Posted by MutantMandias You're right. Evolution can be a wonderful example of glory of God.

That's exactly how I look at it. Maybe Evolution is the way that God brought this world into being. I don't know what I believe about the biblical story of creation, or dinosaurs or the big bang.

Though I have to say, I don't believe PEOPLE evolved from apes.

But I also have to say it doesn't matter that much to me. I have faith that I just don't have the ability to conprehend it, and frankly, it doesn't much matter in my life.

but like I said, understanding and compassion will not be tolerated by the people who have subverted Christianity for their own purposes.

Thank you for putting that.

The people who have subverted Christianity.

These people are not necessarily Christians. In fact, these people are the ones who give Christians a very bad name.

As a Christian who hates the way that most Christians that make it into the media act, Thank you.


modified because of stupid tags

YAY! Awesome!

Look at us! We're getting along!

Take that, you fascists!



But, just so you know, evolution doesn't even begin to imply that we evolved from apes. that's just one of those simplistic tidbits that they put out there. I guess it is a form of a Straw Man argument, but I'm never good with those terms. They throw up this ridiculous idea that makes people say "No way! I don't believe that" and the only response is, "well, that's not what we're saying. We never said that. It's like this..." and then they respond with, "It sounds like you're waffling. You're back peddling. YOU'RE WRONG! YOU HAVE NO DEFENSE!"

Posted by MutantMandias But, just so you know, evolution doesn't even begin to imply that we evolved from apes. that's just one of those simplistic tidbits that they put out there. I guess it is a form of a Straw Man argument, but I'm never good with those terms. They throw up this ridiculous idea that makes people say "No way! I don't believe that" and the only response is, "well, that's not what we're saying. We never said that. It's like this..." and then they respond with, "It sounds like you're waffling. You're back peddling. YOU'RE WRONG! YOU HAVE NO DEFENSE!"

Well then. Looks like I don't really have an issue with Evolution at all ;]

The idea of prefacing evolution with "this is a theory and as a theory it could one day be proven wrong ..." is a great idea. Every scientific theory should be presented that way and not just evolution. The problem is many want evolution singled out with this disclaimer.

I would personally like most everything to be prefaced with this statement.

The idea that this nation was founded as a Christian nation I feel is a poor reason for ID to be taught. First because our nation was founded on a great many things which we have changed. I guess I am not a traditionalist but I feel everything we do should be reviewed in a modern context.

Second, it ignores the contributions of other religious groups. The Chinese laborers were not typically Christian. The blacks weren't originally Christian and so on.

Third, it ignores the historical roots or influences to Christianity. We should be discussing the ancient Aryans, Judaism, tribal groups, political movements etc.

I still think that the fair answer would be to provide a comparative religions course in schools. To preface ALL theories with disclaimers. It is a shame that to preserve the seperation between church and state we must ignore the contributions of religion on the world. It seems odd to look at any subject while wearing blinders to its many and varied influences.

Posted by Cabiria The idea of prefacing evolution with "this is a theory and as a theory it could one day be proven wrong ..." is a great idea. Every scientific theory should be presented that way and not just evolution. The problem is many want evolution singled out with this disclaimer. I would personally like most everything to be prefaced with this statement. The idea that this nation was founded as a Christian nation I feel is a poor reason for ID to be taught. First because our nation was founded on a great many things which we have changed. I guess I am not a traditionalist but I feel everything we do should be reviewed in a modern context. Second, it ignores the contributions of other religious groups. The Chinese laborers were not typically Christian. The blacks weren't originally Christian and so on. Third, it ignores the historical roots or influences to Christianity. We should be discussing the ancient Aryans, Judaism, tribal groups, political movements etc. I still think that the fair answer would be to provide a comparative religions course in schools. To preface ALL theories with disclaimers. It is a shame that to preserve the seperation between church and state we must ignore the contributions of religion on the world. It seems odd to look at any subject while wearing blinders to its many and varied influences.

You got the pamphlet for that one, didn't you?

Keep on saying "founded as a Christian nation" until people believe it. Check!

And again, if you're going to put disclaimers in front of science, by the gods, you had better put it before every one of your sermons.

Like I have said, the scientific method is taught in schools. Before chemistry, physics, biology. And that is where the definition of Theory, Law, etc, is handled. All of that is included in the fact that a particular subject is *science*.

Just like *religion* includes the idea that it is based on faith and you'll just have to ignore the fact that people will believe that you are nuts for professing certain beliefs.

Posted by Cabiria The idea of prefacing evolution with "this is a theory and as a theory it could one day be proven wrong ..." is a great idea. Every scientific theory should be presented that way and not just evolution. The problem is many want evolution singled out with this disclaimer.

That would be fine - if we were in a philosophy of science course. The whole basis of science is collecting information about our world and using these facts to create theories and then testing these theories against all known and new information. So; every scientific theory IS presented that way.

That means that any scientific theory is valid only BECAUSE it can be proven wrong if new information comes to light. The idea that evolution is "just a theory" is not in itself a valid criticism. The theory that the earth revolves around the sun could be proven wrong, but to do so you would have to invalidate centuries of tested and verified observations.

Similarly the evolution, or natural common descent, could be proven wrong if you could invalidate centuries of proven and verifiable observations. You would have to prove wrong the entire field of genetics for one as well as the entire fossil record, ooh, and biology as well.

When two biologists argue on the finer points of evolution it is a good thing. That is how we drill down to the truth: by subjecting our ideas to scrutiny, valid criticism and being open to new evidence. This is not, as ID proponents would have people believe, scientists disagreeing on evolution.

ID presents invalid criticisms at every turn and every time this retarded (yes I am using this word correctly and love the double meaning) debate rears its ugly head. The more interesting ID criticisms often result, ironically, in very good, valid science to refute the very criticism they thought would cause centuries of good scientific work to crumble.

Gaps in the fossil record do not prove that the fossil record is wrong, but rather merely incomplete. Can you not fathom that we don't know everything yet, but that our knowledge of the universe expands every day?

ID is NOT an alternative scientific theory. It is barely masked religion on bad days, and bad criticisms (that no real scientist would couch) of a valid, and so far, proven theory.

There may have been a flood that covered part of the known world - but fitting the level of biodiverstity we have on this planet onto any possible ark is biologically and physically impossible.

When ID proponents do propose a theory it is by definition NOT a scientific theory. It cannot be proven wrong and it is untestable.

Consider Russel's tea pot: Imagine that there is a tea pot in orbit around venus. It is too far away to be seen with the hubble space telescope or any known earth sensor. But you must BELIEVE it is there, in orbit, because no person can prove it is not. This is a theory for sure - but it is not a scientific theory, not does it invalidate my theory that my car is still parked outside.

So, outside the philosophy of science class, lets refer to the BIOLOGICAL FACT of evolution until someone can show me EVIDENCE to the contrary.

*faint sound of breaking glass, followed by car starting and driving away*

Posted by MutantMandias Keep on saying "founded as a Christian nation" until people believe it. Check!

Right you are!

The United States of America was founded on the principles of the Enlightenment and was not a founded a christian nation. That is pure revisionist history pushed by the religious right (wrong)

"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."

- Abraham Lincoln, American president (1809-1865).

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies."

"Lighthouses are more helpful then churches."

-Benjamin Franklin, American Founding Father, author, and inventor


"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."

"In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people."

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."

"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."

-James Madison, American president and political theorist (1751-1836).


"Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?"

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."

-John Adams, U.S. President, Founding Father of the United States

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors."

–Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

And, of course, there is the technicality that the body of American law includes the statement:

the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion

Posted by MutantMandias And, of course, there is the technicality that the body of American law includes the statement: the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion

How about:

Francis Bellamy's original Pledge of Allegiance written on September 7, 1892, read as follows:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all

On Flag Day, June 14, 1954, Congress passed the legislation adding the phrase "under God" to the Pledge.

http://www.washing...2005102701999.html

The new draft of the Kansas education standards, written by a committee appointed by the former state education commissioner and subject to an up-or-down vote by the state education department early next month, "inappropriately singles out evolution as a controversial theory despite the strength of the scientific evidence supporting evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life on Earth and its acceptance by an overwhelming majority of scientists," the science groups said in a joint statement.

That would be fine - if we were in a philosophy of science course. The whole basis of science is collecting information about our world and using these facts to create theories and then testing these theories against all known and new information. So; every scientific theory IS presented that way.

Actually the idea of prefacing every scientific class with this statement comes originally from the mouth of one of the top anti-ID professors in the nation. I am fully aware of the definitions of fact, theory, scientific method and belief. How I am being interpreted as being in support of ID is blowing my mind.

What I am saying is that every subject area in school has been colored in some way by religion. The concept of zero was invented by the Indians with the influence of Hinduism. Much of science was invented by religious men who were limiting or expanding their theories based on their religion. The idea of man's self governance was likely influenced by the religious climate and the increasing belief in universal physical laws. The Aryan uprising has historical roots that are highly religious. Our current political climate cites God all the time. Understanding the middle east requires an understanding of Islam.

My point is that to teach almost any field which was developed progressively over history would be incomplete without a discussion of how religion has affected it, good or bad. Seperation of church and state though for the best, does however limit the education and understanding that children obtain.

What ID advocates want is for Judeo-Christian beliefs to be the only one allowed in the science classroom. Then they want evolution singled out as a subject which needs a disclaimer, where we should "teach the debate" or limit the scope. Evolution is a highly supported, well defined and experimentally backed theory which there is almost no scientific debate about it.

Obviously the ID people will counter that the scientific community is one sided and refuses to hear other points of view. Absolutely not, any scientist who can disprove the theory of evolution will instantly find himself in the history books and buried in grant money. Scientists wake up in the morning salivating for the chance to disprove evolution. They haven't been able to and as such it deserves to stay in the science text books without any targeted disclaimer or "teach the debate" tagged onto it.

Additionally religion should not be taught in the science classroom. Referring to the historicity of science in general I don't see a problem with.

No idea has ever just come into being without being built upon the backs of thousands of ideas and people before it.

Posted by Cabiria How I am being interpreted as being in support of ID is blowing my mind.

Sorry. I don't get that idea from you at all. It does seem as though you are skirting a little close to a form of Appeasement: Evolution is right, but we should still consider thier point of view.

Either dog designed the universe or he didn't.

Teaching comparative religion and acknowledging its role in history is a very good idea - in comparative religion or history class where it belongs.

It is dangerous to allow the ID proponents a platform in a science class. It gives them a sense of validity and then you end up with Kansas school board standards that is the laughing stock of the world.

If they have valid, testable scientific evidence they have many avenues for peer revue and independent verification. Isn't it odd that they choose children to validate thier arguments, rather than Scientific American or any other science journal?

I for one remember being taught right at the beginning of my science classes that scientific theories are never "proven" true. They can always be disproved or changed. That was at the beginning of the class, period. It wasn't in context of anything else, and using it specifically for one theory is giving in to the controversy and pressure of the people who don't like evolution.

Now that that's out of the way, evolution is a scientific theory and should be taught in our classrooms. ID isn't, and shouldn't be. Seems simple to me.

No. It's a done deal. Evolution is clearly wrong. Just look at the lower primates who argue that there is no evolution.

I for one remember being taught right at the beginning of my science classes that scientific theories are never "proven" true. They can always be disproved or changed. That was at the beginning of the class, period. It wasn't in context of anything else, and using it specifically for one theory is giving in to the controversy and pressure of the people who don't like evolution. Now that that's out of the way, evolution is a scientific theory and should be taught in our classrooms. ID isn't, and shouldn't be. Seems simple to me.

Okay let me make my point more clear. First perhaps a bit of personal background would be helpful. I am politically a liberal, philosophically a type physicalist and religiously an atheist. I am additionally a card holding member of the American Civil Liberties Union. Please remember that I absolutely do not believe in anything religious. I am, and have for a long time been, strongly against intelligent design or any type of religious preaching in public schools. It is important to note that I feel preaching and teaching are two different things. Preaching is what occurs in a church when they are trying to sway the opinion of people. Teaching has information exchange or learning as the paramount goal.

So yes I am definitely on your side. The trend toward bringing ID into the classroom I am strongly opposed to.

Now let me try to explain what I was trying to get across. Religion has and probably always will have a major impact on the world. One thing that is unfortunate about the separation between church and state is that school kids are deprived from understanding the many belief systems of the world. They leave high school knowing nothing about Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism (heavily influenced many other religions though its influence today is exceedingly limited), Shinto, Confucianism, Taoism, Sikhism, Christianity, Judaism, Dialectical Materialism etc. I feel that a knowledge of religion and religious beliefs is important to properly understand the world, history, politics and even science in some regards.

We are often guilty of teaching subjects as if the modern world view is the result of genius. Rather it is the result of a long history of ideas. This history of ideas was influenced by religion and religious beliefs.

I feel that the education we provide our children is lacking because we do not put their ideas into context and because we do not discuss religion at all. Religion should be discussed not as a means to discredit evolution, or a means to press religious agenda or idealogy onto children. But rather as a way for them to leave high school with an understanding of how religion, of all kinds, shape the world around us.

Even as an atheist who is passionately opposed to religious doctrine I still must accept the world I navigate in is heavily religious.

I feel part of the problem that ID advocates see is that the only ideas we are allowing into the public schools are the ones they believe in opposition to their own. I will be the first to admit that evolution is a grand idea where as creationism is a bullshit fictional mythology. However I will also be the first to admit that this bullshit fictional mythology and the many others across the world smack me across the face daily. It seems important to insure that children are given an understanding of religion while insuring that it isn't preached at them.

The only time most evangelicals hear about other religions is when their religious leader tells them about it. It seems rather odd that we feel the need to teach second order derivatives (a skill I am yet to utilize) yet we can't make a little room to teach about the religions that color almost every aspect of our social environment.

I would like to see history not taught as a stand alone subject but rather put into each other subject area. So that when math is taught history is taught. When English is taught, history is also taught. There is a historical element to each subject matter. It is improper to pretend their isn't. I would also like to see religion taught (not preached) at public schools. Much like colleges currently do.

So ID a bad idea. Continuing to allow children to leave public education without knowledge of religions is also a bad idea.

Small aside, but it's six years after the fact and I still think this website, Creation Science Fair, is hilarious.

And I know a lot of people who were very enthusiastic about the participants' ambition until someone told them it was a joke.

1st Place: "Life Doesn't Come From Non-Life" Patricia Lewis (grade 8) did an experiment to see if life can evolve from non-life. Patricia placed all the non-living ingredients of life - carbon (a charcoal briquet), purified water, and assorted minerals (a multi-vitamin) - into a sealed glass jar. The jar was left undisturbed, being exposed only to sunlight, for three weeks. (Patricia also prayed to God not to do anything miraculous during the course of the experiment, so as not to disqualify the findings.) No life evolved. This shows that life cannot come from non-life through natural processes.

And...

Honorable Mention: "God Made Kitty" - Sally Reister (grade 3) "The Bible Says Creation" - Aaron Kent (grade 5) "Pokemon Prove Evolutionism Is False" - Paul Sanborn (grade 4)

Posted by tekriter The theory that the earth revolves around the sun could be proven wrong, but to do so you would have to invalidate centuries of tested and verified observations.

This is about the second or third time someone has used this one, so I gotta point out that the earth goes around the sun if you do the math that way. In fact that is the easiest math. It works best, and makes sense. But in a universe with no single fixed point of reference you can prove that the whole universe revolves around the sun, the earth, or Ron Jeremy's crank, if you are willing to do the long-assed, fucked-in-the-head, PhD-grade math.

That said ID is still bullshit, but what do I expect from people that belive someone got up and walked ANYPLACE after getting spiked to a couple of 2x4s.