Well...it had to be on the web...

Phil

TONMO Supporter
Supporter
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Messages
3,033
Excellent post there, Sorseress. I'm with you 100%.
 

cthulhu77

TONMO Supporter
Registered
Joined
Mar 15, 2003
Messages
6,638
I love it !!! They should be required to teach all of the creation theories...Abo, Inuit, Hopi, etc...
Just think, a high school that takes 7 years to graduate from ! Hey, isn't that how long it takes to get out of Hogwart's ????? Hmmm. Thought that place seemed too sinister.

Cthulhu eats saved souls too, remember.

greg
 
Joined
Dec 24, 2004
Messages
296
Well said, Sorseress. Creationism is a faith, not a science; therefore, it should not be taught in public schools. While "Intelligent Falling" may be unintelligent, not every Creationist wants to be associated with one who disregards the laws of physics in the name of God.

Opiate of the people? Most of us are drug-free. :biggrin2:
 
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
1,169
What disturbs me the most about I.D. and creationism is the complete adherence to cultural relativism.

Both these "guesses" (They are not 'theories' in the true, empiracle scientific sense) are based on the idea that because there is something we don't know, then it must be supernatural in origin.

Basicially, we're the almighty human race, and we are the pinnacle of creation, so if its something we don't know, then it is something way out of our reach. The proponents of both of the aforementioned theories believe that their interpretation of the Bible is the truth, that their view on the reality is what deflines it. The arrogance of our collective race is astounding at times.

Evolution is most likely true. It is an atheistic theory, but not antitheistic. Being a science, it cannot delve into the supernatural. It can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a creator. Therefore, it exists independently of a creator. ID and Creationism are so interwoven with the concept of a creator that their alternative hypotheses must be that their creator does not exist. This is an equally arrogant notion for any theory even claiming to be scientific for reasons mentioned above. That is what I like about faith - its a personal choice, not something to be proven.

So how are ID and Creationism based in cultural relativism? One states that direct interpretation of the Bible, itself copied and interpreted for centuries into historical and cultural vernacular, is the physical, empiracal truth. This assumption is based soley on a cultural dogma. The other states that, because biological processes are interpreted by some people as "too complex", then some guiding force must be involved. This assumption is based on our technology and scientific level, while which may be advanced still have a long way to go before such blanket statements may be made.

Enough of the Homo sapiens phallus waving. Challenge evolution if we must - no scientific theory should ever become dogma - but let's keep the challenge scientific, and don't let these guys, Ph.D's or otherwise, insult our intelliegence.
 

Colin

TONMO Supporter
Registered
Joined
Nov 14, 2002
Messages
3,985
A few years back we did have a member who joined because they wanted to link the octopus with 8 parts of christianity, I can't remember the exact details... It started with a PM but did get onto the forums at one point.

i do remember telling her that i doubted Cephalopods were christians
 

um...

Architeuthis
Registered
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Messages
1,968
Phil, "Half-Baked Theory"?! "Half-Baked Hypothesis" would be exceedingly generous.

I liked this article.

Most of the time in the classroom, micro-evolution - the development of antibiotic resistance, for example - is accepted, said one teacher. It's the concept of macro-evolution - the study of changes over eons - that sparks objections.

"That's like saying, 'I believe in feet but not miles,"' said Jeff Mitton, chairman of the department of ecology and evolutionary biology at CU, who called the case for evolution "indisputable."
 
Top