Creationists - a rant

[TXlib]

"The argument that the literal story of Genesis can qualify as science collapses on three major grounds: the creationists' need to invoke miracles in order to compress the events of the earth's history into the biblical span of a few thousand years; their unwillingness to abandon claims clearly disproved, including the assertion that all fossils are products of Noah's flood; and their reliance upon distortion, misquote, half-quote, and citation out of context to characterize the ideas of their opponents."
-- Stephen Jay Gould, "The Verdict on Creationism",
The Skeptical Inquirer, Winter 87/88, pg. 186

---

What the F makes people think that teaching religion in a science class, or diluting the science to mollify the religious, is in any way acceptable?

Not only that, they're trying to confuse the issue by claiming creationism as a competing scientific theory, which seriously pisses me off. I have NEVER seen a case for creationism as science that did not distort the facts, deliberately omit contradictory information, or outright lie. There's nothing scientific about it, and these selfish pigs (please note I am ranting only about those who are trying to invade public schools, not all theists) want to pollute your kids' minds with their hysteria.

These are the same hypocrites who scream that parents who want their kids to learn about safe sex should teach it to their own kids, themselves, at home. I'd actually be happy to agreee with them on that point if they'd quit trying to push creationism in a public school science class. But that'll never happen.

I'll step out on a limb here and venture a guess that the same people who are trying to skip the entire period in US history from 1800-1876 in some southern states would also love nothing more than to ban the teaching of modern science, as well.

Can't we just ship these nutjobs to Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, so they can see how a real theocracy looks, up close and personal? And as a side benefit, when (if) they come back, they'll know what real persecution feels like, so they'll stop thinking that they're being persecuted here.

I've got half a mind to go down to Second Baptist this Sunday with a biology textbook and invade their Sunday School class...

YEEEAAAAAHHH!

[zanana]

1. I couldn't have said it better myself.

The problem with hyper-religious people is that you can't argue with them. You can't use reason, because their beliefs are based on "faith", and every nutty thing they believe in that contradicts science is a "mystery". That's why they're so dangerous.

[TXlib]

5. But...

If they'd stay clearly in the "faith" realm, I'd be happy. But they try to cast creation as science - and then put their fingers in their ears when you blow their arguments to hell.

[Gasolinedream]

2. Totally agree with you

I am very against teaching creationism--it has virtually no base in science. I also get pissed off about other things they want to do. Anyways, great points about the great "theocracies" of the world. THey've all been sooo successful in the world's history.

[TXlib]

20. "virtually" no base?

I'd say absolutely no base.

And if they want to teach it in Sunday school, fine. But don't try to present it as a competing scientific theory in public schools.

[Weiners]

3. Any time I talk to one of these folks and they...

...start talking about a Theocracy, I remind them that it's already been tried...
It was called the "Dark Ages"

[TXlib]

6. Welcome to DU!

Join the Rant!

[Weiners]

45. Thank You TXLib!

I'm a Friend of that scalawag "Radicalliberal".
He's letting me use his computer when he's not home.

Ah, on second thought, take away the scalawag part!

[afraid_of_the_dark]

4. There are some people in Kansas and Georgia that need to read this...

Banning evolution from being taught in schools, or banning the use of the word "evolution" and substituting the term "biological changes over time" simply because one cannot reconcile scientific fact with what's printed in the Bible is preposterous.

BTW... you have to wonder if the creationists realize how much of what they take as "God's word" in the Bible is actually a product of mistranslations from the original papyrus or committee compromises to have been included in the text we know as the Bible.

And I don't intend to pick on those from Kansas or Georgia, but those are the states that have made the news about evolution-related teaching restrictions. I know that not everyone there holds those same beliefs. :)

[RebelOne]

9. I'm an atheist and I live in Georgia.

So you know I don't hold the beliefs of the fundies who want to ban the word evolution from school teachings.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

7. come on...can't we have ONE little delusion :-)

but I do tend to agree with you even though I am one of those radical fundy nutjobs that has managed to survive on this board. As long as something that is a theory is taught as a theory (meaning that it is not a law and still subject to improvements) I have no problem with it. By teaching it as a theory you do leave the door open to whatever other theory (or story) that a religion wants to place in this realm...and I cannot understand why that doesn't keep everyone happy.

I personally believe that the creation story in Genesis is very much allegory with a lot of truth behind it, but I don't think God created the world in which we live in six 24 hour days. I see a lot of parallels between the creation account and the theory of evolution...

Please don't ship us all off to somewhere else...and I would love to have you and your biology book in my Sunday school class!

theProdigal

[truthspeaker]

10. evolution is taught that way, as is all of science

It's a creationist lie that evolution is taught as dogma and is not subject to challenge. Every new fossil or DNA discovery adds to our knowledge of evolution and often requires the overturning of older conclusions. But no discovery has been found to cast the basic principle of the theory of evolution, that populations of organisms change over time, often leading to speciation, into doubt.

You identify yourself as a "fundy nutjob", but you say you don't believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. The real fundy nutjobs would say you're not even a Christian if you don't accept a literal Genesis. When people attack fundies they're talking about those kinds of people, not evangelicals like you.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

14. on the 'how it is taught' i will have to argue a bit

from personal experience. In my time I have come across many teachers who present the theory as that...but I have also encountered several who present as something more. I have had a teacher tell a student (while I was observing) that believing anything else was just plain wrong. I know the teacher was out of line and violating school policy and all but it just really hacked me off. So, there are instances where this is a problem and needs to be dealt with...

theProdigal

[TXlib]

23. Sounds like the teacher had a chip on his shoulder

Even if he believed that, there are more tactful ways to put it.

There are people on the evolution side who have dug their heels in and made evolution their dogma, and they are the ones, unfortunately, who give the fundies ammunition to say we're all like that.

Now, as an atheist, I see absolutely no way other than evolution to explain all life on earth; when a fundie asks me if I think it's possible I'm wrong on that, I have to answer "No!". I might be wrong on the precise details, but without divine intervention, how else could it all happen?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

26. yeah...he was angry alright...

but may I pose YOU a quick question. You say that there is no possible way that you are wrong on evolution (not the details) being the process that has brought us to this point. Would it be fair to say that no other option is acceptable instead? I guess this goes to the point of people placing themselves as the last authority on something that they cannot know EVERYTHING about. I guess I have to admit that I could be wrong and that God had nothing to do with any of this and that there may not be a God at all...but that doesn't mean that I find that acceptable. I mean, couldn't a God (whom I know you do not believe in but COULD exist) have guided the evolution of biological life on earth?

I know...nitpicking...but for kids, this sort of stuff can be really harsh. When I teach my Sunday-school classes, I will readily admit to my students that I could be wrong and we all could. We just don't KNOW all the ansers...

</mini-rant 2.0>
theProdigal

[truthspeaker]

31. his acceptance of evolution didn't exclude God

The fact that evolution happened is supported by a mountain of evidence and scientific research. But nothing in that evidence or in the theory says a God couldn't have started it or been involved. It's not even a question science can address. Science doesn't say anything about God, one way or another, because God is not testable by science.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

32. i agree

but I know TX to be an atheist so that is why I posed the question. I am not trying to attack...just looking for clarification. We have (well, I can speak for my end) enjoyed converstation in the past on similar topics...just sort of picking up where we left off.

theProdigal

[thom1102]

37. The opening of my college Bio book

Which I took last semester says that what we do in science is come up with ways to explain the world around us, the how and the why things work the way they do. He then continues, saying the how and the why things are the way they are, are questions for the philosophical (including the religious) community. It is no science's place to explain why we are here, it is it's place to try to explain the workings of the world around us. Therefore science and religion are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and can be used in tandem when the religion's doctrines don't insist on literal interpretations of sacred text.

No one today knows for certain what happened "In the Beginning..." none of us was there. In science, a theory is used to explain what we think happened based on the evidence available. It is fluid and malleable as more evidence sharpens our understanding. A scientific law is a description of a phenomenon which has predictable and definable charateristics that can be measured and solved for. A THEORY DOES NOT BECOME LAW, this is a misconception. I think that it is a mistake to say that evolution is the definitive answer while there is no way to prove the answer to the question of how life on this planet began. It may have been some omnipotent beings interference, or an electrochemical reaction in the primordial ooze, or maybe we are the result of some alien kid's science experiment gone terribly awry. But I think that a curriculum based on "Intelligent Design" has no place in a public school classroom. If there were a compelling scientific case based on the accumulation of scientific evidence to support it, I might change my mind, but "because the Bible says so, and the Bible's always right" is not what I classify as compelling scientific evidence.

PS: We were just discussing this in my "History of Science for Science Education Majors" Sci 420 class this week. We have an Evolution vs Creationism debate on monday

[ProdigalJunkMail]

40. hot damn...that should be fun

the debate, I mean. Please post here and let us know what is going on...I would love to read up on that one.

theProdigal

[starroute]

36. Creationism is not about God but about the literal truth of the Bible

There are plenty of ways to fit God, or some other spiritual concept, into evolution:

You could have a deist God who designed the universe in such a way that evolution would come into play.

You could have a teleological Omega point that pulls all life towards eventual oneness, with evolution as the mechanism.

You could have a dualist concept of reality, in which life is normally ruled by purely material goals of survival and dominance, but where environmental crises force living things to reach for a higher, more spiritual level of operation -- and where evolutionary leaps are the by-product of that mysterious influx of spiritual energies.

But the creationists aren't interested in any of that. They want two things. One is to preserve the literal truth of the Bible, Bronze Age science and all. The other is to shore up a version of the early 19th century argument from design, in which organisms are perceived as so complex and so superbly fitted for their niches that they could only have been created by a drafting-table God, drawing up detailed plans for eyes and wings and brains and then implementing them here on Earth.

I'll agree with the intelligent design folk on one thing -- the simple Darwinian notion of survival of the fittest is completely inadequate to explain the major evolutionary leaps and sudden appearances of new organs that we see in the fossil record. But all that means is that science has to get more subtle.

Science is the process of constantly refining your theories to explain observed facts. At any point that you throw up your hands and say, "can't explain it, it's impossible, must have been a miracle" you're no longer doing science. And *that's* why creationism doesn't belong in the classroom.

[EstimatedProphet]

68. Changing the subject...

What does your sig mean?
Good points BTW.

[Weiners]

47. I remember watching a PBS show and when

on of the interviewers asked a scientist about the plausibility of evolution he said:

"Well, we know what state the house is in....and the city and the street it's on and even the shape of it and how many bedrooms and bathrooms it has and even if it has gutters...We're just not positive what shade of white the color is..."

I've always loved that answer!

[Djinn]

69. regardless of how it's taught

it is called The THEORY of evolution by all and sundry - unlike say the LAW of gravity, surely that makes it all pretty cvlear?

[rasputin1952]

12. I have always felt that science and religion complement...

each other.

Take Genesis, "And God Created the heavens and the earth". OK, that could equate, quite easily, into the "Big Bang Theory". Only thing that doesn't correlate is the 24 hour day bit. The earth is the only place in the known universe where a day is 24 hours long; and even that falls somewhat flat when one understands that we are slowing down because of gravity.

But I digress...I was told a while back, that Yahweh and 'nature' could be used interchangeably. THAT opens up a whole realm of speculation.

As a Christian, I am NOT a Fundy, I search for answers to questions. Faith has it place, but faith alone cannot explain anything. In fact, it benefits people of ANY religion to question and search. Blind faith leads to falling off cliffs.

I spend a lot of time on the Hubble Heritage site...this is an amazing universe we live in. It is amazing how truly insignificant we are in the Grand Scheme of things.

O8)

[Az]

39. Scientist as Sculpter

Science is a tool that we can use to chip away that which we can discern as false leaving behind that which is true. Like a sculpter we reveal the beauty of the truth hidden beneath the layers of stone.

Science is a very effective tool. And contrary to what some claim about it not being able to deal with issues like god it can. If god is the truth then science will lead us to his front door. The clergy saw this and supported science for a time during the Dark Ages until they saw it began working against them. It was then that the struggle between science and religion began.

Religion depends on absolute acceptance of a claim. Science depends on questioning a claim. These two will struggle. But in theory they can coexist. As long as one is able to remain flexible and discard that which you learn to be untrue. This is the crux. It is not in the nature of religion to discard its claims.

[kiahzero]

48. Take another look

Take Genesis, "And God Created the heavens and the earth". OK, that could equate, quite easily, into the "Big Bang Theory". Only thing that doesn't correlate is the 24 hour day bit. The earth is the only place in the known universe where a day is 24 hours long; and even that falls somewhat flat when one understands that we are slowing down because of gravity.

God doesn't create a sun or moon until the fourth day... the "days" God creates the Earth in does not necessarily have to be days as we know them, but rather, ways of demarking time.

Similarly, creating the heavens and the Earth does not need to refer to the whole of the universe.

You want to really throw your mind for a loop re: Yahweh? Read some Gnostic Christianity literature... the Demiurge, Sophia, etc.

[Az]

49. Keep in mind

A day is determined by the rotation of the earth in relation to the sun. A single rotation of the earth equals a day. Using the term day implies the presense of this system already. So aguing that a day could be a different measure to god becomes moot as the term was one relative to our measure.

[kiahzero]

50. The point is that there is no sun until the fourth day

Just discussed this in World Religions yesterday.

The concept of night and day is not truly introduced until Day 4. They are mentioned in Genesis 1:5, but not associated with any period. At this point, there is no regulation to the flow from one to another.

"God said, 'Let there be lights in the vault of the heavens to separate day from night, and let them seve as signs both for festivals and for seasons and years" (Genesis 1:14).

There was no proper distinction between day and night in the sense that we think of them... they were homogenous. There is no reason to presuppose before the sun exists that one portion of the Earth is facing the non-existant sun, thus creating day.

Day and Night were not regulated until day 4...

"God these lights in the vault of the heavens to give light on earth, to govern day and night, and to separate light from darkness, and God saw that it was good" (Genesis 1:17-18).

So it's like setting up a watch without a regular controlling pulse... sure, the time will eventually cover "24 hours", but it has no bearing on how much time actually passed.

[Az]

52. Exactly and there is the flaw

If there is not sequence of night and day then day becomes meaningless. A day is a single complete sequence of night and day. Its like a calendar without any dates. How do you count 4 days if there are no days.

[kiahzero]

53. By the arbitrary passing of light and dark

The text demarks a new day, not by a period of time ('24 hours passed'), but repeatedly simply by stating that evening (darkness) came, followed by the return of light, signifying a new day.

You count days by this pattern, not by a period of time.

Now, after the fourth day, you could make the argument that since the sun and the moon are now fixed and regulating the flow of light and darkness, days are now 24 hours.

[Az]

55. Its still flawed

1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Ok already we have earth and water. As I am sure you know water is a compound and thus requires molecules to have formed. So we already have bypassed the bigbang when everything was energy.

1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Ok, boom. But this comes late as he already had created earth and water. The thinking behind the descriptions is that of water and earth being primary forms. Interesting to note.

1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Ok, some interesting issues here. Dividing light from darkness. Darkness is not something you can really divide in a physical sense. It is the absense of light (photons). This sounds more akin to a primitive people attempting to describe the properties of things they do not understand.

1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

It clearly breaks the divide into a period of time. This tells us a number of things. First it is directly refering to cyclical periods of light and dark as one would expect to find on a planet revolving in vicinity of a sun. In fact it even defines a day as an evening and a morning. These are clearly indicitive of an orbital system.

It is not until later that he actually thinks to place the sun and stars in the sky (as if the stars were some minor baubles hanging about in the sky).

A fair reading of the first chapter leaves one with the impression of a universe centered around the earth with light and dark revolving cyclically about this center point. The sequence of matter entering the arena is completely wrong. The understanding of the relevance of various elements are distorted. It even later contradicts itself in numerous places.

This work cannot be in any way used as a basis of understanding of what transpired at the moment this universe came into existance. I understand the desire to defend it but it cannot be forced onto what we know.

[kiahzero]

59. It's flawed because you're reading it to be flawed

You're not trying to make it make sense in any way... you start with an a priori assumption that it doesn't make a lick of sense, and then go on to interpret it in a manner that doesn't make any sense. I'm not Biblical apologist, but there are ways to interpret it coherently.

For instance, one can interpret 1:4 to mean that God separated (that's actually the word my translation for class uses) light from dark in the sense that he made them dichotomous. If you have light, but it's everywhere, you've still got a homogenous (chaotic) universe... it's not until you separate them into regions of light and dark that the universe begins to be heterogenous (ordered).

Now, as for 1:5... there's an important relationship here:

Light <~> Day
Darkness <~> Night

Where <~> is an equivalence relation

Evening being defined as darkness coming, light leaving
Morning being defined as light coming, darkness leaving

So it gets dark, then it gets bright again. None of this infers any sort of cosmos at this point... the universe is still mostly chaos, except for the distinction between light and dark.

[Az]

76. The inverse may also be true

You may be trying to force it to fit when it doesn't. A reading of it with an understanding of what contemporary beliefs of the nature of the universe suggest that there is nothing new here. It is just ancient mythology trying to tell a story to explain the nature of what is going on.

A better understanding of the current theories behind the big bang also show that the bible account of creation is off the mark. We know that the stars are far older than the earth. In fact we are a 3rd generation system. That is the material that comprises our solar system is the result of 2 previous cycles of accretion and dispersion of stars. Sol is the 3rd iteration of this process and we are made of star stuff left behind from the 2 previous passes. Thus the notion of night and day, the stars, etc coming after the earth become erronious.

The fact is that Genesis is the result of 2 stories being crammed together. The 2 stories do not even mesh properly. Take a look at the order of some of the events. They do not agree in specifics. In the first account animals are created first and then man and woman are created together. In the second account he creates man first, then the animals, and then woman.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

54. that is the exact point being made

that the reference for day was not created prior to this event and therefor any and all measurement of 'day' becomes subjective. This is the part that many people have soooo much trouble with when trying to reconcile anything about the creation story. Without a reference for 'day' time is meaningless and therefor the creation of the universe could be described as billions of years...subjectively of course. The days that are mentioned here are referenced from God's POV and, no, we have no idea what a day was or is to God...assuming you can believe in one.

theProdigal

[rasputin1952]

75. I wanted to see how this part of the thread evolved...

so I kept an eye on things for a bit.

Bypassing Genesis...and I am not a theologian that can quote book/verse; Later, in the NT, we are told that "1000 years is as a day to God, and day is as 1000 years". In that context, God's time is not man's time. Billions of years from a human point of view, would be nothing from God's point of view. Just as 'soon' is obscure, so is 'time'.

"Time", as we know it, is the relationship that it takes for light from a certain point, to travel to certain point. That is science. On earth, time is measured, generally, by how we rotate around the sun. As I said before, the earth is the only place in the known universe, where a day is 24 hours, (and that is a little off, rounded out for simplicity).

The concept of eternity is actually mind boggling, simply because we have been programmed to think in terms relevant only to humanity, minutes, hours, days, weeks, years and lifetimes. We are mortal, therefore we think of things in mortal terms.

O8)

[TXlib]

21. You are free to your own beliefs

Based on your post you are absolutely not a person I would have a problem with. You recognise that science belongs in a science class, and religion belongs in a religion class.

Evolution is absolutely considered a theory; if you'll pardon the pun, theory is always evolving.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

22. big smiles, oh pun-one

I guess as a fundamentalist (I guess my definition does not meet that of some of those on this board) I have a strange personality/belief quirk. I hate absolutes in most things (not the vodka...I love that stuff...but I digress). There are many things where absolutes are just not possible and therefor a little wiggle room should be presented. I am not talking about the fact that something will fall when you drop it or that the sun is a whirling freaking HUGE ball of gas and that there are even HUGERER :-) balls out there...just when conjecture is presented as fact without a possibility of wrong-ness...well, I get a little hyper.

Thanks for allowing my mini-rant...
theProdigal

[elfwitch]

8. It is the same kind of mindset that...

It is the same kind of mindset that inspired the letter by Lisa Welchel.

Praying for the country because someone saw a breast? Holding freak-ins because some judge was ordered to remove an illegal monument? Taking real since out of textbooks and replacing it with zealot dogma? Taking environmental issues out of civics books? It all comes from the same place.

Zealots are slowly taking over the country. They LOVE GW. He and his are doing exactly what they want. They are turning back the clocks. They are creating a society cowed by theology. It is in their best interests to take the world back to a time where you can justify slavery, subjugation of women, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and ignorance of science. They WANT the Dark Ages. They want to live in the 16th century.

They are looking for control in a world they cannot possibly understand. They want the myths and fairy tales to replace to cold hard facts of modern life. They only fear and want to destroy things they aren't equipped to understand.

[rasputin1952]

13. You are correct in the notion that they want to return...

to the Dark Ages. I think they should; but, THEY should be ones that are subjugated by those in power. What they want is power, nothing else. Therefore, IMHO, they should feel what unreigned power can actually do. Let THEM work 20 hr days in the fields and factories 7 days a week for nothing. That would be a wake up call.

O8)

[elfwitch]

16. I'd like to think that is true but...

They are already boo-hooing about how opressed they are. They go on and on about how liberal seculraists are trying to destroy their faith. How gays and women and minorities are tearing apart the fabric of our great "Christian nation" with their desires for equality. And of course you cannot forgest the damned "liberal media" always trying to make people gay or "liberated".

Fact is, these people are far beyond reason and logic.

[rasputin1952]

24. I'm with you on that...

I've spent a lifetime defending the rights of those that are too weak or powerless to defend themselves. I guess that is my lot in life.

Equality, what a concept. Here it is, the 21st Century, and we can't figure it out yet, pretty poor excuse for a species we humans are.

There is no difference between a Shi'ite maniac, a Fundy, or a Jewish Zealot. Reason falls away when you believe you are on a mission from God. Strange thing about it though, every major religion decries hatred and inequality, yet for some strange reason...those that profess their faith as the 'True Faith', always seem overlook that little element that means so much.

We'll get it, or we'll all die trying. Either way, the earth will be better for it.

O8)

[Anaxamander]

11. My response to "we want prayer in schools" parents:

There's this building with teachers and lockers, a gym and a cafeteria that your kids go to every day. They hate going, but they have to.

It's called a school.

Then there's this building with a steeple you drag your kids to every Sunday and they probably hate it even more than school.

IT'S CALLED A FUCKING CHURCH.

Hint: They're two different buildings.

[rasputin1952]

15. My response to those that...

"want prayer in the schools", is that they have it; every time a freshman has to take an algebra exam!

In fact, there is no 'law' against prayer in schools. There are laws against 'organized' prayer in schools. Students throughout this country can pray any time they want, to any deity they want, wherever they want; they just can't have it school sanctioned. There lies the crux of the situation.

O8)

[bubblesby2002]

17. It never ceases to amaze me

The first immigrants to your country, and mine, left Europe and Britain because of religious persecution (partly). And yet regarding religion, we have gone in two different directions. While we do have fundies here in Canada, they do not wield much power, we are a very secular society. In the US, however, they are IN power and scare me half to death.

There is a book by Margaret Atwood called the Handmaid's Tale. Even though it is fiction, as long as Bush and Cheney and Ashcroft etc are in power, the book could become reality.

Creationism has NO business being taught in schools. If you want to teach it then teach it in theology classes or at church. That's where it belongs. Whatever gave christians the belief that their story of creation was the correct one? I kind of like the story of the Raven being the creator.

[elfwitch]

18. the Handmaid's Tale

Since GW stole the office I have been having a very "the Handmaid's Tale" vibe down here in the USofA.

Of course, kids aren't required to read it any more, so most people don't even know what it is about.

[TXlib]

25. That's a great book.

I think I'll re-read it.

[stanwyck]

56. Yes, elfwitch!

Margaret Atwood had the Bushies pegged before there were Bushies. Ashcroft, Delay, George W., Cheney...the whole gang. They're there. How very prescient of her. Chilling.

[denverbill]

19. Ever notice that the loudest opponents of Iran's theocracy

would applaud about 99% of Iran's actions?

Iran banned lawyers. Fundies hate lawyers.
Iran cracks down on intellectual elites. Fundies hate intellectuals.
Iran bans revealing garb on women. Fundies hate it too.
Iran mixes church and state. Fundies would love to do the same.
Iran punishes adultery with stoning to death. Fundies rail at the idea, but neglect to mention that's the Bible's prescribed penalty.


Seriously, if you simply replace the Koran with the Bible, 90% of fundies would think Iranian fundamentalism was A-OK. It just ain't ok without Jebus.

[rasputin1952]

27. The ability for people of any relgious aspect...

to find the most damning things in their religion, NEVER ceases to amaze me.

I have always loved this often misused piece of wisdom: "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone".

For years, I carried a small sack of stones with me. Occasionally, when thing got hot, I would place it on a table or chair, and offer people to pick one up and toss it....no one ever did.

O8)

[ProdigalJunkMail]

29. ok, maybe I'm a simpleton but...

how could you misuse, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." ? Not that is matters to this thread...just interested in how that could be twisted...

theProdigal

[rasputin1952]

72. Sorry about the late post on this...

but it is a portrayal of the hypocrisy of the situation. People should have clean backyards before complaining about others.

You cannot 'twist' it, in the long run of things, we are all guilty of a multitude of things we should be ashamed of. It is difficult to judge one when we cannot judge ourselves first.

O8)

[ProdigalJunkMail]

73. I hear ya!

People seem to forget that whole, 'judge not lest ye be judged' thing that was put out there a while back by some figure important to the Christian religion. :-) Christ was very big on slamming the hypocrites and this was probably the most over-reaching statement of all. Touching all humanity with the fact that not one is worthy to sit in judgement over another...

Hope all is well this fine morn...
theProdigal

[TheMightyFavog]

28. Fundies....

Cant' live with 'em, can't feed them to the lions.

[SOteric]

30. Tsk. Tex. The Jesuits schools where I received all of my education

taught the Big Bang, Evolution and Creationism as theories on the origins of man and the universe in science course. They did an excellent job of handling the subject matter.

No one thinks I'm any more stupid for having learned these things.

Which causes me to wonder if this whole issue isn't something of a tempest in a teapot.

I had a history teacher I adored in school, and he had some eccentric ideas about the American civil war. Not a single one of us who took his courses and thought him wonderful ever adopted his eccentric ideas.

Isn't it remotely possible that students are mostly bright enough to resist turning into mindless automatons simply because a science instructor might utter the words "and some people believe that God spoke the universe into being?"

[TXlib]

41. I'm not complaining about the Jesuits.

My complaints focus very specifically on the (admittedly) relatively small, but disproportionately powerful, group of fundies who are trying to teach religion instead of science in public school science classes.

I certainly would not dream of calling you stupid. (Unless doing so would get me a spanking... )

As for the "tempest in a teapot" theory, maybe. It would be good strategy to keep the religious right driven to distraction over such issues, diverting so much of their time and energy on them, that they can't do real harm elsewhere.

[SOteric]

57. There's an apparent meta-message

you've sent twice in the last couple of days: That it's okay to hate and revile and find contemptiblesome people.

We ought to respect, admire and find beautiful all female body images, - except the thin ones. It's okay to revile the thin people because you don't want your daughters to think they should look like that in order to be beautiful. But what if one or both of your daughters turns out to be naturally thin or thin do to a biological quirk. Won't you have spent a lifetime telling her she's contemptible? How do you undo that?

Your title paints all Creationists with the same broad brush. But it turns out that individuals you don't have a problem with, some groups you don't have a problem with. Only one subgroup is acceptible for contempt.

[TXlib]

61. Hmmm

Well, regarding the female body images, I guess my feeling is that the mainstream media so worships skinny women, and is continually telling people in society that if you're not skinny, you might as well hide under a burka, that a little appreciation of *other* body types is in order.

Regarding this thread, I chose a short, pithy title. I didn't think to split hairs in the title.

I don't have a problem with belief in creation as a divine act, thus I don't care if individuals choose to believe that. What gets my dander up is when they try to dictate to others what should be taught in a science class. Not all of those who view creation as a valid alternative to evolution do this; in fact, I'm quite certain that most do not.

And yes, the subgroup that tries to ram their dogma down my throat gets my contempt.

[SOteric]

64. I'm suggesting

that it's possible (much like my response to you in the skinny chicks thread) to praise what is desireable without offering contempt for that which is undesireable.

And that we take the chance of sending the message to our children that either a) it's them we find contemptible, or b) we send the message that hate is acceptible. They will decide for themselves which groups and subgroups it is acceptible to revile. The caveat is that children do not always or even usually chose the same reasons as do their parents.

[TXlib]

66. Is this the comment in the "skinny chicks" thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=715780#717050

I seem to remember posting an "eat a burger" comment, but I can't find it now, and it was meant out of fun... I hope it didn't also come off as a tad creepy. :D

Your second point is a good one, and one I should probably take to heart.

[SOteric]

67. Yes, that thread. See my post #140.

[Lizz612]

33. My little rant

My poor cousin! 9 years old, reading at an insanely high level, more curious than a cat, and can only see the color yellow. Strange little boy, but he's my cousin so I love him dearly. The problem is his parents are evangelical fundamental something or others, VERY Christian. They also live in a part of Wisconsin where the school system stinks, it just stinks, especially for a gifted little boy like my cousin. So he's being home schooled. Which is okay at nine, but I'm not sure is a good thing past about 12. But thats not the biggest problem; the biggest problem is his mother. She's a smart lady, she used to teach science in high school, but stopped when she had my cousin. She's teaching him creationism. Not as a theory or as a possibility or a belief, but as fact. Straight up FACT. He's 9!! How is he ever supposed to do well later in life as a scientist, which is what he says he wants to be, if he is taught from the age of 9 that the world was literally made in 6 days complete with a talking snake!??!?
:grr:

[elfwitch]

34. the things people do to their kids...

I try very hard every day to give my son access to all information. I never tell him no if he asks a question about how things work. I never limit his possibilities. I have panic attacks just thinking about ways to make sure he has access to any answer he has a question about.

People who limit their children in these ways make me very sad.

[ghengisjim]

77. ok easy there

There is nothing legally wrong with this situation. Parents should be able to raise their kids however they want to. You might think it to be bad, but diversity does encompass more than liberalism. I was raised on creationism and I do not believe in it. There is no reason to think that your cousin can not do the same. If he has an interest in science then he will develop an interest in finding out how things work---how they really work, and he will then decide what he thinks about creationism.

As a future parent I am going to raise my kids as Christians, because I believe Christianity and its core messages have a lot to offer. I am not even sure if I believe that Jesus rose from the dead or not, but I am of the mindset that because I was raised as a Christian I learned important concepts such as love your neighbors and the golden rule. Not to say these are nessacarily ONLY Christian ideas, but raising your kids Christian ensures that they will at least hear about them.

[Az]

78. Like antichoice activists

We too can have positions that we believe are crimes that are in fact protected by the law. The raising of children is s tricky issue under the law. What might morally constitute abuse may be protected. Actions such as homeschooling, preventing medical treatment, adminstering beatings, and a host of other issues enter into grey areas that we must be tolerant of legally if not emotionally.

[Az]

35. First know that this is not a science issue

The efforts on the part of the religious right to dress creationism up as science has nothing to do with science and everything to do with the propogation methodology their particular religion.

Aggressive religions such as Fundimenalist Christianity depend on new converts. Many of their teachings do not coincide with what modern science tells us. Due to the nature of their religion being authoratative this conflict leads to a weakening of their hold.

Another and larger factor has to do with the nature of how the human mind functions. As children we are open to instruction from parents and teachers. Our minds unable to discern good ideas from bad ideas. We take the words of our instructors as absolute truth.

Eventually we collect enough ideas and instructions to begin working them together into our own view of the universe. We begin to develop the ability to reject certain things that do not fit our understanding of the world. This rejection may or may not be accurate. But it is based on what we have learned to this point.

Thus religions that depend on strong belief must get an early start on children and indoctrinate them in their particular world view. They must get their ideas seated at the base before they develop filters to constrain their absolute openness to these teachings.

Public education generally and Science specifically place a great thorn in the side of these religions. Public education creates a frame which may not agree with the religions view. Science teaches children not only facts about the nature of the universe but also introduces critical thinking to them. Education acts as an innoculent to various teachings that would prey upon helpless children. As Richard Dawkins said "With so many mindbytes to be downloaded, so many mental codons to be replicated, it is no wonder that child brains are gullible, open to almost any suggestion, vulnerable to subversion, easy prey to Moonies, Scientologists and nuns. Like immune-deficient patients, children are wide open to mental infections that adults might brush off without effort."

Thus if they cannot overwhelm the teachings of science they must remove it. The religions very life depends on it. A religion that cannot replicate itself dies. History is filled with failed religions. Those that we have with us still are very effective in their own way of surviving and have developed a great number of defenses. Religions are the result of 1000s of years of evolution themself. And they are fighting for survival.

[bubblesby2002]

38. Excellent post!

nt

[tigereye]

42. this was a great thread

thanks for food for thought

[TXlib]

43. T-Shirt at the gym that irritated me:

I saw this 14-ish looking girl at the Y. Her T-shirt read:

"I broke a rule. I prayed in school. I'm a real menace to society!"

I would like to think that she, or her parents, got the shirt simply because they thought it was funny, but so many fundies try to distort the issue and say that they "aren't allowed" to pray in public schools.

Nothing could be further from the truth. They are only prevented from trying to lead others in prayer, especially with the sanction of the school.

I don't actually even have a problem with the "moment of silence" compromise.

[Az]

46. It really is a shame

that the religious right has to rely on deception and subterfuge to win their argument. I am amazed at the number of arguments based on strawmen, misdirection, and outright lies they throw out there. This teeshirt is a perfect example. Prayer is not against the rules. It happens all the time. The government telling someone to pray is against the rules.

Creationists in debate will often cite the 2nd law of thermodynamics. They will try to point out that life arising from the earth constitute a violation of the entropy law. After you point out to them that the earth is not a closed system and recieves energy from the sun they shutup for a bit. But as soon as a new audience shows up they trot the argument out again and hope no one in the new crowd knows about the error.

They will try to argue that the piltdown man represents a failure of science. Claiming that scientists were duped by it. They fail to realise that it was science that quickly discovered it was a dupe and immediately rejected it as evidencel.

The Religious Right unfortunately interested in determining what is true. They instead wish to proclaim what is true. As Andre Gide said "Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."

[Djinn]

71. school lasts, what 6 hours

usually with a couple of breaks in between - are these people really so damned that they can't go without praying for a few hours? do they expect when their kiddies get into the workforce that the boss wont mind breaks for prayer?

[Ladyhawk]

44. The only people I know IRL are fundies.

And they can be very scary. I was shocked to learn recently that a friend of mine is a creationist. He attacked my "belief" in evolution and wouldn't let me get a word in edgewise. Sigh. I'm an amateur naturalist. Nature doesn't make any sense unless you view it through an evolutionist framework.

Some of the fundies I know are more fanatical than others, but all share one thing: instead of letting new information change their worldview, they fit all new information around their world view: true or untrue. It takes a lot of effort to consider new information. Plus, if they should learn that their religion is false, it would completely blindside them. I know. I was raised fundy.

I'm beginning to see fundamentalism as an addiction or a disease. Because I'm surrounded by fundies, I'd rather feel sorry for them than angry with them. I'm working on that. It's very, very hard.

[Az]

51. The way we change our mind

The mind does not decide what it accepts on a logical rational basis. Our minds are emotional relation oriented things. Some have learned to value rational thought and logic higher than others and thus can discard beliefs a bit easier. But even they will have lingering doubts for a time. Smash a mirror and see if you don't have some latent hesitation.

The mind grows to see the world around it by developing emotional ties to various things. We set the level of importance of a matter based on the emotional strength of the event. Thus something that hurts us becomes strongly encoded. Weaker events have weaker hold.

Religion typically gets an early hold on an individual. The earlier a connection is made the stronger it is likely to be. Religion is also bolstered by the social connectivity that comes with it. Thus the emotional ties to a religious belief are amplified greatly. It is into this mix that science and evolution come bungling along.

You will find that even if you lay out a perfectly diagrammed argument to dismantle every single claim a fundimentalist has and provide ample evidence to support yours they will be unmoved from their position. The emotional value of dry clinical logic does not overcome the emotional value their beliefs have. Their internal weighting and values places their beliefs far above such uncaring factors.

The only real way to affect a change on a person is to introduce some idea or thought that does gain a hold. Eventually over time their mind will struggle with the values it contains. It will seek a method of elminating an internal contradiction. It may even remain compartmentalized for a time. But eventually it will crack the hold of the religion and open itself up to new ideas or it will purge the intruding meme and close off that access point from future assault.

[Ladyhawk]

60. Yes, it's emotional

When I changed my mind I lost my entire support base. Trying to find truth can be very lonely. And I was born into fundyism, so the anger is pretty deep-seated. I keep trying to feel sorry for the fundies, but the anger surfaces easily. Anyone have a better approach? (At this point I have no choice but to live surrounded by fundies.)

[Dogmudgeon]

58. Fight fire with fire

I'm waiting for some young goth couple with a baby or two to show up -- in full costume -- at a local Jeebus-howlin' school board meeting and demand their right to promote one of the occultish versions of both the creation story AND goth sexual morality.

Especially if the baby could be "pierced" -- preferably not a real piercing, but something that looks real. And maybe a henna "tatoo" of a Goat of Mendes (the goat in the pentacle) on the forehead.

Then, another irate couple, upset that the school board wants the kids to worship "the notorious crucified vampire who returned from the dead".

Santeria/Brujeria is always good for a scare, especially if the adherent lets it be known that a chicken or two was sacrificed for good luck.

Finally, representatives from the local Raelian group could drop by to insist that the kiddies be taught that Homo sapiens is a cloned, hybrid ape/spaceman species.

By Friday, Darwin won't look so bad after all.

--bkl

[kiahzero]

62. People already do this

Atheists sometimes use Pagans as threats... "Support Christianity, and you'll have to support this too."

Irks me a little, to be honest.

[TXlib]

63. I don't do that.

Some of our best friends here in Houston are pagans.

[kiahzero]

65. I wasn't clear

I was referring to the example the PP was making, that you could find a disfavored group and get the school system to recognize them.

Wasn't referring to anyone in this forum in particular.

[ghengisjim]

70. The govt can not endorse any one religion

But it can present religions to students as real entities that exist in real life.

I agree that public schools certainly should not endorse creationism for grade school kids. However, it is something that is believed by such a large number of people that it might be advantageous for a curriculum to be set to let kids know that many people believe this.

I went to a catholic private school so I guess they can do whatever they want to, but I always had a problem with the way they structred what they taught. They had a science class where they taught evolution as the going theory, and then a religion class where they taught the standard catholic line including creationism. When someone asked the science teacher in class what she thought about creationism vs. evolution, she replied, she was not allowed to say.

I thought that was complete bogus.

I have a very technical mind however and I have always questioned what people call miracles and especially the idea of creationism. I think that those with an aptitude in science and math, and those that are actually interested in the scientific method, will quickly find holes in creationism and question it. But keep in mind that there are politics (meaning social conflicts of interest) involved in everything, and the successful scientists learn to get away from these politics and simplify ideas to an understandable model. Religion at its base is not understandable because it is based on faith, and therefore scientists have a tendancy to get away from it, or simply to accept it (and believe in it) as a nessacary evil.

Kids in grade school can not be taught philosophy, however, and not all have an aptitude for math and science. So many kids will regard what they learn in science class somewhat with reverence as absolute.

But the first day in science class kids should be taught that science describes HOW, not WHY.

f= m*a is a relationship that describes HOW force relates to accelation and mass of an object. WHY this relationship exists.. That's where religion comes in. Did god create this relationship?

This is exactly where religion has no business in science. Just as science should not try to explain WHY the apple falls from the tree, and only explain HOW it does it, religion should not try to explain HOW the world was created, but only WHY it was created.

[rasputin1952]

74. Welcome to DU GhengisJim...

well tought out and written post; glad to see new blood is thinking blood.

Religion is based on Faith, Science is based on Fact. As I posted earlier, I find that the two often compliment each other, but far too often people refuse to see the correlation.

O8)