Leauki Leauki

The Word on Creationism

▼

The Word on Creationism

The Word is "Lie"

from JoeUser Forums

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?

 

religion
136,879 views 625 replies
Reply #501 from JoeUser Forums Top

The First Amendment does not grant power to the federal government to interfere in the chruch state relations decided upon by the states.

tell that to the people of utah.

Reply #502 from JoeUser Forums Top

The First Amendment does not ...allow federal interference in state questions involving speech and press.

 

it certainly does permit interference when states infringe upon rights granted by the us consitution.

Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #503 from JoeUser Forums Top

it certainly does permit interference when states infringe upon rights granted by the us consitution.

There would seem to be a substantial difference between a specific prohibition ('Congress shall make no law...') and a 'granted right' ('the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed').

Reply #504 from JoeUser Forums Top

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.

I know. In Maryland, Catholics were prohibited from voting, holding public office, practicing law, and educating their children.  I've always understood the nation's founding as a Protestant experiment and anti-Catholicism was the first and is the last acceptable prejudice. It's fact that America's fundamental law makes no mention of God which has been both celebrated and lamented ever since.

 

 

Reply #505 from JoeUser Forums Top

rights granted

'granted right'

oops, i mistyped (due in some part to ju discarding my initial attempt to post #502 after deciding i wasn't logged in despite my having been logged in moments before when posting #501).  neither the federal constitution nor any of the various states "grants" rights. rights are inherent.  our constitutions merely express and enumerate a subset.

Reply #506 from JoeUser Forums Top

no good deed ever goes unpunished.

Don't equate Lula with Catholicism. I live in a 90% Catholic country and most of my friends are Catholics. Lula is NOT a typical Catholic. In fact she doesn't seem Catholic at all to me.

 

Reply #507 from JoeUser Forums Top

'Congress shall make no law...'

If congress makes a law about giving money to institutions that establish a religion in ANY WAY, congress made a law respecting the establishment of a religion.

 

Reply #508 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting IQofSpam, reply 488
I have a perfect right to profess my religion to anyone, anywhere, and that includes public schools.

Quoting Leauki, reply 492
Where does the constition say that? 

Quoting IQofSpam, reply 488
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.

By prohibiting me to pray in a public school, the government is directly violating a right I have as stated in the Constitution - freedom of speech.  It also means that Congress has established a law concerning the free exercise of religion, which is also prohibited.

Quoting kingbee, reply 489
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.

No.  Whether or not suicide is a legal action is still debated, however murder is not.  As for polygamy, I am not certain that there is any real reason for the law against it.  Perhaps another case of a law being established which is contrary to the Constitution?  One could argue whether or not Congress has established a law against the free exercise of religion in not allowing people to kill others.  However, laws against murder were not established to infringe upon one person's right to freedom of religion, but to protect the right to life as stated in the Declaration of Independence.  It is perfectly legal to exercise freedom of religion until it infringes upon the rights of others.  There is no right to freedom from religion.  I hope that there will never be.

This thread has gone hopelessly off-topic, I notice.

Reply #509 from JoeUser Forums Top

By prohibiting me to pray in a public school, the government is directly violating a right I have as stated in the Constitution - freedom of speech.

For the last time, your freedom of speech is NOT affected by the house rules of an institution not owned by you alone.

The constitution does NOT say that you can practice your freedom of religion wherever you want, in other people's houses, in school buldings, or in government buildings.

 

It also means that Congress has established a law concerning the free exercise of religion, which is also prohibited.

You are free to exercise your religion outside school.

Do you also think that a school's prohibition against playing baseball in class rooms is a violation of your right to choose your sport of choice freely?

 

Reply #510 from Stardock Forums Top

There is no right to demonstrate your sport of choice. :CONGRAT:

I am not arguing that people can't limit others with rules on their own property.  However, Congress did pass a law against professing religions in the classroom.  That is what I'm arguing against.

And I am allowed to profess my religion anywhere.  If that offends someone on their property, it is also their privilege to kick me off.

Reply #511 from JoeUser Forums Top

(JU decided to mix up the quote tags again...)

Reply #512 from JoeUser Forums Top



There is no right to demonstrate your sport of choice.



Just like there is no right to demonstrate your religion of choice.




I am not arguing that people can't limit others with rules on their own property.  However, Congress did pass a law against professing religions in the classroom.  That is what I'm arguing against.



You are contradicting yourself.

People can either limit others with rules on their own property, INCLUDING the government limiting others with rules regarding religion on state property.

Or people cannot limit others with rules on their own property, neither regarding religion nor baseball.




And I am allowed to profess my religion anywhere.



No, you are not.




If that offends someone on their property, it is also their privilege to kick me off.



Which is exactly what government does when it prohibits school prayers.


Reply #513 from Stardock Forums Top

Except the government is prohibited from doing so by the Constitution.  There is no contradiction in what I am saying.

Reply #514 from JoeUser Forums Top

Except the government is prohibited from doing so by the Constitution. 

No.

The constitution FORCES the government to prohibit school prayers. If the government made a law that financed a place where a particular religion is being promoted, the government would violate the constitution.

You are the first person I have ever met who suggested that the establishment clause prohibits the government from not establishing a religion.

 

There is no contradiction in what I am saying.

Except in as much as you claim that  an owner can and cannot limit the freedoms of the users of his property.

 

Reply #515 from JoeUser Forums Top

Leauki -

Please define 'establishment'.

kingbee -

There would seem to be a substantial difference between a specific prohibition ('Congress shall make no law...') and an 'inherent right' ('the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed').

Reply #516 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Daiwa, reply 15
Leauki -

Please define 'establishment'.

Wikipedia has an excellent definition:

An established church is a church officially sanctioned and supported by the government of a country, e.g. the Church of England and the Church of Scotland in the United Kingdom. Such a sanction is discouraged in some countries, such as the United States, where this is covered by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_(church)

Allowing school prayers in schools paid for by the federal government would constitute "support by the government of a country" for the prayers and the religion. And precisely and exactly that is forbidden by the constitution.

The federal government can legally support the taking place of lunch at state schools, but not the taking place of prayers.

 

 

Reply #517 from Stardock Forums Top

Leauki, the Founding Fathers would never have written a Constitution that "forced" the government to outlaw prayer in schools.  The plain text suggests the exact opposite.  I'm not sure how you can read the first amendment and come to that conclusion.

Then again, I'm not sure how you came to various other conclusions as well.

Besides that, prayer was not outlawed in schools until the 1960's.  The country went on just fine before then, which shouldn't be possible if the Constitution "forced" anything.

Teaching religions in class is not contrary to the first amendment.  Just because people choose to profess their religion in a government building doesn't make the activity government endorsed.  Protests, lobbying, and even assassinations also occur on government property - does that mean the government directly supports those actions?

The argument is nonsensical.  People are free to do as they choose in this country (to an extent), and that doesn't mean the government is responsible for it.  If people pray in school, that is their choice, not the government's.

The government cannot establish rules contrary to the Consitution, which is exactly what it does by prohibiting prayer in schools.

People can set the rules to follow on their own property, such as prohibiting prayer, but the government is bound by the Constitution as to which rules it is allowed to set.  Therefore there is still no contradiction in what I said before.  If a private property owner throws you off his land for praying, he may do so because he is not the government and it is his property.  The government is not allowed to do this.  It is one of the checks and balances provided in the Constitution to prevent the government from becoming a tyranny.

Reply #518 from JoeUser Forums Top

Leauki, the Founding Fathers would never have written a Constitution that "forced" the government to outlaw prayer in schools.

That's a stupid argument. They either have or they haven't. "Wouldn't have" means nothing.

 

The plain text suggests the exact opposite.  I'm not sure how you can read the first amendment and come to that conclusion.

I come to that conclusion probably in the same way as everybody else, the courts and the people who write about establishment laws in Europe (including the Wikipedia article).

 

Besides that, prayer was not outlawed in schools until the 1960's.  The country went on just fine before then, which shouldn't be possible if the Constitution "forced" anything.

So?

 

Reply #519 from JoeUser Forums Top

People can set the rules to follow on their own property, such as prohibiting prayer, but the government is bound by the Constitution as to which rules it is allowed to set.

Precisely. And that's why it has to set rules according to the principle of non-establishment.

 

Reply #520 from JoeUser Forums Top

Allowing school prayers in schools paid for by the federal government would constitute "support by the government of a country" for the prayers and the religion. And precisely and exactly that is forbidden by the constitution.

This statement does not seem to me to follow logically from the wiki definition, with which I essentially agree.  There is a difference in my mind between permitting anyone of any religion to pray in the public square (school) and the 'establishment' of a particular religion or religions.  It is a stretch to say that that is 'exactly' what is forbidden by the constitution, since that is not the way the language of Article I reads.

Reply #521 from JoeUser Forums Top

The federal government can legally support the taking place of lunch at state schools

What about the God of Spaghetti?

Reply #522 from JoeUser Forums Top

There is a difference in my mind between permitting anyone of any religion to pray in the public square (school) and the 'establishment' of a particular religion or religions.

A school is not a public square.

That's the point. As soon as something financed by the federal government is used for the purpose of promoting a religion in any way or form, government is involved. And it mustn't be, if it can avoid it.

Government must not provide prayer houses, not via the backdoor of providing other houses to be used by the public which are then used for prayer either.

 

Reply #523 from JoeUser Forums Top

What about the God of Spaghetti?

If there was a specific article or amendment in the constitution prohibiting the federal government from establishing spaghetti as a lunch, the federal government would probably not be allowed to provide spaghetti or allow the provision of spaghetti in government buildings either.

 

Reply #524 from Stardock Forums Top

I am an athiest and I belive that religion is causing harm to some of the world's population.

Reply #525 from JoeUser Forums Top

I am an athiest and I belive that religion is causing harm to some of the world's population.

Welcome to the discussion....

What's your definition of "religion"?