So I was perusing Chick Tracts (a favorite hobby of mine, along with CAP movie reviews), and I came across this beauty:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp - http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

It covers evolution - at least sort of.  I am familiar with most of the science described in this tract, and in an unprecedented (or not) accomplishment, this tract manages to state incorrectly virtually every single aspect of science presented (to the extent that I am familiar with the science).  Granted that Chick is the champion of hyperbole and strawmen, but this is the strawman to end all strawmen.

Is it a wonder that the US is losing its technological/scientific edge to the world when we are feeding our children garbage like this?  If I were Satan trying to destroy human civilization, I would publish Chick Tracts.

GAH!

/rant

High Voltage wrote: i don't see many on-topic, useful replies in this thread's future.

I know.  But I had to yell at somebody, and Mr. Chick wasn't picking up the phone.

(And yes, the D&D tract is outstanding.  The Halloween tract is also classic.)

I honestly fail to see the significance either way. Could someone honestly tell me why it matters?

The whole evolution vs. intelligent design argument. I guess it's because it's what balances people's beliefs, but that just seems way too, well, narrow...

To me, it looks like a good base for people to complain, and that's about it.

It matters because science matters.  Undermining science is bad.  Lying about science is bad.  Making up fake things about science is bad.  Telling your children made-up lies about science is bad.

I have nothing against folks believing in creation.  I have LOTS against folks misrepresenting science.

DeTrevni wrote:   I just wonder why there can't be a balance. It's always just one or the other.

It doesn't have to be one or the other.  This dichotomy is a creation (sorry) of the creationist crowd - that somehow you can't be a christian and accept evolution.  That is just false.  There are also a few sad scientist souls who think that science somehow "proves" religion wrong.  That is also false.

There are millions of people that accept the evidence for evolutionary theory, and still manage to reconcile that with religious faith and a belief in divine creation.  You don't have to choose; you can have it both ways.

Science deals with all things observable.  If it can be measured, it can be studied by science.  Anything that cannot be measured, however, is beyond the scope of science.  Religion/divinity, almost by definition, is not measurable and therefore not scientific.

Not only do science and religion not oppose each other (IMO), but they never even meet.  They address entirely different things using entirely different methods.

DeTrevni wrote: ... we need both sides taught in schools, so children have a basis to choose, whether it be one, the other, or both, without being forcefed exclusively to one side.

What do you mean "both sides"?  There are no sides.  Science is science, and it doesn't have "sides". 

What about the physical evidence of religion? Noah's ark, the Shroud of Turin, The Garden of Eden, etc. Some people look towards science to actually enforce their beliefs

There is no scientific evidence of the existence of the divine.  Zero.  There is some scientific evidence that indicates that some of the physical occurrences described by various religions, but there is no scientific evidence for the actual existence of an actual divine being.

Yes, many people do rely on evidence for certain physical historical events to bolster their religious beliefs, but that physical evidence does not support the actual religious belief, only the physical surroundings (at best, that is.  Much of the "evidence" cited by some, like the Shroud, isn't evidence of anything at all, and often is far from scientific).

...science is based on the faith that what scientists do will work, impact humanity, etc.

No faith required.  Simple observation.  If it doesn't work it is rejected, and we try something else.  Science is fluid.  Eveything you do every day is "science" in its most basic sense.  Science is simply interacting with the observable environment and reacting to it.

"Sides" referrs to creationism vs. evolution. Not sides to science.

The scientific evidence of religion is vital to some. I was not referencing the divine, but the belief in them. Perhaps finding the boat that what some believe saved all life on earth, or maybe the garden to where life started, etc. is enough to prove that God exists. Using carbon dating to test pieces of the subject, using archaeological excavations to locate the subject, and stuff like that is using science to aid religion. Even if it disproves the subject's relation to religion, it gives people the hope that it exists, still in the long term strengthening their belief.

Why is it so difficult to even try to think how science and religion can come to coexist?

DeTrevni wrote: "Sides" referrs to creationism vs. evolution. Not sides to science.

Ah.  Well, I certainly think people (at least in the US) should be taught about creationism and evolution - but they should be taught honestly.  Every instance with which I am familiar where creationism/creation science/ID was taught in school involved some degree of lying or misrepresenting about the science of evolution.  Like this Chick tract - virtually everything it says about evolutionary theory is flat out wrong.

It would be like me teaching creationism like this:  "Creationism is the belief that God, who lives in the moon, made man from the hair of a cow.  Now look at the moon - do you see god?  No?  I didn't think so."  While the central point is correctly stated (god created man), everything else is complete crap.  That is essentially what this tract does to science.

Second, creation shouldn't be taught as science - because it's not.  I strongly support teaching about creationism in religion class and social studies class, or civics class, or whatever, but let's not misrepresent what it is either.

The scientific evidence of religion is vital to some. I was not referencing the divine, but the belief in them. Perhaps finding the boat that what some believe saved all life on earth, or maybe the garden to where life started, etc. is enough to prove that God exists. Using carbon dating to test pieces of the subject, using archaeological excavations to locate the subject, and stuff like that is using science to aid religion. Even if it disproves the subject's relation to religion, it gives people the hope that it exists, still in the long term strengthening their belief.

And I certainly have no problem with that.

Why is it so difficult to even try to think how science and religion can come to coexist?

Is that rhetorical, or are you asking me?  Because I certainly believe they can and do coexist.

That's what I figured...

Yeah, my main problem is the misrepresentation and dishonesty in the discussion.

^^^ That guy was so cool!

Think of that all by yourself?

The big bang has nothing to do with evolution.  Completely different field of science.

I'll be happy to talk big bang, but this thread was kind of about evolution...

MC Sammich wrote: I do not think Macro evolution is real.

Based on...  your graduate education in biology?

The big scale evolution thing is crazy.

More of that quality logic I was talking about.

Why are people not evolving into other creatures now? Why are monkeys not still turning into people?

And again with the regurgitation.   These questions have been asked and answered approximately a zillion times.  Try something new.

There is just as much "proof" for large scale evolution as there is for creation.

Actually, this is proof that not only have you never researched evolution, but you must have actively avoided any knowledge on the subject.

The only possible way anybody can say this with a straight face is by completely ignoring everything they hear that is contrary to their preconceived notions.

The volumes and volumes of study that has been done about the evolution of species is so staggeringly extensive that to simply declare that there "is no evidence" makes you sound about as smart as a flat-earther.

You may disagree with the evidence (if you are qualified to do so).  You may choose to believe in a different set of physical principles altogether.  But to pretend that there simply IS NO EVIDENCE is absolutely bizarre.

brihard wrote: Clark, have you read "Guns, Germs, and Steel"? If not, go buy it tomorrow and read it this weekend. You'll love it.

Not familiar with this one.  I'll have to look it up.