My Theory

[MrBlackDX]

The Theory of Evolution;

As its title dictates it is infact a Theory

Theory roughly means "Claimed but not proven"

Christianity, (example religion), is infact "Claimed but not proven", which in all manner of speaking makes it a Theory

If one theory is dubbed a religion, to eliminate bias, the other theory should also be dubbed a religion.

Religion, as the UK government declares, is not to be taught within Scientific lessons

Science, justifiably is the teaching of human observation translated to fact.

Religious Education is the closest thing to the teaching of Human philosophies, religions and theories.

Therefore, i conclude, that The Theory of Evolution should not be taught in Science, but in Religious Education

And ill just say one last thing, before you comment on how the Theory of Evolution is not a theory, but fact, please research and understand what exactly the Theory of Evolution is.

The Theory of Evolution is NOT Survival of the Fittest or Adaption, both of which are noticeable facts in wildlife and human observation. It is an extension or modification of those two principles.

[Jon]

Therefore, i conclude, that The Theory of Evolution should not be taught in Science, but in Religious Education

Nicely put... that'll cause even more havoc over the age old 'Evolution vs. Religion' debate through the curriculum

[Mr. Tastix]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Don't let the name of the document fool you, the name of the article is completely different.

Now, if The Theory of Evolotion is a fact (which is so contradictive to the name, but whatever) then how can it be taught in such Religious Schools if Religion is indeed a theory?

How can you teach fact, in something which hasn't or can't be proven? I personally don't believe in Religion, never have, never will. Load of bullshit, in MY own opinion.

[synthetic]

Theory of evolution is an attempt, widely claimed successful attempt, to discover the origin of human species using rational methods and few facts such as the excavated remains of different pre-homo sapiens species.
Show me excavated remains of angels and Ill agree with teaching the evolution theory as a religion of some sort.

Therefor the theory of evolution definitely is a theory but it is based on so much more facts than any religion. The point is that human developed from the monkey for this and that reason through this and that method over such and such time. What have they done? They have discovered many and many links between homo sapiens sapiens and the monkey. Of course that could prove to be a bit wrong due to some reason. Still it is a theory that pursues more facts.
Take Christianity and its main point how people have access to better place after death. Notice how this is also among the main strongpoints of many if not all other religions. This not only disagrees and conflicts with the evolution theory but also with biology, astronomy and with so many more sciences. THis means that such religion theories are based on something else than facts and even if one cannot possibly take every proposed idea by the scientists researching evolution theory and the evolution as a fact it is still so much different from religion theories and cannot and should not be brought to same ground with any religion related concepts.

[MrBlackDX]

Theory - "hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices""

I'll pick out the dodgy bits of your proposed document and let you make up your mind from there;

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"

When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time.

First hand is Evolution, second hand is adaption

Its clear as daylight to see gradual change in all species, because of the terms of Survival of the fittest, and that, is infact Adaption

However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution

certainty is proof, proof is fact

Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts

Facts are infact Data displayed with a short description and then an example to display that fact. Theories are concepts and ideas placed to explain scientific reasoning where there is no fact. In this case, how we are Human in the first place.

And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered

Which is just disproving both their and your ideas that Evolution is infact a Fact

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"

This is probably the whole documents best point.

There is no such thing as fact in the first place, in the sense of the word.

We as humans deduce facts from observation and calculation.

However all our measurements and equations are derived from basic functions of measurement, time in seconds, distance in meters etc

All of our measurements have been created by a race which in itself is not the be all and end all, therefore everything has to be infact relative and not absolute

What I describe as fact in this case is what everyone can Agree on, and no one can disagree on, because all our optimum measurements and calculations will infact point in the same direction.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

If mechanisms are a vital part to a fact, then a fact cannot be fact without all its parts being facts, therefore Evolution is still a theory.

And ill end it with three things

Your great Darwin, died a Christian, and said something along these lines in his old age "I regret creating such a theory"

If a theory was proven fact, the world would have no choice but to accept it, and it would create a landslide amount of anarchy for a while, but thats acceptable, people have to accept fact, or they are crazy

And lastly, please please, question exactly what you are believing in, religion or evolution

[synthetic]

i take it youre christian? or believe in any alternative religion.

One could make a huge debate on how the evolution theory should be taught as a religion but only question I can see here is: why on earth would anyone with sane mind do that? I honestly dont care how someone has formed the idea into words, words can be manipulated with. It is the idea that is important and in this case it is the search for our roots, for the roots and nothing else.
It does not matter whether this theory is correct or not, it is the current best bet, and will have to do as a taught and studied subject.
I believe mixing any religions to this is extremely wrong, let the religions be where they are, they are not based on matter, they are not based on facts. It would be difficult if not impossible to say what exactly they are based on but as long as people are reasonable with their religion I think its perfectly sane.

There was a huge dilemma in estonia on if the religion class should be mandatory. I thought there was no question about that, every educated person should study them, taught by unbiased teacher. Yet huge number of people were against it. Why would they ignore such an important matter? Because they lived in the era where people were allowed to have only one religion, and that was atheism. They read the problem but could not see what was important, they only were capable of thinking according to that little alarm sound that turned on in their programmed heads the moment such possibility was proposed.

Now this is one side of the coin.


You are in a way proposing exactly different.

The only reason I can see here for you to even bring such topic up is that either you are more or less religious, or that youre simply bored and found a way to pick on something. You can take anything and force it into some other concept if you can express yourself properly. Question is whether such practice is reasonable. For me such question has only one answer.

[C:Enter:£££]

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/