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
136,866 views 625 replies
Reply #601 from JoeUser Forums Top

the inevitable result of aiding all religions would be establishment of religion to the disadvantage and at the expense of those who claim no religion

Not logical, kingbee.  And certainly not in the context of the time.  In fact, the 'other' part of Article I, (conveniently) seldom quoted, forbids Congress to make any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Taken in isolation, the establishment clause has been taken liberty of, if you'll pardon the expression.

Reply #602 from JoeUser Forums Top

nonetheless it does guarantee that the state may not favor or establish...non-religion over religion.

 

guy i used to work for was, for a time, quite fond of telling me if i wanted to determine someone's agenda, turn what that person was saying 180 degrees.   in this case, i'd have to defer to his wisdom.

 

you've got it totally backwards.  states may not establish religion.  notta word's said about non-religion for the same reason there are no prohibitions against abridging non-freedom of speech or the press.

The Political Machine 2024
Reply #603 from JoeUser Forums Top

prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

 

not prohibiting something doesn't presuppose a duty to enable that same something.

Reply #604 from JoeUser Forums Top

Not logical, kingbee.

if you're correct, tax breaks for religious entities evidence where logic fails.  in fact, by aiding all religions in that way, government is unfairly and unreasonably imposing me with their share of the load.  works out great for church members cuz i'm helping support their insitution.

Reply #605 from JoeUser Forums Top

kingbee -

states may not establish religion

Where, exactly, is that written?  Congress may not, but there's nothing in the Constitution saying states cannot.

Article I refers exclusively to certain prohibitions imposed on Congress.  Where is there a duty to do anything (in Article I)?  How does permitting the free exercise of religion 'aid all religions' in your sense of the phrase?  Where things get knotty is when the equal protection clause gets brought in.

BTW, you are not supporting any institution by virtue of its tax-exempt status - fact is, they are not supporting you - but I'd expect a liberal to think as you do.

Reply #606 from JoeUser Forums Top

BTW, you are not supporting any institution by virtue of its tax-exempt status - fact is, they are not supporting you - but I'd expect a liberal to think as you do.

You are granting those institutions a privilege, they are exempt, for some reason, from the duties other organisations have. That certainly constitutes "support", doesn't it?

Not that I am against such privileges for organisations open to the public and offering their services for free. But it is hardly an example of government not supporting religion.

 

Reply #607 from JoeUser Forums Top

You are granting those institutions a privilege, they are exempt, for some reason, from the duties other organisations have. That certainly constitutes "support", doesn't it?

Nope, not 'granting' anything.  Organizations don't have 'duties' in this context.  The people, through its elected representatives, chose to levy taxes on individuals and corporations and, in no small part due to Article I, exempted religious organizations from taxation.  That is not 'support' in my book, simply adherence to the Constitution.

How religious organizations use the money they collect & earn from investments should be considered in whether they qualify for tax-exempt status in my opinion.  For instance, the money spent by the Mormon Church (and other organized churches) campaigning for California Prop 8 should disqualify them - separation of church and state (a whole 'nother subject, not related directly to taxation) is or should be a two-way proposition and if religious organizations want the power to influence political issues with their money, they should be prepared to be subject to the same laws as the rest of us.

Reply #608 from JoeUser Forums Top

Nope, not 'granting' anything.  Organizations don't have 'duties' in this context.  The people, through its elected representatives, chose to levy taxes on individuals and corporations and, in no small part due to Article I, exempted religious organizations from taxation.  That is not 'support' in my book, simply adherence to the Constitution.

Would it still be "adherence to the Constitution" to exempt, say, openly racist organisations from tax payer duties or do you think such a policy would contradict the idea that government shouldn't support racism?

If government grants privileges to some, government IS supporting them.

 

Reply #609 from JoeUser Forums Top

Would it still be "adherence to the Constitution" to exempt, say, openly racist organisations from tax payer duties or do you think such a policy would contradict the idea that government shouldn't support racism?

Non-sequitor & nonsense, Leauki.  We're talking about Article I.

And you have things backwards - government doesn't grant privileges, at least here in the US - the people grant the government limited powers.

Reply #610 from JoeUser Forums Top

Non-sequitor & nonsense, Leauki.  We're talking about Article I.

Which means I am not allowed to use examples? I didn't realise.

 

And you have things backwards - government doesn't grant privileges, at least here in the US - the people grant the government limited powers.

We were just talking about a government-granted privilege (tax exemption), and now you are telling me that that cannot happen? Or are you saying that government-granted privileges must not be discussed because they do not officially exist (although tax exempt status does exist)?

I totally don't understand your little game there.

Do you or do you not acknowledge that paying taxes is a duty and that being exempt from paying taxes is a privilege?

Do you or do you not acknowledge that being granted a privilege by government is a form of government support?

 

Reply #611 from JoeUser Forums Top

Your example makes no sense and is not germaine.

Do you or do you not acknowledge that paying taxes is a duty and that being exempt from paying taxes is a privilege?

Easy question.  Paying taxes is not an inherent duty.  It is an obligation, permitted by amendment to the Constitution, affirmatively imposed, through our elected representatives, on specific entities.  Those not subject to paying taxes have no 'duty' of any sort and they are not beneficiaries of any 'privileges' - the concept of privilege in this context requires universal obligation or duty as a pre-requisite and there is none.

Do you or do you not acknowledge that being granted a privilege by government is a form of government support?

Another easy question.  Since government doesn't 'grant privileges,' not being subject to certain specific obligations or laws is not 'support.'

Reply #612 from JoeUser Forums Top

Your example makes no sense and is not germaine.

I don't think you even read it.

 

Easy question.  Paying taxes is not an inherent duty.  It is an obligation, permitted by amendment to the Constitution, affirmatively imposed, through our elected representatives, on specific entities.  Those not subject to paying taxes have no 'duty' of any sort and they are not beneficiaries of any 'privileges' - the concept of privilege in this context requires universal obligation or duty as a pre-requisite and there is none.

Lots of words but even replacing the word "duty" with "obligation" does not change the fact that if everybody else has the obligation and Paul does not, Paul is privileged.

 

Another easy question.  Since government doesn't 'grant privileges,' not being subject to certain specific obligations or laws is not 'support.'

You say "since doesn't grant privileges" as if that was an accepted principle. But you do realise that I have pointed out that tax exempt status IS a privilege, obviously granted by government?

 

Reply #613 from JoeUser Forums Top

Well, if everything is 'obvious' we're wasting our time discussing it.  You've done nothing to 'prove' that tax-exempt status is a 'privilege' but claim it is so.  As even Obama said, words matter.  There is no question that the government wants to foster this notion that it 'grants privileges' and that some buy it, but there is no Constitutional basis for such a relationship.

Reply #614 from JoeUser Forums Top

You've done nothing to 'prove' that tax-exempt status is a 'privilege' but claim it is so.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/privilege

A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste.

 

Reply #615 from JoeUser Forums Top

Key word there is 'special' - a 'difference' in how a law is applied is not a privilege in the common-sense meaning of the word.  The absence of a duty is not the same thing as a privilege.  You can call it hair-splitting if you want but it is an important distinction.

Reply #616 from JoeUser Forums Top

Key word there is 'special' - a 'difference' in how a law is applied is not a privilege in the common-sense meaning of the word.  The absence of a duty is not the same thing as a privilege.  You can call it hair-splitting if you want but it is an important distinction.

Whatever, dude.

If my government told me that I didn't have to pay taxes, but everybody else does, I would consider it a special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to me.

Do ask your friends and neighbours, if you like.

 

Reply #617 from JoeUser Forums Top

No problem, dude.

We agree on most things, Leauki - we can afford the odd disagreement here & there. ;)

Reply #618 from JoeUser Forums Top

but there's nothing in the Constitution saying states cannot.

 

shoulda been more precise or clear i guess.  lula's reply referred to 'the state' by which i presumed she meant 'the government' rather than any or all individual states comprising our union.

Reply #619 from JoeUser Forums Top

Those not subject to paying taxes have no 'duty' of any sort and they are not beneficiaries of any 'privileges'

 

as legally defined terms 'tax' and 'duty' are similar enough to be interchangeable in more than one context.  those not subject to either certainly do benefit financially in the exact legally defined sense of that term.  if there was no such benefit, there'd be no point in exclusion.

 

considering the question from another perspective, mandating the words 'in god we trust' on currency or 'under god' in the pledge of allegiance is a perfect example of why government is unable to aid all religions and should never try.  i'm highly doubtful either was intended to do anything except endorse its proponents' god at the expense of others' gods or lack thereof.

Reply #620 from JoeUser Forums Top

Deja vu all over again:

The absence of a duty is not the same thing as a privilege.

But perhaps I should amplify slightly:

The absence of a particular duty or obligation is not the same thing as a 'granted privilege.'  If you never had the obligation in the first place, still not having the obligation is not a 'privilege.'  Not in the sense that those still not having the obligation owe some alternative thing or are somehow expected to pony up a quid pro quo.

if there was no such benefit, there'd be no point in exclusion.

Except the 'exclusion' is not premised on a 'benefit' - it's based on a Constitutional prohibition.  And your reasoning is circular.

Reply #621 from JoeUser Forums Top

Except the 'exclusion' is not premised on a 'benefit' - it's based on a Constitutional prohibition.

when communities find themselves competing to be chosen as the location for a big business' new location, it's not uncommon for them to sweeten the deal by lowering or deferring taxes. the seducee must believe it to be some sorta benefit because it works. 

there's no constitutional prohibition against taxing the clergy, houses of worship or religious organizations nor is there any constiutional provision for exemptions. 

only truly non-profit, non-commercial and non-political entities should be exempted for the obvious reasons they make no profits to tax, do not engage in commercial endeavors and refrain from advocating public policy

Reply #622 from JoeUser Forums Top

when communities find themselves competing to be chosen as the location for a big business' new location, it's not uncommon for them to sweeten the deal by lowering or deferring taxes. the seducee must believe it to be some sorta benefit because it works.

We've wandered a bit far afield here.  I'm not talking about the wielding of government power to induce choices favorable to the government (or its constituents).  This part of this marathon thread started (for me) as a discussion of Article I and whether it requires any division or level of government to affirmatively 'do' anything.  I say it doesn't, that it merely places specific constraints on the power of Congress (and Congress alone).

Reply #623 from JoeUser Forums Top

This part of this marathon thread started (for me) as a discussion of Article I and whether it requires any division or level of government to affirmatively 'do' anything.I say it doesn't, that it merely places specific constraints on the power of Congress.

i'm in agreement with you here.

(and Congress alone).

constraining only congress renders the bill of rights useless for all practical purposes

 

Reply #624 from JoeUser Forums Top

Point of clarification - at all times in my comments I have been referring to the 1st Amendment, not Article I of the Constitution.  Duh on me.

kingbee -

The 1st Amendment is the only one among the Bill of Rights that refers specifically to Congress.  The rest enumerate general rights, except for the 9th & 10th Amendments, the latter being particularly germaine to this discussion.

Rest easy.  You're safe.

Reply #625 from JoeUser Forums Top

...