Leauki Leauki

The Word on Creationism

The Word on Creationism

The Word is "Lie"

What opponents of evolution (and other theories) don't understand is that science is not about finding the truth (that is best left to philosophy professors) but about finding out something useful about this world.

The predictions of theories can be used in engineering and other fields. Applications of the theory of evolution have been used successfully in such diverse fields as medicine and (yes) computer science. Evolution is solid, a tool that we can use to advance.


For a good article about the difference between a scientific theory and Creationism and the utter stupidity (and, I want to add, sacrilege) of believing in "Intelligent Design", see Steven Den Beste's essay about the human eye.

http://denbeste.nu/essays/humaneye.shtml

The vertebrate retina is a terrible design. The optic nerve comes into the eyeball at a certain point, and the nerve fibers spread out across the surface of the retina. Each individual nerve fiber reaches its assigned point, burrows down into the retina through several layers of epithelial cells, and ends with the light receptor itself pointing away from the lens of the eye, which is the direction from which the light must come. As a result, incoming light strikes the surface of the retina and must penetrate through multiple layers of inactive cells and then through the body of the nerve itself before it reaches the active point where it might be detected. This both diffuses and attenuates the light, decreasing the efficiency of the retina in accomplishing its function.

For a rationalist and atheist like Steven Den Beste, extrapolating from the existence of the human eye to a "designer" is illogical, because there is no evidence for design but plenty evidence for evolution.

For me, personally, saying that the human eye has been "designed" is blasphemy. I do not think it is all right to claim that G-d would intentionally create a faulty design or was incapable of doing better. (Plus I agree with Steven's thinking as well. There is evidence for evolution in the human eye, but no evidence for design.)


But the problem here is not the fact that some people are not capable of understanding complicated science and are thus forced to make up fairy tales that make them believe that they are as clever as scientists (and even cleverer since scientists don't "know" the truth), but the fact that those some people sometimes have the power to take away knowledge from the rest of us.

There are MANY countries in the world where Creationism is taught instead of evolution. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the majority of the world teaches Creationism to some extent, replacing biology or "adding to" biology in schools.

But what does that do for those societies?

Are they leaders in science based on learning something that is a "theory" just like evolution and a "better "explanation?

It's not enough to change the rules to allow Creationism (or "Intelligent Design") to become science, because what is science is not a decision made by man. It's ultimately a desicion made by nature (or G-d, if you will). Because science is something we can use to create.

When we look at the world and compare societies, we see that countries that teach evolution create technologies, whereas countries that teach Creationism, do not have the workforce to be leading in any field of technology.

Teaching Creationism causes stupidity. That's the problem.

And it doesn't help if "Christian" fundamentalists in the west blame Islam for it and pretend that teaching "Christian" Creationism will give better results, because the Creationism of Islam IS the Creationism of Christianity. It's word for word, letter for letter the same legend.

And it's phony. It's phony and stupid and a big lie.

    * Why does the birth canal run through the middle of the pelvis?
    * Why does the backbone run down one side of the trunk instead of through the middle where it would be more balanced?
    * Why does the ankle attach at one end of the foot instead of in the middle?
    * Why are there toes?
    * Why is it that nearly every part of the brain is as far as possible from the piece of the body with which it is associated?
          o Why is the motor control center for the right side of the body on the left side of the brain, and vice versa?
          o Why is the vision center at the rear of the brain, as far from the eyes as possible -- and on the opposite sides?
    * Why is it that fully 90% of the genetic material we carry around is useless?
    * Why do we share a single canal through the neck through which we both breath and swallow?

Biology has explanations for these oddities. Creationism does not. "It was G-d's will" is not an explanation, it's an excuse for incompetence.

(Why are some people born with a mechanism that destroys the beta cells in the pancreas, causing Type 1 Diabetes that is ALWAYS deadly within a few months without treatment? Would an "intelligent designer" design his subjects like that?)

Richard Dawkins called evolution the "blind watchmaker" because evolution does not "see" what it produces, it merely tries out what happens with the stuff it finds. I find the term "incompetent designer" appropriate for a god who designs things like us. And I cannot pray to an incompetent designer. How could I?

Teaching Creationism has never helped a society and is bringing down many.

 

Dear Creationists,

I do not want the western world to become a second "Islamic" world.

Do you not understand that?

 

136,869 views 625 replies
Reply #476 Top

Ah, again comes up the Inquisition, the handy stick non Catholics use against Catholics in an attempt to bash the Catholic Church and Catholicism. It seems for many Jews, second only to the claim that Jesus is the predicted Messias, the Inquisition is a mental obstacle that blacks out the fact that Jesus and His Catholic Chruch are the fulfillment of all that is great of OLd Testament principles and prophecies.

Do you realize that inquisitions though not so designated were common in Jewry during the pre-Christian centuries? Yes sir, Mr. Leuki, "Inquisitions" are penal sanctions first used by ancient Jews of the Old Testament and later by Jews in the New. Inquisitions are forerunners of the modern day court and penal system.

Do you know that the Old Testament records instances where God commanded that formal, legal inquiries, in other words inquisitions, be carried out to expose secret believers (heretics)?

Deuteronomy 13:6-11 makes clear that there were some Isrealites who posed as believers in and keepers of the covenant with Yahweh, while in reality they didn' t believe and secretly practiced and tried to spread other religions. We learn that to protect the people from such heresy, those secret practioners had to be rooted out and expelled from the community and furthermore, the Lord God's directive applied even to whole cities that turned away from the true religion.

From Deuteronomy 17:2-5, we learn that controversies are to be decided by the high priest and council, whose sentince must be obeyed. God said, "When there shall be found among you within any of thy gates (towns) which the Lord thy God shall give thee, man or woman that do evil in the sight of the Lord your God and transgress His covenant, so as to go and serve strange gods and adore them, the sun and the moon, and all the host of heaven, which I have not commanded: and this is told thee hearing it; thou shall inquire diligently, and found it to be true and certain that the abominable thing has been committed in Isreal: then thou shall bring forth the man or woman who has committed that most wicked thing, to the gates of thy city, and they shall be stoned."

The most famous (or infamous), Inquisition in history is the one that was conducted by the Sanhedrin under the headship of the high priest, Caiphas, before which Jesus was tried and convicted for blashphemy for claiming to be the Messias, and then turned over to Pilate, the civil authority, who ordered the Roman soldiers to crucify Him. If Jesus had been a Messianic pretender, as He was charged with being, the action of the Inquisitors would have been justifiable. This is said becasue Jesus being a Jew was subject to the Mosaic Law, which declared, "He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die; All the multitude shall stone him." Lev. 24:16.

During the Christian era, Spinoza was tried for heresy at the Inquisition of the Rabbinical COllege in Amsterdam, Holland. The rabbis pronounced the severest ban as he was guilty of horrible heresies.....application was made by the rabbis to the civil authorities for his perpetual banishment from Holland the land of Spinoza's birth. Back in the days, Spinoza would have been stoned to death for his pantheistic anti God doctrines.

Same thing in medieval Europe. Like Isreal, was a society of Christian kingdoms that were formally consecrated to Jesus Christ, the Catholic Chruch. Just like the Isrealites before them, Catholics concluded for the greater good of Christian society they "must take away the evil from out of the midst of thee" Deut. 13:5. St.Paul repeats this principle in 1Cor. 5:13.

Within Catholicism, the first medieval Inquisition was established in 1184 in France as a response to the Catharist heresy. The Spanish Inquisition in 1478 was a state institutiion used to identify conversos, Jews and Moors (Muslims) who pretended to convert ot Cathoilicism for purposes of political or social advantage and secretly practiced their former religions. Separate from this was the Roman Inquisition in 1542, the one by which Galileo for wanting to change Scripture to meet his scientific discoveries, was disciplined.

The thing to understand about the Medieval Inquisition is that only Catholics who were accused of heresy were tried.

So, I take it from your non-answer that you believe the victims of the inquisition directly profited from the benefits of institutionalised religion.

Reply #477 Top

When Christians are fired and/or otherwise oppressed for their beliefs, such as not being allowed to so much as pray in a school, that is definitely leaning more toward communism than our 'free' country.

I'm sorry, but by telling people that they are not allowed to pray just because you have to keep church and state 'separate' is a direct violation of our right to freedom of speech.  The last I checked, freedom from hearing others speak wasn't a right.

Not only that, but people have little enough problem with teaching other religions in class.  The public school I went to had a thing for teaching all us wee impressionable kids all about the native Indian's dreamcatchers and their katchina dolls, along with whatever rituals went along with them.  My mother called the school to complain, and they told her they had never had a complaint like that before from anyone.

So it isn't freedom for anyone, really, it's just a nationwide attempt to silence Christians.  It sure sounds like freedom to me, and there is no way we're a communist country in the least.  I must just be a stupid, crazy Christian, right Daiwa?

Reply #478 Top

I must just be a stupid, crazy Christian, right Daiwa?

Well... those are your words. ;)


This thread isn't about prayer in schools, but I happen to agree with you on that point.  I don't believe we have a right to freedom 'from' religion.

Reply #479 Top

When Christians are fired and/or otherwise oppressed for their beliefs, such as not being allowed to so much as pray in a school, that is definitely leaning more toward communism than our 'free' country.

No Christian is being fired or "oppressed" for their beliefs. Praying at school is an action, not an opinion. Government can demand that teachers paid by the government do their job and part of the job is that the school be kept secular.

 

I'm sorry, but by telling people that they are not allowed to pray just because you have to keep church and state 'separate' is a direct violation of our right to freedom of speech.  The last I checked, freedom from hearing others speak wasn't a right.

Check again. The government does not have a duty to pay for a forum for Christians to speak or to pray, not a state school, not a public television station, not anything. Freedom from hearing others speak IS a right in a school. Parents do indeed have the RIGHT to know that their children will NOT be exposed to a specific religion at state schools. That's a right. You want to violate it.

If you GET a job as a teacher FOR a state school IN a secular country, DO your fecking job and DON'T bring your religion into the school.

How is that difficult?

If you want to pray, join a church.

 

Reply #480 Top

This thread isn't about prayer in schools, but I happen to agree with you on that point.  I don't believe we have a right to freedom 'from' religion.

I disagree. I believe that we do have a right to freedom from religion.

If you want to pray, do it in your home, in your church/synagogue/temple/dungeon/whatever or outside. But government-owned buildings are out of bounds for religion if the government says so.

 

Reply #481 Top

The government does not have a duty to pay for a forum for Christians to speak or to pray, not a state school, not a public television station, not anything. Freedom from hearing others speak IS a right in a school. Parents do indeed have the RIGHT to know that their children will NOT be exposed to a specific religion at state schools. That's a right. You want to violate it.

Here's an interesting story from 2006...regarding teaching Islam in a US public school in the infamous 9th district.

 

 
 

According To Some Federal Courts And Public Schools: Christianity Out, Islam In

ANN ARBOR, MI – A three-week intensive indoctrination into the Islamic faith by a California public school district was allowed to stand by the U. S. Supreme Court last week. A California federal trial court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had earlier ruled that such indoctrination was constitutional.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, outraged by the obvious double standard in the application of the Establishment Clause jurisprudence by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has held “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, but allows this kind of Islamic instruction in public schools, had requested that the Supreme Court review the case.

The materials used by Byron Union School District seventh graders stated, “From the beginning, you and your classmates will become Muslims.” Students were instructed to accept as “fact” that Jihad is “a struggle by Muslims against oppression, invasion, and injustice,” and to accept as “truth” that the Koran “is God’s word as revealed to the Prophet Muhammad.” Students were taught the five duties (Pillars of Faith) all Muslims must fulfill and were required to complete a project for each duty, including fasting, in order to pass.

According to Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, “This three-week course was for the most part propaganda that could be used to unwittingly recruit home grown terrorist. Nevertheless, some public schools are allowing this kind of religious instruction under the guise of diversity instruction.”

Impressionable twelve-year-old students were required to take Islamic names, wear identification tags that displayed their new Islamic name and the Star and Crescent Moon. Students also were handed materials that instructed them to “remember Allah always so that you may prosper,” and memorized and recited the “Bismillah” or “In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate,” which students also wrote on banners that were hung on the classroom walls. Students also had to memorize parts of Islamic prayers and verses from the Koran.

Thompson continued, “No federal court would have permitted a class where public school students were taught to ‘become Catholics’ for three weeks, selected a saint’s name, wore identification tags that displayed their new name and a Crucifix, and engaged in Catholic religious practices. Here, however, students were subjected to Islamic religious indoctrination and propaganda and the courts turned a blind eye. The Supreme Court missed an opportunity to demonstrate that the Establishment Clause is to be applied the same to all religions and is not just a weapon to be used only against Christians.”

Edward L. White III, trial counsel with the Thomas More Law Center who handled the case, commented, “I am surprised the Supreme Court did not accept this case for review. The case presented significant issues of national importance concerning public school education and religious indoctrination of children.”

 

Reply #482 Top

What I said applies to Islam as well as Christianity.

Reply #483 Top

This thread isn't about prayer in schools, but I happen to agree with you on that point. I don't believe we have a right to freedom 'from' religion.


I disagree. I believe that we do have a right to freedom from religion.

If you want to pray, do it in your home, in your church/synagogue/temple/dungeon/whatever or outside. But government-owned buildings are out of bounds for religion if the government says so.

Perhaps I should clarify.  I don't condone the teaching of any specific religion except in the context of history.  I also believe students should be allowed to pray if they wish, and that setting time aside in a school day for silent prayer by anyone who wishes does not constitute 'the establishment of religion.'  But I also believe that not setting aside time for silent prayer is no infringement on anyone's rights.

Reply #484 Top

Obviously he is saying that he is looking at the MEANING of the scriptures rather than taking them LITERALLY.

Unfortunatlely, too many people focus on the words of the scriptures and totally miss the meaning. The messages aren't hidden by any means, but they don't alway lie at the surface.

Reply #485 Top

Unfortunatlely, too many people focus on the words of the scriptures and totally miss the meaning. The messages aren't hidden by any means, but they don't alway lie at the surface.

This is quite true!  Good statement. 

 

Reply #486 Top

they don't alway[s] lie at the surface

They don't always tell the truth at the surface, either. ;)

+1 Loading…
Reply #487 Top

they don't alway[s] lie at the surface

They don't always tell the truth at the surface, either

 

another amen!

Reply #488 Top

Any truth can be twisted and/or misunderstood to be a lie.  Don't be too quick to assume you're the one who is right.

And Leauki, freedom from religion is NOT a Constitiutional right.

Amendment #1 to the US Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You see?  It is right in the Constitution.  I have a perfect right to profess my religion to anyone, anywhere, and that includes public schools.

According to the Constitution, prohibiting prayer in schools is obviously an infringement upon the rights of any and all teachers and students.  Yet somehow people manage to ignore that.  I believe they call it "selective hearing."

Reply #489 Top

I have a perfect right to profess my religion to anyone, anywhere, and that includes public schools.

 

i'm hoping to discover you're equally supportive of  "the free exercise thereof" of ALL religious beliefs including those permitting, requiring, or imposing polygamy, stoning, witch-burning, suicide attacks on non-believers or loading up one's pockets with quarters before joining fellow believers gulping down phenobarbital in order to shed one's earthly shell and pass through heaven's gate.

Reply #490 Top

I have a perfect right to profess my religion to anyone, anywhere, and that includes public schools.

 

as do i. inshallah we someday have an opportunity to determine how much of it you could handle.

Reply #491 Top

You see? It is right in the Constitution. I have a perfect right to profess my religion to anyone, anywhere, and that includes public schools.

No. You need to re-read what you wrote above. Let me repeat it for you

(intentional bolding, mine):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Individual states are free to make laws that prohibit what you say or do in areas that fall under their jurisdiction (ie. schools).

Reply #492 Top

And Leauki, freedom from religion is NOT a Constitiutional right.

And yet you quote the constitution saying specifically that the federal government may not be a party in that.

 

It is right in the Constitution.  I have a perfect right to profess my religion to anyone, anywhere, and that includes public schools.

Where does the constition say that?

 

Reply #493 Top

Individual states are free to make laws that prohibit what you say or do in areas that fall under their jurisdiction (ie. schools).

Actually, it's even simpler than that.

Schools are public property. And that means the owner (in the case of schools it is the federal government) may make up rules users of the property have to follow.

Since the constitution forbids the federal government to establish a religion, the government is forced to create rules that make sure that the government is not party to establishing a religion.

And while I have the right to ride a horse, the owner of a school can still stop me from riding the horse on school grounds. And if the constitution said that federal government must not establish horse riding as a sport, federally owned schools would HAVE to forbid horse riding on school grounds.

 

Reply #494 Top

Leauki -

I don't believe the feds are the 'owners' of school districts or their property.  Whose rules apply gets sticky once schools accept federal funds, but the feds don't actually own the schools.

Might as well, mind you, but they don't 'literally.'

Reply #495 Top

I don't believe the feds are the 'owners' of school districts or their property.

If they give money, they must also enforce those terms.

If the feds gave money to a state school that establishes a religion (in any way or form), the feds would be in violation of the  establishment clause.

I suppose state-owned or privately owned schools that accept no money from the federal government could establish a religion in their schools (if state law allowed it in the case of state-owned schools), and I believe private schools do exactly that.

 

 

Reply #496 Top

If the feds gave money to a state school that establishes a religion (in any way or form), the feds would be in violation of the establishment clause.

I know this has been hashed/rehashed but the literal language of the 1st amendment refers to Congress passing no law 'respecting an establishment of religion' - the perplexing things to me are the reach of the word 'respecting' and the meaning of the word 'establishment'.  I think it takes some seriously stretched & twisted logic to get from those 5 words to prohibiting prayer in public schools, whether they receive 'federal' funds or not.

Reply #497 Top

what's the creationist explanation for those creatures eking outta living in the sulpherous environment around oceanic hydrothermal vents?  maybe all those worms, crustaceans, microbes & such are devil's spawn?

Reply #498 Top

I know this has been hashed/rehashed but the literal language of the 1st amendment refers to Congress passing no law 'respecting an establishment of religion' - the perplexing things to me are the reach of the word 'respecting' and the meaning of the word 'establishment'. I think it takes some seriously stretched & twisted logic to get from those 5 words to prohibiting prayer in public schools, whether they receive 'federal' funds or not.

I tend to agree.

First, the First Amendment does not apply to states.....the federal government has no business being in anything to do with education...including funding education! The First Amendment does not grant power to the federal government to interfere in the chruch state relations decided upon by the states.  It also doesn't allow federal interference in state questions involving speech and press.

Aren't prayers "speech"? The people of the states and their right to self government must be respected...but in 1962, the Supreme Court in Engel v. Vitale declared that local school boards were prohibited from approving prayers for use in schools. IMO, this decision besides unconstitutional, is an intolerable encroachment on municipal communities' rights to self government.

When our counrtry was first being formed, states like Massachusetts, Gerogia, and Pennsylvania authorized use of public funds to support various Protestant churches and no one considered it a violation of the First Amendment!

Now, fast forward to 1962, and ask what the Framers would have thought of that....it certainly wasn't their "intent"....becasue if they considered it legitimate for states to use tax money to support churches, it would be difficult to argue that it was meant to prohibit school prayer  or having the Ten Commandments in public buildings, etc.

 

 

Reply #499 Top

We can agree on something, lula. ;)

Reply #500 Top

ask what the Framers would have thought of that....it certainly wasn't their "intent"....becasue if they considered it legitimate for states to use tax money to support churches

no need to speculate as to the founders' thinking regarding one aspect of religious thought.  one need only look to samuel adams' claim that papists were more threatening than the stamp act.  several former colonies denied catholics full citizenship well after 1789.

the best thing to happen to american catholicism has come from those who've fought to keep religion out of politics and vice-versa.

no good deed ever goes unpunished.