Creationism isn't Right

[martha]

So if we're talking about competing theories, and you wish to BAN one of them,

What's the scientific evidence for Creationism?

Oh, that's right. Conservatives only believe in science when it backs their play or saves their lives.

 

[martha]

no children yet, but if/when my eventual partner and i choose to adopt, religion just might be a part of his/her upbringing.

He won't let you adopt. His Jesus allows him to hate you.

 

[Irvine511]

What you say is superstition others say is science and vice versa. Science thought the world was flat at one point. A pulsar violates nearly every physical law we have; yet it exists. The Missing Link has never been found, the death of the dinosaurs have never been explained I could go on and on about scientific theory that is being taught as scientific fact; especially evolution.

So if we're talking about competing theories, and you wish to BAN one of them, that's the definition of intolerance and you're at minimum just as guilty as those nasty evil conservatives of it.

"that shit" yeah, you being the essence of tolerance, I can see why you would be so worried about pointing out intolerance in others.

i think i already answered this, but i'll say it again: a scientific theory is vastly different from a "theory," and creationism and evolution do not belong in the same sentence. one is science, the other is not. they are not in competition. one has enormous scientific weight, the other has none. the comparison itself is anti-intellectual, anti-science, and profoundly disspiriting. it should be "BANNED" from a science class because it isn't science. it's "shit" science.

good gosh. it's really very simple.

 

[Snowlock]

and i'd argue that's a reinterpretation to fit your beliefs.

please tell me how we use the Declaration of Independence to govern. because we don't. it's a historical document, yes, but it is not a document used by the government in the business of governing.

and it was written by Jefferson, who's about as clear on this issue as anyone.

and some things, like The Pledge, had God inserted in recent times in order to further a political agenda -- to distinguish us from the "godless" Communists. and the "... in God we Trust" came about during the Civil War, and wasn't on paper money until the 1957 as, again, a part of anti-Communist politics.

but, the historical examples you've given prove absolutely nothing. if people want to pray, they're free to, at school, in the workplace, whatever they want. the historical impetus behind the bill of rights was, yes, to prevent a theocracy like you had in europe at the time -- and notice how it's the former theocracies that are now the most secular -- but it doesn't just say "a" religion, as some would like to state, but "religion" itself. nowhere in the oft cited quotes from Jefferson or Madison do they say they just don't want a specific religion, they say "religion" -- an all-inclusive, sweeping term. and most nations, even where this separation is practiced, don't have it specifically written into their constitutions as the US does.

i think it's inappropriate to have "... in God we trust" on the currency. why not "... in Allah we trust" or "... in Zeus we trust."

but i'm not all that upset about it. maybe i should be, but i'm not.

what

You can argue that I'm reinterpreting all you want; but facts are facts. If the Declaration of indepedence isn't good enough, every Congress, including the continental ones, opened with prayer.

And again you're interpreting Madison & Jefferson just to fit your lack of beliefs. So they didn't say "a". Every state had an official religion at that time; to have a state without an official religion was quite a novel thing. Also, the US had been largely settled because of its religious tolerance. So to suddenly interpret the missing letter "a" as suddenly meaning an absense of religion in a historical perspective is a reach.

 

[anitram]

Why isn't anyone answering my question regarding whether or not all these people who have disabled children caused their disabilities by sinning? That is after all, what the creation museum is saying. That congenital defects are a result of sinning.

We should be tolerant of this garbage?

 

[INDY500]

so long as our laws remain rigorously secular, yes, it will go better.

secularism makes room for everybody.

You seem to be trying to have it both ways. There's a huge difference between a society with secular laws allowing for religious freedom (which I support) and a secular population. You imply that our nation will become more secular. I hope not. Judeo-Christian values have served Western culture very, very well. Giving us not only the most prosperous people in history but the most free.
However, in Europe, a secular population "made room" for Nazism. Then Communism sprang forth in the absence of religious populace unable to morally differentiate between good and evil and 100 million people died in the last century.
And now that void in Europe is being filled with radical Islamism.

I'm not worried about the country becoming less White. But only evil follows the decline of Judeo-Christian believes.

 

[Irvine511]

You can argue that I'm reinterpreting all you want; but facts are facts. If the Declaration of indepedence isn't good enough, every Congress, including the continental ones, opened with prayer.

the day we start to use the DOI to govern, then you'll have a point.



[q]And again you're interpreting Madison & Jefferson just to fit your lack of beliefs. So they didn't say "a". Every state had an official religion at that time; to have a state without an official religion was quite a novel thing. Also, the US had been largely settled because of its religious tolerance. So to suddenly interpret the missing letter "a" as suddenly meaning an absense of religion in a historical perspective is a reach. [/q]


they didn't say "a." that kind of ends the discussion. and SCOTUS decisions have buttressed my point consistently through the past 200 years. we agree that not having an official religion was a novel ideal, but it went further than that -- to have a government that was separated from religion. the government has a place for the religious, absolutely, but the mechanism of governing itself must remain secular.

what you see as the absence of religion isn't that -- what secularism does is enable *all* religions, and the irreligious, to practice as they see fit without any interference from the government, and vice versa. secularism doesn't care if you are religious or not; it merely guarantees that one is never valued more than any other by the state.

 

[Snowlock]

i think i already answered this, but i'll say it again: a scientific theory is vastly different from a "theory," and creationism and evolution do not belong in the same sentence. one is science, the other is not. they are not in competition. one has enormous scientific weight, the other has none. the comparison itself is anti-intellectual, anti-science, and profoundly disspiriting. it should be "BANNED" from a science class because it isn't science. it's "shit" science.

good gosh. it's really very simple.

You keep saying this as fact, but it's not. Evolution is theory; gravity is fact.

Come on, you're worse than any conservative; admit it!! Scream and piss and moan about how intolerant conservatives are of other people when in fact all you're really upset about is the fact that people don't agree with you. That's what you find as intolerable.

Well you're WRONG. Evolution CAN be taught right next to intelligent design because both are theory; both have their strong and weak points, and neither is going to do anything other than given your little heathen children something else to think about; and that's good for them AND you.

Or maybe you're not as secure in your beliefs as you'd like to think and you just can't handle the competition.

 

[Irvine511]

You seem to be trying to have it both ways. There's a huge difference between a society with secular laws allowing for religious freedom (which I support) and a secular population. You imply that our nation will become more secular. I hope not. Judeo-Christian values have served Western culture very, very well. Giving us not only the most prosperous people in history but the most free.

"most free" is way, way, way subjective -- your average Canadian and Dutch person is more free than your average American.

i'm not advocating, necessarily, a secular population. i haven't said that at all. what i am advocating is *secularism*, especially as it pertains to the functions of the state, not least of which is public education.

secularism protects the religious and non-religious alike. and that seems to drive the religious crazy.

some questions though: do Judeo-Christian values enable you to be tolerant of wild income inequality? how about a poverty rate of 12%? did Judeo-Christian values support slavery? support Jim Crow?

i remain a big fan of the US (with the exception of the past 7 years), but if you are going to credit the nation's successes to Judeo-Christian values, then you must credit the shortcomings and tragedies as well.

 

[BVS]

I dont buy that. I dont want a Bible class in every school in America, but I do want children to be able to speak the word "God." I want them to say the Pledge every morning (which of course isnt even about God, but country). I want to have "Christmas break" not "Holiday/Winter break"

If you were a true Christian you wouldn't want your children pledging their alligience to a flag, it's idol worship.

And YOU may want a Christmas break, but what about your Jewish neighbor? What do they want? Can you at least see the arrogance in your thinking?

 

[martha]

Evolution CAN be taught right next to intelligent design because both are theory;

your little heathen children

It's all I can do at this point.

 

[martha]

However, in Europe, a secular population "made room" for Nazism. Then Communism sprang forth in the absence of religious populace unable to morally differentiate between good and evil and 100 million people died in the last century.
And now that void in Europe is being filled with radical Islamism.

Slavery prospered within a Christian tradition.

 

[Snowlock]

By providing these expamples of religion in our federal history I am saying that these were religious men. They would not want to see their intent misenterpreted to the extent people like you have. Given the fact that religion was pervasive throughout the creation of our government, it's illogical to assume that what they were really after was banning religion FROM government. It's the opposite of freedom of religion and against their intent entirely.

the government has a place for the religious, absolutely, but the mechanism of governing itself must remain secular. [/QUOTE

Except, if you're banning religion across the board in then you're saying the government DOESN'T have a place for religion. No one wants a theocracy and that's that the article in the BoR was set up to prevent. There weren't even public schools in large part at that time, so taking that article and going to the extreme with it and banning religion from ALL public institutions entirely is in fact bringing about exactly what the forefathers were trying to prevent.

 

[Irvine511]

You keep saying this as fact, but it's not. Evolution is theory; gravity is fact.

you really, really need to look up what is and what is not considered a scientific theory.


[q]Come on, you're worse than any conservative; admit it!! Scream and piss and moan about how intolerant conservatives are of other people when in fact all you're really upset about is the fact that people don't agree with you. That's what you find as intolerable.[/q]

but it is garbage. i don't have tolerance for indefensible arguments. i don't have tolerance for bad thinking. i don't have tolerance for willful self-delusion. this has nothing to do with what one means by "tolerance" and what we should and should not tolerate. you're conflating of two different things. words have different meanings in different contexts.

your math teacher is not going to tolerate the answer of "5" to the question of "2+2." that is totally different than "tolerating" the lesbian mothers at the end of the block.

there is such a thing as bad thinking. it has nothing to do with agreement. it has to do with the facts being presented and whether or not they can stand up to any sort of scrutiny.

creationism, in the context of science, has NOTHING.





[q]Well you're WRONG. Evolution CAN be taught right next to intelligent design because both are theory; both have their strong and weak points, and neither is going to do anything other than given your little heathen children something else to think about; and that's good for them AND you.[/q]

no! i'm sorry! any scientist would toss you out of the classroom or give you a big fat F on a test! end of story!

Or maybe you're not as secure in your beliefs as you'd like to think and you just can't handle the competition.

and this is the new tactic of the Creationists. "teach the controversy."

except for the fact that those of us here on earth, who read textbooks, know that there is no controversy.

 

[Snowlock]

Slavery prospered within a Christian tradition.

Slavery prospered within Buddism, Hinduism and was quite popular with the muslims.

 

[anitram]

Well you're WRONG. Evolution CAN be taught right next to intelligent design because both are theory; both have their strong and weak points, and neither is going to do anything other than given your little heathen children something else to think about; and that's good for them AND you.

Will we also be learning about the Hindu cycles of creation and destruction, the Taoist myth of Pangu, the all-powerful Mangala of the Mandinka, the sky serpent of Voodoo or the Greek demiurge?

 

[anitram]

Slavery prospered within a Christian tradition.

The Christians also had very progressive and liberty-embracing views towards their colonial subjects....

 

[martha]

Slavery prospered within Buddism, Hinduism and was quite popular with the muslims.

Sure, but no one here is dfending those religions as the single one with a lock on right and wrong. No one here is saying that they should be brought back into schools. No one here is decrying that loss of their values as the dwonfall of western civilization.

 

[Irvine511]

By providing these expamples of religion in our federal history I am saying that these were religious men. They would not want to see their intent misenterpreted to the extent people like you have. Given the fact that religion was pervasive throughout the creation of our government, it's illogical to assume that what they were really after was banning religion FROM government. It's the opposite of freedom of religion and against their intent entirely.

firstly, since you seem to know the deepest motivations of these "religious" men, did you also know that they were diests.

and what is a deist?

[q]Deists typically reject supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and divine revelation prominent in organized religion, along with holy books and revealed religions that assert the existence of such things. Instead, Deists hold that religious beliefs must be founded on human reason and observed features of the natural world, and that these sources reveal the existence of one God or supreme being.[/q]

and you're missing the point. "religion" is quite distinct from God. i agree that the DOI uses the idea of a common creator -- and such an idea knows no specific religion -- as a justification for independence from England. but this is about as far as it goes. where is Jesus in the DOI? or anywhere in the creation of the republic? where is the Judeo-Christian god? nowhere.

and no one is banning the religious from government. they are banning religion from the functions of government.

Except, if you're banning religion across the board in then you're saying the government DOESN'T have a place for religion. No one wants a theocracy and that's that the article in the BoR was set up to prevent. There weren't even public schools in large part at that time, so taking that article and going to the extreme with it and banning religion from ALL public institutions entirely is in fact bringing about exactly what the forefathers were trying to prevent.

who is banning religion? no one is banning religion. religion is merely kept from how government actually governs. and by doing this it enables religion to flourish on it's own terms.

when a courtroom as a massive stone monument with the 10 Commandments set outside -- the message is clear: this is a Christian courtroom. when the 10 Commandments are placed up in a classroom, the message is clear: this is a Christian classrom.

and no child in a public school should ever be subjected to that. and THAT is what our forefathers were trying to prevent.

 

[Irvine511]

Will we also be learning about the Hindu cycles of creation and destruction, the Taoist myth of Pangu, the all-powerful Mangala of the Mandinka, the sky serpent of Voodoo or the Greek demiurge?

are those myths in the Bible?

because if they're not, then they can't be as true as that one magical week 6,000 years ago.

 

[martha]

and by doing this it enables religion to flourish on it's own terms.

This is what these folks seem to forget. They want their version of it enshrined, but then what happens when a different version of the state religion takes over? Then it's a cacophony of "Persecution!"


Conservatives always forget that they don't always have a majority; that their owns laws can come back and bite them in the ass.

 

[Irvine511]

Conservatives always forget that they don't always have a majority; that their owns laws can come back and bite them in the ass.

if we all want to start saying the "Hail Mary" and praying the rosery before every school day, or in the courtroom, or have a picture of the Pope up in the post office, then go ahead and start to whittle away the secularism you think oppresses you so.

 

[anitram]

if we all want to start saying the "Hail Mary" and praying the rosery before every school day, or in the courtroom, or have a picture of the Pope up in the post office, then go ahead and start to whittle away the secularism you think oppresses you so.

We should also probably ban meat from school lunches on Fridays, if we're gonna do this properly.

 

[hardyharhar]

Those delicious bbq baby back ribs are a definite no-no.

 

[Snowlock]

Originally posted by Irvine511

[q] but it is garbage. i don't have tolerance for indefensible arguments. i don't have tolerance for bad thinking. i don't have tolerance for willful self-delusion. this has nothing to do with what one means by "tolerance" and what we should and should not tolerate. you're conflating of two different things. [/q]

Many a book burning party has been kicked off by your exactly line of thinking regarding tolerance.

The argument is only indefensible to those who choose to see it as such. If strict evolution can be proven then I'd be forced to agree with you. Since the actual origin in the species can't be confirmed by an scientific measurement, then that leaves open other theories including intelligent design and they should be recognized as well.

[q] words have different meanings in different contexts. [/q]

Such as these words? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

[q] your math teacher is not going to tolerate the answer of "5" to the question of "2+2." that is totally different than "tolerating" the lesbian mothers at the end of the block. [/q]

The theory of evolution Is. Not. Math. Seriously, look up theory in the dictionary.

[q] there is such a thing as bad thinking. it has nothing to do with agreement. it has to do with the facts being presented and whether or not they can stand up to any sort of scrutiny.

creationism, in the context of science, has NOTHING.[/q]

That is just not true because if you follow evolution along it's natural progression, or regression I guess, then you always always always are left with the question "and then what". No one has ever come to a conclusion other than God that solves the "and then what" adequately.

[q] no! i'm sorry! any scientist would toss you out of the classroom or give you a big fat F on a test! end of story! [/q]

As they would have in the 15th century for saying the world was round.

 

[BVS]

Snowlock, I'm glad you aren't in a scientific field...

 

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by Irvine511

[q] but it is garbage. i don't have tolerance for indefensible arguments. i don't have tolerance for bad thinking. i don't have tolerance for willful self-delusion. this has nothing to do with what one means by "tolerance" and what we should and should not tolerate. you're conflating of two different things. [/q]

Many a book burning party has been kicked off by your exactly line of thinking regarding tolerance.

The argument is only indefensible to those who choose to see it as such. If strict evolution can be proven then I'd be forced to agree with you. Since the actual origin in the species can't be confirmed by an scientific measurement, then that leaves open other theories including intelligent design and they should be recognized as well.

[q] words have different meanings in different contexts. [/q]

Such as these words? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

[q] your math teacher is not going to tolerate the answer of "5" to the question of "2+2." that is totally different than "tolerating" the lesbian mothers at the end of the block. [/q]

The theory of evolution Is. Not. Math. Seriously, look up theory in the dictionary.

[q] there is such a thing as bad thinking. it has nothing to do with agreement. it has to do with the facts being presented and whether or not they can stand up to any sort of scrutiny.

creationism, in the context of science, has NOTHING.[/q]

That is just not true because if you follow evolution along it's natural progression, or regression I guess, then you always always always are left with the question "and then what". No one has ever come to a conclusion other than God that solves the "and then what" adequately.

[q] no! i'm sorry! any scientist would toss you out of the classroom or give you a big fat F on a test! end of story! [/q]

As they would have in the 15th century for saying the world was round.

you know, i can't say it any more plainly. and i can't say any more.

it does seem as if we're comking from different viewpoints -- your (mis)understanding of what is and what is not a Scientific Theory -- and i really can't add anything to what you've posted above that i haven't already said, and you've pretty much solidified my beliefs that those who are so desperate to get a superstition to be considered a science are operating from a place comprised of equal parts willfull ignorance and fear.

take all of your Creatoinistic concerns, and bring them to a theology class. or a philosophy class. and then you can discuss them where they belong -- right along side the various other creation myths espoused by othe world religions.

and i have to note the irony of your invoking that once people thought that the earth was flat. for that's exactly what the Creationists are to science today.

 

[INDY500]

"most free" is way, way, way subjective -- your average Canadian and Dutch person is more free than your average American.

i'm not advocating, necessarily, a secular population. i haven't said that at all. what i am advocating is *secularism*, especially as it pertains to the functions of the state, not least of which is public education.

secularism protects the religious and non-religious alike. and that seems to drive the religious crazy.

some questions though: do Judeo-Christian values enable you to be tolerant of wild income inequality? how about a poverty rate of 12%? did Judeo-Christian values support slavery? support Jim Crow?

i remain a big fan of the US (with the exception of the past 7 years), but if you are going to credit the nation's successes to Judeo-Christian values, then you must credit the shortcomings and tragedies as well.

The Dutch and Canadians would be part of Western culture would they not? But both countries have one hell of a ride on the horizon. As does all of Western culture. Or is that even worth preserving?

do Judeo-Christian values enable you to be tolerant of wild income inequality. -- Inequality must be addressed on a personal level -- be your brothers keeper. A state trying to force equality on it's citizens can only lead to tyranny. That being said, there are other riches just as important as money. One can be poor yet truly blessed and vice versa.

how about a poverty rate of 12%? --Too subjective and it's not the same 12% year to year.

did Judeo-Christian values support slavery? support Jim Crow?

--Were the Jews enslaved? Didn't slavery exist before and during Christ's time on Earth. Which values system eventually provided the intellectual arguments for it's demise? God and the Bible isn't a guarantee of the moral behavior or clarity.

 

[Irvine511]

Inequality must be addressed on a personal level -- be your brothers keeper. A state trying to force equality on it's citizens can only lead to tyranny. That being said, there are other riches just as important as money. One can be poor yet truly blessed and vice versa.

Jesus wouldn't agree with you here.

 

[Snowlock]

Originally posted by Irvine511
[q]


firstly, since you seem to know the deepest motivations of these "religious" men[/q]

Pot kettle black. At least I'll use historical fact rather than personal beliefs to back it up.

[q]and you're missing the point. "religion" is quite distinct from God. i agree that the DOI uses the idea of a common creator -- and such an idea knows no specific religion -- as a justification for independence from England. but this is about as far as it goes. where is Jesus in the DOI? or anywhere in the creation of the republic? where is the Judeo-Christian god? nowhere.[/q]

When did I mention Jesus? I believe in freedom of religion; intelligent design, and intelligent design says God, not Jesus created the earth, or guided it's creation.

Where is the Judeo-Chrsitian (and Muslim) god? Who else do you think they were talking about?? Come on you're rationalizing pretty heavily now.

[q]and no one is banning the religious from government. they are banning religion from the functions of government.[/q]

Wow, that's splitting a one-sided hair there. And you're wrong still as there are numerous attempts to ban religion from government itself; look no further than "winter break".

[q] who is banning religion? no one is banning religion. religion is merely kept from how government actually governs. and by doing this it enables religion to flourish on it's own terms.[/q]

Keeping religion from governing is quite a bit different than teaching evolution and intelligent design and you know it.

[q]when a courtroom as a massive stone monument with the 10 Commandments set outside -- the message is clear: this is a Christian courtroom. when the 10 Commandments are placed up in a classroom, the message is clear: this is a Christian classrom.[/q]

Not that this has one thing to do with intelligent design, but I'm unaware of anyone advocating the 10 Commandments in the classroom. And in court when you are swearing under oath, it is on a bible.

Also I mean, you've taken European History, right? From the fall of the Roman Empire until the 19th century about 85% of that is also the history of the Catholic Church, right? Should they exclude that as well?

[q]and no child in a public school should ever be subjected to that. and THAT is what our forefathers were trying to prevent. [/Q]

That is not what our forefathers were trying to prevent. That is such a... Our forefathers were trying to prevent being arrested because you belonged to a different church than the state sactioned one. They were trying to prevent being ordered by the Pope to invade the holy lands. They were trying to prevent a nation going to war against another nation simply because they were of a different denomination. Those were the type of things that had been going on in the recent history of our forefathers and that's what they were trying to prevent. Saying anything different is just flat out lying.