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

GPO87, I don't think anyone here is really arguing. We are just enjoying a good-hearted laugh at an evangelicist christian's dogmatic beliefs. However, like others have pointed out, it doesn't really matter. Believe what you want. Maybe desire is the route of all evil, or the spirits of our ancestors protect us on a daily basis, or even that Mary immaculately concieved the son of god who was later nailed to a couple planks of wood. It doesn't really matter to Cthulhu.... those of us that displease him the least can only look forward to having our souls consumed at a later date (later than you who don't offer him your service freely, that is.)
 
Hello All,

A majority of Americans already believe in Creationist doctrine, despite having been exposed to evolutionary theory in our public schools. Clearly, Darwin has not corrupted anyone against their will or subverted religious beliefs inculcated outside the classroom. Why then this current push to get Creationism onto the curriculum? Simple, really: the believers want more believers. They aren't called evangelists for nothing, you know.

I, for one, am looking forward to physics being taught alongside magic. Fair is fair.

Cheers,
Clem
 
Clem said:
I, for one, am looking forward to physics being taught alongside magic.

Maybe Intelligent Design will be on the Hogwarts curriculum for the next book?

Harry Potter and the Half-Baked Theory.

Sorry.
 
Why not spider woman?

The BBC piece was a thoughtful and well written summary of the questions and problems we Americans must deal with. Personally, I can't understand how anyone can believe in creationism, no matter what new name they give it, but millions of Americans do. A friend has a brother with a masters in geophysics who is an avowed creationist. He uses his scientific credentials to write articles for creationist publications. His convoluted explanations for the existence of fossils are utterly ludicrous, but for people who already believe that the earth is only 7000 years old or so, he is apparently totally convincing. At any rate, he says what they want to hear. What is frightening is when schools are forced to teach theories that are the antithesis of all reason, and against all we have learned from science. Even though most of us will never witness the birth of a new species through evolution, we can and do witness evolution everyday. Bacteria and viruses mutate constantly, creating new versions of themselves in order to meet and overcome the threat to their existance. What is that if not evolution? There are insects and plants that mutate to become more able to deal with their changing environments. That too is evolution. It may not -yet- be a new species, but the changes that it has made to survive are just like what has been happening over the millenia. Given enough time entirely new species may yet appear from those first steps. Or maybe not, because while some mutations are successful, others fail and eventually the species disappears. One way to diffuse controvery is to say, as a theology professor I knew did, " The Bible teaches Who, science teaches how." And that might work for people of faith, but not every one is. There is a great deal of proof for evolution, circumstantial, true, but that's accepted in any court of law, but as far as I can see, not a shred of proof for creationism. It truly frightens me to think that the schools might be forced to teach as science something for which the only "proof" are the writings in a book which is the result of people writing down the tales told around campfires thousands of years ago, It would make just as much sense to accept the Navajo version of creation, or the Mayan, where Ixchel sits at her loom and weaves the fabric of the world and all that dwells in it. As a weaver, I kind of like that one. It too is the result of ancient people telling stories around a campfire. If one is considered to be a myth, then the other should be treated the same way. One person's myth is another person's religion. My 2 cents, for what it's worth.
 
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
 
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:
 
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.
 
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
 
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."
 

Shop Amazon

Shop Amazon
Shop Amazon; support TONMO!
Shop Amazon
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Back
Top