Sorry to hear of your 'flu symptoms, I'm just recovering from a bout myself.

To be fair, you yourself introduced the concept of "the confusion of Boaz", I was simply agreeing with you. And you did it again in this last post...

>>In science lectures, on the subject of 'origins' it would not be amiss to mention the idea of creation as 'one' possibility, (but one in which millions believe) that cannot be rejected on any grounds other than dogmatic exclusion.<<

Now you have re-introduced creationism into the argument - I thought we had left that one behind ages ago? And it certainly would be "amiss" to introduce the topic into science lectures, as it is an entirely un-scientific concept, as is ID. The grounds of "dogmatic exclusion" would not need to be invoked, as there isn't a skerrick of science in either theory.

Get well quickly.

US: Religion A Strength And Weakness For Both Parties

Public Divided on Origins of Life

Both major political parties have a problem with their approach toward religion, in the eyes of many Americans. .......
The public also has distinctly different perceptions of both parties when it comes to dealing with religion and personal freedoms. By a wide margin – 51% to 28% – the GOP is seen as the party most concerned with protecting religious values. By a nearly identical margin (52%-30%), the Democratic Party is perceived as most concerned with protecting the freedom of citizens to make personal choices.
...
...Most independents (54%) think religious conservatives have too much influence over the Republican Party, while fewer, 43%, think secular liberals have too much sway on the Democratic Party.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center...on Religion & Public Life, conducted July 7-17 among 2,000 adults, finds deep religious and political differences over questions relating to evolution and the origins of life. Overall, about half the public (48%) says that humans and other living things have evolved over time, while 42% say that living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. Fully 70% of white evangelical Protestants say that life has existed in its present form since the beginning of time; fewer than half as many white mainline Protestants (32%) and white Catholics (31%) agree.

Despite these fundamental differences, most Americans (64%) say they are open to the idea of teaching creationism along with evolution in the public schools, and a substantial minority (38%) favors replacing evolution with creationism in public school curricula.

....Even many who are politically liberal and who believe in evolution favor expanding the scope of public school education to include teaching creationism.

The survey also finds that while large majorities of Americans say that parents, scientists and school boards all should have a say in how evolution is taught in schools, a plurality (41%) believes that parents – rather than scientists (28%) or school boards (21%) – should have the primary responsibility in this area.

Thanks MichaelK, for some really, really depressing statistics. 64% are open to the idea of teaching creationism ALONGSIDE evolution? If that statistic is correct, we're in more trouble than I realised.

I believe old religions no longer serve the positive purpose they used to, and that we've outgrown them, and that they're redundant. This is a perfect example of an outdated, silly, superstitious belief halting intellectual development, and slowing the progress of mankind. The longer we hold on to the lies, the longer it takes to find out more truths.

Why hold on to the faith stuff when the observable world is more amazing and fascinating than anything you can dream up? Eh, whatever, no ones gonna change their mind.

Deuc, I liked your discussion of the formation of the eye as a theoretical input to the thread.

Unfortunately the fossil record is very short on intermediate species such as you describe.

I don't really have an opinion either way with regards evolution and ID, I try to keep an open mind about the subject.

Having studied a few evolutionary science subjects while at university, the absence of these fossils certainly proved puzzling, although I do think that evolution probably is the most likely mechanism for diversity.

Maybe a stepped approach, rather than gradualism, brought about by spearation of populations is part of the puzzle.

t.u.s.

Spendocrat, I enjoy talking to you on this subject.

I think the reason Creationists argue it stops at the species level is because we have never observed it beyond that. Also, there are no transitionary fossils from millions of years ago to prove otherwise.

You have shown that macroevolution could exist, in a way similar to the fact that microevolution does exist, but you have not shown that macroevolution does/did exist.

I still have a major problem with the apparent “totally, totally proved” element of evolution that has never been shown- that is change occurring from an increase in information, not a decrease. If one animal is to evolve to a higher one, it must inherit a gene that will somehow allow it to pick up that next animal’s attributes. If that animal does not yet exist, where does the gene come from?

Within species, breeds simply lose information, and do not evolve to any higher being. A whole breed of dogs raised with longer fur than other dogs because they are in Artic climate does not mean in millions of years they will evolve into polar bears. They lack a number of polar bear features, and merely specialising in particular dog features will not get them all the way.

What you’ve argued to me actually more logically supports the idea that more advanced beings have de-evolved into what we now have today, not the other way around. Of course this is the wrong direction and I don’t think anybody actually believes that to a large extent, but I state that as a by-the-way, because it is the only type of “evolution” we can now observe. (Actually, I think Creationists believe there were originally created “kinds”, approximately equal to “genuses”, and there has since arisen variation within them into more specialized species, but I don’t think any other viewpoint goes any further back than that).

Neither the whole theory of evolution (how do you know the Big Bang happened?) nor 6-day Creation (how do you know God made space, time, matter and energy in one day and the rest of the stuff in the next 5?) nor ID (how do you know something else made us?) has shown itself to be science yet.

So back to my original solution: I agree with the article. Particularly considering the poor literacy and numeracy rates at many Australian high schools at the moment, let’s teach current science in high schools today, and leave speculation of the past to university students (in perhaps philosophical-science classes).

Peace,
Y&LI