The “Threat” of Creationism...
-
"Carl Sagan, the astronomer, described Isaac Asimov (1920-1992) as one of the master explainers of the age to whom milllions of people, reading either his fact or his fiction, owe their knowledge of science. Here is his critique of the arguments of the New Right creationists he considers a new army of the right armed with Bibles. This article is abridged from Speak Out Against the New Right edited by Herbert F. Vetter (Boston: Beacon Press, 1982)... Scientists thought it was settled. The universe, they had decided, is about 20 billion years old, and Earth itself is 4.5 billion years old. Simple forms of life came into being more than three billion years ago, having formed spontaneously from nonliving matter. They grew more complex through slow evolutionary processes and the first hominid ancestors of humanity appeared more than four million years ago. Homo sapiens itself—the present human species, people like you and me—has walked the earth for at least 50,000 years. But apparently it isn't settled. There are Americans who believe that the earth is only about 6,000 years old; that human beings and all other species were brought into existence by a divine Creator as eternally separate varieties of beings, and that there has been no evolutionary process. The Reverend Jerry Falwell, the head of the Moral Majority, who supports the creationist view from his television pulpit, claims that he has 17 million to 25 million viewers (though Arbitron places the figure at a much more modest 1.6 million). But there are 66 electronic ministries which have a total audience of about 20 million. And in parts of the country where the Fundamentalists predominate—the so-called Bible Belt—creationists are in the majority. ... We will inevitably recede into the backwater of civilization and those nations that retain open scientific thought will take over the leadership of the world and the cutting edge of human advancement. I don't suppose that the creationists really plan the decline of the United States, but their loudly expressed patriotism is as simple-minded as their "science." If they succeed, they will, in their folly, achieve the opposite of what they say they wish. " http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/speakout/asimov.html[^] "Jerry Falwell Proves That He is An Un-American Religious Profiteer Who is Opposed to Democracy The followin
-
"Carl Sagan, the astronomer, described Isaac Asimov (1920-1992) as one of the master explainers of the age to whom milllions of people, reading either his fact or his fiction, owe their knowledge of science. Here is his critique of the arguments of the New Right creationists he considers a new army of the right armed with Bibles. This article is abridged from Speak Out Against the New Right edited by Herbert F. Vetter (Boston: Beacon Press, 1982)... Scientists thought it was settled. The universe, they had decided, is about 20 billion years old, and Earth itself is 4.5 billion years old. Simple forms of life came into being more than three billion years ago, having formed spontaneously from nonliving matter. They grew more complex through slow evolutionary processes and the first hominid ancestors of humanity appeared more than four million years ago. Homo sapiens itself—the present human species, people like you and me—has walked the earth for at least 50,000 years. But apparently it isn't settled. There are Americans who believe that the earth is only about 6,000 years old; that human beings and all other species were brought into existence by a divine Creator as eternally separate varieties of beings, and that there has been no evolutionary process. The Reverend Jerry Falwell, the head of the Moral Majority, who supports the creationist view from his television pulpit, claims that he has 17 million to 25 million viewers (though Arbitron places the figure at a much more modest 1.6 million). But there are 66 electronic ministries which have a total audience of about 20 million. And in parts of the country where the Fundamentalists predominate—the so-called Bible Belt—creationists are in the majority. ... We will inevitably recede into the backwater of civilization and those nations that retain open scientific thought will take over the leadership of the world and the cutting edge of human advancement. I don't suppose that the creationists really plan the decline of the United States, but their loudly expressed patriotism is as simple-minded as their "science." If they succeed, they will, in their folly, achieve the opposite of what they say they wish. " http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/speakout/asimov.html[^] "Jerry Falwell Proves That He is An Un-American Religious Profiteer Who is Opposed to Democracy The followin
-
"Carl Sagan, the astronomer, described Isaac Asimov (1920-1992) as one of the master explainers of the age to whom milllions of people, reading either his fact or his fiction, owe their knowledge of science. Here is his critique of the arguments of the New Right creationists he considers a new army of the right armed with Bibles. This article is abridged from Speak Out Against the New Right edited by Herbert F. Vetter (Boston: Beacon Press, 1982)... Scientists thought it was settled. The universe, they had decided, is about 20 billion years old, and Earth itself is 4.5 billion years old. Simple forms of life came into being more than three billion years ago, having formed spontaneously from nonliving matter. They grew more complex through slow evolutionary processes and the first hominid ancestors of humanity appeared more than four million years ago. Homo sapiens itself—the present human species, people like you and me—has walked the earth for at least 50,000 years. But apparently it isn't settled. There are Americans who believe that the earth is only about 6,000 years old; that human beings and all other species were brought into existence by a divine Creator as eternally separate varieties of beings, and that there has been no evolutionary process. The Reverend Jerry Falwell, the head of the Moral Majority, who supports the creationist view from his television pulpit, claims that he has 17 million to 25 million viewers (though Arbitron places the figure at a much more modest 1.6 million). But there are 66 electronic ministries which have a total audience of about 20 million. And in parts of the country where the Fundamentalists predominate—the so-called Bible Belt—creationists are in the majority. ... We will inevitably recede into the backwater of civilization and those nations that retain open scientific thought will take over the leadership of the world and the cutting edge of human advancement. I don't suppose that the creationists really plan the decline of the United States, but their loudly expressed patriotism is as simple-minded as their "science." If they succeed, they will, in their folly, achieve the opposite of what they say they wish. " http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/speakout/asimov.html[^] "Jerry Falwell Proves That He is An Un-American Religious Profiteer Who is Opposed to Democracy The followin
So you are saying that Jane Fonda or Richard Gere or any other Hollywood celebrity has a better view of what is going on in the country? Personally I would take the view that anyone who would presume to be part of the very vocal minority called the "Moral Majority" probably isn't going to be the most well reasoned person, but is his view (however screwy) any less valid than the other people named in the letter? I don't think so. I hear a lot of people right now on both the left and the right, claiming that the other side is the true threat to our country. Whether its Howard Dean stating that in his heart he can't convict Usama bin Laden of the 9/11 attacks or the people who criticize the Patriot Act, both sides continue their diatribe against the other. Isn't representative democracy great? We live in a country that we are lucky enough be able to have a completely legal and safe revolution every 4 years (2 technically). You don't like what Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Nixon ..... are doing vote the scoundrel out. Being from the Midwest, I tend to probably take something that is a more centered view, I don't see the problem with Saddam Hussein being in a prison. I'm old enoughh to remember when Quaddafi was actively supporting terrorism and Reagan blasted him and his palace. Do I think that it might be more than coincidence that our attack on Iraq and Saddam's capture were closely followed by Iran and Libya's agreement to international inspection for WMD? No I don't. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
JoeSox wrote: might be trying to tell you and the administration something!!?? that they are idiots???? :confused:
Flirt harder, I'm a coder.
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygenpeterchen wrote: that they are idiots???? Religious crusades are old history X| X| X| "...The much-touted Religious Right is now a declining political factor in American life. The New York Times' Bill Keller recently observed, "Bombastic evangelical power brokers like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have aged into irrelevance, and now exist mainly as ludicrous foils." The real theological problem in America today is no longer the Religious Right but the nationalist religion of the Bush administration—one that confuses the identity of the nation with the church, and God's purposes with the mission of American empire..." http://progressivetrail.org/articles/031218Wallis.shtml[^] *cough* Seperation of Church and State anyone?? hello! Later, JoeSox "You have the sight now Neo, you are looking at the world without time now ..." -- The Oracle, Matrix Reloaded joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
-
So you are saying that Jane Fonda or Richard Gere or any other Hollywood celebrity has a better view of what is going on in the country? Personally I would take the view that anyone who would presume to be part of the very vocal minority called the "Moral Majority" probably isn't going to be the most well reasoned person, but is his view (however screwy) any less valid than the other people named in the letter? I don't think so. I hear a lot of people right now on both the left and the right, claiming that the other side is the true threat to our country. Whether its Howard Dean stating that in his heart he can't convict Usama bin Laden of the 9/11 attacks or the people who criticize the Patriot Act, both sides continue their diatribe against the other. Isn't representative democracy great? We live in a country that we are lucky enough be able to have a completely legal and safe revolution every 4 years (2 technically). You don't like what Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Nixon ..... are doing vote the scoundrel out. Being from the Midwest, I tend to probably take something that is a more centered view, I don't see the problem with Saddam Hussein being in a prison. I'm old enoughh to remember when Quaddafi was actively supporting terrorism and Reagan blasted him and his palace. Do I think that it might be more than coincidence that our attack on Iraq and Saddam's capture were closely followed by Iran and Libya's agreement to international inspection for WMD? No I don't. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
This administration is fighting "evil" How does one complete this mission????? Democrats and Republicans have fucked this government up. Rome we are. Later, JoeSox "You have the sight now Neo, you are looking at the world without time now ..." -- The Oracle, Matrix Reloaded joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
-
peterchen wrote: that they are idiots???? Religious crusades are old history X| X| X| "...The much-touted Religious Right is now a declining political factor in American life. The New York Times' Bill Keller recently observed, "Bombastic evangelical power brokers like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have aged into irrelevance, and now exist mainly as ludicrous foils." The real theological problem in America today is no longer the Religious Right but the nationalist religion of the Bush administration—one that confuses the identity of the nation with the church, and God's purposes with the mission of American empire..." http://progressivetrail.org/articles/031218Wallis.shtml[^] *cough* Seperation of Church and State anyone?? hello! Later, JoeSox "You have the sight now Neo, you are looking at the world without time now ..." -- The Oracle, Matrix Reloaded joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
-
This administration is fighting "evil" How does one complete this mission????? Democrats and Republicans have fucked this government up. Rome we are. Later, JoeSox "You have the sight now Neo, you are looking at the world without time now ..." -- The Oracle, Matrix Reloaded joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
small>JoeSox wrote: This administration is fighting "evil" No they aren't, they are fighting a group of people (Muslim extremists mostly) who have vowed to destroy us and our way of life. Saddam Hussein not withstanding (he is a tyrant not an extremist), most of the governments in the Middle East are biased in such a way that although they want our money and support they hate us for our success. Unfortunately the people in charge (or with influence) in many of these countries, would like you and I to be living under Sharria(spelling?) law. Ready to have your mother or sisters or wife beaten for not wearing a burqha? I have no problem with people who are Muslim, but I have an enourmous problem with people who want to forcibly convert me or mine, or want me to live like its the 6th century. If you want to know where you and I can probably agree, special interests have screwed us up. It's the big corporations, the far Right, or the tree huggers with little regard for the blue collar guy. It takes an extreme act to raise the American conscience, a Pearl Harbor, a 9/11 or whatever. In general the US operates like any large object, unwieldy with lots of inertia, thats why people can hijack the system over long periods of time. Only when there is sufficient energy applied is there a change. The time is probably coming when we will see the level of domestic change that we saw after 9/11, but it is going to take a while for people to see the trap they have fallen into. Two income families, personal debt, high taxes, and foreign outsourcing have all eaten into the way that we live our lives, how long before the American consumer relizes that they can't pay for Cadillac tastes on Walmart paychecks? Hell, most of the American taxpayers problems aren't because of the government, we inflict them on ourselves. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
peterchen wrote: that they are idiots???? Religious crusades are old history X| X| X| "...The much-touted Religious Right is now a declining political factor in American life. The New York Times' Bill Keller recently observed, "Bombastic evangelical power brokers like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have aged into irrelevance, and now exist mainly as ludicrous foils." The real theological problem in America today is no longer the Religious Right but the nationalist religion of the Bush administration—one that confuses the identity of the nation with the church, and God's purposes with the mission of American empire..." http://progressivetrail.org/articles/031218Wallis.shtml[^] *cough* Seperation of Church and State anyone?? hello! Later, JoeSox "You have the sight now Neo, you are looking at the world without time now ..." -- The Oracle, Matrix Reloaded joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
JoeSox wrote: Seperation of Church and State anyone?? hello! Where do people come up with the idea that there is a seperation of Church and State? Way I read the Constitution, the 1st Amendment says that Congress shall establish no religion, not that someone can't observe there own, whether its you, me or GWB. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
"Carl Sagan, the astronomer, described Isaac Asimov (1920-1992) as one of the master explainers of the age to whom milllions of people, reading either his fact or his fiction, owe their knowledge of science. Here is his critique of the arguments of the New Right creationists he considers a new army of the right armed with Bibles. This article is abridged from Speak Out Against the New Right edited by Herbert F. Vetter (Boston: Beacon Press, 1982)... Scientists thought it was settled. The universe, they had decided, is about 20 billion years old, and Earth itself is 4.5 billion years old. Simple forms of life came into being more than three billion years ago, having formed spontaneously from nonliving matter. They grew more complex through slow evolutionary processes and the first hominid ancestors of humanity appeared more than four million years ago. Homo sapiens itself—the present human species, people like you and me—has walked the earth for at least 50,000 years. But apparently it isn't settled. There are Americans who believe that the earth is only about 6,000 years old; that human beings and all other species were brought into existence by a divine Creator as eternally separate varieties of beings, and that there has been no evolutionary process. The Reverend Jerry Falwell, the head of the Moral Majority, who supports the creationist view from his television pulpit, claims that he has 17 million to 25 million viewers (though Arbitron places the figure at a much more modest 1.6 million). But there are 66 electronic ministries which have a total audience of about 20 million. And in parts of the country where the Fundamentalists predominate—the so-called Bible Belt—creationists are in the majority. ... We will inevitably recede into the backwater of civilization and those nations that retain open scientific thought will take over the leadership of the world and the cutting edge of human advancement. I don't suppose that the creationists really plan the decline of the United States, but their loudly expressed patriotism is as simple-minded as their "science." If they succeed, they will, in their folly, achieve the opposite of what they say they wish. " http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/speakout/asimov.html[^] "Jerry Falwell Proves That He is An Un-American Religious Profiteer Who is Opposed to Democracy The followin
JoeSox wrote: We will inevitably recede into the backwater of civilization and those nations that retain open scientific thought will take over the leadership of the world and the cutting edge of human advancement. Actually, just the opposite will happen. Religion gives religious nuts something to do. In societies without religion, those same nuts find their way into politics, science etc, and pervert those instutitions into psuedo-religious philosophies. As long as you have a strong religious community to absorb those who want to be given quick and easy, absolutist type beliefs, than scientific fields etc, will be more likely to be populated with people who are interested in those disciplines for their own sake and not as a substitute for long vanished religions.
-
JoeSox wrote: We will inevitably recede into the backwater of civilization and those nations that retain open scientific thought will take over the leadership of the world and the cutting edge of human advancement. Actually, just the opposite will happen. Religion gives religious nuts something to do. In societies without religion, those same nuts find their way into politics, science etc, and pervert those instutitions into psuedo-religious philosophies. As long as you have a strong religious community to absorb those who want to be given quick and easy, absolutist type beliefs, than scientific fields etc, will be more likely to be populated with people who are interested in those disciplines for their own sake and not as a substitute for long vanished religions.
Stan Shannon wrote: Actually, just the opposite will happen. Religion gives religious nuts something to do. In societies without religion, those same nuts find their way into politics, science etc, and pervert those instutitions into psuedo-religious philosophies. As long as you have a strong religious community to absorb those who want to be given quick and easy, absolutist type beliefs, than scientific fields etc, will be more likely to be populated with people who are interested in those disciplines for their own sake and not as a substitute for long vanished religions. Interesting argument. It might even be true. However, it does not contradict what Asimov was saying. He was arguing against the control of science by religion rather than arguing that religion should be banished from society altogether. Here is the quote in context: And what if the creationists win? They might, you know, for there are millions who, faced with the choice between science and their interpretation of the Bible, will choose the Bible and reject science, regardless of the evidence. There are numerous cases of societies in which the armies of the night have ridden triumphantly over minorities in order to establish a powerful orthodoxy which dictates official thought. Invariably, the triumphant ride is toward long-range disaster. Are we to ride backward into the past under the same tattered banner of orthodoxy? With creationism in the saddle, American science will wither. We will raise a generation of ignoramuses ill equipped to run the industry of tomorrow, much less to generate the new advances of the days after tomorrow. We will inevitably recede into the backwater of civilization and those nations that retain open scientific thought will take over the leadership of the world and the cutting edge of human advancement. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
-
small>JoeSox wrote: This administration is fighting "evil" No they aren't, they are fighting a group of people (Muslim extremists mostly) who have vowed to destroy us and our way of life. Saddam Hussein not withstanding (he is a tyrant not an extremist), most of the governments in the Middle East are biased in such a way that although they want our money and support they hate us for our success. Unfortunately the people in charge (or with influence) in many of these countries, would like you and I to be living under Sharria(spelling?) law. Ready to have your mother or sisters or wife beaten for not wearing a burqha? I have no problem with people who are Muslim, but I have an enourmous problem with people who want to forcibly convert me or mine, or want me to live like its the 6th century. If you want to know where you and I can probably agree, special interests have screwed us up. It's the big corporations, the far Right, or the tree huggers with little regard for the blue collar guy. It takes an extreme act to raise the American conscience, a Pearl Harbor, a 9/11 or whatever. In general the US operates like any large object, unwieldy with lots of inertia, thats why people can hijack the system over long periods of time. Only when there is sufficient energy applied is there a change. The time is probably coming when we will see the level of domestic change that we saw after 9/11, but it is going to take a while for people to see the trap they have fallen into. Two income families, personal debt, high taxes, and foreign outsourcing have all eaten into the way that we live our lives, how long before the American consumer relizes that they can't pay for Cadillac tastes on Walmart paychecks? Hell, most of the American taxpayers problems aren't because of the government, we inflict them on ourselves. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Doug Goulden wrote: No they aren't, they are fighting a group of people This is not exactly what Bush says when he speaks. Doug Goulden wrote: they are fighting a group of people Looks like they are fighting more than a group of people to me. http://www.homelandsecurity.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=TGroups&file=index[^] Realisticlly, our odds of destroying these organizations are very low. Each organization we destroy, another will pop up. We can only HOPE for containment. A question that is most important, in my mind is , How does the government know when to conclude this War against Terrorism???? This could be an on going thing that will ruin us. This country is being too offensive and paraniod, and Bush's motives are questionable. His reelection depended upon military action or no military action. Americans love to win, myself included, but...(dramatic pause:)) Doug Goulden wrote: Ready to have your mother or sisters or wife beaten for not wearing a burqha? They were never a realistic threat to destroy our government, our building and lives yes, but government? As Einstein kinda said "Get REAL!" Doug Goulden wrote: how long before the American consumer relizes that they can't pay for Cadillac tastes on Walmart paychecks? Until the consumer driven media tells them. We all know that will happen:( Later, JoeSox "You have the sight now Neo, you are looking at the world without time now ..." -- The Oracle, Matrix Reloaded joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
-
JoeSox wrote: Seperation of Church and State anyone?? hello! Where do people come up with the idea that there is a seperation of Church and State? Way I read the Constitution, the 1st Amendment says that Congress shall establish no religion, not that someone can't observe there own, whether its you, me or GWB. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Doug Goulden wrote: Where do people come up with the idea that there is a seperation of Church and State? It's an imaginary line. Bush has crossed it, imo. Later, JoeSox "You have the sight now Neo, you are looking at the world without time now ..." -- The Oracle, Matrix Reloaded joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
-
JoeSox wrote: Seperation of Church and State anyone?? hello! Where do people come up with the idea that there is a seperation of Church and State? Way I read the Constitution, the 1st Amendment says that Congress shall establish no religion, not that someone can't observe there own, whether its you, me or GWB. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Doug Goulden wrote: Where do people come up with the idea that there is a seperation of Church and State? the 1st Amendment says that Congress shall establish no religion You answered your own question.
Take from the church the miraculous, the supernatural, the incomprehensible, the unreasonable, the impossible, the unknowable, the absurd, and nothing but a vacuum remains. ~Robert G. Ingersoll, Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 1
« eikonoklastes »
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Actually, just the opposite will happen. Religion gives religious nuts something to do. In societies without religion, those same nuts find their way into politics, science etc, and pervert those instutitions into psuedo-religious philosophies. As long as you have a strong religious community to absorb those who want to be given quick and easy, absolutist type beliefs, than scientific fields etc, will be more likely to be populated with people who are interested in those disciplines for their own sake and not as a substitute for long vanished religions. Interesting argument. It might even be true. However, it does not contradict what Asimov was saying. He was arguing against the control of science by religion rather than arguing that religion should be banished from society altogether. Here is the quote in context: And what if the creationists win? They might, you know, for there are millions who, faced with the choice between science and their interpretation of the Bible, will choose the Bible and reject science, regardless of the evidence. There are numerous cases of societies in which the armies of the night have ridden triumphantly over minorities in order to establish a powerful orthodoxy which dictates official thought. Invariably, the triumphant ride is toward long-range disaster. Are we to ride backward into the past under the same tattered banner of orthodoxy? With creationism in the saddle, American science will wither. We will raise a generation of ignoramuses ill equipped to run the industry of tomorrow, much less to generate the new advances of the days after tomorrow. We will inevitably recede into the backwater of civilization and those nations that retain open scientific thought will take over the leadership of the world and the cutting edge of human advancement. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
I still disagree with Asimov. What is there for the creationists to win? What constitutes victory? It would represent, at best, a minor set back, for our society. I'm not saying I would like to see my children taught creationism in school, but only because I fear for their religions education, not for their scientific education. Creationism might reject the conclusions of science, but it necessarily embraces scientific methodology. It just uses it to support a different set of conclusions. By doing so, the creationist abandon their primary belief system, faith, and teach children that reason is the way to truth. Thus, children, while being taught an invalid set of conclusions, are, in fact, still being taught to trust reason over faith, at the creationist's own hands. Being taught to do so, they will grow up to examine the evidence for themselves, and undoubtedly reach conclusions contrary to those they have been force fed, as children always do. Creationist are a greater threat to religion than any conventional scientist could ever be.
-
I still disagree with Asimov. What is there for the creationists to win? What constitutes victory? It would represent, at best, a minor set back, for our society. I'm not saying I would like to see my children taught creationism in school, but only because I fear for their religions education, not for their scientific education. Creationism might reject the conclusions of science, but it necessarily embraces scientific methodology. It just uses it to support a different set of conclusions. By doing so, the creationist abandon their primary belief system, faith, and teach children that reason is the way to truth. Thus, children, while being taught an invalid set of conclusions, are, in fact, still being taught to trust reason over faith, at the creationist's own hands. Being taught to do so, they will grow up to examine the evidence for themselves, and undoubtedly reach conclusions contrary to those they have been force fed, as children always do. Creationist are a greater threat to religion than any conventional scientist could ever be.
Stan Shannon wrote: What is there for the creationists to win? What constitutes victory? The right to have the teaching of science dictated by non-scientists. That is their goal. Stan Shannon wrote: Creationism might reject the conclusions of science, but it necessarily embraces scientific methodology. It just uses it to support a different set of conclusions. By doing so, the creationist abandon their primary belief system, faith, and teach children that reason is the way to truth. No, the opposite is true. The claim of creationists to adopt scientific methods is a fraud. They take the creation story of Genesis as the literal truth which cannot be questioned and then create a lawyer's case for their pre-determined conclusion. They are not in any way open to a revision of their conclusions in light of the evidence. The father of modern creationism, Henry Morris, is quite explicit that ultimate authority is found in the text of the Bible. At the recent Christian Booksellers Association convention in Denver, a leading Christian publisher asked a Master Books representative, "How can you people possibly believe in a literal six-day creation of all things?" The implication, of course, was that it is simply naive to believe Genesis literally, in view of the overwhelming "scientific" evidence that the cosmos and the earth itself are billions of years old. The answer to his question is simple enough. We believe that "in six days the LORD made heaven and earth" because the One who made heaven and earth said He did it in six days! Furthermore, He even wrote down this revelation Himself on a tablet of stone (Exodus 20:11; 31:17,18). Perhaps it is naive to believe that God is able to tell the truth and say what He means, but I guess that's a weakness of us literalists! [and later] Call it naive literalism if you will. I call it simply taking God at His Word, and then seeking to explain all real scientific data in that context. We may not yet have answers to every problem, but at least our tentative answers are better than their false answers, because our answers are derived from implicit confidence in God's plainly revealed Word. Morris[^] Students taught these doctrines are not being given an education in science at all. Some of Morris's followers are less open about their a
-
Doug Goulden wrote: No they aren't, they are fighting a group of people This is not exactly what Bush says when he speaks. Doug Goulden wrote: they are fighting a group of people Looks like they are fighting more than a group of people to me. http://www.homelandsecurity.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=TGroups&file=index[^] Realisticlly, our odds of destroying these organizations are very low. Each organization we destroy, another will pop up. We can only HOPE for containment. A question that is most important, in my mind is , How does the government know when to conclude this War against Terrorism???? This could be an on going thing that will ruin us. This country is being too offensive and paraniod, and Bush's motives are questionable. His reelection depended upon military action or no military action. Americans love to win, myself included, but...(dramatic pause:)) Doug Goulden wrote: Ready to have your mother or sisters or wife beaten for not wearing a burqha? They were never a realistic threat to destroy our government, our building and lives yes, but government? As Einstein kinda said "Get REAL!" Doug Goulden wrote: how long before the American consumer relizes that they can't pay for Cadillac tastes on Walmart paychecks? Until the consumer driven media tells them. We all know that will happen:( Later, JoeSox "You have the sight now Neo, you are looking at the world without time now ..." -- The Oracle, Matrix Reloaded joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
JoeSox wrote: Looks like they are fighting more than a group of people to me. There is definitely mor than one group of terrorists, however, not every group that is on that list is "actively" pursuing an agenda against the US. If memory serves, the African National Congress is more involved in controlling South Africa these days than attacking the US.;P Other groups on the list such as Abu Nidal if memory serves correctly, were supported by ol' Momar Quadafi. As a matter of fact I seem to remember they were the ones who attacked the Achille Lauro in the 80's leading to the action by Reagan against Quadafi. We haven't heard to much from them since as far as I remember. JoeSox wrote: This is not exactly what Bush says when he speaks. JoeSox wrote: Realisticlly, our odds of destroying these organizations are very low. Each organization we destroy, another will pop up. We can only HOPE for containment. A question that is most important, in my mind is , How does the government know when to conclude this War against Terrorism???? I think that what some of the more reactionary people among us need to realize, is that most of what the words "War on Terrorism" consists of rhetoric. What the US government, as in We the People, can hope to do is to disrupt sources of funding and support for the people who would harm us. As far as someone being able to actually destroy our way of life? How would a smuggled nuclear weapon inside an Al Quada owned freighter in New York harbor go over? Can you name even one country that has had nuclear weapons that might be under less than tight controls? I can think of one ..... Thats a real threat as far as I can see, the US government has been spending a lot of money to help Russia to destroy old warheads. JoeSox wrote: They were never a realistic threat to destroy our government, our building and lives yes, but government? If you and I and a few million other people were dead, who would give a damn about the government. And could you define what the US being to offensive means? Getting rid of a dictator or two? Pressuring NK, Quadafi and Iran to submit to inspections? twisting the arms of a few governments that might be turning a blind eye to what is happening? I don't see the US dragging people into secret prisons and torturing them, Guantanemo is a bunch of people that were caught red handed in Afghanistan supporting either Al Quada or the Tali
-
Stan Shannon wrote: What is there for the creationists to win? What constitutes victory? The right to have the teaching of science dictated by non-scientists. That is their goal. Stan Shannon wrote: Creationism might reject the conclusions of science, but it necessarily embraces scientific methodology. It just uses it to support a different set of conclusions. By doing so, the creationist abandon their primary belief system, faith, and teach children that reason is the way to truth. No, the opposite is true. The claim of creationists to adopt scientific methods is a fraud. They take the creation story of Genesis as the literal truth which cannot be questioned and then create a lawyer's case for their pre-determined conclusion. They are not in any way open to a revision of their conclusions in light of the evidence. The father of modern creationism, Henry Morris, is quite explicit that ultimate authority is found in the text of the Bible. At the recent Christian Booksellers Association convention in Denver, a leading Christian publisher asked a Master Books representative, "How can you people possibly believe in a literal six-day creation of all things?" The implication, of course, was that it is simply naive to believe Genesis literally, in view of the overwhelming "scientific" evidence that the cosmos and the earth itself are billions of years old. The answer to his question is simple enough. We believe that "in six days the LORD made heaven and earth" because the One who made heaven and earth said He did it in six days! Furthermore, He even wrote down this revelation Himself on a tablet of stone (Exodus 20:11; 31:17,18). Perhaps it is naive to believe that God is able to tell the truth and say what He means, but I guess that's a weakness of us literalists! [and later] Call it naive literalism if you will. I call it simply taking God at His Word, and then seeking to explain all real scientific data in that context. We may not yet have answers to every problem, but at least our tentative answers are better than their false answers, because our answers are derived from implicit confidence in God's plainly revealed Word. Morris[^] Students taught these doctrines are not being given an education in science at all. Some of Morris's followers are less open about their a
I have had conversations at length with people who claim to be creationist, and they certainly apply scientific like reasoning to their arguments. Their arguments are simply that scientists are not interpreting their own data correctly, and that the data actually supports the biblical explanation of existence. They have any number of disjointed, psudo-scientific, arguments to support thier views. Their entire goal is to lend scientific credibility to the biblical story of creation. Such reasoning is nothing less than an admission of defeat of the part of the religious community, and represents a futile last ditch attempt to use their enemy's on weapons against it. In any such confrontation, religion will be the loser, not science.
-
I have had conversations at length with people who claim to be creationist, and they certainly apply scientific like reasoning to their arguments. Their arguments are simply that scientists are not interpreting their own data correctly, and that the data actually supports the biblical explanation of existence. They have any number of disjointed, psudo-scientific, arguments to support thier views. Their entire goal is to lend scientific credibility to the biblical story of creation. Such reasoning is nothing less than an admission of defeat of the part of the religious community, and represents a futile last ditch attempt to use their enemy's on weapons against it. In any such confrontation, religion will be the loser, not science.
Stan Shannon wrote: I have had conversations at length with people who claim to be creationist, and they certainly apply scientific like reasoning to their arguments. Their arguments are simply that scientists are not interpreting their own data correctly, and that the data actually supports the biblical explanation of existence. They have any number of disjointed, psudo-scientific, arguments to support thier views. Their entire goal is to lend scientific credibility to the biblical story of creation. Of course. All of the above applies to Morris and the rest. That doesn't change the fact that the conclusion has been determined in advance on religious grounds and that the scientific method is grossly corrupted in order to reach a conclusion that is against the evidence. There are occasionally creationists who retain their integrity and end up rejecting creationism, e.g., Glenn Morton site[^] but such people find that, even at the early stage before creationism is rejected, their search for truth attracts no support from their colleagues: Morton's change of beliefs[^] Stan Shannon wrote: Such reasoning is nothing less than an admission of defeat of the part of the religious community, and represents a futile last ditch attempt to use their enemy's on weapons against it. Evidence-based argument has been part of Christianity from its inception. Indeed, there are passages in the New Testament in which the writers appeal to evidence (including claims of eyewitness evidence). Reliance on "science" is merely the latest wrinkle in this and has been around for centuries. At the same time, Christianity has depended from its inception on an appeal to faith when the argument from evidence has gotten into difficulty. Nothing has changed. Stan Shannon wrote: In any such confrontation, religion will be the loser, not science. That may depend on who delivers the verdict. Faith is accessible to anyone who wants it (and plenty seem to). Scientific knowledge, by contrast, is vastly more difficult to acquire. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appe
-
Doug Goulden wrote: Where do people come up with the idea that there is a seperation of Church and State? the 1st Amendment says that Congress shall establish no religion You answered your own question.
Take from the church the miraculous, the supernatural, the incomprehensible, the unreasonable, the impossible, the unknowable, the absurd, and nothing but a vacuum remains. ~Robert G. Ingersoll, Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 1
« eikonoklastes »
Daniel Ferguson wrote: You answered your own question. On the contrary, the 1st Amendment is speaking of the Congress establishing a state religion similar to the Church of England or the government established by the Pilgrims who had immigrated here. It says nothing of a person practicing their faith while in office or about Nativity scenes. The more "liberal" elements of our judiciary have redrawn the limits of what that statement means. Personally I see no harm in either Joe Lieberman being a practicing Jew, nor in George Bush professing his faith publicly so long as neither they or anyone else tries to interfere with anothers right to practice as they see fit. The framers of the Constitution merely seemed to be trying to prevent the formation of a theocracy, a concept which seems to place us in conflict with some of the more radical Muslim fundamentalists.;) BTW... As a point of clarification although I would consider myself a Christian, I don't attend church regularly, and I wouldn't want to see my country ruled by a governmment that would ty to force my beliefs on others. I tend to think that most of the "Silent Minority":rolleyes: would tend to have the same outlook. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
"Carl Sagan, the astronomer, described Isaac Asimov (1920-1992) as one of the master explainers of the age to whom milllions of people, reading either his fact or his fiction, owe their knowledge of science. Here is his critique of the arguments of the New Right creationists he considers a new army of the right armed with Bibles. This article is abridged from Speak Out Against the New Right edited by Herbert F. Vetter (Boston: Beacon Press, 1982)... Scientists thought it was settled. The universe, they had decided, is about 20 billion years old, and Earth itself is 4.5 billion years old. Simple forms of life came into being more than three billion years ago, having formed spontaneously from nonliving matter. They grew more complex through slow evolutionary processes and the first hominid ancestors of humanity appeared more than four million years ago. Homo sapiens itself—the present human species, people like you and me—has walked the earth for at least 50,000 years. But apparently it isn't settled. There are Americans who believe that the earth is only about 6,000 years old; that human beings and all other species were brought into existence by a divine Creator as eternally separate varieties of beings, and that there has been no evolutionary process. The Reverend Jerry Falwell, the head of the Moral Majority, who supports the creationist view from his television pulpit, claims that he has 17 million to 25 million viewers (though Arbitron places the figure at a much more modest 1.6 million). But there are 66 electronic ministries which have a total audience of about 20 million. And in parts of the country where the Fundamentalists predominate—the so-called Bible Belt—creationists are in the majority. ... We will inevitably recede into the backwater of civilization and those nations that retain open scientific thought will take over the leadership of the world and the cutting edge of human advancement. I don't suppose that the creationists really plan the decline of the United States, but their loudly expressed patriotism is as simple-minded as their "science." If they succeed, they will, in their folly, achieve the opposite of what they say they wish. " http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/speakout/asimov.html[^] "Jerry Falwell Proves That He is An Un-American Religious Profiteer Who is Opposed to Democracy The followin
I find it appalling that a right-winger like me has to be accused of being a creationist. I'm an atheist. I've never been to church, never been baptised, never read the bible, and only grew up with the stories of the bible through the media, not at home. Granted this appears to be extremist right-wing, not a moderate like me. I agree with the seperation of church and state, but I don't see how creationism is holding back science so much. And what's with this crap about it being definate that the world was created 4.5 billion years and we evolved and yadda yadda yadda? I believe it was that way, but there's still no way of telling for sure what has really happened yars and years ago before written history and before humans walked the Earth. And how come they seem only to be attacking the Judao-Christian belief on creation, not Buddhist, not Islamic, not Hinduism either. They have their own sets of beliefs on creation ism as well, yet we ignore them why? They are not proven to be more open-minded than Jews and Christians when it comes to conflicting theories on the creation of the universe. Yet our Society is based on the idea that all ideas and religions are accepted. As much as I still don't like and don't believe in Christianity, I still think it's unfair for them to say that Christianity itself is holding back science. In my eyes, it's all types of ignorances that hold back science, including the ignorance of Carl Sagan.
Who am I? Currently: A Programming Student trying to survive school with plan to go on to Univeristy of Advancing Technology to study game design. Main career interest include: Multimedia and game programming. Working on an outside project: A game for the GamePark32 (GP32) portable gaming console. My website: www.GP32US.com