Anti-Evolution Teaching gains Foothold in U.S. Schools..

[tobedawg]

Anti-evolution teachings gain foothold in U.S. schools
Evangelicals see flaws in Darwinism
Anna Badkhen, Chronicle Staff Writer

Tuesday, November 30, 2004




Dover, Pa. -- The way they used to teach the origin of the species to high school students in this sleepy town of 1,800 people in southern Pennsylvania, said local school board member Angie Yingling disapprovingly, was that "we come from chimpanzees and apes."

Not anymore.

The school board has ordered that biology teachers at Dover Area High School make students "aware of gaps/problems" in the theory of evolution. Their ninth-grade curriculum now must include the theory of "intelligent design," which posits that life is so complex and elaborate that some greater wisdom has to be behind it.

The decision, passed last month by a 6-to-3 vote, makes the 3,600-student school district about 20 miles south of Harrisburg the first in the United States to mandate the teaching of "intelligent design" in public schools, putting it on the front line of the growing national debate over the role of religion in public life.

The new curriculum, which prompted two school board members to resign, is expected to take effect in January. The school principal, Joel Riedel, and teachers contacted by The Chronicle refused to comment on the changes.

The idea of intelligent design was initiated by a small group of scientists to explain what they believe to be gaps in Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which they say is "not adequate to explain all natural phenomena. "

On an intelligent-design Web site (www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org), the theory is described as "a scientific disagreement with the claim of evolutionary theory that natural phenomena are not designed.''

Critics such as Eugenie Scott, director of the Oakland-based National Center for Science Education, say the Dover school board's decision is part of a growing trend. Religious conservatives, critics say, have been waging a war against Darwin in classrooms since the Scopes "Monkey Trial" of 1925. Tennessee schoolteacher John Scopes was convicted of illegally teaching evolution, but his conviction later was thrown out on a technicality by the Tennessee Supreme Court.

"There's a constant impetus by conservative evangelical Christians to bring religion back into the public schools," said Witold Walczak, legal director of the Pennsylvania branch of the American Civil Liberties Union. "The end goal is to get rid of evolution. They view it as a threat to their religion."

The intelligent-design theory makes no reference to the Bible, and its proponents do not say who or what the greater force is behind the design. But Yingling, 46, who graduated from Dover High School in 1976, and other supporters of the new curriculum in this religiously conservative slice of rural Pennsylvania say they know exactly who the intelligent designer is.

"There's only one creator, and it has to be God," said Rebecca Cashman, 16, a sophomore at Dover High. She frowned when asked to recollect what she learned about evolution at school last year.

"Evolution -- is that the Darwin theory?" Cashman shook her head. "I don't know just what he was thinking!"

Patricia Nason at the Institute for Creation Research, the world leader in creation science, said her organization and other activist groups are encouraging people who share conservative religious beliefs to seek positions on local school boards.

"The movement is to get the truth out," Nason said by telephone from El Cajon (San Diego County). "We Christians have as much right to be involved in politics as evolutionists. We've been asleep for two generations, and it's time for us to come back."

Emboldened by their contribution to President Bush's re-election, conservative religious activists are using intelligent design as a new strategy of attacking evolution without mentioning God, Scott said.

"There is a new energy as a result of the last election, and I anticipate an even busier couple of years coming on," Scott said.

She called intelligent design "creationism lite" masquerading as science. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1987 banned the teaching of creationism -- which holds that God created the world about 6,000 years ago -- in public schools on the grounds of separation of church and state.

John West of the Discovery Institute in Seattle, the main sponsor and promoter of intelligent design, defended the theory he says addresses "evolution follies."

"Mainstream criticism should be raised in classrooms," West said.

The Dover school district's challenge to the primacy of evolution is not isolated. In Cobb County, Ga., parents sued a local school board for mandating that biology textbooks prominently display disclaimers stating that evolution is "not a fact." A federal court is expected to rule next month.

In Grantsburg, Wis., a school board revised its science curriculum to teach "various scientific models of theories of origin." In Charles County, Md. , the school board is considering a proposal to eliminate textbooks "biased toward evolution" from classrooms. Similar proposals have been considered this year in Missouri, Mississippi and Oklahoma.

"There is nothing random about this," said Barry Lynn, executive director of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "You might say it's a planned evolution of an attack on the science of evolution."

The drive to bring more religion and what have been labeled "moral values" into the classroom goes beyond challenges to Darwin's theory, Scott said. The Charles County school board also proposed to censor school reading lists of "immorality" or "foul language" and to allow the distribution of Bibles in schools. In Texas, the nation's second-biggest school textbook market, the State Board of Education approved health textbooks that defined abstinence as the only form of contraception and changed the description of marriage between "two people" to "a lifelong union between a husband and a wife."

"The religious right has a list of topics that it wants action on," Scott said. "Things like abortion, abstinence, gays are higher up in the food chain of their concern, but evolution is part of the package."

This drive has found fertile ground in this part of Pennsylvania, where billboards reading, "Many books inform but only the Bible transforms" line the road, and family restaurants offer free booklets titled "What the Bible says about moral purity" and "The Bible is God's word" at the door.

"These brochures give you an idea where some people in this community are coming from," said Jeff Brown, 54, who, along with his wife Carol, 57, resigned from the school board after they voted against changing the biology curriculum.

Yingling, who voted in favor, said she believes God created the world in six days and doesn't believe in evolution "at all." Another board member who supported the measure, William Buckingham, refused to say what he believes but has identified himself as a born-again Christian.

But religious beliefs or motivations should be beside the point, said Richard Thompson, an attorney who represents the board members. Thompson is the president of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., a pro-bono firm whose Web site promises "the sword and shield for the people of faith."

The decision was "supportive of academic freedom more than anything else, " Thompson said.

While not talking about his own religious convictions, Thompson added, "When you look at cell structure and you see the intricacy of the cell, you can come to the conclusion that it doesn't happen by natural selection, there has to be intelligent design." Thompson said he is ready to represent the board in the Supreme Court if it comes to that. Some parents and teachers in Dover already have asked the Pennsylvania ACLU to sue the board on their behalf. Walczak said the organization's legal team is studying the case before deciding whether to go to court.

Brown, the former school board member, says he is not arguing with other people's religious beliefs.

"Don't get me wrong: I don't have a problem with having these booklets where people can pick them up. But I do have a problem with people shoving this down the throats of our children on taxpayers' dollars," Brown said.

"I happen to believe both in God and evolution," he said, and his wife nodded: "Hear, hear."

The Browns appear to be in the minority. Although public schools have been teaching evolution for decades, a national Gallup poll in November 2004 showed that only 35 percent of those asked believed confidently that Darwin's theory was "supported by the evidence.'' More than one-third of those polled by CBS News later in November said creationism should be taught instead of evolution.

"A guy came up to me and said, 'Wait a minute, you believe in God and evolution at the same time? Evolution isn't in the Bible!' " said Brown, nibbling on a deep-fried mozzarella stick at the Shiloh Family Restaurant on Route 74. As he became more agitated, his voice grew louder, and other customers -- mostly gray-haired women and elderly men in baseball hats -- turned their heads to look at the couple. Carol Brown kept putting her index finger to her lips, gesturing for her husband to be quieter.

After the Browns left the restaurant, a waitress in her 30s slipped a note to a Chronicle reporter.

"Beware," it read. "God wrote over 2,000 years ago that there would be false prophets and teachers. If you would like to know the truth read the Bible."

[tobedawg]

Recent actions in the teaching of evolution
Tennessee, April 2003: Blount County�s Board of Education votes not to adopt three high school biology textbooks because they do not present creationism alongside evolution..

California, September 2003: The Board of Trustees of the Roseville Joint Union High School District Placerville County) decide not to enact a district- wide policy on teaching evolution. Science teachers have told the district that they do not want to add nti-evolutionist materials that are not stateapproved..

Oklahoma, April 2004: Textbook legislation passes after it is stripped of a provision that all textbooks include a disclaimer describing evolution as "a controversial theory which some scientists present as scientific explanation for the origin of living things"and "the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced a world of living things.".

Pennsylvania, October 2004: A Dover, Pa., school board votes to include intelligent design in the district�s science curriculum, making it the first such school districtin the country..

Georgia, November 2004: A lawsuit is filed against the Cobb County School District over this disclaimer inserted into textbooks: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and criticallyconsidered.".Source: National Center for Science Education; Chronicle research



National polls on the issue
In your opinion, is Darwin's theory supported by evidence?

Supported by evidence, 35%

Not supported, 35%

Don't know enough to say, 29%

Which best describes your views of the origin of life?

Man developed with God guiding, 38%

Man developed with no help from God, 13%

God created man in present form, 45%

Source: Gallup Poll, conducted Nov. 7-10. The poll surveyed 1,016 adults; the margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Percentage favoring the teaching of creationism

instead of evolution

Overall, 37%

Kerry voters, 24%

Bush voters, 45%

Self-described evangelical Christians, 60%

Source: CBS News poll, conducted Nov. 18-21. The poll surveyed 795 registered voters nationwide; the margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

[REMgirl]

I do not want my children being taught creationism or intelligent design in our public school. Period. If parents want their children to be taught those theories, then they should either home school or send them to parochial school. Period.

[The Engineer]

Though I take issue with Darwin's version of evolution, I certainly do not support "Intelligent Design". Children should be taught current theories of evolution and they should be shown the holes in the theory. The critical thinkers of tomorrow that will replace it with better theories are the students of today.

[yoshomon]

A recent issue of National Geographic looked at and totally destroyed anti-evolution arguments. The amount of evidence for evolution is so staggering that it's an insult for anything else to be taught in biology classes.

[Bill Hicks]

If you were a person whose life is spent in devotion to religion, would you want a more accurate theory about the creation of the universe, especially if it didn't include your particular name-brand of god? If those future scientists never have a reason to doubt a god-made world, perhaps there will still be a place for god in the future.

[despondent]

I personally don't have a problem with all sides being presented, especially being that the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. We all have an intellect. We all should each be given the opportunity to decide for ourselves after contemplating all sides.

[yoshomon]

Originally posted by Frost
which issue was that?

It was in the last 5 most recent issues. I'll look around for it and let you know.

[yoshomon]

Originally posted by despondent
I personally don't have a problem with all sides being presented, especially being that the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. We all have an intellect. We all should each be given the opportunity to decide for ourselves after contemplating all sides.

When one theory has a massive amount of evidence to support it and the others do not, it doesn't make sense to teach all the theories. There are a million theories out there, but they shouldn't be taught until there's a lot of evidence for them.

[ahart2001]

I am probably going to get alot of grief, simply because the majority of people on these boards are very liberal . . . but here goes.

I think that all three theories should be taught . . . evolution, intelligent design, AND creationism. People claim that creationism has no basis or truth to which they can counter the question "What caused everything in the first place?" Evolutionists can say there is alot of evidence to support the evolution theory, but then it is still a THEORY and not a FACT. Intelligent design incorporates the two. I can recall learning that in the world's history many issues have been like this. For example, the idea of the world being flat or that the universe revolves around the earth. People cried heresy, and hatred stemmed from these thoughts and theories.

Nowadays everyone yells separation of church and state. Intelligent design does not claim to belong to any religion. And since it is not any particular religion's theory, the state teaching it would not constitute the claim that the church is establishing a national religion (hence the idea behind "church and state". The Amendment was not designed to stop the teaching of religion or religious ideas, but instead it was to prevent there from becoming a national religion. I say let prayer back into school, just make sure it is not mandatory. Allow religious classes, just don't make them mandatory and make sure there is a balance between religious philosophies. If young people were allowed to learn about the different religious traditions that exist throughout the world and our country, maybe, just maybe there wouldn't be so much intolerance and bigotry.

Not allowing kids to learn or read about creationism or intelligent design? WHy that sounds like . . . *gasp* . . . CENSORSHIP!! Just present them with all the options and let them decide for themselves. At least they will be informed of all the positions before making their decision.

Just my opinion.

[despondent]

Originally posted by yoshomon


When one theory has a massive amount of evidence to support it and the others do not, it doesn't make sense to teach all the theories. There are a million theories out there, but they shouldn't be taught until there's a lot of evidence for them. yes, it does have massive evidence, but it does also have holes. Personally, I don't really worry about it too much, because in time, the truth WILL be known by our collective existense.

[Slar]

Originally posted by despondent
I personally don't have a problem with all sides being presented, especially being that the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. We all have an intellect. We all should each be given the opportunity to decide for ourselves after contemplating all sides.
As recently stated in another thread, a scientific theory can only be disproved, never proven. The problem with the creationism is that it is based entirely outside the spectrum of anything remotely scientific. In science, you look at the evidence, propose a system for how you think it might work (a theory) and then work diligently to try to disprove it. Supporting evidence can also be used to develop a strong theory and reach valid conclusions. With creationism, you take the conclusion you want and try to build supporting evidence for it and avoid anything that may disprove it. This is bad bad bad bad bad.

[ahart2001]

Originally posted by yoshomon


When one theory has a massive amount of evidence to support it and the others do not, it doesn't make sense to teach all the theories. There are a million theories out there, but they shouldn't be taught until there's a lot of evidence for them.

Yosh, why is evolution so much more beleivable than Intelligent Design? ID is simply filling in the unknown variables that science cannot explain. So therefore it has the same amount of evidence as evolution and then as a bonus offers an explanation for all the stuff that science can't explain (at least not explained as of yet).

[Slar]

Originally posted by ahart2001
I say let prayer back into school, just make sure it is not mandatory. Allow religious classes, just don't make them mandatory and make sure there is a balance between religious philosophies.

I couldn't disagree more. In our country this would certainly be used to promote Christianity in a public forum. If you want to do it in a private school that's fine, but in a public environment it would certainly result in the endorsement of religion by a governmental entity.

[despondent]

Originally posted by Slar

The problem with the creationism is that it is based entirely outside the spectrum of anything remotely scientific.
That's not entirely true. I have seen studies that look at specific genes that are only passed on only by the mother, and some of these studies suggested that by tracing these back, the evidence might support one original source. I don't know if these studies have been disproven or not since I originally heard about this, but there is scientific research being done in the area of creationism, or as I prefer, intelligent design.

[Slar]

Back in June there was actually some progress in prevent this exact type of situation. There is absolutely no basis for this type of prositalization as continuously decided in the courts.

Scopes II Trial (http://www.ffrf.org/news/2004/scopesIIwin.php)

"The appeals court ruled that the instruction failed all three prongs of the Lemon Test. It found no secular purpose in the religious instruction, quoting lesson plans such as "Teach the children God's commandments and that we should obey all of them." It found that the BEM program, "conducted in public school classrooms, during school hours, and for children who are as young as kindergarten age," advancing religion and failing the second prong of the Lemon Test. Finally, it found that the classes entangled church and state, violating the third prong of the Lemon test, since the bible classes took place on school premises during instructional hours "with the explicit sanction of the Board of Education."

[Slar]

One more link: The Case Against School Prayer (http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/schoolprayer.php)

"When religion has invaded our public school system, it has singled out the lone Jewish student, the class Unitarian or agnostic, the children in the minority. Families who protest state/ church violations in our public schools invariably experience persecution. It was commonplace prior to the court decision against school prayer to put non-religious or nonorthodox children in places of detention during bible-reading or prayer recitation. The children of Supreme Court plaintiffs against religion in schools, such as Vashti McCollum, Ed Schempp and Ishmael Jaffree, were beaten up on the way to and from school, their families subjected to community harassment and death threats for speaking out in defense of a constitutional principle. We know from history how harmful and destructive religion is in our public schools. In those school districts that do not abide by the law, school children continue to be persecuted today."

[ahart2001]

Originally posted by Slar


I couldn't disagree more. In our country this would certainly be used to promote Christianity in a public forum. If you want to do it in a private school that's fine, but in a public environment it would certainly result in the endorsement of religion by a governmental entity.

Not sure if you are aware of it, but our country still does cling loosely to its religious roots. Look at your money (In God we trust). Look at the military (they have positions for chaplins and many commanders urge their troops to go to services). Look at the Declaration of Independance . . . I can go on. That is what was beautiful and unique about America, we allowed religious freedom and expression. In the world the LARGE majority belongs to a religious organization. But in America, we refuse to teach our youth about their beliefs. Hence the reason alot of the religious intolerance exists. Our kids are IGNORANT of religous beliefs. Religion is part of history . . should we stop teaching about the crusades? Should we forget teaching about the Holocaust because of its religious implications? Maybe we should quit teaching architecture regarding cathedrals since they have an obvious religious slant?

Our counrty has gone from the point where prayers were said every day to a point where kids can't even say the pledge of allegience, and now its swinging back the other way. Why is a middle of the road approach so irritating? Should children not be taught about the differences that exist in our world?

[ahart2001]

In my experience, alot of children who attend public school were just as guilty of persecution (if you want to call it that) as students of parochial schools. One of my ex-girlfriends thought that Catholics believed Mary was more powerful than God. SOme guys at my basic training thought that Islam taught its followers to kill non-Islamic people. Some schools may have messed up the idea of broad religious education, but that is a case by case basis. Same thing happened with segregation. It is the school boards' responsibility to evaluate what is being taught in the classrooms and how it is being taught. Classes on world religions can be taught without any religious slant. These are the classes I am talking about. Not a Catholic class or a Judaism class . . . but a broad eucation class touching on the major religions of the world.

[Slar]

"In God We Trust" and "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance were added during McCarthyism in the 1950's with the purpose of exposing atheistic Communists. The Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution, which is the base of our laws and contains no reference to God. I could go on as well.

I have no problem with people exercising their religious expression. Where I have a problem is when that expression includes imposing private beliefs through the public sector. Children can learn about religion at home or at church.

Your points about religion in history are obviously over-exaggerated to make your point and of course those don't cross the line.

[Slar]

Originally posted by despondent

That's not entirely true. I have seen studies that look at specific genes that are only passed on only by the mother, and some of these studies suggested that by tracing these back, the evidence might support one original source. I don't know if these studies have been disproven or not since I originally heard about this, but there is scientific research being done in the area of creationism, or as I prefer, intelligent design.
This makes my point. Rather than taking observations and drawing a conclusion, creationism takes conclusions and tries to make the evidence fit. That's really hard to do with evolution, which is why everyone has such a problem with it.

[ahart2001]

I still stick to my belief that a World religions class would be a valuabe asset to public schools. And I have no problem with either evolution, intelligent creation, or creationism being taught. Because hey, I know I will be educating my children on the world and its issues. Unfortunately many parents are too lazy and not knowledgeable enough to do it justice for their kids and will just go on perpetuating the ignorance and hate.

[lefty groove]

Why should bad science be allowed into the classroom just because it is any science?

Evolution is bad science. If you squint your eyes really hard (and you really want it to be true), then yeah, it appears that there is a ton of evidence for it. But sadly, if you look at it objectively, there are gigantic holes.

Have an "open-mind" (the liberal's favorite phrase) and check out the creationism web sites. Just because you don't want it to be true, doesn't mean it might not be.

www.rae.org
www.creationism.org
www.christiananswers.net

also, a couple really good books I've been reading:

In Six Days: why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation. (ed. John F. Ashton)

and

Darwin's Black Box by Michael J. Behe

and if anyone asks me if I've heard the other side, the answer is yes- 15 years of school taught evolution.

[ahart2001]

Just for argument's sake . . . Are thing based on evidence and fact the only things that truely exist and should be taught?

[Slar]

I can't argue about the parents, but schools are stressed enough trying to be surrogate parents for the kids.

What grade level would you start discussing world religions? There are classes like that offered at the college level. I have a strong feeling that in the public schools the results would be less than satifying. For example, 90% of the time is spent on Christianity with 10% for everything else or stressing why Christianity is right and everyone else is wrong.

[brainslosh]

Originally posted by REMgirl
I do not want my children being taught creationism or intelligent design in our public school. Period. If parents want their children to be taught those theories, then they should either home school or send them to parochial school. Period.

Creationism and intelligent design are not theories. They're ideologies. There's no evidence to suggest they even rise to the level of conjecture. The colloquial sense of theory is not the same as the scientific sense.

[brainslosh]

Originally posted by lefty groove
Why should bad science be allowed into the classroom just because it is any science?

Evolution is bad science. If you squint your eyes really hard (and you really want it to be true), then yeah, it appears that there is a ton of evidence for it. But sadly, if you look at it objectively, there are gigantic holes.

Have an "open-mind" (the liberal's favorite phrase) and check out the creationism web sites. Just because you don't want it to be true, doesn't mean it might not be.

www.rae.org
www.creationism.org
www.christiananswers.net

also, a couple really good books I've been reading:

In Six Days: why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation. (ed. John F. Ashton)

and

Darwin's Black Box by Michael J. Behe

and if anyone asks me if I've heard the other side, the answer is yes- 15 years of school taught evolution.

And if you aren't a Christian or don't belive in the Bible, where do you even begin to believe this stuff?

[ahart2001]

Originally posted by Slar
I can't argue about the parents, but schools are stressed enough trying to be surrogate parents for the kids.

What grade level would you start discussing world religions? There are classes like that offered at the college level. I have a strong feeling that in the public schools the results would be less than satifying. For example, 90% of the time is spent on Christianity with 10% for everything else or stressing why Christianity is right and everyone else is wrong.

I know there are classes at the college level, I try to take them when i can. The classes should be taught in highschool or in the latter middle school. There are alot of kids who don't make it to college. Many of these are the ones that end up grounded in a particular belief structure. And as for your strong feeling, thats just because you are cynical toward religion in public schools ;) haha

In all seriousness though, your percentages are based on your opinion and that is the schools job to prevent that from happening. The courses are intended to cover each religion. Like Week 1 - Christianity, Week 2 - Hinduism, Week 3 - Islam . . . . It should be an informative and comparative class, objectively taught. People need to learn to stop being afraid of religion and instead of treating it as a disease, accept it an an important part of many peoples' lives.

[Slar]

Originally posted by ahart2001
Just for argument's sake . . . Are thing based on evidence and fact the only things that truely exist and should be taught?
No. There are always the humanities. But in the science world, yes. You are trying to bait the question by debating whether things "truely exist." I'd go there and debate existence with you, but the day has nearly passed and there are jobs still to be done. Send me a PM if you would like to discuss further.

Lefty, it amazes me that you can call evolution bad science and try to put up creationism in it's place. Bad science is better than no science, which is what creationism is. Can you show me any supporting creationism that are non-christian? RAE is supported by Mt. Hope Church and the others are clearly biased toward Christianity (The creationism.org link isn't working for me now, but I think I've seen it before). Again, they have the answers they want, and try to build supporting evidence around it. Not science.

[Duemellon]

The problm is that the religious folx view evolution & spontaneous generation of life r directly contrary to the things they teach their kids about God.

Howevr, their alternativ directly supports their religion as a point to encourage theism at all.

To introduce the concept of any diety at all is to infringe on an atheist to raise their child oblivious to such an option. To introduce the concept of a diety that is responsibl as an architect for us also makes othr religions questionabl.

To properly teach it they would need to make sure that the children undrstand it's from the Monotheistic Evangelical religions of Judeo/Islamic/Christian persuasion.

If they want to teach intelligent design "theory" they should also include the possibilities of othr religions' xplanation of intelligent design. From Nativ American, Pagan, ancient Polytheistic, & othrs. I mean, if the point is to entertain the theory of intelligent design, to limit it to the "Big 3" really demonstrates their desire to indoctrinate the kids into those religions.

We already get enuf Christianity into daily lives, we don't need Christianity to b taught as the sole option to evolution especially since there r just as many valid theories out there.

Teach Creationism? Teach Krishna's belief too, & the Iriqious', and don't forget the various Afrikaan tribes too.

Toss in some Ancient Roman Polytheism...

[markalot]

Why worry, kids believe what they want to believe and it's usually the opposite of what is taught. :)

Besides, we have a lot fo people that believe in creationism and yet were taught evolution in school.

Yes, it's still wrong.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by brainslosh
And if you aren't a Christian or don't belive in the Bible, where do you even begin to believe this stuff? such a valid question...

but the answr is this: U'r livin in denial of the one true God u Hellbound heathen!Originally posted by markalot
Besides, we have a lot fo people that believe in creationism and yet were taught evolution in school.Dude, I just used 50 words to try to say that. Damn. Nice succinctitude.

So why worry about it? The parents will rewrite what the teachers teach when they can anyway. Oh that's right, it's to reach the children who's parents doesn't giv them the possibility of creationism...

Hmmm... why would anyone think that was important to make sure kids who only got evolution as a possibility also heard Creationism?

If it's about a broader spectrum... read the post about includin othr religious doctrin bfore this.

[postfeminist]

meh, i believe in god but i also believe in darwin.

[brainslosh]

Originally posted by despondent
I personally don't have a problem with all sides being presented, especially being that the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. We all have an intellect. We all should each be given the opportunity to decide for ourselves after contemplating all sides.

Sure, let's teach kids that aliens populated the earth, because after all, all theories are equal. We should also be taught the Raelian Revolution (http://www.rael.org/) so that we can determine if alien scientists were the Intelligent Design.

Next we need to use a time machine and bring back a doctor from the Middle Ages to teach at our medical schools.

After that, we need to invite Neo Nazis to teach World War II history.

All opinions are valid. Truth is relative. :rolleyes:

The New Republic (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=myers113004) (subscription required) summed this up perfectly on a related point:

But, most of the time, what conservatives call anti-evangelical bigotry is simply harsh criticism of the Christian Right's agenda. Scarborough seized on a recent column by Maureen Dowd, which accused President Bush of "replacing science with religion, and facts with faith," leading America into "another dark age." The Weekly Standard recently pilloried Thomas Friedman for criticizing "Christian fundamentalists" who "promote divisions and intolerance at home and abroad," and Howell Raines, for saying the Christian Right wants to enact "theologically based cultural norms."

This isn't bigotry. What these (and most other) liberals are saying is that the Christian Right sees politics through the prism of theology, and there's something dangerous in that. And they're right. It's fine if religion influences your moral values. But, when you make public arguments, you have to ground them--as much as possible--in reason and evidence, things that are accessible to people of different religions, or no religion at all. Otherwise, you can't persuade other people, and they can't persuade you. In a diverse democracy, there must be a common political language, and that language can't be theological.

Sometimes, conservative evangelicals grasp this and find nonreligious justifications for their views. (Christian conservatives sometimes argue that embryonic stem cells hold little scientific promise, or that gay marriage leads to fewer straight ones. On abortion, they sometimes cite medical advances to show that fetuses are more like infants than pro-choicers recognize. Such arguments are accessible to all, and thus permit fruitful debate.) But, since the election, the airwaves have been full of a different kind of argument. What many conservatives are now saying is that, since certain views are part of evangelicals' identity, harshly criticizing those views represents discrimination. It's no different than when some feminists say that, since the right to abortion is a critical part of their identity, opposing abortion disrespects them as women. When George Stephanopoulos asked Dobson to justify his charge that Senator Leahy is an anti-Christian bigot, he replied that the Vermont senator "has been in opposition to most of the things that I believe." In other words, disagree with me and you're a racist. Al Sharpton couldn't have said it better.

Identity politics is a powerful thing--a way of short-circuiting debate by claiming that your views aren't merely views; they are an integral part of who you are. And who you are must be respected. But harsh criticism is not disrespect--and to claim it is undermines democratic debate by denying opponents the right to aggressively, even impolitely, disagree. That is what conservatives are doing when they accuse liberals of religious bigotry merely for demanding that the Christian Right defend their viewpoints with facts, not faith. Once upon a time, conservatives knew better. I hope some still do.

[ahart2001]

Originally posted by brainslosh


Creationism and intelligent design are not theories. They're ideologies. There's no evidence to suggest they even rise to the level of conjecture. The colloquial sense of theory is not the same as the scientific sense.

Brainslosh, I think your brain IS sloshed haha.

Intelligent Design takes evolution and INCORPORATES creationism. The evolution theory is there, and it fills in the gaps with a higher force behind it all. So it IS based on scientific methodologies. It just finishes off what science can't explain.

Did you even check out the sites before commenting on the other post?

Originally posted by Slar
As recently stated in another thread, a scientific theory can only be disproved, never proven. The problem with the creationism is that it is based entirely outside the spectrum of anything remotely scientific. In science, you look at the evidence, propose a system for how you think it might work (a theory) and then work diligently to try to disprove it. Supporting evidence can also be used to develop a strong theory and reach valid conclusions. With creationism, you take the conclusion you want and try to build supporting evidence for it and avoid anything that may disprove it. This is bad bad bad bad bad.

Some say that creationism IS the system for how man became based on the the evidence (ie. noone can explain where the very beginning of "Stuff" came from). People have tried to disprove it using new evidence (i.e. the evidence for evolution) and so the theory has been revised (as all theories are when new evidence challenges what was previously assumed) and now it is the Inteligent Design theory.

[ahart2001]

Maybe we teach nothing? And let the parents teach their kids? I'm content with that.

[Bill Hicks]

Originally posted by lefty groove
Why should bad science be allowed into the classroom just because it is any science?I agree. No alchemy in the classroom.

Evolution is bad science. If you squint your eyes really hard (and you really want it to be true), then yeah, it appears that there is a ton of evidence for it. But sadly, if you look at it objectively, there are gigantic holes.Okay, I'm confused. Are you saying that you do or don't want creationism/intelligent design taught in schools? Because if you do, attacking the flawed logic and holes in evolution theory has got to be one of the funniest things anyone has ever done, excluding those "hit in the groin with a ball of some sort" tapes from America's Funniest Home Videos.

Have an "open-mind" (the liberal's favorite phrase) and check out the creationism web sites. Just because you don't want it to be true, doesn't mean it might not be.First of all, who said anything about liberals? By using that open mind of yours, you should be able to see that not all people who share a common political view agree about everything. Brace yourself--there are conservatives who don't believe in god. I know, it's shocking, but it's true. Regarding that last statement of yours, I would like to know whether or not you accept the fact that evolution MAY be the answer, and that there may be no god.

www.rae.org
www.creationism.org
www.christiananswers.netWell, those sites use the bible to defend the bible. If I've learned anything from Court TV, and I may not have--feel free to let me know, it's that the word of the accused is not sufficient evidence when used in defense.

also, a couple really good books I've been reading:

In Six Days: why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation. (ed. John F. Ashton)I'm a fan of Over Millions of Years: Why 50,000 Scientists Choose to Believe That Creation is Simply the Human Race's Attempt to Explain Away What They Do Not Yet Understand by the first guy who feels like actually compiling the thoughts of the vast majority of scientists, especially those whose work is directly related to the history of this planet, as they pertain to the debate over our origins. Sorry. The joke had to be made. You brought up scientists. Surely you understand. Maybe you don't like it, though. But still, try to understand.

Darwin's Black Box by Michael J. BeheThat's so racist and misogynist. Sorry. There wasn't a good joke for that one.

and if anyone asks me if I've heard the other side, the answer is yes- 15 years of school taught evolution. Public school? If so, there's a pretty reasonable chance that you don't know shit about it. Nothing against you personally. It's just that public schools rarely impart any knowledge or skill that would be terribly useful in a discussion of this magnitude. Most people can, however, upon graduation, spell "iambic pentameter".

[tobedawg]

I'm with those on the board that think that Creationism should be left out of the Science classroom..

Save it for Sunday School..

Public school Science Classes are supposed to teach science and scientific theories not a religious agenda..

[brainslosh]

Originally posted by ahart2001


Brainslosh, I think your brain IS sloshed haha.

Intelligent Design takes evolution and INCORPORATES creationism. The evolution theory is there, and it fills in the gaps with a higher force behind it all. So it IS based on scientific methodologies. It just finishes off what science can't explain.

Did you even check out the sites before commenting on the other post?



I checked out the sites. I'm an atheist. So, it's all based on an assumption that won't work for me (or many people in this country who don't share your religious beliefs). I argued over this stuff in college with my born-again friend and many of her Bible study friends. How did the arguments end? You need a leap of faith.

Have you even checked out rael.org to see whether they have a better answer?



Some say that creationism IS the system for how man became based on the the evidence (ie. noone can explain where the very beginning of "Stuff" came from). People have tried to disprove it using new evidence (i.e. the evidence for evolution) and so the theory has been revised (as all theories are when new evidence challenges what was previously assumed) and now it is the Inteligent Design theory.

Intelligent Design isn't a theory. There's no scientific evidence.

[yoshomon]

Was Darwin Wrong? (from National Geographic, November 2004) - http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/index.html

Evolution by natural selection, the central concept of the life's work of Charles Darwin, is a theory. It's a theory about the origin of adaptation, complexity, and diversity among Earth's living creatures. If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence. They embrace such an explanation confidently but provisionally—taking it as their best available view of reality, at least until some severely conflicting data or some better explanation might come along.
*
The rest of us generally agree. We plug our televisions into little wall sockets, measure a year by the length of Earth's orbit, and in many other ways live our lives based on the trusted reality of those theories...

[wileE]

Originally posted by ahart2001


Yosh, why is evolution so much more beleivable than Intelligent Design? ID is simply filling in the unknown variables that science cannot explain. So therefore it has the same amount of evidence as evolution and then as a bonus offers an explanation for all the stuff that science can't explain (at least not explained as of yet).

'at least not explained as of yet'. So what happens when it is explained? Filling in gaps by saying outside forces made it so is not a valid explanation. It is just way too convenient to fill in the holes by saying, 'God made it so'.

Originally posted by ahart2001
Classes on world religions can be taught without any religious slant. These are the classes I am talking about. Not a Catholic class or a Judaism class . . . but a broad eucation class touching on the major religions of the world.

That is a great idea. I took a class like this in college and it really opened my eyes. No reason it couldn't be taught in High School.

Originally posted by ahart2001
Just for argument's sake . . . Are thing based on evidence and fact the only things that truely exist and should be taught?

No, but if it is going to be taught as truth, it should have evidence to back it up.

[the happy prole]

ahart2001, I agree with you that a religious studies course is a good idea, so long as it is a general, objective, survey-type course. A study of religion, or a study of religions, but not TEACHING a religion.

I also think it *might* be possible to incorporate an intelligent design curriculum into science. If it were well-designed, it might have a place but it would be very limited in scope, and certainly would not be directed specifically towards evolution.

Evolution is taught as part of a SCIENCE curriculum. The vast majority of scientists and scientific theory do not support creationism. The same scientists and theories behind basic chemistry, physics, Earth science and all the other sciences you are taught.

So why is no one saying "I want chemistry thrown out. I don't want to hear about covalent bonds. Everything is Stuck Together with God's Glue?"* If science is wrong, it's wrong.

We should be teaching Creationism as an alternative to Science itself, not as an alternative to Evolution within a Science curriculum. And hey, if you wanted to teach a Philosophy of Science course that explores the validity of scientific knowledge and toss some ID in there, I think that would actually be kind of cool.

But my major problem is I think this is just a sham. I have serious doubts that what these parents and schoolboard members are interested in is a well-rounded education. Whether or not you personally believe in evolution, many people do. So students should be familiar with the concept.

If a student in your district says "There's only one creator, and it has to be God," and "Evolution -- is that the Darwin theory?" I'd say that you ought to be beefing up your evolution course instead of adding creationism.

[ahart2001]

Originally posted by brainslosh


I'm an atheist. So, it's all based on an assumption that won't work for me (or many people in this country who don't share your religious beliefs). I argued over this stuff in college with my born-again friend and many of her Bible study friends. How did the arguments end? You need a leap of faith.


First off, by claiming that you are atheist, you are claiming a religion. As much as people want to deny iy, Atheism is a religion that believes there is no god. In that sense, teaching that there is no god is against my beliefs.

I don't think that evolution should be taken out of the science curriculum. I agree that it is scientifically based. I don;t believe creationism should be enforced either. My main concern is teachers denying the existence of a "higher force" (note I didn;t say God) behing the whole scheme of things. When a child asks his teacher what made all of this evolution stuff begin, I don;t think the teacher has the right to mention that there are many answers to that question. Alot of teachers will ignore the question or deny the existance of something higher. Personally I don't beleive in a God with a master plan, but I do believe there is something that sparks what does happen.

Religion should be taught in philosophy and religious classes, and science should be taught in science classes. But I don't think either has the right to deny the existence or validity of the other. Thats really all I was trying to say in my arguments . . . but sometimes you have to take the extreme opposite side to get a discussion going.

[Jeff59]

Intelligent Design and creationism seems more in the realm of theology or philosophy (as a creation myth or story), while theoretical evolution is more in the realm of biology and geology (as a theory of biological change)

[yoshomon]

I don't even consider the possibility that god exists because up to now there is nothing in my life that points to the existence of god. I don't consider there to be lizards on the moon for the same reason.

Atheism is not a religion. It's the absense of religion. It's the negation of religion.

[Bill Hicks]

Originally posted by ahart2001
First off, by claiming that you are atheist, you are claiming a religion. As much as people want to deny iy, Atheism is a religion that believes there is no god.Wrong. Well, for the most part--

[list=1]
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
[/list=1]

That last one may fit your argument, but in that case, the New York Times Sunday Crossword can then arguably be considered a legitimate religion for puzzle enthusiasts. I think we're both smart enough to know that you didn't mean that. Either who, the only way that definition would fit is if that atheist pursued a belief that there is no god as opposed to the far more common disbelief. I don't spend my time fervently believing that there is no god. I simply don't believe in the supernatural and go about my day. It doesn't affect my life except that I have more time to get things done on sundays.

[Jeff59]

....then they should either home school or send them to parochial school. Period.

Well, when I was in parochial school (in Chicago, in the 1960s), they taught the Bible story about Creation and Adam and Eve and such.

But the school library also had kids books on evolution (including Human evolution), on the dinosaurs, geology, and such.

So evolution wasnt apparently incompatible w. Catholic theology. I think the understanding was the Bible story was just that, and we spent more time studying the Gosples and the life and teachings of Jesus and the ten commandments...so, if you want to keep yr kids away from evolution, sending them to parochial school wont do it (well, maybe this area is more conservative than Chicago, so maybe you can find anti-evolution parochial schools).

[purple_octopus]

Originally posted by Jeff59


Well, when I was in parochial school (in Chicago, in the 1960s), they taught the Bible story about Creation and Adam and Eve and such.

But the school library also had kids books on evolution (including Human evolution), on the dinosaurs, geology, and such.


:also learned evolution theory in Catholic school:

[shoonvii]

Darwin's theory may be a bit off, but the scads of research done into evolution in the decades since that I've read is enough for me. That and if you simply study animals for a bit, it's a no-brainer to me.

Creationism is great fiction. Just like the Bible.

That being said, I never call myself an atheist, because atheists BELIEVE there is no God. They don't KNOW there is a God, and neither do I. I know there's too much unexplained and maybe unexplainable shit out there for me to play omniscient and say that I KNOW there is no God. Belief implies religion or at least spirituality, things which most atheists I know despise (though I think a lot of them are agnostics, and just don't know the difference).

Nature is God to me, though not intelligent in any way that any human could understand, I think it is something even greater than what most religions believe. I call myself an agnostic, though some have called me a druid :)

[the happy prole]

Yeah, they need a word for "Not giving a shit whether there's a God."

I'm gonna call it "prolistic." I'm a prolist.

[markalot]

I thought it was called agnostic? I guess I better look it up. :)

[purple_octopus]

Main Entry: ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Not sure if that's the same as just not caring...

[Duemellon]

What Holes?
Someone xplain to me where the hole is in the survival of the fittest model?

If u say "where did the spark of life come from" that has abso-fuckin-lutely nothin to do/w evolution.

Evolution defeats divine design, but doesn't touch the origin of the spark. & when it comes to the improbability of us being here, that's just a diversionary tactic b/c regardless if we endd up/w combination 3,252,432,515,324 or 5,234,545,723,013 if we attaind the ability to reflect on that question we'd still b amazed that it happnd the way it did.

Evolution provides for that ability to b errant. Creationism does not.

Ulterior Motives?
Teach creationism? Plz also teach othr religous beliefs' concept of creation as well.

If u chose not to talk about these othr possibl truths/theories, which r just as proven as the Christian concept of creationism, then why r u chosin only the Christian concept?

If the parents can un-learn the kids about evolution (as proven by our generation) why can't the same ppl un-learn their kids? Isn't the teachin of evolution less of a threat to Christianity than Creationism is a threat to utter oblivous ignorance about the xistance of a God?

I mean, if a child who was home schoold in a sheltrd life that nevr once mentiond God had to go to school that taught Creationism they r suddenly introduced to the Christian God (remembr, Hindu, Ancient Roman, or Nativ Amer stuff isn't taught).

[yoshomon]

In Montana public schools, kids learn how to shoot guns and all about gun safety starting at a young age. Why wasn't I taught that in school?

The education system is fucked. We need less religious bullshit and more guns. Oh yeah, and vegan cafeterias as well.

[lefty groove]

I'll admit, I have an agenda. The websites I put up were Christian based, but it's just to point out to people that may be interested. Many of you have already made up your mind on the subject. So be it. But I know that some people out there are sick of the same lies- to them I offer something else.

As for a website that isn't Christian based? Well, who else is really interested in the other side of the story? Evolution is accepted- why invest so much time and money in something that will get you trashed by your peers? The only people who are doing objective research are probably people of faith. I'm not a scientist, I don't truly care about science very much. I don't need to disprove evolution- I believe it's wrong because God said so- end of discussion. I see evidence for God everywhere. I live by faith, but at least I admit it.

Look. It takes a TON of faith to believe that everything in this world is an accident, came from nothing. What you call "evidence", I call contrived, manipulations, smoke and mirrors. Scientists dig up three tiny bones and create a 50 foot high animal complete with what it ate and how it reproduced. What a freaking joke. What a grand theory based on so little actual physical evidence. Science can be so arrogant.

The public bought evolution as a substitute for God. It doesn't need another theory.

The parents have a responsibility to tell their kids that their teachers are lying to them. It's the teachers and the school board who will have to answer for those lies, not them. The kids will figure it out. I figured it out. And no, I'm not basing all my evolutionary knowledge on what the school taught me. I've been curious. I used to believe wholeheartedly in evolution. But, I got sick of scientists playing me for an idiot. The pieces don't fit.

Have I thought about there not being a God? Sure, every Christian has. But it never lasts long. I can view the evidence. I can see the purpose in everything. I know the warnings. If I don't know God, then I am nothing.

[brainslosh]

Originally posted by ahart2001


First off, by claiming that you are atheist, you are claiming a religion. As much as people want to deny iy, Atheism is a religion that believes there is no god. In that sense, teaching that there is no god is against my beliefs.



Some other posters have said this. I am not claiming a religion. W. V. O. Quine came up with the notion of ontological commitment: what entities are necessary for your theory to be correct? I am ontologically committed to there not being a god, where an agnostic would have a weaker cleam (no ontological commitment either way). If there is a god after all, then I'm wrong. I've been wrong before, and I'm willing to go out on a limb here (Pascal's wager be damned).

As to why I am an atheist, as Bertrand Russell put it, I look at god the way most rational people look at the gods of Greek antiquity. No one says he/she is agnostic with respect to Zeus. There are many other things that one could be agnostic about, like Santa Claus, fat free Krispy Kremes, and an eventual Bengals Super Bowl victory, but most people hold firmer beliefs. This is not to denigrate people who believe. It's just, I put a stake in the ground here.

My atheism is completely separate from my other ideologies, like my morality or take on public policy. I could just as easily be conservative or pro-life or communist and still be an atheist. But atheism meshs really well with a skeptical, scientific view.


I don't think that evolution should be taken out of the science curriculum. I agree that it is scientifically based. I don;t believe creationism should be enforced either. My main concern is teachers denying the existence of a "higher force" (note I didn;t say God) behing the whole scheme of things. When a child asks his teacher what made all of this evolution stuff begin, I don;t think the teacher has the right to mention that there are many answers to that question. Alot of teachers will ignore the question or deny the existance of something higher. Personally I don't beleive in a God with a master plan, but I do believe there is something that sparks what does happen.


I personally get digusted when teachers make any claims about god pro or con. It's not their place to knock religious beliefs. There are many scientists who believe in god and evolution. Some also believe in creationism. God just doesn't need to enter the discussion in science class. It's disrespectul to bring about religious beliefs in a context where it would alienate people. Especially in the case of kids, I don't think the public arena is where we educate them about religion, whatever beliefs that includes. Parents can send their kids to private schools, after-school programs, church, mosque, synagogue, etc. I'm careful about talking about religion at work. It's generally not going to help us get a project done on time with better quality. It's more likely to alienate others or hurt my career.



Religion should be taught in philosophy and religious classes, and science should be taught in science classes. But I don't think either has the right to deny the existence or validity of the other. Thats really all I was trying to say in my arguments . . . but sometimes you have to take the extreme opposite side to get a discussion going.

OK. So we agree?

[yoshomon]

"Faith means not wanting to know what is true" - Nietzsche.

[brainslosh]

Originally posted by lefty groove
I'll admit, I have an agenda. The websites I put up were Christian based, but it's just to point out to people that may be interested. Many of you have already made up your mind on the subject. So be it. But I know that some people out there are sick of the same lies- to them I offer something else.

As for a website that isn't Christian based? Well, who else is really interested in the other side of the story? Evolution is accepted- why invest so much time and money in something that will get you trashed by your peers? The only people who are doing objective research are probably people of faith. I'm not a scientist, I don't truly care about science very much. I don't need to disprove evolution- I believe it's wrong because God said so- end of discussion. I see evidence for God everywhere. I live by faith, but at least I admit it.


I honestly don't know how it's possible to have a reasonable discussion in this case.


Look. It takes a TON of faith to believe that everything in this world is an accident, came from nothing. What you call "evidence", I call contrived, manipulations, smoke and mirrors. Scientists dig up three tiny bones and create a 50 foot high animal complete with what it ate and how it reproduced. What a freaking joke. What a grand theory based on so little actual physical evidence. Science can be so arrogant.


How can you go from having little interest in science to knowing so much about it to claim arrogance? Science is humble. It starts with the immediate and claims are tested and vetted by other scientists. Something doesn't get published unless it's peer-reviewed. An experiment must repeated. In the case of evolution, where scientists can't control the outcome in a reasonable timeframe, additional evidence and models are tested.

I don't think the world has unfolded accidentally. In fact, randomness could not be explained without quantum mechanics, and that's another complicated story. I'm pretty darn near close to fatalist.


The public bought evolution as a substitute for God. It doesn't need another theory.


God is a separate issue from evolution. It is difficult to reconcile a literal interpretation of the Creation story with evolution. But a metaphorical take can accomodate both.


The parents have a responsibility to tell their kids that their teachers are lying to them. It's the teachers and the school board who will have to answer for those lies, not them. The kids will figure it out. I figured it out. And no, I'm not basing all my evolutionary knowledge on what the school taught me. I've been curious. I used to believe wholeheartedly in evolution. But, I got sick of scientists playing me for an idiot. The pieces don't fit.


Should my dad have told me that my social studies teacher lied to me when he taught me Keynesian economics? Should he have told me Newton mechanics were a lie (they're only true for macroscopic phenomena)?

If the Bible had some bad numeric proofs would you believe that? If it said 2 + 2 = 5 are mathematicians wrong?

[the happy prole]

Lefty, I don't see how you can beat science at its own game. And science's game is logic, observation, and physical evidence. If it is arrogant to believe in evolution on "three tiny bones" then how do you believe in creationism based on ZERO bones?

Religion is faith-based. It's in the story of Abraham and Isaac. Jesus walking on water, or rising from the dead, etc. Unless you believe in God fully-- no matter what your senses or logic might dictate otherwise, you aren't going to Heaven.

Faith means you believe in something even if you don't have proof. How can someone who already has a preconceived conclusion conduct "objective research?"

I have no desire to change or even argue with your beliefs. I just don't see how you can teach creationism as part of science. It's antithetical to the basic foundations of science. Toss out science altogether as a folly of man and teach faith, perhaps. But shoehorning creationism into science makes no sense for either side.

[slow-dog]

I'm pro-evolution. That is all.

[ahart2001]

Originally posted by brainslosh



God is a separate issue from evolution. It is difficult to reconcile a literal interpretation of the Creation story with evolution. But a metaphorical take can accomodate both.





That there is the main problem between pro-evolution activists and pro-creationism activists. Technically, the ancient books of the bible are more theological than historical. God created the world in "six days" . . . add in the day for him resting, and you now have seven. To the Jewish people, seven was not a concrete factual number, it was a symbolic number. Seven days could have been hundreds of thousands of years. This is how creation can be reconciled with evolution. The two theories can actually work hand in hand. The problem comes into play when people take the Bible as the hard-core written in stone truth. This compilation (note the word "book" not used) was written ofer thousands of years by many different authors and then piled together to form the Bible. Many of the early stories, such as creation and the great flood have bases in factual events, but get embellished. Thats all I have.


And yesh Sloshy-brain . . . looks like we might actually agree on the core of the issue. Just different ways of seeing the outcomes :D

[Duemellon]

Lefty, I'm stunnd how u built a wall of "don't talk to me about it" but hurl statemnts that u'r so right u can't b questiond.

I mean, sayin "I'm no scientist & don't care" & then follow it up/w sayin that the science bhind evolution is "weak", that's pointin our ur vulnerability & claimin it as a strength. I don't understand how u'r abl to reconcile that.

As for "three bones" & the faith it takes, that's ridiculous. I'v talkd about how it's not faith, but if u care to take the voyage, I'll take ya there.

No, it won't b about evolution, it will b about havin a perspectiv on probabilities. U wanna go?

[ahart2001]

Originally posted by brainslosh


If it said 2 + 2 = 5 are mathematicians wrong?


Two plus Two DOES equal Five . . . if you are using large values of Two.

2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8

Rounded off it comes to 2 + 2 = 5

:D

[wileE]

Originally posted by ahart2001



Two plus Two DOES equal Five . . . if you are using large values of Two.

2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8

Rounded off it comes to 2 + 2 = 5

:D

I HATE THIS ARGUMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
you are implying that 2 = 2.4
That is not true. Rounding off is not a valid way to prove something, unless you are trying to show how badly your results can be skewed because of errors.

Sorry, back to the evolution/ID argument.

[yoshomon]

Everybody discussing this should check out the november 2004 issue of National Geographic. It explores the question "was Darwin wrong?" and takes on the challenges posed by anti-evolution folks. Plus, the pictures are really neat.

[candy4140]

Originally posted by ahart2001
I think that all three theories should be taught . . . evolution, intelligent design, AND creationism. People claim that creationism has no basis or truth to which they can counter the question "What caused everything in the first place?" Evolutionists can say there is alot of evidence to support the evolution theory, but then it is still a THEORY and not a FACT. Intelligent design incorporates the two. I can recall learning that in the world's history many issues have been like this. For example, the idea of the world being flat or that the universe revolves around the earth. People cried heresy, and hatred stemmed from these thoughts and theories.



That's what church is for. But seriously, I'd actually be for some discussion of different religions in public schools, if I could be sure it was taught also as "theory", but we know would never happen. Any religious person would teach this as pure fact....I mean if you believe in religion in the first place, there's no way you could let yourself say to a class of kids "now this is just what I believe..it may not be true, and really its all based on faith, not facts". Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

[ahart2001]

Originally posted by wileE


I HATE THIS ARGUMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
you are implying that 2 = 2.4
That is not true. Rounding off is not a valid way to prove something, unless you are trying to show how badly your results can be skewed because of errors.

Sorry, back to the evolution/ID argument.

Hey, I never said it was a good way . . . its just a different kind of mathematics. They teach it in college. Plus I was just being contrary. Its what I do. :D

[ahart2001]

Originally posted by candy4140


That's what church is for. But seriously, I'd actually be for some discussion of different religions in public schools, if I could be sure it was taught also as "theory", but we know would never happen. Any religious person would teach this as pure fact....I mean if you believe in religion in the first place, there's no way you could let yourself say to a class of kids "now this is just what I believe..it may not be true, and really its all based on faith, not facts". Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

So you are saying that people can't teach what they don't truly beleive in? I took a world religions class in high school and it was very objective in its approach. Every religion was taught as valid, and there were two quarter projects where we had to research a different religion each time and we compared them as a class.

And shockingly, it was a Catholic high school and the class was taught by :eek: a priest! :eek:

People ARE capable of teaching courses objectively. You just need to monitor the class from time to time (like any other class).

[Duemellon]

When someone says that all three should b taught, i keep askin the question:

Which religion's version of Creationism r u teachin? & why do u only find that particular religion's version of Creationism acceptibl to teach? If u really want to lay all options out for the kids, then b practical & include them all.

To say that only this form of Creationism is valid to teach is to xpose the goal of evangelizing the Christian religion. After all, isn't the Creation stories of the Chippawa as valid & as easy to prove by science?

[candy4140]

Originally posted by ahart2001


So you are saying that people can't teach what they don't truly beleive in? I took a world religions class in high school and it was very objective in its approach. Every religion was taught as valid, and there were two quarter projects where we had to research a different religion each time and we compared them as a class.

And shockingly, it was a Catholic high school and the class was taught by :eek: a priest! :eek:

People ARE capable of teaching courses objectively. You just need to monitor the class from time to time (like any other class).

When it comes to religion...no, I don't think "believers" can be objective. I mean if they were objective, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. The idea that teaching all sides of a story to kids and having them make up their own mind is silly b/c the topic is something that is so emotional. I know I couldn't teach religion without a bias....at some point, I'd slip in.."this isn't based on much fact and many parts of it are total leaps a faith that any logical mind can't buy". Ooops!

To think a "believer" could teach their beliefs and evolution and give them equal credit is very optimistic, but I doubt it.

[Santos-Dumont]

Originally posted by brainslosh


Truth is relative.



This statement prevents me from accepting anything you have said and negates any reasonable discussion

Not being cute or smarty pants but anyone who doesnt believe in absolute truth shouldnt be arguing anything of this caliber and frankly doesnt make me want to pull my brain into something resembling coherent form to produce valid statements and lines of thought only to pass through the Bermuda Triangle of "relative truth"

[purple_octopus]

Originally posted by candy4140


When it comes to religion...no, I don't think "believers" can be objective. I mean if they were objective, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. The idea that teaching all sides of a story to kids and having them make up their own mind is silly b/c the topic is something that is so emotional. I know I couldn't teach religion without a bias....at some point, I'd slip in.."this isn't based on much fact and many parts of it are total leaps a faith that any logical mind can't buy". Ooops!

To think a "believer" could teach their beliefs and evolution and give them equal credit is very optimistic, but I doubt it.

Should world religion be taught in schools? Absolutely. Why? Because it's relevant. I'm not even talking about creationism vs. evolutionism here, because religion is a lot more relevant that that. In looking at world conflicts and events, and in understanding history, it is crucial to understand different religions of the world.

Like it or not, there are a lot of people on this planet to whom faith plays a very important role. Certainly, you don't think that the Israelis and the Palesitnians are fighting over a border dispute. The differences in their faith play a huge role in the conflict. The same can be said for many, many conflicts occurring both presently and throughout history. What are the differences between the Sunnis and the Shiites, and what role does that play in the Iraq conflict? What are the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism, and what role has that played in the UK?

If these young people are going take a broad view of world events in order to try to understand them, we cannot ignore that understanding religion plays a vital role in this understanding. On a cursory Google search, this (http://www.geohive.com/global/religion_top.php) site approximates that only about 20% of the worlds population is nonreligious or athiest. You know what? That means the rest if the world is. Like it or not, that's the world we live in. Understanding different belief systems can help us understand the root of many problems. And religions are not "theories". Theories take factual observations and point them to a probable conclusion. Religions do not even claim to do that; they are based on faith.

As far as evolution and creationism is concerned, I think it is appropriate to point out where there are disagreements in scientific theory. If evolution is taught in school (as I think it ought to be), I think it is appropriate to say that not everyone agrees, and the different reasons given by the dissenters. Now should creationism be "taught" in school as a theory? I don't know about that. I don't personally see it as a theory, as it is completely faith-based. It could be pointed out while teaching evolution, though, that there are some people who do not think evolution is possible because they are unable to reconcile with these other beliefs that they have, and that some people have these beliefs and are still able to mesh the two (as in Intelligent Design). There could be other scientific-based objections to evolution taught as well. It's just trying to gain the broadest perspective.

I think this to be true, not only with evolution, but with all scientific theories. Looking back on how science itself has evolved, we can see that many jumps were made based on exploring concepts that were thought to be erroneous. Also, in knowing why objections were made to scientific thought, we have a greater understanding from a historical standpoint as to why and how science has progressed.

As far as the belief system of the instructor, I don't see how it should even become a topic of conversation. Like ahart2001, I also learned about world religions in Catholic school. We didn't talk about Catholicism in that class, except for maybe contrasting the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism (which is crucial in understanding how Protestantism came to be). Other than that, we went through all of the world's major religions and talked about what they believed and some of the history. I feel like that gave me a much better perspective when trying to understand history and world events.

[ahart2001]

Originally posted by Duemellon
When someone says that all three should b taught, i keep askin the question:

Which religion's version of Creationism r u teachin? & why do u only find that particular religion's version of Creationism acceptibl to teach? If u really want to lay all options out for the kids, then b practical & include them all.

To say that only this form of Creationism is valid to teach is to xpose the goal of evangelizing the Christian religion. After all, isn't the Creation stories of the Chippawa as valid & as easy to prove by science?

Creationism doesn't HAVE to be taught as Christian. In case some people have forgotten, Creationism was brought into Christianity through Jewish history, and in the same vein, Judaism brought it to Islam. Creationism is merely the idea that something created the world. That is really all that needs to be "taught" or rather discussed. Noone has to mention a thing about christians or anything. Just merely that creationism is another dissenting view on how human became. That will cover ALOT of creationalistic (new word) ideas.

Originally posted by purple_octopus
And religions are not "theories".

Very true . . . religions are philosophies, not theories.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by ahart2001
Creationism doesn't HAVE to be taught as Christian.then when the teachr choses to elaborate on Creationism which religion do they base their xplanations on?

Or is the theory of evolution,/w all it's charts, diagrams, family/species/genus names, or whatevr, the only one they can xpound on b/c it has charts & diagrams?

I mean, to xplain evolution is not just a simple one-sentence line, it takes a few paragraphs about it's origin. Creationism, if only shared as 1 line would satisfy me: "It is the belief that all life was created by a being or beings of higher intelligence and the human form was designed."

howevr, this goes against ancient Greek mythos about the gold and silver people bfore humans.

It goes against the not-so-intelligent design of humanity in some othr religions that say humans were just unexpectd children of this God or that one.Very true . . . religions are philosophies, not theories. When used to xplain the origins of humankind they bcome theories. If u want to apply them to compare/w theories they must b presentd as such.

It would b a theory that some intelligent being(s) created humanity thru their own willpower.

[Santos-Dumont]

Originally posted by the happy prole
I have no desire to change or even argue with your beliefs. I just don't see how you can teach creationism as part of science. It's antithetical to the basic foundations of science. Toss out science altogether as a folly of man and teach faith, perhaps. But shoehorning creationism into science makes no sense for either side.

This "prolism" makes me laugh and I like it.

Partly because its funny, partly because its cool, and partly because of the last sentence is a little backwards.

Nobody has to shoehorn creationism into science. Science is like the frail little rowboat floating in the sea of what makes up creationism. Now, if a little bit of creationism happens to spill over the side of the boat of science and its teachings, sobeit. Science is only the observations of man, who is a faulty being and can only understand that which he sees, or is bound by the limit of his comprehension.
Back to the rowboat, Evolution as a teachable theory, only came about in the last couple centuries, EVERYTHING taught up until that time had something to do with the influence of a Deity. And if we're speaking of this country only Creationism was taught straight from the Bible in the vast majority of schools all through this nations history(not just your backwoods one-room schoolhouses either, Yale, Harvard, and other Ivy League schools were created for the purpose of teaching theology and were actual seminaries) So saying that creationism was shoehorned into science is like saying that without a boat, we wouldnt need an ocean

[cjd]

The evolution theories with the most supporting evidence only describe the adaptation of species. Evolution can be taught without any reference to how a species came to be in the first place. At the primary and secondary level, educators can describe evolution on a small scale. one particular species' features adapting for specific climates or something like that.

And if they're going to teach Creationism, I ask that we name Satan as our Creator. just for fun.

[purple_octopus]

[i]When used to xplain the origins of humankind they bcome theories. If u want to apply them to compare/w theories they must b presentd as such.

It would b a theory that some intelligent being(s) created humanity thru their own willpower. [/B]

Um, not necessarily, because a theory is based on factual obseravation, not a philosophy or belief system. You wouldn't talk about creationism in the sense that it is based on any facts at all, because it's not. That doesn't mean that you cannot mention that there are people who oppose a theory based on a belief system. It's reality. There are people who do not think the theory of evolution is valid because they hold certain beliefs. It helps explain the historical and current progress of science.

People's relgious beliefs constantly play a role in science. For example, some people do not think there should be embryonic stem stell research because of beliefs that they have (religous and otherwise). That is just one example. There are also scientific theories that have dissenters for non-religious reasons, and these all need to be talked about as well.

[ahart2001]

Originally posted by Duemellon
then when the teachr choses to elaborate on Creationism which religion do they base their xplanations on?

Don't need to expand. "Some people believe that a higher power or being created the world." Then move on.

Or is the theory of evolution,/w all it's charts, diagrams, family/species/genus names, or whatevr, the only one they can xpound on b/c it has charts & diagrams?

Expound upon this. At least an alternate theory was mentioned.



howevr, this goes against ancient Greek mythos about the gold and silver people bfore humans.

How many people in American school systems believe in Greek mythology as their religion?


When used to xplain the origins of humankind they bcome theories. If u want to apply them to compare/w theories they must b presentd as such.

A religion is not a theory. The idea of creationism can be seen as a theory though . . . but that is not a religion. Earlier, somone mentioned that creationism cannot be a theory because it is not based on scientific fact. I guess that issue needs to be discussed again (not sure who posted it . . didn;t find it on a quick scan through). But personally I don't feel like going back into it.

[brainslosh]

Slate Magazine has a nice little piece on Richard Dawkens (http://slate.msn.com/id/2110249/). It's not a full-blown argument on evolution.

This is really plumbing the depths of philosophy, but Quine had a sophisticated argument against all "analytic" truths, like 2+2=4. It's a nice philosophical argument against proof by definition and strengthens observation as the key to knowledge. So, maybe 2+2=5. I kind of had to accept that for my own well-being at a certain point.

Now if I could only figure out all the Beatles-related music (Lennon's War is Over and Glass Onion). Time to hit the bam thread...

[the happy prole]

Someone mentioned Quine? I think I sprung a stiffy.

I think creationism is a theory, it's just not a scientific theory because it's not based on scientific principles. Doesn't mean it's wrong, it's just not science.

I'm not sold on the epistimological validity of science, and I also think science has in some ways oversteeped its bounds and isn't to the original principles. We had this discussion a few months ago.

[brainslosh]

Originally posted by the happy prole
Someone mentioned Quine? I think I sprung a stiffy.

I think creationism is a theory, it's just not a scientific theory because it's not based on scientific principles. Doesn't mean it's wrong, it's just not science.



Creationism is a theory, in the common sense of the word. But Evolution is a theory in the scientific sense. Just like William Shatner, bless his heart, is a singer in some sense...


I'm not sold on the epistimological validity of science, and I also think science has in some ways oversteeped its bounds and isn't to the original principles. We had this discussion a few months ago.

Depends on what you're after. I believe more in the existence of things (common sense realism) than sub-atomic particles (scientific realism). I like the idea of Science without Numbers by Hartry Field, that you can rework scientific theories without being committed to the existince of numbers (Platonism). Some scientists believe that numbers, the abstract things, really exist. Yikes! Sorry I missed that discussion.

Still, it's fair to accept the explanatory power of science without being totally realistic about all the things it posits. I also don't buy into social Darwinism. It seems like an excuse to accept the suffering of the more vulnerable.

[purple_octopus]

Originally posted by the happy prole
I think creationism is a theory, it's just not a scientific theory because it's not based on scientific principles. Doesn't mean it's wrong, it's just not science.


Exactly.

Originally posted by brainslosh

Depends on what you're after. I believe more in the existence of things (common sense realism) than sub-atomic particles (scientific realism). I like the idea of Science without Numbers by Hartry Field, that you can rework scientific theories without being committed to the existince of numbers (Platonism). Some scientists believe that numbers, the abstract things, really exist. Yikes! Sorry I missed that discussion.

It's true. Some mathematicians believe that even if we and the rest of the world didn't exit, math still would! I suppose the chemist in me just couldn't live without sub-atomic particles, and all of the math and engineering classes I've been through have given me a special love for numbers and logical problem solving. :) "Science without Numbers"? Ack! I don't know what I'd do with myslef! (Seriously, I've never read that book, but it is something I'll pick up and take a look at. Sounds interesting. Thanks for sharing.)

[the happy prole]

Evolution has overstepped its bounds, and is improperly applied by people.

Evolution is science, and science has no moral connotations. The fact that the fittest survives has no more moral weight than the observation that things fall, or that cancer cells are mutations that eventually overpower regular cells in a body.

Evolution HAPPENS. We don't have to make it happen, and there's no moral justification for doing so from the science alone. We don't feel a moral need to build heavy objects and drop them just because science shows gravity exists.

I kind of like Feyerabend's approach to science. It's like, how many of us at this point really understand relativity or quantum mechanics? Very few of us. Sure the scientist TELL us they've observed stuff but they could be lying. Do we have the ability to get our hands on a Hubble telescope and enough mathematical ability to test their equations?

We're reduced to saying "relativity works because Einstein says it does. And Einstein is crazy smart. I don't get it, but all the other scientists say so."

Which is not far removed from "Christ exists because the Pope says he does. And the pope communicates with God. I don't, but all the other priests who talk to God on a lesser level says so."

[purple_octopus]

Originally posted by the happy prole

It's like, how many of us at this point really understand relativity or quantum mechanics? Very few of us. Sure the scientist TELL us they've observed stuff but they could be lying. Do we have the ability to get our hands on a Hubble telescope and enough mathematical ability to test their equations?

We're reduced to saying "relativity works because Einstein says it does. And Einstein is crazy smart. I don't get it, but all the other scientists say so."

Which is not far removed from "Christ exists because the Pope says he does. And the pope communicates with God. I don't, but all the other priests who talk to God on a lesser level says so."

I disagree. Just because you haven't the interest nor desire to research relativity or quantum mechanics doesn't mean that the science is a lie. If you take the time to study math and science, you will see that it's not just a couple scientists saying "I observed this event, therefore that is true." Even Einstein's work on quantum mechanics was built upon the work of others, such as Max Planck, James Maxwell, and a slew of others. We don't say that Einstein's ideas work becaues he was just "crazy smart," and implications of certain scientific findings take a long time to reach acceptance. Planck and Einstein both showed reluctance in admitting the implications of many of their own findings, and it was only after much more experimentally obtained evidence from other scientists that the many of the implications were even known.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by the happy prole
Evolution HAPPENS.any argument u hav against the logic behind the survival of the fittest is weak at best. The logic bhind is quickly provable.We're reduced to saying "relativity works because Einstein says it does. And Einstein is crazy smart. I don't get it, but all the other scientists say so."as u kno, & hav xpressd ur frustrations about, I don't believe that.

I am definitely the type of person who believes that numbrs only xist b/c we do.

The prob is that as a curious child, when the subject of Creationism came up in our science class, I askd questions & dwelld on it. B/c, well, I ask questions. The teachr's only ability to answr them were from a Christian perspectiv. On the test there was one question that askd about the theories & that was the only mention of Creationism.

When we studied the origins of life we went ovr graphs, charts, species' trees, & othr things about evolution. Creationism was xactly that one sentence u'r talkin about & then it disappeared. Howevr, I get the impression that the push here is to increase the details that r taught about Creationism & that's what I'm talkin about.

& as for the statement that none of the students practice Ancient Grecoroman religions...

That was my point.

Howevr, their theory of the origins of mankind r just as provable as the theory of Creationism. In fact, in it's most earnest definition it is still Creationism.

[the happy prole]

Originally posted by purple_octopus


I disagree. Just because you haven't the interest nor desire to research relativity or quantum mechanics doesn't mean that the science is a lie.

It's not so much that I believe science is a lie. It's more that "science" has broken down to some extent.

When we first started junking church doctrine and going with science, our knowledge grew by leaps and bounds. Because now instead of a few people telling us what was what, we could trust ourselves.

You want to test gravity? Go get a measuring device, a weight, and a stopwatch. Lots of people were testing and challenging theories.

Now we've got a situation where even in your post-- you have scientists verifying other scientists. It's like believing in the pope because all the priests do.

No, the fact that we don't have the interest or inclination to study quantum mechanics doesn't mean it's a lie. But it's a problem. Because science advances when theories are tested and challenged. The fewer people that do this, the less science advances and the more prone it is to some guy just making shit up.

Already you have corporations paying "scientists" to do experiments and publicizing or not publicizing findings based on whether it suits them. The media and politicians butcher numbers constantly, under the name of "science."

The problem isn't with the foundations of science (observation, math, predictablity, etc.). It's that we've gone away from the foundations, but we pretend it's the same as it's always been.

I guess what I'm complaining about is what is now known as "pseudo-science."

[purple_octopus]

Originally posted by the happy prole

Now we've got a situation where even in your post-- you have scientists verifying other scientists.

That's just how science works. It builds upon what we already know. If someone arrives at a theory, we evaluate it to see what the implications are, or to see if it can be disproven. (Because you can't really prove anything, mostly you can start with the opposite and disprove it.)

It's like believing in the pope because all the priests do.

Perhaps we need to place a much greater emphasis on math and science in education, so that people can evaluate ideas on their own instead of believing something because it is told to them.

No, the fact that we don't have the interest or inclination to study quantum mechanics doesn't mean it's a lie. But it's a problem. Because science advances when theories are tested and challenged. The fewer people that do this, the less science advances and the more prone it is to some guy just making shit up.

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

I guess what I'm complaining about is what is now known as "pseudo-science."

I definitely see your point.

[the happy prole]

Originally posted by Duemellon as u kno, & hav xpressd ur frustrations about, I don't believe that.

My problem isn't that you don't believe in relativity. It's that you don't understand relativity and therefore your criticisms don't make any sense.

Eg. You said: The assumption that c is constant is one we'v based on a model where we'r measurin it from two spots that r, themselvs, immobl when in fact both source r changin.

And b2v and I pointed out that relativity does NOT make the assumption that light is measured from two immobile spots. It knows that the sources we measure it from are moving, and not only takes into account but makes it a central part of the theory.

You never really got back to us on that one. But the point is, I don't hold Einstein sacred. I took the equations and worked 'em out myself, and it worked. If you got a different theory and can explain it coherently then I'll process that one too.

[markalot]

Is it safe to say that some science has turned into a religion?

Nowadays it seems that questioning science is a bozo nono and the reponse is almost as bad as questioning religion.

So now instead of calmly pointing out evidence when someone wants to propose a theory to fill the gaps in another theory what we have is people on both sides screaming fervently that the other side is wrong.

Now the theory of intelligent design is a sneaky one because it doesn't say evolution is wrong, what it says is that you can fill the gaps with it. The logical response, in my opinion, would be to go ahead and introduce intelligent design to the classroom and then study both of them as scientific theories. I have confidence that those who think will be able to make the intelligent decision.

Any time we start throwing away ideas we tread on dangerous ground. Enough people believe in intelligent design to get it introduced into the schools and this is a good thing because that's the only way it can finally be discarded once and for all.

Smart kids can't be made dumb by hearing more ideas.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by the happy prole
My problem isn't that you don't believe in relativity. It's that you don't understand relativity and therefore your criticisms don't make any sense.well, that's b/c u rn't givin me credit. I'v said the theory is based on an assumption & was only proved thru faulty means & those faulty means r comin back to haunt it.

c is not constant, but I nevr believed it due to the logic used to say how it was constant in the 1st place.

[the happy prole]

Read my post again.

The measurement of C was not, repeat NOT based on the assumption that it was being measured from an immobile source.

Your argument is essentially "Relativity says X." X is wrong. Therefore relativity is wrong.

Relativity doesn't say X, thus your assertion is faulty.

markalot and purple_octopus: yes, those are good ideas. I think we need to get people trained not just to memorize science theories, but the underlying theories, math and principles behind the theories. And really the principles behind science itself.

I have no problem with saying, "Here's what we're pretty sure of with science. Here's what we don't know. And maybe God is behind what we don't know, or maybe these other theories." If we limit ID to that, then there is some educational value to it.

But I don't really believe that's what most ID advocates have in mind. They really don't want you to learn another theory for your overall mental arsenal. They want you to learn their (Christian) theory and accept that it is correct. Give them the option of only teaching creationism and junking evolution and they would jump all over it.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by the happy prole
Read my post again.

The measurement of C was not, repeat NOT based on the assumption that it was being measured from an immobile source.

Your argument is essentially "Relativity says X." X is wrong. Therefore relativity is wrong.Uhm... was that directd at me? b/c that isn't the reason why I say they measured it wrong.

Look, this discussion isn't really about the speed of light, it's about {(ID v. Evolution) v. Freedom of Religion}

[Ratmonster]

Billions of years of little "oopsies" resulted in two sexes - male and female - that now reproduce and make other humans just like ourselves, right? It's nice how everything fits together isn't it? Now imagine that happening for every life form on the planet. A complete functional reproductive system for every species on earth.

How is that possible?

When confronted with the elaborate mechanisms at work in the human eye, Darwin himself wrote "To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

So if the father of the theory says that it seems "absurd in the highest degree" that the human eye was formed by natural selection, then how about all of the other wonderful parts of the body?

I don't get it.

How many of you are willing to look in the mirror and say that your existence is the result of a series of happy accidents? I prefer to think that I was designed and created.

I also think that there are a lot of people out there who reject creationism because it pretty much proves that God exists. Or at least a creator. To recognize a creator or a higher authority would require there to be some accountability. Most people it would seem don't want to be held accountable for anything and would rather embrace a theory as fact.

It's easier to believe that we just "happened".

[despondent]

Some things, though right, were considered wrong for generations. Since the value of righteousness may be recognized after centuries, there is no need to crave an immediate appreciation.
Live with cause and leave results to the great law of the universe. Pass each day in peaceful contemplation.---Zengetsu

[Duemellon]

The concept that we'r perfectly designd is an aspect of either belief that u really hav to think about.

It is more than just merely conceitd for us to think we'r designd perfectly, it's dangerous. In fact, we hav been proven to b designd poorly. Poorly for the things we supposedly did in evolutionary terms & definitely poorly designd by Godly standards.

In even our limited wisdom & skill we do not make cars/w parts that hav absolutely no function. Even add-ons for design hav a function as somethin asthetically pleasin. Plz, someone point out what car part is the equivalent of the human appendix? Or what component is equivalent to the uselessness of body hair?

When we design somethin/w our limitd skill & wisdom, even we don't put in extranneous things. Heck, somethings r put in just for tradition's sake, but isn't that a function too?

God,...
Well, this great draft-board artist called "God" drew us up/w tons of useless ass pieces. He also gav us pieces that frequently break down & rn't replaceable! And this idea that we r perfectly designd, b/c we r designd by a perfect bein in his image, is often carried ovr to the evolutionists' concept.

This. is. wrong.

We r not perfect. After billions of yrs of evolution this is how far we got. We could'v done much bettr, but we didn't. I mean, really, what about havin sentience & communication but gettin our energy from photosynthesis instead? Or usin 100% of our brain? Or havin a brain that was 10% of what it is now (since we only use 10%). I mean... dang yo that's just egotism speakin when we begin to think we'r so fuckin amazing.

We rn't.

We'r a mess.

We'r a result of a zillion die rolls on the board game called Earth. Being perfect would'v meant all 6's, but instead all we got were variations & b/c of that we'r still rounding Free Parking.

[yoshomon]

If the creation story in the bible were true, humans and dinosaurs would have lived at the same time. Do we really want to be teaching bullshit like that in schools? No.

To get around the dinosaur thing, some creationists claim that dinosaur bones are really fossilized plants. Riiiiiight.

......

About science:

Science is not neutral. It's an ideological way to look at the world that makes several very dangerous assumptions. It assumes that we can observe nature without interacting with what we're observing, and it assumes that we can isolate natural phenomena in the lab and still understand it. Science works from the premise that humans (more specifically scientists) are outside of nature looking in. I think this is bullshit.

Scientists write books about trees and ecosystems but are clueless when they walk through a forest. Indigenous and primitive cultures that have/had no concept of science are able to understand far more about a forest by living in it - as a part of it.

It's easy to destroy that which you do not consider yourself a part of, and science has played an essential role in the destruction and domestication of the earth.

[the happy prole]

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

And science doesn't make any of those assumptions. People make those assumptions about science.

[brainslosh]

Originally posted by Ratmonster
Billions of years of little "oopsies" resulted in two sexes - male and female - that now reproduce and make other humans just like ourselves, right? It's nice how everything fits together isn't it? Now imagine that happening for every life form on the planet. A complete functional reproductive system for every species on earth.

How is that possible?


Consider how often babies are born with ambiguous genitals. Many sexual features are determined by hormones. If some fetuses don't get the right mix, then they aren't born with clear male/female attributes. The fact that this happens suggests that not everything is a happy accident. Life is very complex and things break down very often. Or consider that miscarriages happen more than 10% of time!


When confronted with the elaborate mechanisms at work in the human eye, Darwin himself wrote "To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

So if the father of the theory says that it seems "absurd in the highest degree" that the human eye was formed by natural selection, then how about all of the other wonderful parts of the body?

I don't get it.

How many of you are willing to look in the mirror and say that your existence is the result of a series of happy accidents? I prefer to think that I was designed and created.

I also think that there are a lot of people out there who reject creationism because it pretty much proves that God exists. Or at least a creator. To recognize a creator or a higher authority would require there to be some accountability. Most people it would seem don't want to be held accountable for anything and would rather embrace a theory as fact.

It's easier to believe that we just "happened".

Darwin was just one scientist and he had no understanding of the optic nerve or similar things that occur in nature. He was on the vanguard of modern biology. How was he supposed to understand everything?

Einstein thought the now uncontroversial quantum mechanics was "spooky action at a distance." Just because he didn't believe it in his time doesn't mean it's not true. The beautiful thing about science is that it's not one individual's work. Scientists can make important discoveries and be dead wrong about other things.

I personally think that my creation was not an accident. It was something on a semi-deterministic occurrence, explained by the laws of physics, chemistry, and psychology (how my parents met). I have no purpose (that doesn't mean there aren't important things to do while I'm here). I can look in the mirror and accept that. I can feel like a grain of sand in the universe, just like all of the other animals on this planet. It's OK with me.

[Ratmonster]

Originally posted by brainslosh


Consider how often babies are born with ambiguous genitals. Many sexual features are determined by hormones. If some fetuses don't get the right mix, then they aren't born with clear male/female attributes. The fact that this happens suggests that not everything is a happy accident. Life is very complex and things break down very often. Or consider that miscarriages happen more than 10% of time!


In short, the hermaphroditic state arises because of a defect in development. Such defects happen in our fallen world. It does not involve any new genetic information, so it has nothing to do with Evolution. A lesson is: if readers are faced with a 'proof' of evolution, just ask whether any new genetic information arises, i.e. whether it really has anything to do with real molecules to man evolution, and how this 'proof' refutes the Biblical creation framework. -Dr. Jonathan Sarfati Research scientist, author and editorial consultant AiG (Australia)

We aren't perfect creatures, true. I just can't buy into the whole "from goo to you via the zoo" concept that evolutionists offer.

[Ratmonster]

Originally posted by yoshomon
If the creation story in the bible were true, humans and dinosaurs would have lived at the same time. Do we really want to be teaching bullshit like that in schools? No.

Why do you think that humans and dinosaurs at the same time is not possible? Other than Jurassic Park etc...

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by Ratmonster
We aren't perfect creatures, true. I just can't buy into the whole "from goo to you via the zoo" concept that evolutionists offer. so u'r sayin the imperfections in humanity is due to the fallin of man out of favor/w God due to the eatin of the ancient fig?

Wow, every now & then I get an argument that is so bizarre to me I'm just stuck. I'm gonna hav to think on that & see how it possibly works & get back to u on that one.

[markalot]

so u'r sayin the imperfections in humanity is due to the fallin of man out of favor/w God due to the eatin of the ancient fig?


Did he say that? Many religious people who doubt evolution also doubt the biblical stories. Your not going to find me defending "creationism" very often, but at least stay on track. Or did I miss a direct reference?

[yoshomon]

Originally posted by Ratmonster
Why do you think that humans and dinosaurs at the same time is not possible? Other than Jurassic Park etc...

You're kidding, right?

There are about half a dozen ways to date dinosaur fossils and all of these point to dinosaurs being around long before humans.

Sorry buddy.

[the happy prole]

I read it the same way Due did.

God made the Earth, it was perfect so no one died. None of the original creatures in the Garden of Eden were created other than directly through God's hand.

After being cast out, people died but had the ability to reproduce. However this reproduction wasn't perfect so we don't get nice carbon copies of Adam and Eve.

Everything after is just defective copies. We aren't evolving towards anything. The perfect model was already made.

It's like burning a cd, I guess. Sometimes you get a bad burn and end up with a coaster. We toss the discs that won't play and act like we filtered out the bad and that our collection of cd's is "stronger" in some way. But really we're getting no closer to the original, just tossing out the worst of the lot.

edit: cd's was a bad example I guess since technically (and according to the RIAA) the copies are perfect. More like copying cd's to tape and tossing the tapes where the reel actually breaks or whatever. ehh, you get the point.

[Duemellon]

Ok, a simpl question I hav to that proposition that the reasons why ppl r born/w imperfections is due to the original falling of man:

Where is the specific statement that says we hav birth defects due to this? No, not about how we'r dyin youngr, but about the birth defects?

It sounds like a manipulation of circumstantial information to xplain a situation that wasn't covered. After all, if it isn't in the Bible then is it tru?

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by Frost
are we restricting creationism or intelligent design to one religion?

tsk tsk tsk yep. We are. I'v said we shouldn't, but we are. His defense of the genetic imperfections was based on the Bible, so I challenge him on it using the same Bible.

[despondent]

Originally posted by Duemellon
so u'r sayin the imperfections in humanity is due to the fallin of man out of favor/w God due to the eatin of the ancient fig?

Wow, every now & then I get an argument that is so bizarre to me I'm just stuck. I'm gonna hav to think on that & see how it possibly works & get back to u on that one. I don't see it that way Due. I see it as we (our "soul" or essence, if you will) was intentionally placed into these imperfect bodies for the purpose of transcending ourselves.

[Sushi]

From someone who went to parochial/Catholic schools up through ninth grade--Depending on what order (Jesuits, Ursulines, etc.) is teaching you, you aren't going to be taught intelligent design or that evoluation is "just" a theory. There are plenty of devout Catholics out there who known the difference between science and horse crap. :)

[supra-genius]

Its funny, I went to catholic school for 12 years and was taught evolution in biology class and we read the story of creation in religion class. My biology teacher was a nun and never once did she qualify or dismiss evolution, my religion teacher was a priest and he never once refered to the story of adam and eve as fact, quite the opposite, he talked about the meaning behind the stories and the symbolism used. I guess I lucked out and got what could be called a solid, fact-based, comprehensive education. Mans rise from ape to australopithecus africanus to homo habilis to homo erectus to homo sapien can be traced through fossilized record, any god's intention cannot. Lacking supporting physical evidence and having its central tenant based on faith makes intelligent design strickly the realm of religion and not science, so teach it all you want, just teach it in religion class (but if you are going to teach religion in public schools, you are going to need to give equal time to all, that means islam, hindu, confuciousim (sp.) etc, should all get the same amount of time as christianity, but thats not what you becuase pluralism is evil isnt it)

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by Frost
as far as the discussion goes, for people like due who believe in evolution solely, and are on the bertrand russell side of things, how did stuff get here?evolution does not address how it got startd, just what it did once it did start.

[the happy prole]

It's like you said, Frost. Under either scenario, you're stuck with the same question.

If God exists, how did God come into being? If we accept that God was always here, then why can't we also accept that the universe and the laws of nature have always been here?

The "there is always something bigger/smaller/better/worse/earlier/later" issue always exists. eg. Can God create a rock He can't move?

And this gets to Duemellon's earlier point-- both viewpoints allow for uncertainty. Obviously there are things in science we don't understand yet and scientists are fine with that. They're just going to chip away.

And if the bible covered everything, and we understood all of the bible, then we would be omniscient. But it's pretty clear in the Christian doctrine that we are not omniscient. So birth defects or why you ate meatloaf on Tuesday do not have to be contained in the bible to be true. The bible gives you all you need to know to get to heaven, and that's enough.

[Duemellon]

but tHP, u'r wrong. No, i don't kno where, but it's just a force of habit. I'll find somethin in there. Maybe the misuse of quotations or somethin

[yoshomon]

I think that there was ever 'nothing'. There was no beginning. Stuff has always existed and will always exist.

But is the origin of the universe relavent to our lives now?

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by Frost
makes you wanna jump out a winder no it doesn't.

It makes me want to keep it going. Instead of it being the responsibility of some abstract construct of a god-figure, I realize that existance is an interesting place full of infinite mystery and opportunity. The largest, grandest, picture and purpose for reality is what I can imagine it to be. It's what you can imagine it to be.

It's much more empowering than being the byproduct of some God who was seeking entertainment in the form of praise that will punish you if you don't stroket his ego by acknowledging him.

Then you begin to realize that righteous and evil are all about intents and that good and bad are all about perspective. Things become more about how you want to leave your mark and the concept of the need to please God becomes tertiary.

[the happy prole]

Naw, the origins of the universe are not very relevant other than I think we are all somewhat curious.

From a relevancy standpoint, the things that matter are the things I can observe, control, and/or react to. The origin of the universe is relevant only in the sense that through its study, it might affect how we live.

Same thing with the afterlife. I can't observe how my actions will affect my afterlife (if there is one), so I factor that out.

Personally, I find taking the bible too literally DOES lead to inconsistency, illogic and difficulty in carrying out my life. But in a general sense, the idea of there being a creator/ID vs. science doesn't make much of a difference (at least the kind of creator I envision).

Everything that happens can be adequately described via scientific or religious reasons, so I don't worry about it. That is why I am a Prolist.

And yeah, same thing with the nothing/something idea. Beginnings and endings are arbitrarily assigned by people. Whether something is a start or an end just depends on your viewpoint. Everything is a start and an end. Everything is big and small. It's the whole yin-yang thing. Which is why I think most Asians also tend to hold Prolistic views.

[yoshomon]

Regardless of whether there is some large spiritual meaning to the universe (which there isn't), we assign meaning to our own lives. We'd go insane if we didn't.

We define our own goals, aspirations, and ethics and try to carry them out the best we can. Religion trys to take away this personal responsibility by placing meaning/goals/ethics onto people from outside of themselves. No matter what truth religion might claim to have, the goals, meaning, and ethics it places onto its followers coincide with the religion's needs for social and political power or influence. The ultimate goal of any religious ideology (or any ideology) is its self-preservation and expansion.

[markalot]

Originally posted by yoshomon
... We define our own goals, aspirations, and ethics and try to carry them out the best we can. Religion trys to take away this personal responsibility by placing meaning/goals/ethics onto people from outside of themselves. No matter what truth religion might claim to have, the goals, meaning, and ethics it places onto its followers coincide with the religion's needs for social and political power or influence. The ultimate goal of any religious ideology (or any ideology) is its self-preservation and expansion.

Exactly, I'm in 100% agreement. But of course this makes what you do a religion of sorts and you are a missionary who preaches your beliefs on this board.

I guess I detect that you see some evil in all organized religion and possibly all organizations (I would appreciate clarification) while I see them as just another group of like minded people who have a common belief and are trying to spread the word.

Religious organizations are trying to save the soul.
Environmental organizations are trying to save the planet.
Anarchists are, um, I'm not sure.

[Crispin]

This has been one of the better threads on CEP. Interesting read.

[yoshomon]

"Organization" is an open and neutral word. Religion is not.

Debord gave his minimum definition of a revolutionary organization (http://www.geocities.com/yoshomon/minimumdefinition.html), and I moreorless agree with him.

ps. I'm not an anarchist.

[Duemellon]

600 million yrs of evolvin from ocean life

65 million yrs of evolvin into mammals

16 million yrs of walkin upright

1.2 million yrs of usin tools

hundreds of thousands of yrs of farming & harvestin

a few thousands of yrs with written language

but we still hav die-hard Republicans? How much further we gotta evolve? *rimshot* but I doubt some of u will take it as a silly insult

[yoshomon]

Originally posted by Duemellon
hundreds of thousands of yrs of farming & harvestin

Wrong. Agriculture has existed at most for 20 thousand years. Most of human existence was hunter/gatherer.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by yoshomon
Wrong. Agriculture has existed at most for 20 thousand years. Most of human existence was hunter/gatherer. ahem...

what is harvestin? u can harvest things u don't grow urself u'kno...

[the happy prole]

Yoshomon I've asked you this a couple of times in passing, but look what happened to Debord and his situationist movement.

People WANT the spectacle, they always have and always will. We desire stability-- it's why we grew crops and built shelters and tried to tame the environment.

At some point, I truly believe we'll just get tired of some of this stuff. We don't want to live 300 years in a perfectly climate-controlled environment where there are no surprises and we can work super-efficiently producing things that don't matter like different colored packaging.

At the same time, we can't just keep rebelling for the sake of it. It's tiring, and it's not in our nature, and mostly we have opinions of how we want things and we won't overthrow it just BECAUSE.

Everything will eventually be co-opted. And there will always be those who grow bored or overly oppressed by the corruption in static organization and then there will be detournement. And then co-option.

I don't see what trying to accelerate the detournement/co-option cycle accomplishes, especially when there's no real goal other than continual change for the sake of it.

I'm not criticizing, I guess I just don't get it.

[Ratmonster]

Originally posted by yoshomon


You're kidding, right?

There are about half a dozen ways to date dinosaur fossils and all of these point to dinosaurs being around long before humans.

Sorry buddy.

Please name the "half dozen" ways to date dinosaur fossils apart from carbon 14 dating.

http://trueorigin.org/dating.asp#Carbon%2014%20dating

or try this one

http://www.angelfire.com/nt/fairytales/carbon.html

So, carbon dating is pretty much out the window. What other methods did you have in mind?

[brainslosh]

Originally posted by Ratmonster


Please name the "half dozen" ways to date dinosaur fossils apart from carbon 14 dating.

http://trueorigin.org/dating.asp#Carbon%2014%20dating

or try this one

http://www.angelfire.com/nt/fairytales/carbon.html

So, carbon dating is pretty much out the window. What other methods did you have in mind?

Bzzzzzzt. No peer-reviewed journal articles in the bibliography, only books. Thank you for playing scientist. Please try again another time.

[Homsar]

Well, carbon-14 range-dating only goes back (with any reliability) about 50,000 years, so that wouldn't work at all. And did anyone mention it?

[Ratmonster]

Originally posted by yoshomon


We define our own goals, aspirations, and ethics and try to carry them out the best we can. Religion trys to take away this personal responsibility by placing meaning/goals/ethics onto people from outside of themselves. No matter what truth religion might claim to have, the goals, meaning, and ethics it places onto its followers coincide with the religion's needs for social and political power or influence. The ultimate goal of any religious ideology (or any ideology) is its self-preservation and expansion.

Are you confusing religious beliefs with religious organizations? I have always held Christian beliefs and was of course raised as a Christian. Never have I felt that there was any attempt on the part of my chosen religion to attain any social or political power or influence.

Many of the more popular "Christian" religions today simply aren't. They DO have social agendas and a burning desire for social and political standing. But that's the workings of the corrupt churches and not a teaching of Jesus, therefore it is not Christianity.

The goal of true Chritianity is not to expand or preserve itself, but rather the ultimate salvation of it practitioners.

A person's relationship with God is purely personal - no gold gilted building, tithe, collection plate or political agenda needed.

[Homsar]

Originally posted by Duemellon

but we still hav die-hard Republicans? How much further we gotta evolve?

::GASP!::

I take that as a silly insult!
:mad: hehe *wink*

[Ratmonster]

Originally posted by Homsar
Well, carbon-14 range-dating only goes back (with any reliability) about 50,000 years, so that wouldn't work at all. And did anyone mention it?

Well, when someone says that there are a "half a dozen" ways to date dinosaur fossils it piques my interest. I only know of one. So I brought up my objections to the one way that I'm familiar with.

BTW, C14 dating is only accurate to 5,000 years at the most.

[Homsar]

Originally posted by Ratmonster
The goal of true Chritianity is not to expand or preserve itself, but rather the ultimate salvation of it practitioners.


All people who call themselves Christians should read that. Especially those with political inclinations.

But if that's true, what's with the missionaries?
And what if the Christians all die out?
Is that the end of the world?

[Homsar]

Originally posted by Ratmonster
BTW, C14 dating is only accurate to 5,000 years at the most.

That's the half-life, actually.

The half-life of carbon-14 is 5,568 years. That means that half of the C-14 decays (into nitrogen-14) in 5,568 years. Half of the remaining C-14 decays in the next 5,568 years, etc. This is too short a half-life to date dinosaurs; C-14 dating is useful for dating items up to about 50,000 - 60,000 years ago

That's from this site (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinofossils/Fossildating.html)

[yoshomon]

Originally posted by the happy prole
Yoshomon I've asked you this a couple of times in passing, but look what happened to Debord and his situationist movement.

People WANT the spectacle, they always have and always will. We desire stability-- it's why we grew crops and built shelters and tried to tame the environment.

At some point, I truly believe we'll just get tired of some of this stuff. We don't want to live 300 years in a perfectly climate-controlled environment where there are no surprises and we can work super-efficiently producing things that don't matter like different colored packaging.

At the same time, we can't just keep rebelling for the sake of it. It's tiring, and it's not in our nature, and mostly we have opinions of how we want things and we won't overthrow it just BECAUSE.

Everything will eventually be co-opted. And there will always be those who grow bored or overly oppressed by the corruption in static organization and then there will be detournement. And then co-option.

I don't see what trying to accelerate the detournement/co-option cycle accomplishes, especially when there's no real goal other than continual change for the sake of it.

I'm not criticizing, I guess I just don't get it.

I think that the rising depression and suicide rates, growing prison population, and generally felt alienation make your "people want the spectacle" theory a bit hard to believe. You also have to remember that the spectacle and consumption are only parts of the capitalist totality. The primary source of exploitation and alienation is/was/will be at the point of production. The primary contradiction of capitalism is still the worker/capitalist relationship.

Right now we don't have a choice. We either make revolution or face environmental collapse. We either make revolution or continue to let bosses, specialists, and bureaucrats dictate our lives.

[Ratmonster]

Originally posted by Homsar

All people who call themselves Christians should read that. Especially those with political inclinations.

Well, I don't think there are many true believers out there who are really eager to get wrapped up in the world of politics. There are surely a few who have good intentions.

But if that's true, what's with the missionaries?

The missionaries I have known only want to save as many people as possible before God's day of judgement.

And what if the Christians all die out? Is that the end of the world?

No, that just means the Devil wins after all. :-)

[yoshomon]

Originally posted by Ratmonster
The goal of true Chritianity is not to expand or preserve itself, but rather the ultimate salvation of it practitioners.

Has this "true christianity" ever existed in history outside of small irrelavent sects? No.

You can pretend that's what christianity is, but the christianity that has existed throughout history and that exists today does seek to expand and preserve itself. "Salvation" is the justification is gives for its expansion and preservation.

[Homsar]

Originally posted by Ratmonster

No, that just means the Devil wins after all. :-)

The devil can win after all?
Hmm.

[markalot]

Originally posted by yoshomon
"Organization" is an open and neutral word. Religion is not.

Debord gave his minimum definition of a revolutionary organization (http://www.geocities.com/yoshomon/minimumdefinition.html), and I moreorless agree with him.

ps. I'm not an anarchist.

Thanks for the reply Yosh, sorry about thinking you're an anarchist, though in that description you provided I failed to see any structure.

edit: deleted a bunch here. I don't think I understand that description AT ALL. Care to phrase it in dumber terms :)

[Homsar]

Originally posted by Ratmonster
Well, I don't think there are many true believers out there who are really eager to get wrapped up in the world of politics. There are surely a few who have good intentions.

What should we do about these fake Christians?
How can we tell them apart from true Cristians?

And even though carbon-14 dating can't be used to range-date dinosaur fossils, other radioactive elements can. Like Uranium-235.

[Ratmonster]

Originally posted by yoshomon


Has this "true christianity" ever existed in history outside of small irrelavent sects? No.

Have you considered that maybe what you are defining as "small irrelevant sects" are the only true Christians and the vast majority comprise the perversions of faith that we witness masquerading as Christianity today? That which the Bible refers to over and over as making up modern day Babylon? I don't think for a minute that Bible based true Christianity is somehow a prevailing force in the world.


You can pretend that's what christianity is, but the christianity that has existed throughout history and that exists today does seek to expand and preserve itself. "Salvation" is the justification is gives for its expansion and preservation.

The prevailing Christianity has always been corrupt. It does seek to expand and preserve itself. It does not display what are known as the "fruitages of the spirit". Where do we see today a religion displaying love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness and self control?

So, I agree with you as far as your assessment of prevailing Christianity goes. What I want you to realize is that they are not truly Christian religions as their practices and teachings do not fall in line with what the Bible teaches.

Nowhere in the Bible are Christians taught to be self-serving, hostile or power hungry. Nowhere in the Bible does God or Jesus or any apostle teach that Christians need to be in a position of political power in order to force their will onto others.

So, please don't confuse the ideals of a a group of men who profess to be Christians with the teachings of the Bible.

[the happy prole]

Originally posted by yoshomon
You also have to remember that the spectacle and consumption are only parts of the capitalist totality. The primary source of exploitation and alienation is/was/will be at the point of production. The primary contradiction of capitalism is still the worker/capitalist relationship.

I guess that's where I differ. I think the spectacle and consumption will always be present. They are not functions of human nature. The exact system of economy has little to do with it. There will always be a currency of power. Power will never be distributed evenly simply by nature, and exacerbated by the fact that there will always be those who seek to gain it at the expense of others.

But at any rate, your stance then is that some sort of revolution is necessary, and the time is ripe or near-ripe. Otherwise it will be too late. Would you say that the revolution then, is more important than the principles behind it?

In other words, we just need to be knocked on our asses because it will force us to reorder ourselves. And this reconstruction will be good simply because we're so far gone. And I suppose it will bring about a new set of priorities that will (temporarily at least) force us to change our ways?

Or does there have to be some message behind the revolution in order for it to be effective?

[yoshomon]

The spectacle didn't even exist until the 20th century, so I have no idea how you can assert that it will always exist.

It's impossible for me to determine the content or outcome of a future revolution. I can participate in and support the most liberating aspects of such a revolution, but that's the extent of my "control" over it.

France in '68 and Argentina in '01 are glimpses of what a future revolution will look like, but it's hard to tell. The forces of recuperation (unions, leftist groups and parties, etc) are gaining momentum, but they won't be anywhere near as powerful as the Stalinist party and union were in France during the '68 revolt.

We live in exciting times, and I have no idea how they're going to turn out. That's up to the self-activity of the exploited and dispossessed around the world.

Who knows? Maybe Zerzan will be right and folks will attack technology and "actualize industrial collapse". Maybe revolutions will spring up in South America, Europe, and China and the U.S. will be forced to try and keep things under control causing economic crisis and revolution within its own borders? We'll have to see.

In the meantime, I'll keep struggling and fighting.

"Those who wait to see what comes next never affect what comes next," - Raoul Vaneigem

[Duemellon]

Uhm... 1st let's make this clear about Christians & their belief. The only thing they can really base their beliefs on it the Bible. If anything they say is outside, contrary, or just a guess, when compared to the Bible, their belief is contrary to Christianity.

That simple.

Any Christian who comes at me and tells me that Jesus is my savior because he died for my sins and I must believe this to go to Heaven but then turns around and says any of these:
The Bible didn't mean 7 days for creation;

Noah's flood was regional/metaphoric;

Women are equal to men in every respect to law;

Slavery is an abomination to God/Christianity;

or "Let's look at the original aramic/Hebrew/Greek writing for a more direct translation".If they say any of those, they don't believe the Bible.

Period.

Why do I say such an exact & judgemental thing? Because one of the reasons they will fall back on when we complain about the multiple translations is that the person(s) who translated it to KJV, NKJV, or NWV, were divinely inspired to do so. That is why KJV (especially) is an accurate translation of God's will.

If they say, "Well, except for this passage which we must use the original Aramic/Greek/Hebrew" then that shows a weakness in the belief of the accuracy of translation. You can then point out that the original text they're now viewing wasn't even written by the apostles, it was hand-me-down information then too! What if there was a text before this Aramic/Hebrew/Greek that was a slightly mistranslated as the KJV/NWV you're reading?

So, either you take it literally or don't take it at all.

[dragonflier]

I see that several posts have mentioned "holes" in evolutionary theory and evidence. Whoever wants to specifically state said holes, I will be happy to provide a counter-argument.

As previously stated in another post, Evolution happens. Bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics are undergoing evolution--as are insects that become immune to pesticides.

I admit that I'm a grad student in biology, so my views lean heavily in one direction...but I would certainly welcome the chance to discuss the merits of evolution in the plainest language possible. I consider myself a scientist, but I'm not a very good one if all I do is lord my knowledge over others. I feel it's my responsibility to make what I do accessible to anyone.

However, I would like some things from the bible explained. The Great Flood--was it saltwater or freshwater? We know that a variety of marine organisms can't tolerate drops in salinity and would all have been killed in a freshwater flood, yet they still exist today. How can this be? And if you argue that the flood was saltwater, I would make a vice versa argument. If the Earth had been covered in saltwater, then no amphibians would be alive today (their skin is exceptionally intolerant to high salt concentrations).

How old is the Earth? Only 10,000 years? We know this isn't true from a variety of sciences--geology, chemistry, and physics, not just evolution.

Darwin never said God doesn't exist. He was quite a religious man--he nearly entered the clergy before choosing to follow in his grandfather's steps as a naturalist. He merely points out that creationism isn't a very good explaination for the variety of forms of life on Earth.

[the happy prole]

thx, yosh. I appreciate your thoughts. You've given me some stuff to think about. Parts of it I disagree with, parts of it I agree with, lots I have to think over. I do not think I'm going to embrace situationalism, but I can see myself incorporating some of the concepts and perhaps moving a bit in that direction.

Power has always been spectacular, and power has always existed. What I will have to think about mainly is if the present currency of power and what we want it for is less legitimate now, and if this is a result of capitalism/industrialism that can be remedied.

Let me dig out my copy of Society of the Spectacle and digest this for a few days. If I have any questions or thoughts, I'll shoot you a pm so as not to hijack this thread further.

[despondent]

Originally posted by Duemellon


So, either you take it literally or don't take it at all.
And then there is the whole mess of recently discovered Hebrew scrolls that date earlier than the scrolls that were used to make up the Old Testament. One such scroll is the book of Samuel, which is 60% more complete than the one currently found in the Bible. Christianity is so unwielding that new knowledge can never be incorporated in.

[the happy prole]

Holy crap, not only no Duespeak but an actual, bulleted list!

I think you might be holding christians to a standard you don't demand of scientists. The idea that man is fallible and doesn't understand all of God's word is built into the system, just as it is in science.

Scientists believe there are immutable laws of nature as well. What would you call someone such as yourself who believes strongly in evolution but not in a constant speed of light? Or someone like Frost who believes in a Supreme Being (possibly with many Christian concepts I don't know) but also appears to believe in evolution?

Are you christians, or science-believers? Or are most of us neither?

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by the happy prole
I think you might be holding christians to a standard you don't demand of scientists. uhm, no.

I'm holdin them to the standards of what they say.

Some Christians will say the Bible is an interpretive historical thing. Stuff is written in parables & codes, due to the fact they needd to stay interpretabl & hiddn. Those ppl can't b right b/c the only reason why they kno about God's will is the thouands of permutations of whethr he said Camel, needle, or rope. Their faith is more determind by their day-to-day xperiences/w the world that the Bible is as useful as a fortune cookie.

The othr ones who say the Bible is complete in it's knowledge can't arbitrarily discount certain sections of it b/c it is contrary to societal view. Slavery was right, not necessarily by race, but by concept, in the Bibl. Women can't divorce husbands for infidelity & remarry, but a man can divorce for a multitude of reasons & remarry. If u say that the Bibl is the only way to kno God's will, if u'r a literalist u'r screwed & if u'r a metaphorical interpreter then u leav urself opn to misinterpretation intentionally.

[markalot]

While searching for thoughts on the slavery references in the bible I found the following. I wish I had wrote it :) You can hit the back button on that page to access the rest of his writings.

- - - - -

by Elroy Willis

http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news/thoughts.html

All right. I'll take a serious stab at this.

I don't think that the Bible is particularly "useful" as an instructor of
morals. The moral code in the Bible isn't profoundly different than that
embodied by the code of Hammurabi, other holy books, or, for the most part,
simply pragmatic common sense.

The power of the Bible is, and has always been, in its stories. All myths
survive because they speak to our fundamental human aspirations, hopes,
fears, and weaknesses. Stories endure and spread because they speak to
these things in us.

The characters in the Bible are truly "mythic" characters, in the sense that
the great characters from other traditions are mythic. Great, but deeply
flawed. The Mighty Man cursed by madness and doomed by a fatal weakness and
the betrayal of a woman finds form, in various incarnations, in Heracles, in
Cuchulain, in Samson, in Siegfried, even in Lancelot. Clearly, somehow,
this figure comes not out of "history" but out of some very mysterious place
in the human mind. That character speaks to us. When it pops up in a story,
that story tends to endure.

There are lots of other elements like this (and my knowledge of such things
is frankly limited). Pandora and her box -- Eve and her apple. The stealing
from the tree of knowledge and the punishment it wreaks -- the stealing of
the secret of fire from the gods. Stories of death and rebirth, of the great
Kings who betray their power. Sons who plot against their fathers and
daughters who sleep with their fathers. Stories of falling and redemption,
of transcendental salvation.

These things touch us. They move us, not as "facts" but as stories. It is
the mythic power of the Bible, not its factual, or historical, or even moral
power, in my opinion, that has caused it to endure. These stories speak to
us in a deep way, in a way that bypasses reason and that touches something
that is fundamental in the human heart.

Moses sees the promised land before he dies, but he cannot cross over. Each
of us, in our time, will "look at the promised land" -- the "land" emodied
in our children, and in our deeds, and in all the changes we make in the
world. We see the "promise" embodied in our actions and our progeny. But we
cannot cross over. We can only look at what might be, and then die.

Whether there ever was a Moses, or a promise, or a "promised land" -- the
story has something to say to us. Rejecting the Bible as history, or
science, or even as a source of ethics, doesn't mean that we need reject it
for what its true source of power -- its power as Story.

[the happy prole]

Originally posted by Duemellon
uhm, no.

I'm holdin them to the standards of what they say.

No, you aren't. You're holding them to the standards of what YOU say. I think it's important to understand this.

You've decided that literal Christians run into contradictions in the bible, and metaphorical Christians aren't true Christians, because their views are not useful. Well, the metaphorical Christians think their views are very important. So you're trumping their definitions and beliefs with yours.

Furthermore, you've made your decision based on logic. Christianity is always based to some degree on faith. So again, your epistimological framework is being applied over theirs.

Personally, I don't believe in a single word of the bible. I base my decisions on my day-to-day experiences. But I haven't experienced the afterlife. And if I'm wrong about the afterlife, the consequences to me will be huge. It matters a great deal whether you believe in the part of the bible that states you must recognize God as your saviour to get to heaven, even if you believe in no other part of it

You can't use logic to attack faith, or you will get your ass kicked. Just like when Christians use their faith to try to worm their way into scientific attacks, they lose. Both paradigms are internally consistent (at least theoretically). You can attack from outside using your epistimological structure, but you won't win an argument on their homeground.

[Homsar]

Ah yes, dragonflier brings up a good point. If one would want to see evidence for evolution, one would watch an organism with quick reproductive and life cycles. How else could bacteria and viruses develop new strains resistant to vaccines and antibiotics?

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by the happy prole
No, you aren't. You're holding them to the standards of what YOU say. I think it's important to understand this.I hav never run into a Christian who claims Christianity but says the Bible is a man-made document about fabricated events in the name of God but w/o God's intervention.

[markalot]

Originally posted by Duemellon
I hav never run into a Christian who claims Christianity but says the Bible is a man-made document about fabricated events in the name of God but w/o God's intervention.

Interesting. I have only run into 2 people who claim it IS the exact word of God, and both of them were "fundamentalists".

[foolsgold]

Originally posted by Duemellon
I hav never run into a Christian who claims Christianity but says the Bible is a man-made document about fabricated events in the name of God but w/o God's intervention.

For clarification, are you saying that the Bible is 100% fictional? Otherwise, I am a Christian who believes that the Bible (in its current form) is mostly man-made with some fabricated events written by inspiration from God.

If that made any sense, let me know because I think I just confused myself.

I also realize that many of my beliefs might be somewhat tailored to my social views therefore not fitting into widely held Christian dogma. Fer instance, I believe in evolution and intelligent design can co-exist with comprimise. In other words, I believe that God started the whole thing rolling, but nature continued the process so that the world looks how it looks today. That said, I don't know how many Christians would share that view.

[supra-genius]

Originally posted by Ratmonster


Please name the "half dozen" ways to date dinosaur fossils apart from carbon 14 dating.

http://trueorigin.org/dating.asp#Carbon%2014%20dating

or try this one

http://www.angelfire.com/nt/fairytales/carbon.html

So, carbon dating is pretty much out the window. What other methods did you have in mind?

Carbon dating is used for dating most human remains (starting with neaderthal man - which at 50,000 years, is still 35,000 years older than what is claimed by fundementalists). To date anything older radiometric dating is used, it involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by foolsgold
For clarification, are you saying that the Bible is 100% fictional?It is 100% not written by God.

As for 100% fictional? Nah. I don't hav the info to dispute historical references it made.I also realize that many of my beliefs might be somewhat tailored to my social views therefore not fitting into widely held Christian dogma.How do u determine which parts of the Bible r correct & which ones rn't? When it makes sense in comparison to ur own judgements?

As for the whole complaint about carbon datin..
Look folx, if indeed, the great flood happnd as was written in the Bible, do u realize that, on average, the entire world suddenly gained an additional 5 miles of water in 40 days? Everest is 5mi above sealevel.

[foolsgold]

Originally posted by Duemellon
It is 100% not written by God.

As for 100% fictional? Nah. I don't hav the info to dispute historical references it made.[/b]How do u determine which parts of the Bible r correct & which ones rn't? When it makes sense in comparison to ur own judgements?
[/B]

Probably a mix of education, logic and faith which is my I am usually in conflict with my beliefs. I doubt the flood happened in purportion the Bible says it did. I don't doubt there was a major flood in the area that passage was written. I don't doubt that to the author's eyes, it looked like the world was underwater. I also don't doubt that he took some creative liberties in the whole two by two, mankind wiped out thing. Frankly, I think that is such a minor event in the Bible and only serves as a distraction. Christians waste so much time getting worked up by events like this that they lose sight of what they should believe: the central and honest message of Jesus.

Somehow, I don't think that God is sitting on a throne of clouds saying, "Foolsgold doesn't believe in the flood, but still has been more or less a good guy?!? Send him to rot in brimstone."

At least, I hope he isn't thinking that, otherwise I am screwed. ;)

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by foolsgold
Somehow, I don't think that God is sitting on a throne of clouds saying, "Foolsgold doesn't believe in the flood, but still has been more or less a good guy?!? Send him to rot in brimstone."

At least, I hope he isn't thinking that, otherwise I am screwed. ;) For me, Noah's story & my incredulous approach to it, is one of the major things that drove me from Christianity. I was a vehement loyal Christian for a few yrs. I was even gonna b a preachr. But as time went on I had more questions than could b answrd & now I believe it's all just silly nonsense.

[ahart2001]

Originally posted by Duemellon
Uhm... 1st let's make this clear about Christians & their belief. The only thing they can really base their beliefs on it the Bible. If anything they say is outside, contrary, or just a guess, when compared to the Bible, their belief is contrary to Christianity.

That simple.

Any Christian who comes at me and tells me that Jesus is my savior because he died for my sins and I must believe this to go to Heaven but then turns around and says any of these:
The Bible didn't mean 7 days for creation;

Noah's flood was regional/metaphoric;

Women are equal to men in every respect to law;

Slavery is an abomination to God/Christianity;

or "Let's look at the original aramic/Hebrew/Greek writing for a more direct translation".If they say any of those, they don't believe the Bible.

Period.

Why do I say such an exact & judgemental thing? Because one of the reasons they will fall back on when we complain about the multiple translations is that the person(s) who translated it to KJV, NKJV, or NWV, were divinely inspired to do so. That is why KJV (especially) is an accurate translation of God's will.

If they say, "Well, except for this passage which we must use the original Aramic/Greek/Hebrew" then that shows a weakness in the belief of the accuracy of translation. You can then point out that the original text they're now viewing wasn't even written by the apostles, it was hand-me-down information then too! What if there was a text before this Aramic/Hebrew/Greek that was a slightly mistranslated as the KJV/NWV you're reading?

So, either you take it literally or don't take it at all.

Sorry Due, but I have to call this statement BS. Apparently you haven't heard of the changes brought about in the Catholic church by the Vatican II council. The teachings of the Catholic church (and many other christian religions) is that many parts of the Bible are theological more than they are historical. Many people are under the misconception that the Bible is 100% factual. The problem with that thinking is that alot of the Old Testament (aka Jewish Scriptures) were oral tradition long before they were ever wruitten down. And sisnce the books of the Bible were written by a myriad of different writers, there were many different audiences. All this need to be taken into account when studying the Bible. So if you Just take it as balck and white . . . you are not getting the true message that was intended.

[markalot]

Originally posted by Duemellon
For me, Noah's story & my incredulous approach to it, is one of the major things that drove me from Christianity. I was a vehement loyal Christian for a few yrs. I was even gonna b a preachr. But as time went on I had more questions than could b answrd & now I believe it's all just silly nonsense.


I don't think it is all nonsense.


Noah and the flood is an interesting story. I've often heard the theories that in fact it was a seas being created (which sea is it that has a very small inlet that was once thought to be a land bridge?) and the flood never went away, it just appeared that way to the person relating the story.

I still look at it as the wihsipers around the room and the story being exaggerated by the time it gets to the last person. All animals two by two, no way, but all his farm animals, possibly.

I try and imagine what it would be like for someone who lived way back then and believed in things we don't and explained things using those beliefs. It seems to me that we can accept that while the stories are based on truth they have been altered or exaggerated to make them more interesting.

[ahart2001]

Originally posted by Duemellon
It is 100% not written by God.

As for 100% fictional? Nah. I don't hav the info to dispute historical references it made.[/b]How do u determine which parts of the Bible r correct & which ones rn't? When it makes sense in comparison to ur own judgements?

As for the whole complaint about carbon datin..
Look folx, if indeed, the great flood happnd as was written in the Bible, do u realize that, on average, the entire world suddenly gained an additional 5 miles of water in 40 days? Everest is 5mi above sealevel. [/B]

Every group living in the area at that time had their own story involving the great flood. I saw a show on the history channel about a month ago that explored the story of Noah . . . they concluded that a flood DID happen, but probably didn;t cover the entire world and when the water "receded", he was actually in the gulf next to Iraq. Now in a person's mind (who didn;t know much beyond his own area) had all his land covered in water . . . he might assume that the world was covered. (note that the "world" back then was relatively small as compared to day due to the lack of exploration and the ability to travel loooong dinstances). If the flood lasted long enough, he might have floated into the Gulf and then assumed it was still flooded because all he saw around him was water. Then he runs around on the coast. Then oral tradition takes over, embellishing the story and using it as a moral teaching.

[Duemellon]

So, in effect, u'r sayin that the Bible has hand-me-down stories of limited accuracy that were included to foster a belief in God based on the embellished powers that he has?

Huh?

[foolsgold]

Originally posted by Duemellon
Uhm... 1st let's make this clear about Christians & their belief. The only thing they can really base their beliefs on it the Bible. If anything they say is outside, contrary, or just a guess, when compared to the Bible, their belief is contrary to Christianity.

So, either you take it literally or don't take it at all.

Nope, sorry, I think you're way off base with this. Using that logic, you're American so you must agree with every act the U.S. government makes? And if you don't, then why not renounce your citizenship.

I do agree that there is a lot wrong with organized religion and that the leaders are really dragging their feet to fix those changes, but it is possible to live in both worlds. I know, I do. I base my beliefs on the teachings of Jesus and work to distinguish between His words and the words of man. Hell, many things Jesus taught were contrary to things written in the Old Testament. Religion does not have to remain static. It will, and should, evolve (pun waaay intended) provided the true message remain in tact.

[Digit1001]

Originally posted by ahart2001


Yosh, why is evolution so much more beleivable than Intelligent Design? ID is simply filling in the unknown variables that science cannot explain. So therefore it has the same amount of evidence as evolution and then as a bonus offers an explanation for all the stuff that science can't explain (at least not explained as of yet).

I'll throw my hat on this one... And I'm not trying to pick on you, but the Theory of Evolution, even with it's holes is science based, and seeks new info all the time. The problem with faith-based is that it DOESN'T have the same amount of evidence as evolution. We find fossils and such to explain the diets of dinosaurs, etc. but I've yet to find any evidence that Adam and Eve were here with original DNA strands, or that the earth was actually created from nothing in seven days.

I'm not trying to piss on anyone's faith, but it's just that - faith in something bigger, and that's a great thing, but don't try to teach that in the public school system. I'm sure there are plenty of Pagan beliefs that could be used to explain a bountiful harvest, but I doubt these would be accepted if pushed into a text book. If they taught in a sociology class that people were better because they had been reincarnated into a higher caste, and presented this a "fact" or to "fill in the gaps" as to why someone is more successful, it wouldn't fly either.

Ok... didn't mean to rant. Believe what you want, let's not let the flat earth society change our text books b/c it justifies their faith.

[ahart2001]

Originally posted by Duemellon
So, in effect, u'r sayin that the Bible has hand-me-down stories of limited accuracy that were included to foster a belief in God based on the embellished powers that he has?

Huh?

Don't oversimplify it Due . . . its a form of history. Do you really think everything you read in history book is actual fact? History is written by humans, and as such is inherrently biased toward their perception. Something does not have to be 100% factual in order to learn something from it. Parables, fables . . . they are designed to have a core value or teaching, then a story is built around it to help people understand the point. You have to look at the context that each book of the Bible was written in.

For exapmle, look at the 4 gospels and their stories of the birth of Jesus. In Luke's gospel, he has 3 kings visiting J,J,&M (Jesus, Joseph and Mary). In Matthew's gospel, shepherds visited JJ&M. Nowhere does it say that they both visitied. Now look at john's gospel. No manger, no shepherds, no animals, no kings, no gifts . . . it simply says "And the word was made flesh" (a throwback to the creation story where God "breathed life into Adam" . . which in Hebrew has the same meaning as word when translated). Matthew's gospel was written for early jewish-christians who would relate to shepherds. Luke's was written for gentile-christians who would associate with kings and royalty and not see the significance of shepherds in the jewish faith. John's gospel is highly theological. The same ideas can be seen in the lineage of jesus at the beginning of the gospels.

So this year, if you see a manger sceene, take out the shepherd ore the kings. Or steal the whole sceene and put a big sign with "WORD" written on it in place of the sceene.

[Digit1001]

Originally posted by foolsgold


Nope, sorry, I think you're way off base with this. Using that logic, you're American so you must agree with every act the U.S. government makes? And if you don't, then why not renounce your citizenship.

I do agree that there is a lot wrong with organized religion and that the leaders are really dragging their feet to fix those changes, but it is possible to live in both worlds. I know, I do. I base my beliefs on the teachings of Jesus and work to distinguish between His words and the words of man. Hell, many things Jesus taught were contrary to things written in the Old Testament. Religion does not have to remain static. It will, and should, evolve (pun waaay intended) provided the true message remain in tact.

FG: I agree with a lot of what you're saying, and I think it comes down to viewing Christianity as an absolute vs. a philosophy. If taken as the latter, there is a lot more "wiggle room". You can read the Bible as a kind of a social fable and guidebook with parables designed to get people to do the right thing.

Many of my Christian friends fall into this category. They believe in Jesus as the savior, but think the Bible isn't meant to be literally interpreted. I think that is the "evolution" of the religion. So many people will not accept this, and my gripe is it's these same people that try to push their views down the throats of the masses.

I don't consider myself a Christian anymore, and since making this realization I've come to respect Jesus way more. I now see his life as the way to live, and I respect that. I think too many Christians today have become so wrapped up in pointing out what flawed sinners everyone else in the world is that they've kind of strayed from the original point.

But I degress... ;-)

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by ahart2001
Don't oversimplify it Due . . . its a form of history. Do you really think everything you read in history book is actual fact? History is written by humans, and as such is inherrently biased toward their perception.& the problem is figurin out who has the wisdom/right to determin what pieces of the scripture r accurate, metaphoric, or whatevr.

I don't really think I was oversimplifyin. When u say that it's written by man & is therefore flawed, then u open urself to havin to reinterpret the whole thing. I mean, what if the idea of Jesus bein flesh was nothin but a shared dream? Or the water-to-wine was a parable & not an actual event? Perhaps Lazarus was nevr really dead & Jesus just slippd him an amphetimine?

I did reevaluate the things in the Bible & that's what got me to put it down & walk away.

[Digit1001]

If you read the Bible as a history, then it has to be interpreted as all history does...

First, it's usually written by someone with some form of agenda. Could be the winners of a war, could be to point out how they were wronged by someone else, could be a combination of the two. Also, history is usually one person or one groups perspective of the events. I'm sure Rafe and our other UK brethren learned a different view of July 4, 1776 than I did in grade school.

Many Christians view the entire Bible as the word of God and transcribed from his lips to paper, therefore being completely true, infallible, and closed to interpretation. If it's this element that is pushing to have evolution debunked, then I'm worried.

If someone wants to teach parts of the Bible as history, or at least A HISTORY, and not THE HISTORY, I'll have less of a problem with it. Keep it out of the science room though, and I'll keep my bunsen burner out of the church.

edit: fixed my crappy spelling ;-)

[yoshomon]

I'm always confused as to how christians justify not being vegan. Beyond the bible's constant declarations against killing the innocent (what is more innocent than a cow or chicken?), Adam and Eve did not eat animals while they were in Eden. Eating animals only happened 'after the fall', which means that eating animals is a sinful act.

The story of Noah is awesome for similar reasons... boat full of animals and the people don't eat any of them!

[Bill Hicks]

Originally posted by yoshomon
Eating animals only happened 'after the fall', which means that eating animals is a sinful act.Going to church only happened 'after the fall', too, but I doubt many would consider that sinful.

[Digit1001]

I read "Accidental Buddhist" by Diny Moore a few years ago, and then emailed him afterwards b/c he mentions something about the Dali Llama eating chicken or something along those line. I asked him how he could do that when it goes against the who lessoning suffering thing.

I think he said something along the lines of the DL wouldn't kill anything, but accepting a meal from someone that has something that had been killed wasn't a problem.

Don't remember exactly, but in my case, I've always heard the "God put them here for us" excuse used in the Chrisitan sense.

As Tools said at the end of Undetow...

"life feeds on life feeds on life..."

[the happy prole]

Originally posted by yoshomon
I'm always confused as to how christians justify not being vegan. Beyond the bible's constant declarations against killing the innocent (what is more innocent than a cow or chicken?), Adam and Eve did not eat animals while they were in Eden. Eating animals only happened 'after the fall', which means that eating animals is a sinful act.

Abel sacrificed his sheep for God, and He thought that was A-OK. So I doubt God has a problem with killing animals.

[foolsgold]

Originally posted by Digit1001
Diny Moore

I love his soup.

[ahart2001]

Originally posted by Duemellon
& the problem is figurin out who has the wisdom/right to determin what pieces of the scripture r accurate, metaphoric, or whatevr.

I don't really think I was oversimplifyin. When u say that it's written by man & is therefore flawed, then u open urself to havin to reinterpret the whole thing. I mean, what if the idea of Jesus bein flesh was nothin but a shared dream? Or the water-to-wine was a parable & not an actual event? Perhaps Lazarus was nevr really dead & Jesus just slippd him an amphetimine?

I did reevaluate the things in the Bible & that's what got me to put it down & walk away.


I never said it was flawed . . . I said it was written with a specific audience in mind. If being written by man menas its flawed, then you might as well throw history AND science out the window . . . those are both man made things. And it doesn't matter if those events were or were not real . . . the idea is the meaning behind the story. If you want to believe it literally, then go ahead. Jesus' impact on the world was not really whether or not he was ACTUALLY God . . its that he taught people a better way to live life. Caring for others, not harming people, etc. The TEACHING of Jesus is whats important, not the facts.

[Slar]

Originally posted by ahart2001
The TEACHING of Jesus is whats important, not the facts.
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)

"I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matthew 10:35-36)

"Think not that I am come to send peace: I came not to send peace but a sword." (Matthew 10:34)

"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (Luke 22:36)

"If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." (John 15:6)

The last quote there was used to justify the burning of unbelievers during the Inquisition.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by ahart2001
The TEACHING of Jesus is whats important, not the facts. No, the salvation thru Jesus is what's important b/c Buddism, Islam, & othr religions teach a lot of what he teaches. It's the fact he came down here & did paranormal/spectacular/miracle-esque things that make him the messiah & relevent to salvation.

I mean, if his name was Brian & he nevr really fed the masses/w loaves & fishes, or didn't walk on water, his remarkableness would'v been negligible & his ability to deliver on the promise of eternal life would b in doubt.

His miracles r the demonstration of his power. If his miracles r retold inaccurately, how can we divine, almost 2000 yrs later, whether he had actual power?

[ahart2001]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Slar

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)

"I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matthew 10:35-36)

"Think not that I am come to send peace: I came not to send peace but a sword." (Matthew 10:34)

"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (Luke 22:36)

"If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." (John 15:6)

The last quote there was used to justify the burning of unbelievers during the Inquisition. [/QUOTE

As I have already said earlier, its not the LITERAL meaning that counts. Look at the context in respect to the time and place he was teaching. What the saying mean is that his message would uproot the world and bring about a new understanding to life. Jesus message will put father against son . . . there will be disagreement between them. Look to the original texts, not the translated versions. Did not his teachings cause persecution in his time? Christians were hunted and tourtured during ROman times. Converts were often turned in by their own family members. Jesus is not saying to kill others, buut merely that faith can divide people if they do not take the time to understand each other.

The familiar teaching of "If a soldier asks you to carry his pack for one mile, carry it for two" has a different connotation that it seems. At his time, there was a law that a Roman soldier could not have a person carry their pack for more than one mile, or else they could be punished. The teaching of "turn the other cheek" had a different conotation as well. In Jewish times, you always used the back of your right hand to hit a person. The left hand was the impure hand, often used to wipe your ass (they didn;t have toilet paper). The palm of the right hand was used to slap an animal. A citizen at those times would NEVER hit someone without using the back of their right hand. Ever try smacking a person's left cheek with the back of your right hand?

Jesus was a proponent of civil disobedience, just like MLK Jr. and Ghandi. His teachings were bound to cause anger and frustration.

[ahart2001]

Originally posted by Duemellon
No, the salvation thru Jesus is what's important b/c Buddism, Islam, & othr religions teach a lot of what he teaches. It's the fact he came down here & did paranormal/spectacular/miracle-esque things that make him the messiah & relevent to salvation.

I mean, if his name was Brian & he nevr really fed the masses/w loaves & fishes, or didn't walk on water, his remarkableness would'v been negligible & his ability to deliver on the promise of eternal life would b in doubt.

His miracles r the demonstration of his power. If his miracles r retold inaccurately, how can we divine, almost 2000 yrs later, whether he had actual power?

There were early Christian sects that DID believe Jesus was not divine, but justa great teacher, and that thru his message, would be saved. It was the Roman Emporer Constantine that made the current doctrine, the rule that it is today.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by ahart2001
There were early Christian sects that DID believe Jesus was not divine, but justa great teacher, and that thru his message, would be saved. It was the Roman Emporer Constantine that made the current doctrine, the rule that it is today. So u believe that Jesus wasn't divine? Do u believe he did or didn't do those miracles?

[Digit1001]

Originally posted by foolsgold


I love his soup.

Oops. It was supposed to be "Dinty" actually. I'm sure he's heard that joke more than Due and JS post

[ahart2001]

Personally, I am not Christian . . . in a sense. I believe that Jesus, Buddah, Ghandi, Mohammed, etc. are all on the same level. I believe that we all are on a journey with our lives and we each are trying to find what our purpose in life here is. When we die, we move on to the next "dimension" (some may call it heaven). We then start a new journey and continue on (infinite "dimensions"). If someone does not find their purpose by the time they die (hence the reason some people die peacefully and accept death while other fear and fight it), then they come back and try again. The things we learned in the last dimension come back in the forms of things like instinct and conscious, etc., some choose to listen to them, some don't. People like Jesus and Ghandi have found their purpose and have made the choice to come back again and show others the path (i.e Seven-fold Path, Ten Commandments, etc.). THIS is my belief. I believe all religions have validity but I do not choose to classify myself into any of them, but instead learn from them all. Since man has the almost inherent drive to screw things up, the religions have perverted the message to an extent, but the core teachings and message are still there. It is up to the individual to sort thru it all and find the core "nugget" of truth. Once again, this is just my belief. Fell free to disagree if you wish, its your right.

[DaysWithoutEnd]

Getting back on topic, here's the way i see it:

The fundamental question is this: where did we come from?
The religous answer is that God made the universe.
The atheistic answer is that the universe was always there.
Either way, you assume something to exist from the begining.
However, if God created the universe, who created God?

Personally, I prefer to cut out the middleman.

[ahart2001]

Originally posted by DaysWithoutEnd
Getting back on topic, here's the way i see it:

The fundamental question is this: where did we come from?
The religous answer is that God made the universe.
The atheistic answer is that the universe was always there.
Either way, you assume something to exist from the begining.
However, if God created the universe, who created God?

Personally, I prefer to cut out the middleman.

Seing how "God" isn't a physical entity, he/she/it/whatever doesn't NEED to be created. God would be existing (if you can call it existing) on a different plane than the human plane . . . looking at it philosophically. So the origins of a God would be beyond our human mind's comprehension. Kind of like gravity. Its there, but why? What made it be there?

Thoughts?

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by ahart2001
Thoughts? Anytime anyone puts the word "God" & "beyond human thought" together I shudder.

God is all powerful. If he wantd u to understnd he'd make u understnd, regardless of ur capacity to comprehend. Remembr? He makes the rules & he breaks the rules, to do what he wants to do.

There is no limit to man's ability to comprehend xcept that which God withholds from him.