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]

Declaring the source to a theist is entirely irrelevant since theists honor their bibles more in the breach than in the practice. People should be judged by their actions, not by the source of beliefs that they are unlikely to actually uphold.

I agree with this, but I still see it as really raw, as in dealing with complete strangers.

But if I have a long time relationship with my neighbors and friends and coworkers then I would want to know what they believe too, and judge their actions based on their philosophy.

I have known lots of people who act so nice and then they speak their mind and horrible things are said and yet they act so nice when their words are so ugly, and I can not trust people who talk trash no matter how they act.

Of course if one acts trashy then it does not matter whatever they believe or think.

Atheists are underrepresented in prison when compared to bible trumpeters, what's the message there?

That is not a fair accusation.

Many people get religious after going to jail and prison, and many inmates are converting to Islam in prison because Islam offers them real and serious relief, and many prisoners will claim a religion when they really believe in nothing.

According to the Bible it says that God specifically visits people in prisons and I accept that as a fact.

If you are disqualifying people from jobs based on their religion you are not an "American" and you are soiling that flag that you so prominently display on your avatar.

Yes disqualifying a person for a job based on their morality - not on their religion.

If we know a person to be a liar, or a thief, or a reprobate, then there are very many jobs which they can not have.

[H.sapiens]

Declaring the source to a theist is entirely irrelevant since theists honor their bibles more in the breach than in the practice. People should be judged by their actions, not by the source of beliefs that they are unlikely to actually uphold.

I agree with this, but I still see it as really raw, as in dealing with complete strangers.

But if I have a long time relationship with my neighbors and friends and coworkers then I would want to know what they believe too, and judge their actions based on their philosophy.

I have known lots of people who act so nice and then they speak their mind and horrible things are said and yet they act so nice when their words are so ugly, and I can not trust people who talk trash no matter how they act.

Of course if one acts trashy then it does not matter whatever they believe or think.

Atheists are underrepresented in prison when compared to bible trumpeters, what's the message there?

That is not a fair accusation.

Many people get religious after going to jail and prison, and many inmates are converting to Islam in prison because Islam offers them real and serious relief, and many prisoners will claim a religion when they really believe in nothing.

According to the Bible it says that God specifically visits people in prisons and I accept that as a fact.

If you are disqualifying people from jobs based on their religion you are not an "American" and you are soiling that flag that you so prominently display on your avatar.

Yes disqualifying a person for a job based on their morality - not on their religion.

If we know a person to be a liar, or a thief, or a reprobate, then there are very many jobs which they can not have.

So, the bottom line is that you are prejudiced and make excuses for the existing data, and assume an appearance of devotion denotes morality, yipee-ki-yay!

In my experience true morality, that can be counted on, comes with an understanding and willing acceptance of the Social Contract. Those that require a threat of eternal damnation to assure proper behavior are not actually moral, they are just scared and often rely on endless Swaggart Cycles of sin, repent, ask forgiveness, receive forgiveness and sin again. Give me an atheist any day.

[JP Cusick]

So, the bottom line is that you are prejudiced and make excuses for the existing data, and assume an appearance of devotion denotes morality, yipee-ki-yay!

I guess you can put it that way, and you can view it that way.

In my experience true morality, that can be counted on, comes with an understanding and willing acceptance of the Social Contract.

I agree that is the ideal, but when we live in a distinctly evil society as in the USA then the social contract is more immoral than otherwise.

One of my own dislikes about Atheism is its adherence to the State and to State laws and to the Social Contract without regard for the immorality of the State / of the Country.

Those that require a threat of eternal damnation to assure proper behavior are not actually moral, they are just scared and often rely on endless Swaggart Cycles of sin, repent, ask forgiveness, receive forgiveness and sin again. Give me an atheist any day.

I too dislike the threat of eternal damnation and I constantly deny that to be real as it is not real, and I tell anyone that I can that eternal salvation is a free gift to every person which it is, but people cling to their fears and to their superstitions.

I just do not see Atheism as superior to the religious superstitions, because an Atheist sees this life as a dead end so that nothing much matters in their own life.

Give me any person that is not satisfied with this life or this world, and who knows that we all live in misery, and who seeks after ways to improve their self and the world, and I will become their friend and accomplice.

[Bust Nak]

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

I agree.

But it was you who asked the question of my authority.

Right, therefore an atheist has the same authority as you.

I agree that there is no difference so long as the Atheist chooses a book or any higher authority, and that is why I also said that an Atheist really needs to attach a qualifier to their title as like = A humanist Atheist, or as an Atheist with morals, because the terminology of Atheism alone implies morally bankrupt.

I do the same as I call my self as an unorthodox Theist or as unorthodox Christian because without that qualifier of "unorthodox" then I would be implying a much different identity to myself.

A person who identifies their self as an Atheist without any moral qualifier would thereby be implied as immoral.

Why assume one way or the other just because one does not use a qualifier?

I do not really disagree with that, and I understand the meaning of secular.

You and many people today try to claim that secular means separated from God while I am saying that secular simply meant a separate system with God on the side but still viable.

Which God though? The moment you answer that, is when you link God with the "system with God."

My point was only that our government has become anti God and anti religion, and that the 1st Amendment of the Constitution was a mistake, and trying to determine what was secular or not secular was never my own point.

The gov and the Constitution can be secular, but the Politicians and representatives are not.

How can you say that given the current US political climate? All the politicians and representatives are falling over themselves to gather the votes of the religious, and the guy who won, won because he managed win over the religious.

The US government is more pro-God and pro-religion than it has ever been since the cold war ended.

[KenRU]

In other words, you decide just like everyone one else on the planet.

Yes, of course.

The trick or goal is to decide right or to decide best, and to avoid the pit falls or any of the errors.

Which is circular logic. I need my holy book to help me decide right from wrong morals when using my holy book to teach me morals.

Did I get that right?

If not, then obviously you have a source which is higher than the bible. Which I agree – it is you. Books don’t have empathy, compassion and reason. You do.

The scriptures of the world are a big assistance for making the right decisions.

I disagree. Now what?

By this argument, the Satanic Bible is just as “higher� as your holy book then.

Would someone who follows the Satanic Bible being following a “higher authority� as well, by your definition?

Yes, that is correct that the Satanic Bible is viewed as a higher authority and it does count.

It might not be the smartest choice

What do you base this opinion on?

or it might be self destructive, and our choices thereby require each person to face whatever consequences coming from our own choices.

Unfortunately, when books teach intolerance it results in OTHER people being negatively impacted (reproductive rights, discrimination, holy wars, jihad, etc).

It is human to make mistakes, and some people get wise instead of getting hurt.

One has no need to get “wise� when they believe their holy book is infallible or when they believe their actions are god-inpired.

Darwinism, or evolution, does not teach morals.

That really is the point.

Good, then you agree that evolution is just as harmless, or “morally bankrupt� as astronomy and biology.

Glad to hear : )

It is quite insane that so many fail to see that glaring point.

You were the one that likened evolution to being morally bankrupt. Which implies that you feel evolution should be teaching something about morals. As if one should also be getting morals from biology or chemistry.

You are not being consistent. There is no one here but you that is stating or implying otherwise.

That is patently false. Slaves in the time the bible were not free to leave. They could be beaten and sold, raped and punished.

That is slavery.

What you describe is cruelty but it is not really slavery.

False. If one has been captured in combat and forced to do labor, is not free to leave, can be raped and beaten, and has no say over their own pursuit of happiness, then that is slavery: BY ANY DEFINITION.

Just like in the antebellum south it was forced labor but not really slavery because the African people resisted.

Resisting or not has no bearing on whether slavery exists. You are flat out wrong.

True slavery as exposed in the scriptures is like slavery to sin, as in the person has made a choice to serve the master, as like in Capitalism where the people knowingly surrender the fruits of their labor and of their lives in order to support and serve the system which exploits them.

This is a common practice amongst apologetic theists – redefine words to suit their own pre-conceived belief system.

There is no choice. Capitalism is not like the slavery described in the bible. And knowingly surrendering the fruits of their labor so one doesn’t DIE does not make it NOT slavery.

This is just a poor attempt at reconning your favorite book.

Romans 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

John 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

None of the above precludes slavery – or more importantly, outright condemns it.

You have commandments expressly forbidding stealing, coveting and serving other gods. But not one saying, Do Not Own Another Human Being.

No need to wonder why – it is obvious. Because it was not prohibited.

It is (apparently) the same as your assumed superiority over an atheists. You do get the irony/hypocrisy, I trust?

Mine is not hypocrisy because I am telling Atheist to stop it.

The difference, then, between you and I, is that I am concerned more about how I am impacting my fellow man here in the real world, and not in the fictional (imo) hereafter.

It concerns me when people are wrongly discriminated against by other humans. It concerns me when others espouse falsehoods as absolute truths. And, when they condemn others for not believing in what they believe.

I tell Atheist that they really need to attach a moral qualifier to the title of Atheist in order for us to be equal.

Should theists also offer qualifiers decrying the more barbaric parts of their holy book when announcing they are Christian or Muslim?

If some one declares that they sin as like they steal or lie or an unbeliever then yes I have a superior position because I do not, so if they stop it then they become equal.

Nice faulty logic. That is the equivalent of asking someone when they stopped beating their spouse. Then faulting them for answering either yes or no, when they never did.

You make my argument better than I can, lol.

Should I then assume all theists support slavery, by just admitting they are Christian? Until they say they are against it? That is ridiculous. Apparently, I have a higher opinion of my fellow man then you do.

Slaves would disagree with you. I think it is safe to say that slavery is bad. I’d like to hear an argument when it is good, please.

It is neither good nor bad as that kind of judgment is never accurate.

What a horrible position to have. You can’t admit that slavery is bad? Can you admit it is wrong?

And you say atheism is morally bankrupt.

In the USA slavery (forced labor) is still legal and always has been under the 13th amendment:

• "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Punishing criminals is not what is proscribed in the bible. Conquered peoples were made slaves.

You compared apples to freight trains

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

Do you mean to say that there are no good or bad morals?

The point is that judging anything as "good or bad" is always inaccurate and misguided.

By that logic, so could Right and Wrong be discounted.

Since you discount common definitions, now what?

Morality is to be about right from wrong which is a completely different kind of judgment.

Either we can use common definitins or we can’t. You are now stuck with using common definitions of words, or resort back to the circular logic problem you have above.

You’ve seemed to back yourself into a corner.

It also says to Judge not, lest ye be judged.

Only the guilty do not want to be judged.

Or those arrogant enough to think they are flawless and faultless.

People who are trying to do right will thereby embrace being judged as a blessing.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[KenRU]

Give me any person that is not satisfied with this life or this world, and who knows that we all live in misery, and who seeks after ways to improve their self and the world, and I will become their friend and accomplice.

So says every suicide bomber. Just making a glaringly obvious point.

[JP Cusick]

Right, therefore an atheist has the same authority as you.

Yes, of course.

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.

Why assume one way or the other just because one does not use a qualifier?

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.

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.

So if some one tells me that they are an Atheist or a Christian on the streets or online then I need not assume any implication, but I would want a qualifier before inviting them into my house or meeting my family or working on a job.

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.

Which God though? The moment you answer that, is when you link God with the "system with God."

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

Or whatever God makes itself known works too.

How can you say that given the current US political climate? All the politicians and representatives are falling over themselves to gather the votes of the religious, and the guy who won, won because he managed win over the religious.

The US government is more pro-God and pro-religion than it has ever been since the cold war ended.

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.

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.

[JP Cusick]

... then obviously you have a source which is higher than the bible. Which I agree – it is you. Books don’t have empathy, compassion and reason. You do.

I am okay with viewing the ultimate decision or belief as my own, and that does in a way make myself as a higher authority than the scriptures, and really the Bible is just there to help me learn and to help me decide.

I agree that we need to put empathy, compassion and reason, as our highest authority, but even then we must use caution.

The scriptures of the world are a big assistance for making the right decisions.

I disagree. Now what?

Just makes it as your own loss, and that gives you a disadvantage.

That is quite enough of a self imposed punishment.

Darwinism, or evolution, does not teach morals.
That really is the point.

Good, then you agree that evolution is just as harmless, or “morally bankrupt� as astronomy and biology.

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.

... then that is slavery: BY ANY DEFINITION.

Since I did tell you a different definition - then it is not by any DEFINITION.

Should theists also offer qualifiers decrying the more barbaric parts of their holy book when announcing they are Christian or Muslim?

Yes, and they do.

Christians do identify by their denominations.

Plus just the name Christian means they are thereby separating their self from the older Hebrew Testament, and for Muslims they are announcing that they are using the Holy Qur'an along with the Bible, so yes religion always uses qualifiers.

For myself I always make certain that I qualify myself as unorthodox.

Either we can use common definitions or we can’t.

Been through this before, so here we go again.

The secular dictionary is not infallible and it is not the highest authority.

Otherwise Atheist are treating the dictionary as an idol and as a God.

Some words have to be defined by other standards.

[KenRU]

... then obviously you have a source which is higher than the bible. Which I agree – it is you. Books don’t have empathy, compassion and reason. You do.

I am okay with viewing the ultimate decision or belief as my own, and that does in a way make myself as a higher authority than the scriptures, and really the Bible is just there to help me learn and to help me decide.

I agree that we need to put empathy, compassion and reason, as our highest authority, but even then we must use caution.

If you agree with this point of view now, that puts you in conflict with your own words earlier.

The scriptures of the world are a big assistance for making the right decisions.

I disagree. Now what?

Just makes it as your own loss, and that gives you a disadvantage.

And I can say the same right back to you. You are handicapped because you must sort through a contradictory holy book to determine your moral compass. I have no such limitation. I see it as you having the disadvantage.

I see no reason to confuse my moral compass with a book that condones slavery and other atrocities.

That is quite enough of a self imposed punishment.

What punishment?

Darwinism, or evolution, does not teach morals.
That really is the point.

Good, then you agree that evolution is just as harmless, or “morally bankrupt� as astronomy and biology.

Evolution is not harmless.

And the use of circular logic continues.

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

No it is not. Evolution is not a weapon. Care to try again?

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.

This analogy is just plain silly, and only fosters more of a misunderstanding about evolution.

The evolution is amoral

As is biology, chemistry and astonomy.

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

What is the morality of evolution? You just said it is amoral.

For that matter, what is the morality of the other sciences I listed above?

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.

Who’s morality? I would rather my son get his morality from me than anyone else. I’d rather the school just teach them the biology of the subject. Leave the subjective material to the parents (with regards to sex ed).

... then that is slavery: BY ANY DEFINITION.

Since I did tell you a different definition - then it is not by any DEFINITION.

Making one up doesn’t count. Sorry.

Should theists also offer qualifiers decrying the more barbaric parts of their holy book when announcing they are Christian or Muslim?

Yes, and they do.

Christians do identify by their denominations.

No, that is not the same thing. Denominations do not address the concerns in the same manner you expect from atheists.

Plus just the name Christian means they are thereby separating their self from the older Hebrew Testament, and for Muslims they are announcing that they are using the Holy Qur'an along with the Bible, so yes religion always uses qualifiers.

Not the same criteria. You are moving the goalposts now.

For myself I always make certain that I qualify myself as unorthodox.

Which tells me nothing – which is my point. It doesn't offer any useful information as you expect from atheists.

Either we can use common definitions or we can’t.

Been through this before, so here we go again.

The secular dictionary is not infallible and it is not the highest authority.

For defining words, it is and should be. Unless of course you wish to discount the English language.

This is a huge red flag, imo. The moment anyone resorts to definitional changes and says the dictionary is wrong, they lose a tremendous amount of credibility in my eyes.

It is akin to saying: The standard definition of words are fine when they suit my needs but when they don’t, it is the fault of words and their definitions.

Special Pleading at its highest and most ridculous, imo.

Otherwise Atheist are treating the dictionary as an idol and as a God.

I’m baffled how you go from A to B here. Dictionaries define words. Words are how we communicate.

Apparently except when Theists attempt to define Slavery.

Then words are insufficient.

How utterly convenient.

Some words have to be defined by other standards.

No they don’t. It seems to work fine when the words suit your needs when picking out the morals you agree with in the bible.

It seems it is only necessary when your holy book fails your morals test.

I submit that the fault isn't with words, it is with the message.

[Aetixintro]

Just a comment as warning!

It concerns palaeontology in the way that one can (possibly, not normal) "conjure" or "produce" fossils by doing the "voodoo", horrible to (I guess) children, them being most "popular" and their "plasticity", in seeking "freak nature" of this kind, can be directed toward "producing"/"conjuring" these fossils "on demand" and "by design", actually! All I'm saying is that I'm against this "practice" by palaeontologists and associates who may no longer have the mentality of human beings after treating people this horribly bad! I'm also sorry that this comes to you as readers as other-worldly!

Besides, has anybody pondered the time span of abiogenesis to today's animals? It seems that the speed of abiogenesis is quite rapid in laboratory experiments and more crucially, what decides which animals/organisms get developed first?

Is there a definite palaeontological logic that says that human beings can't be developed "straight up" as long as the fundamentals for living are there, the temperature, the fruits and all other edible and so on?