Creationism isn't Right

[INDY500]

Darwinism isn't a scientific theory.

evolution is.

[q]The term Darwinism is often used by promotors of creationism to describe evolution, notably by leading members of the intelligent design movement.[1] In this usage, the term has connotations of atheism. For example, in Charles Hodge's book What Is Darwinism?, Hodge answers the question posed in the book's title by concluding: "It is Atheism."[2][3][4] Creationists use the term Darwinism, often pejoratively, to imply that the theory has been held as true only by Darwin and a core group of his followers, which they cast as dogmatic and inflexible in their belief. Casting evolution as a doctrine or belief bolsters religiously motivated political arguments to mandate equal time for the teaching of creationism in public schools.

However, Darwinism is also used neutrally within the scientific community to distinguish modern evolutionary theories from those first proposed by Darwin, as well as by historians to differentiate it from other evolutionary theories from around the same period. For example, Darwinism may be used to refer to Darwin's proposed mechanism of natural selection, in comparison to more recent theories such as genetic drift and gene flow. It may also refer specifically to the role of Charles Darwin as opposed to others in the history of evolutionary thought — particularly contrasting Darwin's results with those of earlier theories such as Lamarckism or later ones such as the modern synthesis. A notable example of a scientist who uses the term in a positive sense is Richard Dawkins.
[/q]

the defensiveness you see is in response to the fanatics who want to qualify it -- and only it, when it comes to scientific theories -- with conservative christian crap, called Creationism or Intelligent Design, or some other fabrication that's come from the annals of american conservative christianism.

i'm sure you do find ID lovely and comforting. you're a Christian. and if you try to poison a science curriculum with that garbage, then i'm going to fight you tooth and nail. it is no more scientific than any other religiously-based creation myth.

If it makes you feel better to call it "science" when conjecture and extrapolations are used to "fill in the gaps" of evolutionary theory, but label it "fantasy" or "conservative christian crap" in Intelligent Design theory.
Go right ahead -- it must be the white coats.

if you want to discuss this over beers, gosh, go ahead. we can also argue about Santa Claus, Atlantis, the Bermuda Triangle, the exitence of Bigfood, and the UFO abdunction phenomenon. it'd be fun.

just don't pretend that there's a scientific foothold.

So have I got this straight? It's wrong to use the terms Darwinism and evolution interchangeably but, perfectly acceptable to lump Intelligent Design in with Atlantis, Big Foot, Santa Claus and UFO's.

Or, as the mentioned in your quote, Richard Dawkins says:

"It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)."

Must be nice to write the groundrules of the debate.

 

[Ormus]

You can critique Darwinism or the Theory of Evolution all you want, but it is thoroughly anti-science and anti-intellectual for anything, whether it be intelligent design or not, to become a scientific theory--just because some people say so.

Nobody in the scientific community think that the Theory of Evolution is complete, mind you. There are gaps in it, much like there's gaps in astronomy or quantum theory. If science had answered every question to perfection, then there would be no need for scientists anymore. However, science is not about filling those gaps just for the hell of it.

Contrary to what some might think, the Theory of Evolution has been altered to match the evidence, just as the Theory of Gravity has changed to match the evidence, as well. This is what separates science from religion: there are no dogmatic beliefs, and anything is up for revision as long as the evidence stands up to the scrutiny.

Intelligent design, "by design," is unscientific, because it takes rather random swipes at the science of evolution--swipes that are easily dismissed by credible scientists, mind you--and then throws in the unscientific and unverifiable notion of "God" in there.

It is an absolutely ridiculous notion, particularly since the notion of "evolutionary creationism/theistic evolution" predates it by decades, and it smacks of a very desperate and backdoor attempt by fundamentalist Christians to get Christianity back into public schools.

To me, this isn't about atheism versus Christianity whatsoever. It's about intellectualism versus populism, and--I'm sorry--academia is not supposed to be about populism whatsoever.

Must be nice to write the groundrules of the debate.

Fuck Richard Dawkins. He didn't write the "groundrules of the debate" anymore than Pope Benedict XVI dictates the groundrules of all Christianity. The "scientific method" sets the groundrules of this debate, and it predates Dawkins by several lifetimes over.

 

[indra]

You can critique Darwinism or the Theory of Evolution all you want, but it is thoroughly anti-science and anti-intellectual for anything, whether it be intelligent design or not, to become a scientific theory--just because some people say so.

Nobody in the scientific community think that the Theory of Evolution is complete, mind you. There are gaps in it, much like there's gaps in astronomy or quantum theory. If science had answered every question to perfection, then there would be no need for scientists anymore. However, science is not about filling those gaps just for the hell of it.

Contrary to what some might think, the Theory of Evolution has been altered to match the evidence, just as the Theory of Gravity has changed to match the evidence, as well. This is what separates science from religion: there are no dogmatic beliefs, and anything is up for revision as long as the evidence stands up to the scrutiny.

Intelligent design, "by design," is unscientific, because it takes rather random swipes at the science of evolution--swipes that are easily dismissed by credible scientists, mind you--and then throws in the unscientific and unverifiable notion of "God" in there.

It is an absolutely ridiculous notion, particularly since the notion of "evolutionary creationism/theistic evolution" predates it by decades, and it smacks of a very desperate and backdoor attempt by fundamentalist Christians to get Christianity back into public schools.

To me, this isn't about atheism versus Christianity whatsoever. It's about intellectualism versus populism, and--I'm sorry--academia is not supposed to be about populism whatsoever.



Fuck Richard Dawkins. He didn't write the "groundrules of the debate" anymore than Pope Benedict XVI dictates the groundrules of all Christianity. The "scientific method" sets the groundrules of this debate, and it predates Dawkins by several lifetimes over.

That sums it up neatly. Very well said.

 

[DrTeeth]

This is what separates science from religion: there are no dogmatic beliefs, and anything is up for revision as long as the evidence stands up to the scrutiny.

 

[A_Wanderer]

What I find interesting is the complete misapprehension of what constitutes a scientific theory (which by definition explains the evidence better than other explanations) and ignoring the biological and geological evidence that makes evolution practical (deep time + modifiable developmental pathways).

 

[phillyfan26]

That sums it up neatly. Very well said.

Agreed.

 

[INDY500]

You can critique Darwinism or the Theory of Evolution all you want, but it is thoroughly anti-science and anti-intellectual for anything, whether it be intelligent design or not, to become a scientific theory--just because some people say so.

But when that person is the Almighty Himself, telling us through his Word, that He created Man in His image, a Christian makes a note of that. And shouldn't jettison it for a materialist explanation that isn't supported by fossil studies, laboratory science or even the discovery of DNA. In other words, no more observable than the our supernatural explanation.

The Bible doesn't pretend to be a science book and those that use it as one are only asking for ridicule. But philosophy masquerading as science isn't pretty either.

Intelligent design, "by design," is unscientific, because it takes rather random swipes at the science of evolution--swipes that are easily dismissed by credible scientists, mind you--and then throws in the unscientific and unverifiable notion of "God" in there.

It is an absolutely ridiculous notion, particularly since the notion of "evolutionary creationism/theistic evolution" predates it by decades, and it smacks of a very desperate and backdoor attempt by fundamentalist Christians to get Christianity back into public schools.

To me, this isn't about atheism versus Christianity whatsoever. It's about intellectualism versus populism, and--I'm sorry--academia is not supposed to be about populism whatsoever.

Christians don't need evolution to be false, but atheists most certainly need for it to be true.

I say science should march on; continue to study and explore and increase our knowledge of life and the universe as if all supernatural causes don't exist.

I believe it our purpose, why we have intellect that the animals lack. But as for some of you, looking to science to disprove the existence of God -- I quote Dr Zaius:

"You may not like what you find."

 

[A_Wanderer]

But when that person is the Almighty Himself, telling us through his Word, that He created Man in His image, a Christian makes a note of that. And shouldn't jettison it for a materialist explanation that isn't supported by fossil studies, laboratory science or even the discovery of DNA. In other words, no more observable than the our supernatural explanation.

I am involved with the study of fossils, evolution is the best model for the evidence. It's true that we don't see living populations in the fossil record but we get a fragmentary picture over time, and given the biological changes observed correlated to environmental changes (survial taxon assemblages, foram coiling reversals, shifts in predatory birds from woodland to desert forms which all make sense in the context of a dynamic world and evolving biosphere). Evo-devo gives a recognition of how macroevolutionary mechanisms can act on organisms and punctated equilibrium and system dynamics can describe how populations can have morphological stability punctuated by rapid change. You rail against the gaps in evolution (which are gaps in what we know - not things that disprove the theory) but don't seem to revise this picture to take into account new evidence. Intelligent Design was undone by the evidence, it's irreducable complexity was undone by new discoveries charting out the development of biomechanical features like flagellum, explanations based on the genetic evidence that supported an evolutionary hypothesis and not instantaneous creation.

You can repeat talking points about how speciation can't be observed when it has been observed in the recent past with domestication of animals from wild stocks and in the lab with the trusty drosophilla. Every animal is a transitional form (except for those that go extinct without leaving any progeny) but there are whales with legs and fish with feet (as well as fish with lungs alive today). Keep the gaps in knowledge big and the denials are sound to you even though they don't stand up to scrutiny.

Atheists don't need evolution to be true for one simple reason; aliens did it and prove me wrong (it would be a natural cause for whatever was zapping new creatures into existence). Even if evolution was disproved that doesnt show that there is a God or no God (unless of course that new theory rested on evidence that proved God). Evolution provides an explanation for the diversity of life that doesn't require supernatural intervention or magic appearance of new animals at certain times .

 

[Ormus]

But when that person is the Almighty Himself, telling us through his Word, that He created Man in His image, a Christian makes a note of that. And shouldn't jettison it for a materialist explanation that isn't supported by fossil studies, laboratory science or even the discovery of DNA. In other words, no more observable than the our supernatural explanation.

The problem with this statement is that it's a false dichotomy. Science and faith are not mutually incompatible, except to those who insist upon it.

So God "created us in His image." What image would that be? God the Father, meaning that women need not apply, Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit, some amorphous entity of unknown substance? At some point, subjective human definitions of that "image" come to play, and as far as I'm concerned, evolution doesn't make us any less in "His image."

But philosophy masquerading as science isn't pretty either.

Sounds like an apt description of "intelligent design" to me.

Christians don't need evolution to be false, but atheists most certainly need for it to be true.

I say science should march on; continue to study and explore and increase our knowledge of life and the universe as if all supernatural causes don't exist.

I believe it our purpose, why we have intellect that the animals lack. But as for some of you, looking to science to free mankind from the chains of religious anti-intellectualism -- I quote Dr Zaius:

"You may not like what you find."

Much of this is complete babble, as far as I'm concerned. Atheists don't need for evolution to be true; but don't expect them to change their minds based on the untestable and unverifiable. If scientific theory, someday, supplants the Theory of Evolution with a wholly new model, atheists would certainly embrace that model.

But again, this isn't about atheism versus Christianity.

As for the rest, the implication is that we should be contented with ignorance over truth is ridiculous. As someone who believes that the objective laws of science, physics and mathematics are "evidence" of the magnificence of God (an idea that originated in medieval Christianity, mind you), I look forward to further uncovering the mysteries of Creation.

 

[INDY500]

I am involved with the study of fossils, evolution is the best model for the evidence.

I'll bow to your superior knowledge on fossils then, but I'm telling you, something is getting lost in the dissemination of information then because a lot of people like me, who have no problem whatsoever with scientific explanations of nature and the universe, are just not seeing it.

You can repeat talking points about how speciation can't be observed when it has been observed in the recent past with domestication of animals from wild stocks and in the lab with the trusty drosophilla.

Intelligent design, no?

Atheists don't need evolution to be true for one simple reason; aliens did it and prove me wrong (it would be a natural cause for whatever was zapping new creatures into existence). Even if evolution was disproved that doesnt show that there is a God or no God (unless of course that new theory rested on evidence that proved God). Evolution provides an explanation for the diversity of life that doesn't require supernatural intervention or magic appearance of new animals at certain times .

Of coarse, more than one proponent of evolution has floated the idea that life originated here on earth from an extraterrestrial source. In an effort, of coarse, to explain the rather embarrassing fact that we still can't reproduce it's origin in a test tube or account for the astronomical odds of it occurring by chance alone.

 

[INDY500]

The problem with this statement is that it's a false dichotomy. Science and faith are not mutually incompatible, except to those who insist upon it.

Which I am not saying. What I am saying is;

--life exhibits evidence of design--

Both in it's complexity and in known fossil records. One should not be subject to ridicule simply for pointing that observation out.

Much of this is complete babble, as far as I'm concerned. Atheists don't need for evolution to be true; but don't expect them to change their minds based on the untestable and unverifiable.

But a Christian should?

If scientific theory, someday, supplants the Theory of Evolution with a wholly new model, atheists would certainly embrace that model.

As long as it doesn't require a creator I'm guessing. Of coarse, to accept that would make them an ex-atheist wouldn't it?

As for the rest, the implication is that we should be contented with ignorance over truth is ridiculous. As someone who believes that the objective laws of science, physics and mathematics are "evidence" of the magnificence of God (an idea that originated in medieval Christianity, mind you), I look forward to further uncovering the mysteries of Creation.

Sounds like an apt description of "intelligent design" to me.

I am more than willing to follow the evidence where it leads because I believe man is endowed by God with senses and reason to understand His created order. Perhaps one day it will become clearer to both of us.

 

[Ormus]

Which I am not saying. What I am saying is;

--life exhibits evidence of design--

Both in it's complexity and in known fossil records. One should not be subject to ridicule simply for pointing that observation out.

And science explicitly disagrees with that contention, and has thoroughly disproven all the claims propositioned by intelligent design proponents as a poor understanding of the Theory of Evolution.

As far as I'm concerned, that contention of "design" and the extrapolation that it *must* be evidence of God violates Occam's Razor--ironically created by a 14th century Christian monk.

But a Christian should?

There's massive amounts of evidence that supports the Theory of Evolution, and if it wasn't testable or verifiable, by scientific standards, it would never have reached the importance that it has today, and, instead, would be as forgotten as Lamarckism.

The fact that many Christians refuse to accept evolution is a matter of stubborn pride, as far as I'm concerned. It would require acknowledging that all the fearmongering about evolution from the time of Darwin to the Scopes Trial in the 1920s to the controversies of today were foolish.

As long as it doesn't require a creator I'm guessing. Of coarse, to accept that would make them an ex-atheist wouldn't it?

Many Christians like to say that faith is something that cannot be proven, and in the gospels, St. Thomas is chastised by Jesus for not believing without seeing for himself.

And, yet, here you are expecting that God can be scientifically proven. This is not the realm of science!

Sounds like an apt description of "intelligent design" to me.

Wrong. I suggest you read this to get a larger view of my theological views on evolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

ID partly emulates this stance, but, in contrast to "evolutionary creationism/theistic evolution," it haphazardly rejects large portions of science and injects a bunch of theological fallacies that remind me of an incoherent papal encyclical. "Theistic evolution," instead, accepts science in its entirety and credits it to God. It's really very simple, as I see it.

Frankly, the only reason I even see ID existing in light of "evolutionary creationism" is because fundamentalist Christians don't want to adopt a theology largely embraced by Roman Catholics (in where many key Vatican officials have come out to condemn "intelligent design" as "unscientific," comparing it, historically, to when the Church "severed its links with reason and became prey to fundamentalism" to condemn Galileo) and scientists with personal, theistic beliefs.

I am more than willing to follow the evidence where it leads because I believe man is endowed by God with senses and reason to understand His created order. Perhaps one day it will become clearer to both of us.

At the very least, I do appreciate the thought that you have put into this subject, and I, as well, do hope that it can become clearer in the future.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Intelligent design, no?

Artificial selection, replicating processes that occur naturally.

 

[deep]

interesting poll results, here

not too surprising

Most Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution

A new Gallup survey finds that 41% of Americans believe that creationism -- "the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" -- is true while 28% believe evolution -- "the idea that human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life" -- is true. Meanwhile, another 24% believe the answer lies somewhere in the middle of the two theories.

Among Democrats, 57% believe in evolution, while 40% do not.

Among Republicans, 30% believe in evolution, while 68% do not.

 

[INDY500]

Wow, who are all those evolution-doubting Democrats gonna vote for?

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Wow, who are all those evolution-doubting Democrats gonna vote for?

Why on earth would your belief on evolution/creation impact your political vote in any way at all?

 

[phillyfan26]

Why on earth would your belief on evolution/creation impact your political vote in any way at all?

Because this is America.

 

[Irvine511]

Wow, who are all those evolution-doubting Democrats gonna vote for?

believe it or not, there are many, many religious voters who are not Republicans.

they also tend to be not white Protestant Evangelicals.

 

[maycocksean]

I like what Earnie Shavers had to say way back on what ever page it was. . .

I find it interesting that so many Christians feel like they have to believe in six day Creation because "it shows God's power and who cares if we can't explain it" but yet couldn't consider that God might have NOT created the world in six days. . .but might have taken billions of years and conclude "it shows Gods power and who cares if we can't explain it. " Why is God totally able to create in six days but completely prevented from creating in any other way?

Why does six days matter so much? That's the question I wanted the one guy to answer but I guess he's gone now. . .and not much chance of getting the answer from anyone whose left. . .

So I guess I'll answer it myself, at least partially. One possible reason six days matter is because evolution requires life and death over many millenia of years and if you believe that death is a consequence of sin, how could evolution happen BEFORE sin was introduced into the world.

This to me, is obviously a theological question not a scientific one and I wouldn't expect it to enter a science classroom. I think if science seems to contradict our theological teachings, we must conclude that either our scientific understanding is mistaken, or perhaps our theological understanding is off. Right now, I tend to lean more towards the sense that when it comes to six days of literal creation, our theological understanding is what's off.

But again, from a faith perspective I'm not sure why creationism is so absolutely vital.

 

[maycocksean]

A couple more thoughts:

It would seem the main arguments of six days of creation are strictly theological rather than scientific. I think the reasons many people (including me, sort of) hold to the literal six day creation are largely theological not scientific.

This to me would put a six day literal creation in the same category with a virgin birth or a resurrection, both scientifically impossible (but, I might add, both vital to most practitioners of the Christian faith). Why don't Christians insist that resurrection be taught in biology class? Why don't we insist that science teachers say that "yes, many people believe that when you die--heart and brain stop functioning etc--that's it. There's no coming back. But other's believe that it's possible, scientifically, for a person to come back to life after being dead for several days." You know, teach the controversy and all that. . .

For the record, I believe in the virgin birth and the Resurrection. They are articles of faith for me. I also have a hard time understanding how the world could not have been created in six days from a theological perspective. . .however, if indeed the scientific evidence that something else happened over a longer period of time is as strong as it seems to be than I would have to conclude that obviously my theological understanding is more limited than I might have liked to believe.

Someties we Christians only allow God to be "big" enough to do what we already believe in rather than something that is beyond our understanding.

 

[martha]

Someties we Christians only allow God to be "big" enough to do what we already believe in rather than something that is beyond our understanding.

I would say that this holds true for non-believers as well. They also tend to limit God to their understanding.



Thoughtful posts as usual, Sean.

 

[INDY500]

believe it or not, there are many, many religious voters who are not Republicans.

they also tend to be not white Protestant Evangelicals.

I believe it, but you never would have surmised as much from the last 30 pages would you? A glance back through the posts finds Creation believers only referred to as "conservatives" or "Bush voters."

 

[U2isthebest]

I'm a Believer, and personally, I have no problems with believing that although God created the Universe as we know it; He may not have done it in 6 literal days (the 24 hour periods we know them as.) According to The Bible, God isn't bound by time and space. There's a verse (I believe it's somewhere in Psalms) that says, and I'm paraphrasing, "With The Lord, 1,000 years is as a day, and a day is as 1,000 years." I've always believed that was an example showing how differently God views time than human beings. We see time almost walled-off if you will, in eras, milleniums, centuries, years, month, weeks, days, hours, minutes, etc., but God views time as a constant "now" In other words, today, June 14th, 2007, was as present to Him on June 14th of the year 100 as it is now and vice versa with the latter date I gave. A God not bound by time would probably not say "Ok, I have 144 hours. I better get going!" I believe God could have created the universe in 6 literal days because I believe in a God who can do anything. However, I also know a God of perfection, a God who wouldn't create until everything was in His perfect order. People seem to forget that when the world was created, there was no time. That's a man-made concept. So personally, while I don't believe in the accepted theory of evolution at all, I do believe God could have taken thousands, possibly millions of years to create and perfect the earth we know. I have no problem reconciling that with my literal reading of the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection. To me, that's something that can't be explained by facts. People who say they can't believe because nothing has been "proved", goad me a bit because that's the whole point: you can't believe in Jesus or what The Bible says about Him with facts; it has to be with faith under the New Covenant (which would veer off topic, so I'll end that part here.) To me, it simply means that God is a lot more concerned with our heart towards His Son and how we see Him, as opposed to all our doctrine and rhetoric about topics that don't really matter in the long run.

 

[U2isthebest]

I believe it, but you never would have surmised as much from the last 30 pages would you? A glance back through the posts finds Creation believers only referred to as "conservatives" or "Bush voters."

That tends to be the case. I'm a Believer. I go to a large non-denominational church near Detroit. I consider myself evangelical, but not fundamentalist. There is no one on earth more self-righteous than most Right-Wing Conservatives, who STILL tend to be the Religious Right. However, that self-righteousness also extends to the ultra-Left Wing too. (i.e. the ACLU) Anyway, I am as far from the Conservative platform as one can get. If I can sound like Bono here for a second, what's mentioned in The Bible the most, is clearly what's on God's mind the most. Next to personal Salvation, care for the poor/needy is mentioned the most. I don't see that happening on the agenda of most Conservatives. I see "ZOMG, Abortion, Gay Marriage, NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!" I would say I'm moderate on those 2 issues, and liberal on most others. However, with no references to abortion in and of itself in The Bible and 3 mentions of homosexuality that I can think of, it is absolutely maddening to me that the church world tries to tell me those are the 2 issues I should vote on. I will NEVER vote for a candidate who polarizes groups of people and by making laws denying them rights says they're less than human. I will NEVER vote for a candiate who doesn't make those in poverty his/her first priority (whether that actually translates into his/her doing anything once in office would remain to be seen). To me, these candidates usually tend to be branded as "Liberals" Ergo, I consider myself a "liberal" I guess you could say. I vote on what The Bible tells me to consider important. I don't vote on what the church world's narrow-minded view of a small God tells me to vote on.

 

[Irvine511]

I believe it, but you never would have surmised as much from the last 30 pages would you? A glance back through the posts finds Creation believers only referred to as "conservatives" or "Bush voters."

the key difference that religious African-Americans -- who tend to live in more urban environments and grow up with more diversity of thought than your typical rural voter -- don't try to take over school boards and preach such nonsense in the public schools.

all of which precisely demonstrates my point.

believe whatever you want. just don't tell me that Creationism is science, and don't try to make it into science.

 

[INDY500]

That tends to be the case. I'm a Believer. I go to a large non-denominational church near Detroit. I consider myself evangelical, but not fundamentalist. There is no one on earth more self-righteous than most Right-Wing Conservatives, who STILL tend to be the Religious Right. However, that self-righteousness also extends to the ultra-Left Wing too. (i.e. the ACLU) Anyway, I am as far from the Conservative platform as one can get. If I can sound like Bono here for a second, what's mentioned in The Bible the most, is clearly what's on God's mind the most. Next to personal Salvation, care for the poor/needy is mentioned the most. I don't see that happening on the agenda of most Conservatives. I see "ZOMG, Abortion, Gay Marriage, NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!" I would say I'm moderate on those 2 issues, and liberal on most others. However, with no references to abortion in and of itself in The Bible and 3 mentions of homosexuality that I can think of, it is absolutely maddening to me that the church world tries to tell me those are the 2 issues I should vote on. I will NEVER vote for a candidate who polarizes groups of people and by making laws denying them rights says they're less than human. I will NEVER vote for a candiate who doesn't make those in poverty his/her first priority (whether that actually translates into his/her doing anything once in office would remain to be seen). To me, these candidates usually tend to be branded as "Liberals" Ergo, I consider myself a "liberal" I guess you could say. I vote on what The Bible tells me to consider important. I don't vote on what the church world's narrow-minded view of a small God tells me to vote on.

I agree with much of what you say, however, there are many was to clothe the naked and feed the poor beyond government redistribution of money. In fact, government is the least efficient method to render such aid because of administration, bureaucratic indifference and centralization. Not to mention politics.

Private charities are much more efficient. Personal donations more heartfelt than government extortion.

In addition, no government program can replace a job. The best poverty fighter the world has known is capitalism and economic freedom.
I could say loads more but sorta getting off topic.

 

[Irvine511]

Private charities are much more efficient. Personal donations more heartfelt than government extortion.

private charities do a great job of educating children.

there are many problems that are way, way, way too big for even the best charities. Bono knows this. not even Bill Gates can cough up $30bn.

i'm all for private citizens doing good things, but i think we're fooling ourselves if we think any of the systemic problems that face our society is capable of being solved without the massive financial and logistical power of government.

we've been spending so much time since Reagan talking about how bad government is, how it doesn't work, how it should be drowned in a bathtub. and what are we seeing? a government that can't evacuate New Orleans. a government that's losing a war to Arab teenagers. Republicans keep telling us that government doesn't work, and they get elected, and prove themselves right. again and again.

but, yes, this is another topic.

 

[maycocksean]

the key difference that religious African-Americans -- who tend to live in more urban environments and grow up with more diversity of thought than your typical rural voter -- don't try to take over school boards and preach such nonsense in the public schools.

ehhh. . . .I don't know about that. . .

 

[Irvine511]

ehhh. . . .I don't know about that. . .

how many black people live in Kansas?

i get a bit of exposure to middle-class african-american religiosity that's in the DC suburbs -- especially Prince George's County -- and evolution isn't even remotely a topic of interest or discussion on the news. i don't see the same desire to reshape the world into a more pallatable image amongst urban-ish religious African-Americans that i do with white evangelical protestants in the south and midwest.

i do point a finger at the explicit homophobia of much of the religious African-American community, particularly when i see the damage it does to young, gay, black men.

 

[verte76]

I think that evolution is so amazing that only God could have done it. How's that for a compromise?