Coppermine wrote:Taking a "leap of faith" is where people see science and religion part ways, but that parting should not be taught in schools because different religions part at different places and where religion branches off from science is not scientific at all, but faith-based.
This is exactly why I question whether or not the Big Bang theory should be taught as science - or if it is, then it should be specifically taught as what happened AFTER life began - not as an explanation for HOW life began. The Big Bang theory uses a large "leap of faith" from what it can measure to that point of origin.
The Big Bang happened before life began, not after, so I'm not sure how you'd teach it otherwise...unless I'm not reading that right. I admit I'm a little confused by your post.
I am referring to the point of origin where something began living - be it plant or animal. Basically - what caused an inanimate, unliving object to live?
Okay, point of clarity - check out Rugby's post above, for starters. There are three areas of study that we have been talking about in this thread. Here they are in chronological order, as I understand them:
1) The Big Bang occurred, creating the universe, depositing matter, setting space/time "in motion", etc. That's field one.
2) The Origin of Life happened on Earth a looooooooong time after that, in which self-replicating carbon-based life became a reality (however it may have happened). That is field two.
3) Evolution is the process through which those original single-cell life forms became more and more complex, and this process began to occurr "immediately" after the Origin of Life (immediately in geological or cosmological terms). That is field three.
No - this is not at all what I am talking about when I say the origin of life. I am specifically talking about that point that started the Big Bang. The science of the big bang measures everything from a point - but it does not measure that singular point - it cannot. It cannot measure what happened the moment that things were set in motion - rather it can only measure that it was set in motion. Do you understand now?
The period you put in makes the link stall after .com. Just thought I'd let you know.
7/26 - Cafe goes down:
General Error SQL ERROR [ mysql4 ] Table './cafe_forums/baseball_sessions' is marked as crashed and should be repaired  An sql error occurred while fetching this page. Please contact an administrator if this problem persists.
The period you put in makes the link stall after .com. Just thought I'd let you know.
Yeah, I know... i'm not really trying to get anyone to go to planetboredom, I'm just pointing out that Curious George may have posted a picture without realizing the website he linked it to cleverly has a notice in place to prevent their bandwidth from being sucked up.
sooner711 wrote:Evolution is still a theory, and regardless of how many people think it to be true, it still has not been proven. Isn't that correct, or have I missed something?
Yeah, you're wrong... evolution has been proven, that is not the definition of a theory. For a scientific theory to become a law, it must be uncontested and absolute. Because there are missing links and questions surrounding its origin, evolution cannot be stated as a law, but because it is a theory does not mean that is has not been proven.
Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory.
Ok maybe I'm missing the definition of evolution then. I agree its obvious that within a species organisms adapt and change due to their environment, etc. But I don't believe its ever been proven that a species evolves into a completely different species...ie monkeys to humans. That's what I think of when I think of evolution.
Cornbread Maxwell wrote:No - this is not at all what I am talking about when I say the origin of life. I am specifically talking about that point that started the Big Bang. The science of the big bang measures everything from a point - but it does not measure that singular point - it cannot. It cannot measure what happened the moment that things were set in motion - rather it can only measure that it was set in motion. Do you understand now?
Ah, I see - this isn't Life at all you're talking about then. Prior to the Big Bang - nobody knows, but this does not mean we cannot know. Physicists have proposed hypotheses about what caused the Big Bang, and frankly most of these test the limits of my knowledge. But, I'll say it again...it still doesn't mean it's not science. For example, one says that vacuum fluctuation contributed to the Big Bang. Vacuum Fluctuation is essentially energy that appears out of nowhere, which is common in quantum physics. Another hypothesis is that of the oscillating universe - it says eventually, the universe will reverse direction and collapse upon itself, into a singularity, which then explodes again.
So, the point being, science has not determined what came before the Big Bang - but science is being conducted, as we speak, to try to find that answer. If the science of the Big Bang is being taught, then it wouldn't make sense to ignore the science of what came before or during.
Actually, now that I've typed this out, I'm still not sure where the "leap of faith" is. If you teach something as a hypothesis, you're not teaching it as a certainty, it's the nature of the beast.
sooner711 wrote:Ok maybe I'm missing the definition of evolution then. I agree its obvious that within a species organisms adapt and change due to their environment, etc. But I don't believe its ever been proven that a species evolves into a completely different species...ie monkeys to humans. That's what I think of when I think of evolution.
that multiple species came from a single starting point is considered a fact within the scientific community, that is, they consider it to have so much evidence so as not be worth arguing against it. if you would like more evidence, thats your prerogative, but as far as the bulk of scientific community goes it has been settled. what isnt settled is how multiple species came from a single starting point.
Vatican Official Refutes Intelligent Design Nov 18 11:55 AM US/Eastern Email this story
By NICOLE WINFIELD Associated Press Writer
The Vatican's chief astronomer said Friday that "intelligent design" isn't science and doesn't belong in science classrooms, the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate in the United States.
The Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was "wrong" and was akin to mixing apples with oranges.
"Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be," the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. "If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."
His comments were in line with his previous statements on "intelligent design" _ whose supporters hold that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.
Proponents of intelligent design are seeking to get public schools in the United States to teach it as part of the science curriculum. Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism _ a literal reading of the Bible's story of creation _ camouflaged in scientific language, and they say it does not belong in science curriculum.
In a June article in the British Catholic magazine The Tablet, Coyne reaffirmed God's role in creation, but said science explains the history of the universe.
"If they respect the results of modern science, and indeed the best of modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly."
Rather, he argued, God should be seen more as an encouraging parent.
"God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity," he wrote. "He is not continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves."
The Vatican Observatory, which Coyne heads, is one of the oldest astronomical research institutions in the world. It is based in the papal summer residence at Castel Gandolfo south of Rome.
Last week, Pope Benedict XVI waded indirectly into the evolution debate by saying the universe was made by an "intelligent project" and criticizing those who in the name of science say its creation was without direction or order.
Questions about the Vatican's position on evolution were raised in July by Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn.
In a New York Times column, Schoenborn seemed to back intelligent design and dismissed a 1996 statement by Pope John Paul II that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis." Schoenborn said the late pope's statement was "rather vague and unimportant."