Creationism? Thoughts?

[BamaLefty]

After hearing about "intelligent design" and "creationism" for the last year, I began following blogs and threads, reading many things.

As a benign diversion I put this article out there to talk about. I don't think fundamentalists want "equal time" and their share of the spotlight. I think most will not be happy til we have a Assembly of God Taliban of America running things. Fundamentalists are quite right to think whatever they want and practice that in their home, churches and private schools as they feel led to. But here is where I differ: many of the higher ups in these movements don't want democracy. They don't want a federal government with an independent judiciary. They want to control everything. While I will readily admit that morals have been in decline for some time, I hardly think it is because we have democracy, or 2 political parties, or gay people living in our midst. It is much more complicated than that, with the decline of living wages, 2 wage earner families and the explosion of media offerings that are sometimes quite less than wholesome.

I am not against creationism per se, but many of these same people and interrelated think tanks have much bigger sights, and I really don't want to wake up in a "Taliban" style fundamentalist country some day. Many on here will cry foul and claim that that could never happen, etc. but the fact is that many including the whacked out Robertson are working towards that on a daily basis. They have completely hijacked a perfectly functioning political party Grin for their first step and have denigrated and poor mouthed the judiciary for several years. I hesistate to think what is next. I find the ownership of diebold extremely intriguing as well. Shocked

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/fundies.htm

[Dr Fate]

1. Creationist land lubbers shuld be made to walk the plank!!!

Arrrggg!!! Fine food for the sharks they be!!!

[BamaLefty]

3. Ahhhh

now I don't know about that. Many Dems are devout Christians... like me. :)

[Dr Fate]

5. Aye-- but do ye believe the tale of Jonah's whale?

And what say ye of other other legends of the murky deep? Or be ye a man of books & tinkering???

ARRRGGGG!!!!!!!!!

[Turbineguy]

7. Dr Fate

I like the way you think but.....

How'd you get to be a Doctor?

[Dr Fate]

10. Arrrgg-Me schoolmaster was none but the bounding mane...

ARRRGGG!!!!!

[enigma-e]

43. That's why I firmly believe in...

... the Flying Spaghetti Monster!



And unbelievers will be really made to walk the plank, because full pirate regalia is the official attire of FSM followers.

[genius]

54. Evolution is a religion that is inconsistent and unproven.

I'm not sure what the truth is but, while Bush and the Republicans may have been descended from monkeys, I wasn't.


Personally, I like the Golgafrenchen theory.

[LastDemocratInSC]

56. I'm not descended from monkeys either ... but ...

You and I - as well as monkeys - are descendants of an earlier primate species.

Science doesn't prove anything; it disproves. To date all creationist / intelligent design / flying spaghetti monster notions have been disproved.

Evolution has been subjected to the ultimate acid tests of scorn, ridicule and hate and still reigns supreme. Nothing - NOTHING - has ever dented the fenders of biological evolution as the leading theory for the complexity of life on Earth.

[genius]

57. Evolution has no scientific basis.That's why I think it is a stupid theory

Vodoo remains supreme among those who believe in it, too. There is no evidence that any species has ever evolved from another. I like facts and reality. I like Douglas Adams's theory better. Scientifically, it's more realistic.

[LastDemocratInSC]

58. You may be right in the end, but ...

The theory of biological evolution, as it is currently understood, could end up being the wrong explanation for what we see around us. It would be very easy to disprove. Charles Darwin alluded to this in his writings. If we ever saw a single credible instance of the straw-men species often mentioned by creationists, such as dogs descended from cats or vice-versa, or men descended from monkeys, evolution as a theory of life would disappear in a second for two reasons: 1) Because credible physical evidence that stands in opposition to a theory destroys that theory; 2) Because those who understand the scientific method as a way of knowing have the honesty to acknowledge that they are wrong when they must do so. That's the only way we can move forward intellectually.

So, on to your assertion that there is no evidence that any species has ever evolved from another. You must now support what you have written. What is evidence to you? Are the tires on your car round? What evidence can you cite that would convince me that your "theory" of tire roundness explains anything about any single tire or about tires in general? When you answer this you will have taken a great step forward, and the answer is as easy as pie. Are you smart enough to see it, genius?

[SaveElmer]

2. It's simple...

Creationism and Intelligent Design are not science...and as such do not belong in a science curriculum. Parents and churches are free to teach either without interference from the government!!!

[FreedomAngel82]

22. Exactly

Science class is to probe and look at the facts. How can you do that with Creationsim? :shrug: I'm a Christian and even know that. If they really want it they should have a class with all sorts of things from the Bible to Greek mythlogy.

[ComerPerro]

47. Creationism is mythology. Intelligent Design is pseudo-science

It uses evolutionary principles, but it insists that there is some "designer" guiding it.

Its the fundie way of showing compromise.

They say, "Sure, teach evolution and state that its only a theory, but remind students that God is the one guiding it".

They can argue all they want that ID is independant of religion, but its not.

Having a behind the scenes "designer" indicates that some external force was guiding the evolutionary process. Really, if its not God doing the designing then it only leaves one option: External, intelligent beings, possibly from another galaxy, or at the very least from another planet. AKA: Space Aliens.

So, if they want intelligent design taught, but contend that we don't have to say the designer is "God", then that's the only option.

They want the children to be taught that evolution is "just a theory", and it is just as likely that space aliens designed our universe and all life on earth.

[SaveElmer]

55. ID is not based on science...

It's based on lack of science...areas where science hasn't come up with an answer yet is assumed to be the work of God.

Even if ID wasn't religious in nature...which it is...it still should not be taught.

ANd of course emphasizing the 'Theory' part of teh Theory of Evolution is based on ignorcnce of the use of the word 'Theory' by scientists. For scientists the word 'Theory' is as close to fact as you can get. It's like the Theory of Gravity.

[MrModerate]

4. Creationism/Talibanism . . .

It's two sides of the same coin.

Such people are convinced they know what's right and no one else does. According to them our freedoms are a stench in the nostrils of the lord; we cannot be allowed to live our lives as we see fit, because their god will punish them for allowing such wickedness to flourish.

And so they work tirelessly to undermine tolerance. Tolerance is weakness, they believe, is wickedness as bad as sinning the sins they despise. (Of course, they DO commit the sins -- because people are people after all -- and their guilt makes them crazier still).

We are clearly in danger. I don't think they'll ever be able to take over completely, but there's a lot of damage that can be done well short of seizing the government. Look at Kansas schools, for example. A train wreck, with more cars going off the tracks all the time.

And when you look at the utter hypocrisy and nihilism of the Bush administration -- which will do ANYTHING if it contributes to the political coups they're always counting -- the damage can be extreme.

If they manage to steal the elections in 2006 as they did in 2000 and 2004, we're in Really Deep Trouble.

[FreedomAngel82]

25. I think a lot of these people

forget we have freewill and with freewill comes choices and consequences. *Sigh* I can't make someone believe in something that I do and vice versa. Maybe someday they'll get it, but I won't hold my breath.

[izzybeans]

6. Google "the Wedge". 2nd link down.

They've got a pretty slick PR campaign going.

They've skipped past phase I and moved on to the propaganda and culture war campaign.

snips...

Phase I is the essential component of everything that comes afterward. Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade. A lesson we have learned from the history of science is that it is unnecessary to outnumber the opposing establishment. Scientific revolutions are usually staged by an initially small and relatively young group of scientists who are not blinded by the prevailing prejudices and who are able to do creative work at the pressure points, that is, on those critical issues upon which whole systems of thought hinge. So, in Phase I we are supporting vital witting and research at the sites most likely to crack the materialist edifice.

Phase II. The pnmary purpose of Phase II is to prepare the popular reception of our ideas. The best and truest research can languish unread and unused unless it is properly publicized. For this reason we seek to cultivate and convince influential individuals in pnnt and broadcast media, as well as think tank leaders, scientists and academics, congressional staff, talk show hosts, college and seminary presidents and faculty, future talent and potential academic allies. Because of his long tenure in politics, journalism and public policy, Discovery President Bruce Chapman brings to the project rare knowledge and acquaintance of key op-ed writers, journalists, and political leaders. This combination of scientific and scholarly expertise and media and political connections makes the Wedge unique, and also prevents it from being "merely academic." Other activities include production of a PBS documentary on intelligent design and its implications, and popular op-ed publishing. Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Chnstians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence's that support the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture.

Phase III. Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings. We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula. The attention, publicity, and influence of design theory should draw scientific materialists into open debate with design theorists, and we will be ready. With an added emphasis to the social sciences and humanities, we will begin to address the specific social consequences of materialism and the Darwinist theory that supports it in the sciences.

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

[hwmnbn]

8. Creationism, thoughts.......is an

oxymoron. Or should I say oxymoran?

[izzybeans]

11. Don't underestimate its political influence...see my post directly above.

[izzybeans]

14. opps.

opps wrong response

[hwmnbn]

40. double oops.......

But my statement still stands. LOL

[hwmnbn]

38. I read your post.......

Yes they do have a plan. I figure while they debate and create think tanks, serious scientists outside the US will ignore them and continue to do cutting edge research. There is already a brain drain here in stem-cell research area.

I'll put my money that science and foreign research will survive just fine, while here in America our born-again boobs, our Intelligent Design "scientists" won't discover anything but their own stupidity.

Oops, and the stupidity of their position and its supporters.

[izzybeans]

45. I too put my money on science. I just think it would be a mistake

for science to yet again sit and get pounded culturally by these dodo's. Their plan is cultural transformation not scientific revolution. That's why the wedge folks are targeting science education and political support for science. They can't do the science but they can do the science wars.

[hwmnbn]

51. Oh I see the point you're making.......

They, like the taliban, could care less about the science.

I would continue to equate I.D. with ideas like the flat earth theory. Everything is false until proven true.

No debate is required until they do that. I won't waste "my beautiful mind" on their bullshit.

The arrogance that they can bypass the scientic method and still claim to be "scientists" is unacceptable. I say we call them on it every time, everywhere.

[kahleefornia]

9. I *am* against creationism per se

I mean, think what you want, but isn't it silly? The whole world created in seven days, never mind those pesky fossils, carbon dating, and hundreds if not thousands of other cultures with different creation ideas?

Yes, I do consider it fundamentalism in the same manner as Islamic fundamentalism. ID - well, I still think it's just plain wrong, but at least it attempts some form of logic. Still has no place in a science classroom.

I have trouble understanding how people are comfortable believing in something so absolutely when they don't explore the issue for themselves. There is danger in believing something just because one person or one book tells you something is so. Is everything you read on the internet true? Of course not. So why should everything you read in the first book that humans were able to come up with true?

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[izzybeans]

21. Though they have done so because they wore the wrong skin.

Tit for tat.

[kahleefornia]

23. some people do get hung up on it

There really are people who vigorously believe & defend the whole seven-day, Eve from Adam's rib, original sin thing. I have no problem with it as a metaphor.

I do see Christianity trying to destroy competing views. We don't saw each other's heads off so much any more, but only because our weaponry has advanced. To me, Iraq is two things - a war over resources, and to those who don't understand that, it is packaged as a war of religion and ideology, which is why the major holdout supporters are Christians. Don't let those Islamic fundamentalists take over our country and make us be Muslims. Fight Islam over there before we have to fight it over here.

Fundamentalist Christians are also trying to "kill" by not allowing rights to those who hold other viewpoints. If you are a person, you have human rights. But if you are gay, well, you must not be a person because some people have decided that your viewpoint on what is acceptable as a human is wrong. And they intend to legislate and enforce rules on other people with other viewpoints based on their own religion.

[daninthemoon]

27. You're on the right track, but not all Christians are fundamentalists.

I am a Christian, and I have absolutely no problem understanding and accepting big bang, evolution, and all kind of sciencey stuff. Yo're explanation of the day is exactly as I see it. One can call it a God day if one wishes, but by definition it cannot be the sidereal day we know. The deluge is some kind of really big flood that is reported from all over the world. Scientifically we know there was not a flood over the entire Earth's surface, that is not possible and there is no evidence for it. The story is common over the world because it was carried all over the world long before any form of writing, arguably the oldest story on Earth. I think it was the flooding that filled in the Black Sea, or possibly even the Mediteranean. Parting of the Red Sea? I don't have a clue. Thing is, the Bible is many things, but it is not a science book. Science was not invented yet. For me, there is nothing in the Bible that negates anything in science. That is superstitious foolishness, and I am very sure that God does not want us to be stupid.

[TreasonousBastard]

35. Well, they shoot abortion doctors...

don't they?

No, the violent ones are generally scorned by even their "brethren" and true believers really don't want to go that way.

But, many have every intention of winning the war of minds and souls, and hope to take over the country and turn it into a theocracy. This may not be as violent as hacking off a head, but it is a corruption of what most of us believe is Christ's message. And, yes, it is as dangerous to the country as any other violently evangelical religious sect.

Fortunately, moderate Christians don't go that far, and even your typical fundagelical doesn't actually wish to see a country run by TV preachers when pressed on the issue. Divinity school doesn't prepare you for fixing potholes, catching car thieves, and the like.

As it happens, of the billion and a half or so Christians on the planet, most tend to look at the Bible as a bit of mysterious puffery. Even accepting it as the "Revealed Word of God," few actually use it as a history or science text.

[ikri]

36. You missed the whole Spanish Inquisition thing?

Not to mention the Witch Trials.

When it comes to massacring people for looking wrong or saying the wrong thing Christianity is probably top of the league, way ahead of Islam.

[hwmnbn]

39. You haven't been paying attention....eom

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zynx]

13. Catholic schools teach that God used evolution to create life.

That's a good example of divergent views within Christian thought.

[Dr Fate]

15. Arrrgg!! We be needin a Naturalist aboard this vessel!!!

Ahoy and welcome aboard!!!

ARRRGGGG!!!!!

[kahleefornia]

18. Ahoy

I sail on the Beagle.

[izzybeans]

20. The distinction is the IDers call for super natural causes.

They fear random mutation and process. What they want to discover is undiscoverable. Just ask the natural philosophers who thought they were writing the final gospel or the book of nature. In science we stick to the "real" which means the "visible". ID can be left for the theologians in the seminary and the third tier university's religion department, oh and the ideological think tanks that created it too, they can keep it.

[TreasonousBastard]

37. Some IDers...

but the thought of a Prime Mover goes back to Aristotle.

ID is a perfectly reasonable discussion in a philosophy class. The thought that there is an intelligence behind or within the universe is often brought up by astrophysicists but rarely discussed deeply because that is not what astrophysicists do. That is what philosophers do, until there is some evidence of this intelligence.

Of course, ID is NOT a perfectly reasonable discussion in an introductory science class. Science teaches simply observable and testable fact and theory, not speculation on how it may all have come about.

[izzybeans]

44. Certainly is a topic pertinent for a course discussing the history

of ideas. The notion of Primer Mover is what we call causation today. Particle physics and their "Prime Movers".

[daninthemoon]

28. Exactly right. The Bible tells us that God created everything. How

he did it is His business. We are only beginning to come to understand.

[progdonkey]

42. it's a nonsense hypothetical supposition...

Sorry, but that's what it is when you say "maybe evolution is God's way of creating." One could also say that "maybe earthquakes are God's way of saying he's angry," but He just makes it look like a natural process. It's a setup to a pointless discussion: there's no way to prove it is or isn't. We have no evidence that points to some grand plan of God's; what we do have is the evidence of the boring natural processes that bring about evolution and earthquakes.

Bringing God into it is just a lame attempt at trying to make God relevant to understanding the material world. Evolution is a natural process that has at its core the adaptation of a species to an environment to better facilitate survival. There's no need to ascribe some sort of "guiding hand" to it.

Could there be some supernatural guidance to this process? Sure, just as we could all be in the Matrix. Anything's possible. But believing such a thing with no evidence is religion, not science (and poor religion at that).

[izzybeans]

16. I don't mind them believing what they do. But I do mind their attempts to

undermine the autonomy of science because I think it is pretty dangerous. The notion that a non-empirical entity (one that even theology theorizes is unknowable directly through the senses) can be taught in a science course contradicts...well...ummm...basic principles of science.


Imagine our good scientists sitting around waiting for an intelligent spirit to invent the new technology that eliminates greenhouse emissions from automobiles.

The neo-creationists, who don't like to be called creationists because they had to admit their theories of the earth being 15 years old or something is disproven in even my son's preschool books on science, do nothing but mine the philosophy of science and other social studies of science in order to cling to a desperate hope that their ideologies might find a space in the legitimate cultural sphere. They do no research to confirm their "theories" and when research is done, the interpretations of the data are so outlandish they aren't publishable via peer review. Of course they interpret this as a small-minded scientist blinded by his paradigm. It goes to show you, a little Thomas Kuhn and apparently Micheal Polanyi in the wrong hands is a dangerous thing.

[bluedawg12]

30. I've never heard an ID proponent give clear position

other than to say that this is all so marvelous that it could never happen by random chance.

Then, they stumble all over the Creationist approach and dissemble about fundamentalist's 7 day dogma. It's an incoherent jumble.

But it has nothing to do wth the scientific method, of proving a theory.

Keep religion out of the science class room and let priests reveal the wonder and awe of...oh?...never mind.

[bluedawg12]

19. They are separate branches of human

activity.

Creationism, as intelligent design, can encompass evolution.

Evolution is scientific and can never answer a question about divine intervention- it is not meant to.

Fundamentalists who want to promote a verbatim version of creation cannot accept that the earth evolved in any way other than Genesis. In order to get their bit in, they want equal time in science class, to promote Genesis but have renamed it Intelligent Design.

Frankly, a scientist would not care if God did or did not start the ball rolling, they would have no opinion about it and it would not exclude evolution, God could be smart enough to have invented evolution- unless the fundy spin were put on it that Adam and Eve were there in Eden with Barney the dino and that it all happened in 7 days and not 5 billion years.

God and the big bang are not mutually exclusive, even Einstein saw the hand of God in science and physics.

[FreedomAngel82]

24. Oh and you're right about people like Robertson

If you haven't on the Sundance channel look for the film "With God On Our Side."

[Bernardo de La Paz]

26. Thinking people are against creationism "per se" and intelephant design

[daninthemoon]

29. The whole "debate" is just another RW divisive tactic.

[kineneb]

31. If god is perfect and we are made in his image...

then explain the human knee. And while you are at it, explain the human spinal column. Bad design all the way around...think football players knees and average lower back pain.

Creationism...ja sure.

[lindisfarne]

32. The title of this thread is oxymoronic. n/t

[mitchum]

59. Best. Response. Ever.

exactly

[opihimoimoi]

33. An Intended Wedge Issue to confuse: Keep the Dumb dumber

the LOLO...lolo, and the Numb, number....

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

34. From a Robert Scheer piece:

Religious mythology of all sorts is valuable when it informs and enlightens rather than seeks to displace scientific and other rational thought.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0302-04.htm

[ladylibertee]

41. I see your point.I agree with you.

[yellowcanine]

46. I think the creation is great! It's the creationists I can't stomach.

[IndianaGreen]

48. Having "Creationism" and "Thoughts" in the same sentence is an oxymoron

Creationism is faith based on mythology. It is not science!

[Kazak]

49. Just one.

Hogwash!!!

:)

[Raiden]

50. I personally believe that the universe was 'created'

Not by the Christian God, but by more of a creative force--as seen in nature.

However, this very philosophical and theological question has no place in a science class and is not by any means a theory. Religion belongs at home and in a house of worship. It has no place in a science classroom.

[Mountainman]

52. Creationism should not be discussed side by side with evolution.

Evolution comes from science and rational thought. Creationism comes from faith. They are not opposite sides of a coin. We should not even get into the discussion if it allows creationism to be thought of as science. We do not have to defend evolution. We only need to define it as the scientists do and if someone does not want to believe it, fine, they don't have to but it should never take second place to what I think is superstition.

[bushisfufkt]

53. Holy Crap...

I had no idea so many of my fellow DU'ers were believers. I thought many of you were smarter, more logical than to believe in such hooey as "creationism" and the existence of "god". I thought we were the one's who utilized science and intellect.....jeeesh....