Korean Job Discussion Forums

[wwidgirl]

[Wangja]

[Moldy Rutabaga]

I'm going to let out my angry whine once, and then try (try) to be objective: intellectual elites can dish it out, but they can't take it. Christians are always scolded to be tolerant and inclusive, but public school systems aren't required to tolerate or include Christians. Look at this from the perspective of a believer: you pay taxes like everyone else, but you have no say in the values or curricula of the public system.

I had this gripe when I was in university. I was sometimes told that religion had no place in the classroom, and yet anti-religious beliefs had free reign. If evolutionary theory was taught as a theory, I would have no problem, but it's not, and no one's allowed to disagree. What other science mocks and shouts down scientific efforts to dispute its findings, and requires students to accept theory-- other than possibly feminist studies? Other areas of science admit that theories are theories and are open to being disproven or challenged (Linnaeus' taxonomic system was recently disproven by DNA research, and life went on in Biology departments). Social sciences don't force you to swallow their theories. But evolution class does.

I like Americans, but I wish Americans had a better spirit of compromise. If evolution classes simply presented their findings as scientific theory, and if believing scientists were permitted to express their theories in non-science classes (such as a social science class) without being sneered at, there would be less hostility on both halves.

>Will they start challenging Gallileo's ideas on the solar system?
The medieval church did not address the idea of Galileo's ideas, let alone dispute them. They simply disagreed with the principle of a layman challenging biblical teachings. This doesn't make it acceptable, but it's an unrelated matter.

Ken:>

[ubum]

Blah Blah Blah

[magicwolfman]

[cionanian-cro]

[Alias]

[Red]

[billybrobby]

I was curious about it, and so, after an exhaustive search, i managed to find a picture of Intelligent Design's creator

[magicwolfman]

[Bulsajo]

Good god, man!

If you're going to troll, at least try to do it with a modicum of wit, perhaps even a smattering of panache. Some elan wouldn't hurt but that's probably asking too much.

As things stand right now you're simply just an embarrassment to the art
(although I will grant you that that is not an easy feat in itself, so I suppose you might give yourself a very brief self-congratulatory pat on your butt).

[bignate]

[Jamin]

When people start talking about evolution there is always confusion regarding fact and theory.

The facts we have include:
1) A large number of bones which we can date
2) Animals similar in form sharing a hire percentages of DNA coding than animals less similar in form
3) Genetic coding can mutate and change
4) Fossil records that show animals with features associated with different animal types (reptile/bird for example)

The theory of evolution is the idea which takes these facts and attempts to give a reason for thier existence.

Intelligent Design is not a theory because it does not give a reason for these facts which are testable. In other words, by saying god caused evolution to occur you are assuming that god is your cause. By definition, god cannot be proven by scientific means and as such cannot be included within a scientific theory.

The other problem with ID is that it comes down to the arguement: "I don't know how this could have occured so it therefore god must have done it". An inability to explain something does not by definition mean it cannot be explained; it simply means we can't explain it yet.

By all means discuss ID in church but don't treat it as science because it isn't.

[red dog]

[red dog]