actually be embraced by theologians who believe in an omnipotent God who has no restrictions. Clearly this is not compatible with the tales of the Biblical God and it is these biblical theologians who rail against evolution.

Note that Buddhist, for example, don't even have a problem with evolution since this is precisely how they would expect their God to do things.

So evolution itself does not even deny a "Creator". Evolution and Buddhism are perfectly compatible. It's only the Abrahamic religions who demand that their God is not capable of designing a universe that can evolve on its own.

So railing against evolution doesn't help their cause anyway. All it does is demand that the God described in their doctrines is incapable of designing a universe that can evolve on its own and instead their God needs to babysit and guide a universe that was not designed very well to begin with.

So they shoot themselves in their own foot when their rail against evolution anyway. If they need evolution to be false in order for their God to be true, then all they are saying is that they need for their God to be extremely limited in what he can do.

I actually had a college biology teacher tell us that the odds of aspects of evolution 'are worse than a Boeing 747 crashing into Mt. Katadin and becoming more aerodynamic, but it did'.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 184 by scottlittlefield17]

To complete the analogy, have a series of millions of 747s slamming into random mountains, each one not destroying the 747 immediately but instead altering the configuration of the 747 only just slightly, and then successively slamming the survivors into the mountains that configured them beneficially.

[JP Cusick]

Read something from facebook that is relevant to the conversation:

The Master teaches the student that God created everything in the world to be appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson.

One clever student asks "What lesson can we learn from atheists? Why did God create them?"

The Master responds "God created atheists to teach us the most important lesson of them all - the lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right."

"This means," the Master continued "that when someone reaches out to you for help, you should never say 'I pray that God will help you.' Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine that there is no God who can help, and say 'I will help you.'

I agree with all of this, and I do see God behind Atheism, because belief means very little and often belief means nothing, so God teaching every person to have compassion and consideration for other people is indeed the fulfillment of the Gospel.

To take rightful action based on one's own inner sense of morality is the ultimate.

The Father would love and embrace any such person regardless of their beliefs.

An Atheist really can be more righteous than a Christian because right from wrong is essentially based on our actions.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 184 by scottlittlefield17]

I would have to doubt this claim. Perhaps you'd like to share the name of this professor and the school they work at, so I can talk to them about it?

[poboy]

these are all interesting points. has anyone seen a meetup for similar topics... i find it helps to talk these things out sometime..
so if anyone can recommend meetups, id appreciate it.

[Danmark]

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.

Theism really is a very modern terminolgy with a new meaning which the meaning of today would not be understood just 100 years ago = which is less than one Biblical generation of 120 years.

By default Theism always implies some form of morality.
....
Atheism is just saying no to all of it, and as such Atheism is a rejection of the Theist moralities.

There is no Theism without some form of laws and ethics.

This is completely incorrect and shows a profound misunderstanding of both theism and atheism. Theism is simply the belief in a certain type of god, one who created the universe and intervenes in it.

Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities (gods), which are both immanent (i.e. they exist within the universe) and yet transcendent (i.e. they surpass, or are independent of, physical existence). These gods also in some way interact with the universe (unlike in Deism), and are often considered to be omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.
....
Theism incorporates Monotheism (belief in one God), Polytheism (belief in many gods) and Deism (belief in one or more gods who do not intervene in the world), as well as Pantheism (belief that God and the universe are the same thing), Panentheism (belief that God is everywhere in the universe but still greater and above the universe) and many other variants (see the section on Philosophy of Religion). What it does not include is Atheism (belief that there are no gods) and Agnosticism (belief that it is unknown whether gods exist or not).
http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_theism.html
That god could have evil intent or no morality at all, despite the claims of the major religions. It is certainly easy to see immoral practices endorsed by the 'god' of the Abrahamic religions:
Slavery
Genocide
Punishments grossly disproportionate to the 'offence.'
Ordering parents to kill children just to prove their loyalty to the 'god.'

Atheism simply rejects the existence of this type of god, the god of orthodox theism. It says nothing about morality. Atheism is not a general philosophy or set of ethics. It is simply one aspect (of many) of a person's set of beliefs or lack of beliefs. Atheists in general have a set of ethics or morality that may overlap with or even be the same as a theists. All atheists I have encountered have at least a general belief in treating others the way they would like to be treated. There seems to be, among some theists, a mistaken belief that an atheist has only one belief, the lack of belief in a theistic god. This is false. Atheists tend to have many other beliefs as well, including naturalism.

[evilsorcerer1]

while I don't believe in evolution I do think many of the evolution theories are as sound as religious beliefs.... so when people are left with some or many unsound theories they have to sort through all the clutter and try to make a decision; i'd like to know if anyone has anyone has any theories related to population of the earth when humans first inhabited earth? I do recognize a pattern to many things, like all planets are round, yet earth seems to be the only one inhabited;...I also wonder why that is.