Does it matter if people believe in Creationism?

[The Unnamable]

On the creationism/evolution debate, differences of opinion have inevitably resulted in the question of whether or not certain beliefs are worthy of respect. Such questions can be marginalized as ‘off-topic’ on that thread but I think the question is important, so I’ve started my own thread.

I made my position clear when I posted a quotation from Voltaire:

"As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities."

So my question is, ‘does it matter if people believe what they want to believe or are some beliefs so absurd that to leave them unchallenged is dangerous?’

I would also like to make clear that I have no problem with discussion of the Nazis, before anyone tries to suggest that any such discussion can only be indicative of a debate that has descended into pointlessness.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

I think my last post in the creation / evolution thread is the sort of thing you're looking for here. At least I hope so. I tried my best to reclaim the topic for sanity.

If not, you're just a nazi and should be boiled alive in chip fat. ;)

[kilted exile]

I have no problem at all with people believing in Creationism. I do however have a problem with it being taught as a viable alternative in SCIENCE class, under the guise of intelligent design. Let's leave discussion of religious ideas to either philosophy or religious studies class. However thats as much as I'll say on that subject (being careful to avoid discussion of politics)

btw...I see your point about some beliefs when unchallenged being dangerous, but I think creationism is a few rungs lower down on the ladder.

[The Unnamable]

btw...I see your point about some beliefs when unchallenged being dangerous, but I think creationism is a few rungs lower down on the ladder.
I don’t mind if the discussion opens up to a consideration of any ideas that could be considered absurd. It seems not only acceptable but also important to see individual examples in a wider context. As for a ladder, well the problem is that some ideas might start a few rungs down but they always seem to manage to climb higher. Ignoring low-level nonsense might allow it to gain acceptance and before we know it, we are being boiled alive in a vat of chip fat. :D

[Xamonas Chegwe]

The end (and relevant part) of my last thread in creation / evolution. As I said - relevant, I think - chip fat is on hold.


Evolution does not conflict with the existence of God. Many believe quite happily in both. What it does conflict with is the dogmatic belief in every single word in the Bible, Qu'ran and other holy books describing creation in terms of divine intervention.

The existence of God can neither be proven nor disproved, it is a matter of faith. The absolute truth of holy books is another matter. I submit that it has been disproved already, to the satisfaction of all but the deliberately dogmatic.

[Charles Darnay]

On the point of the belief of creationism being dangerious..... this has been proven in the past to be somewhat true, but it is not necessarily fair to restrict dangerous beliefs to those of creationism - a fanatical/radica - and often absurd belief of any kind (religious, scientific, etc) could become dangerous. I do not believe that the average believer in "the world was created by a divine being" will take this belief to a radical point - but there are always the exceptions

[The Unnamable]

but it is not necessarily fair to restrict dangerous beliefs to those of creationism - a fanatical/radica - and often absurd belief of any kind (religious, scientific, etc) could become dangerous.
I agree with you, which is why I said above:

“I don’t mind if the discussion opens up to a consideration of any ideas that could be considered absurd. It seems not only acceptable but also important to see individual examples in a wider context.”



I do not believe that the average believer in "the world was created by a divine being" will take this belief to a radical point.
Nor do I. I think there are many absurd beliefs that are not dangerous on their own but the cumulative effects of many absurdities can be catastrophic. Look at the state of the world! :D

[Virgil]

I think that intelligent design is a little more complicated than just lumping it with creationism. Nonetheless, it is not for a science class but philosophy. It is the contemplation of first cause, which science has not been able to identify. And may I add it is not one of these absurdities that should not be discussed. There are lots of scientists that believe in God, including I may add Albert Einstein. If Albert Einstein can believe in God, it is not an absurdity that adds to any cumulative dangerous effect. Frankly contemplation and discussion of God is a lot less dangerous than allowing gratuitous racists comments to go unchallenged. Seems to me there is a misconstrued priority as to what should be challanged and what not.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Virgil,

I really don't think that belief in God per se was ever lumped in with the absurd and dangerous theories mentioned by anyone in this post. This is a figment of your misinterpretation. Please read through all the posts before arguing with something that was never said.

I think we've travelled this road before somewhere...

[The Unnamable]

Frankly contemplation and discussion of God is a lot less dangerous than allowing gratuitous racists comments to go unchallenged. Seems to me there is a misconstrued priority as to what should be challanged and what not.
Contemplation of God is not under attack and I resent any insinuation that it is. I really hope that your reference to racism is not a veiled accusation. What ‘misconstrued' priorities are you talking about? Whose priorities? I consider Voltaire’s words above to be true. I too believe that some ideas are not only absurd but also dangerous. How about relating this to Piggy in Lord of the Flies. The belief in the Beast is absurd. Piggy can see that but the world is full of Jacks, his minions and those who just want to be told that they’ll be safe.

[Whifflingpin]

"The belief in the Beast is absurd. Piggy can see that but the world is full of Jacks, his minions and those who just want to be told that they’ll be safe"

The Beast, of course, being the "Yellow Peril," "The Red Menace," "The CIA," and "International Terrorism," to name but four of the mythological bogies of my lifetime.

[Virgil]

How about relating this to Piggy in Lord of the Flies. The belief in the Beast is absurd. Piggy can see that but the world is full of Jacks, his minions and those who just want to be told that they’ll be safe.
Piggy in Lord of the Flies is a fictional character in a fictional book from the imagination of an author. Let's get real.

I was not saying you were a racist. What I was saying was that you accept racism in literature, you find it problemattic when someone condems racism in literature, but you find an axe to pick (that is, condem) with people who contemplate the origins of the universe and its relationship to God. I find that misconstrued.

Let's anlysize Voltaire's statement:

"As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities."

Does that mean that if someone believes in Freudian or Jungian psychology that they are going to go out and commit atrocities?
Does that mean if someone believes in using horse to get around New york, that they are going to commit atrocities?
Does that mean that the Amish of Pennsyvania, who refuse to enter the modern world, are going to committ atrocities.
Does an Orthodox Jew who by observing the Sabath traditions, that is no modern device to be used, go out and committ atrocities?

I can list an infinite amount of these, I just don't have the time.

You seem to succomb to fallacies of non sequitor. Believing in absurdities is not mutually exclusive to committing atrocities. It just doesn't follow.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Let's anlysize Voltaire's statement:


Does that mean that if someone believes in Freudian or Jungian psychology that they are going to go out and commit atrocities?
Does that mean if someone believes in using horse to get around New york, that they are going to commit atrocities?
Does that mean that the Amish of Pennsyvania, who refuse to enter the modern world, are going to committ atrocities.
Does an Orthodox Jew who by observing the Sabath traditions, that is no modern device to be used, go out and committ atrocities?

And you consider these absurdities do you? Personally, I see them as differing world views. Again, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that no-one in this thread has described religious belief as absurd. The discussion is about far more extreme convictions than the ones you describe above.

For example, I would describe the dogmatic belief in every word of the bible, coupled with the idea that those that didn't share this belief were to be burnt at the stake, as absurd. How about you?

[Charles Darnay]

[QUOTE=Xamonas Chegwe]And you consider these absurdities do you?

I would have to agree.... I do not believe anything mentioned could be considered "absurd".

[Virgil]

And you consider these absurdities do you? Personally, I see them as differing world views.
Well, what exactly is belief in creationism, even in it's most extreme where God created the world 5000 or so years ago in seven days? That's not a world view?

[rachel]

I am too unlearned to go into any detail concerning this thread. I have only one thought to offer:
I believe one has the right to have any belief one desires, I believe God's not outrightly killing the first angels,people that challenged Him and did their own thing-and starting all over shows our right to our own beliefs
But I think that how we ACT upon those beliefs, bringing harm to another, trying to take away another's basic human dignity and right to live in peace -well then I think something must be done.
I read about how Hitler and some of his guys stalked into some meeting place and demanded the German leaders that were present come under their authority, just like that. The leaders were indignant but at the end they gave in and although some of them got away later and recanted their agreeing to who they thought a madman-they did nothing. Hitler had every right to hate my people, but no right to carry out that hatred in the way he did. And I wouldn't have the right to do that to him either no matter what I thought. So yes there does seem to be a need to deal with such absurd ideas as he acted out.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Well, what exactly is belief in creationism, even in it's most extreme where God created the world 5000 or so years ago in seven days? That's not a world view?

Of course it's a world view. At its most extreme, it is also teetering on the edge of absurdity, because it is a world view which fits none of the facts that we know about the world except for a few words written thousands of years ago. By itself it is not dangerous though.

For any world view to be dangerous, it needs to be (as creationism once was, don't forget) combined with the view that any denial of it's validity can justifiably be met with acts of violence against the denyer. This is the kind of absurdity that killed Galileo; that burned the library of Alexandria; that sent millions of Jews to the gas ovens; that started every war in history.

Here are some world views that are absurd and dangerous by my reckoning:

The belief that you have the right to kill those that do not agree with you.
The belief that you the government of your country/the leaders of your religion are infallable and must be obeyed without question.
The belief that people that share your nationality/skin colour/religion/sex are intrinsically superior to all others.
The belief that it is right to have sex with children or to rape another person of any age.
The belief that you are the reincarnation of Ghengis Khan and that all Chinese people must be slaughtered.

Would you defend the right of anyone to hold these world views (even if they promised not to act on them)?

[The Unnamable]

The Beast, of course, being the "Yellow Peril," "The Red Menace," "The CIA," and "International Terrorism," to name but four of the mythological bogies of my lifetime.
Are you making a point or simply providing us with your opinion? I don’t know if ‘of course’ is meant to be sarcastic or authoritative.

[The Unnamable]

Piggy in Lord of the Flies is a fictional character in a fictional book from the imagination of an author. Let's get real.

Are you suggesting that fictional characters and the works in which they appear have no relevance to the ‘real’ world? If you are, I’m astounded. Doesn’t it follow that all fiction can be dismissed as irrelevant? If we were discussing the nature of ambition, would it be pointless mentioning Macbeth? He also comes from the imagination of an author (I’m referring to the dramatic character of Macbeth, not any historical figure). Ken Kesey said of One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, “It’s true even if it didn’t happen.” This is a Literature discussion forum, after all.

One of the ideas explored in Golding’s novel is the way people’s irrational fears can be exploited. I consider Golding’s exploration both interesting and relevant to the issue.



I was not saying you were a racist. What I was saying was that you accept racism in literature, you find it problemattic when someone condems racism in literature.

And this is better, is it? I’m not racist but I accept racist books. Astounding! So you believe that I accept racism in Literature? What, exactly, do you mean by that? I accept an author’s right to create racist characters and I accept that some writers expressed opinions that are considered deeply offensive now. That is not the same as saying that I accept racism. I also question whether a writer is racist. Just because you consider Hemingway to be racist, it doesn’t mean that he is. I will admit that I do not consider it to be the only thing I consider when I decide whether or not he’s worth reading. Once again, though, that does not mean that I accept racism.


Does that mean that if someone believes in Freudian or Jungian psychology that they are going to go out and commit atrocities?
Does that mean if someone believes in using horse to get around New york, that they are going to commit atrocities?
Does that mean that the Amish of Pennsyvania, who refuse to enter the modern world, are going to committ atrocities.
Does an Orthodox Jew who by observing the Sabath traditions, that is no modern device to be used, go out and committ atrocities?

I never mentioned any of these. They are not what I consider absurdities so I can only assume that you do. I find interesting your implicit assumption that the beliefs of the Amish community are absurd. What happened to respect?


You seem to succomb to fallacies of non sequitor. Believing in absurdities is not mutually exclusive to committing atrocities. It just doesn't follow.

First of all, Voltaire didn’t say they were mutually exclusive (I don’t know where you got that from). He said the one is linked to the other. An author you have mentioned positively a number of times said, “The Child is father of the Man;”. According to strict logic, this ‘just doesn’t follow’ but it’s not offered as a piece of strict logic any more than Voltaire’s words are. You are assuming Voltaire to have been a simplistic soul who was expressing a simple equation. He wasn’t. Obviously he wasn’t saying that every individual who believes something absurd will go out and slaughter everyone in sight. That would make him an idiot. He was suggesting that human reason was our only hope. Don’t forget he was one of the great voices of the Enlightenment. He also said:

"Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them."

[Whifflingpin]

Whiffl: "The Beast, of course, being the "Yellow Peril," "The Red Menace," "The CIA," and "International Terrorism," to name but four of the mythological bogies of my lifetime. "


Unnamable: "Are you making a point or simply providing us with your opinion? I don’t know if ‘of course’ is meant to be sarcastic or authoritative."

My "of course" is not sarcastic - I don't do sarcasm. It is not authoritative - I have no authority. It is in fact entirely unjustified.

I think it has been implied in this thread that extreme religious views have brought about the current evils in the world. This might be a valid argument if we were considering the twelfth, or the seventeenth centuries (from a European perspective) but I do not think it a valid argument for twentieth/twenty-first centuries. Extreme political beliefs, and the deliberate setting up of bogeymen by devious governments (tautology?,) have served to justify the miseries of the last hundred years.

Of course*, any discussion on these lines will invoke the Moderators' blue pencil.

*Blast - there it is again, ignore it

[Whifflingpin]

Actually, I don't think I agree with Voltaire in this instance. It's not what you believe in, but how you believe in it that causes the atrocities - unless you simply define any belief leading to an atrocity as absurd, in which case the phrase is virtually meaningless - it becomes "When men stop believing in things that lead to atrocities they will stop committing atrocities."

[Virgil]

First of all, Voltaire didn’t say they were mutually exclusive (I don’t know where you got that from). He said the one is linked to the other.
I made a mistake in my sentence. They ARE mutually exclusive. (Sorry about that; I was writing faster than thinking.) But my point still stands. The implication of Voltaire's sentence (and this is based on taking it out of context as you have; I don't know what the context is) is that belief in absudities leads to atrocities. You state or imply that belief in creationism is an absurdity, and therefore if taught, will lead to atrocities. Is that not what you are saying?


I never mentioned any of these. They are not what I consider absurdities so I can only assume that you do. I find interesting your implicit assumption that the beliefs of the Amish community are absurd. What happened to respect?
I have lots of respect for religious people. I'm just mentioning things that could appear to be absurd.


Are you suggesting that fictional characters and the works in which they appear have no relevance to the ‘real’ world? If you are, I’m astounded. Doesn’t it follow that all fiction can be dismissed as irrelevant? If we were discussing the nature of ambition, would it be pointless mentioning Macbeth? He also comes from the imagination of an author (I’m referring to the dramatic character of Macbeth, not any historical figure). Ken Kesey said of One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, “It’s true even if it didn’t happen.”

This is amoung the silliest things I've ever heard. MacBeth was ambitious and is tragic; Odysseus was ambitious and was a conquoring hero. Author's are people like you and me. They are not devinely inspired. They are artists who have opinions, points of views, change their minds from one work to another, disagree. They are not sacred or special, other than their language skills.


This is a Literature discussion forum, after all.

You're the one who introduced a non-literary subject here.


One of the ideas explored in Golding’s novel is the way people’s irrational fears can be exploited. I consider Golding’s exploration both interesting and relevant to the issue.
And so do I, but there's nothing that says it's definitive as to human nature. It's Golding's perspective. It's not Homer's or Dante's or Dickens or Shakespeare's or ...

[Whifflingpin]

"It's Golding's perspective. It's not Homer's or Dante's or Dickens or Shakespeare's or ..." R.M. Ballantyne's. Was not the "Lord of the Flies" written as a sort of pessimistic answer to "Coral Island?"

.

[Virgil]

Actually, I don't think I agree with Voltaire in this instance. It's not what you believe in, but how you believe in it that causes the atrocities - unless you simply define any belief leading to an atrocity as absurd, in which case the phrase is virtually meaningless - it becomes "When men stop believing in things that lead to atrocities they will stop committing atrocities."
You make very good sense. If I might try to qualify Voltaire's statement, it might go like this: Humanity will always find reasons to committ atrocities, it doesn't take an absurdity.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

You make very good sense. If I might try to qualify Voltaire's statement, it might go like this: Humanity will always find reasons to committ atrocities, it doesn't take an absurdity.

If those reasons result in the commital of atrocities, surely they are absurd?

Are you saying that there are reasonable reasons why 6 million Jews were killed by the nazis? A logical explanation for Pol Pot's massacres? Perhaps the crusades were instigated based on a provable mathematical principle?

I'd love to hear your non-absurd explanations of these atrocities. To me they can only have come from an illogical premise!

[Whifflingpin]

"If those reasons result in the commital of atrocities, surely they are absurd?
Are you saying that there are reasonable reasons why 6 million Jews were killed by the nazis? A logical explanation for Pol Pot's massacres? Perhaps the crusades were instigated based on a provable mathematical principle?
I'd love to hear your non-absurd explanations of these atrocities. To me they can only have come from an illogical premise!"

"Wrong?" yes, "evil?" yes. But not absurd, if that word has any meaning separate from wrong or evil.

A simple and reasonable justification for all the examples you give is that there are too many humans, and, in the greater scheme of things, it is good to cull the species. The only question, then is which ones to cull. Maybe a random selection; maybe everyone who is born on a Tuesday. More reasonably, focus on someone whose elimination gives other advantages - for example an identifiable race, political group or religion, (or class, perhaps, thinking of the proscriptions in Rome under Sulla etc.)

The problem, in fact, is not one of reasonableness, but one of reason devoid of morals - and morals are not reasonable; they are perhaps absurd, in that they state that certain courses of action, however reasonable, are unacceptable. So, it could be argued, or rather I have just argued, that absurd beliefs are necessary to prevent atrocities.

Perhaps.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

"Wrong?" yes, "evil?" yes. But not absurd, if that word has any meaning separate from wrong or evil.

Wrong & Evil are not absurd?

Perhaps if you would be good enough to define these two terms, I might understand your position - I doubt it, but it's possible.


A simple and reasonable justification for all the examples you give is that there are too many humans, and, in the greater scheme of things, it is good to cull the species.

Simple and reasonable!?

So, there were too many people in the world, so 6 million Jews were killed. It didn't work. There are approximately 4 billion more people in the world now than there were in 1945. Which 4 billion should we kill to get the numbers back to a 'simple and reasonable' total? Any suggestions?

Everyone born on a Tuesday would only get rid of about 0.85 billion. Perhaps everyone not born at the weekend?

It looks like we have a genuine absurd believer in the thread. Anyone want to ask a few questions before he/she starts culling?

I hope that you're playing Devil's advocate here WP. I really do.

[Virgil]

If those reasons result in the commital of atrocities, surely they are absurd?

Are you saying that there are reasonable reasons why 6 million Jews were killed by the nazis? A logical explanation for Pol Pot's massacres? Perhaps the crusades were instigated based on a provable mathematical principle?

I'd love to hear your non-absurd explanations of these atrocities. To me they can only have come from an illogical premise!
No. Come on. I met religious justifications. In fact, you make a good point. What exactly is Voltaire saying? I guess my qualification of Voltaire should be: Humanity will always find rationales for comitting atrocities.

Actually back to the Nazi scenario, the halocaust seemed perfectly reasonable Hitler and his henchmen.

[Virgil]

So, it could be argued, or rather I have just argued, that absurd beliefs are necessary to prevent atrocities.

Perhaps.
That thought has crossed my mind too.

[Whifflingpin]

"Wrong & Evil are not absurd?
Perhaps if you would be good enough to define these two terms..."

Actually, it is the definition of "absurd" that I was questioning. Wrongly, as it happens - I've just checked it in the dictionary and its meaning includes "out of harmony with propriety" as well as "out of harmony with reason." By the first definition wrong and evil are absurd.

That just brings me back to my original observation on Voltaire's words, as quoted, namely that they do not mean very much - when people stop having evil beliefs they'll stop being evil - wow.

I understood you to ask for a non-ridiculous premise for arguing in favour of three different examples of killing large quantities of people. (Let us take the emotion out by ignoring which people we are talking about.)

Without approving of killing large quantities of people, I offered what is to me a perfectly sensible reason, i.e. that there are too many people. A belief that there are too many people is not based anything except mathematics. (People x consumption per person) > (consumables available). If that inequality holds, then some action is required.

It is only the absurd (i.e. unreasonable) prejudice against killing people (and, in this case I am happy to be called absurd) that prevents what we are calling atrocities, since humans have shown themselves more efficient at reducing people than reducing consumption or increasing consumables.


What I find very interesting, is that when I offer a reason devoid of morality, you become quite excited - even shocked. It suggests that you are not quite a Vulcan in your devotion to reason, but that you do feel there are other important considerations in determining behaviour.

[Virgil]

".
What I find very interesting, is that when I offer a reason devoid of morality, you become quite excited - even shocked. It suggests that you are not quite a Vulcan in your devotion to reason, but that you do feel there are other important considerations in determining behaviour.
Actually Whiff, your agurment reminds me of an Anthony Burgess novel, called The Wanting Seed. Set in the future where societal decisions are made by pure reason devoid of religious values. A great novel. I think you might enjoy it.

[The Unnamable]

My, my, we have been busy while I have been getting my beauty sleep.


I think it has been implied in this thread that extreme religious views have brought about the current evils in the world.
I won’t take issue with what you say after this for reasons of censorship. However, if you think that I implied the above, I believe you are mistaken. I can’t see where anyone implies it, either. At no point am I suggesting that the current state of the world is because of ‘extreme religious views’. In my first post, I say ‘certain beliefs’ and ‘some beliefs’. In my second post (no. 4), I specifically request that we discuss “any ideas that could be considered absurd.” In my third post (no. 7), I say ‘many absurdities’ and used an emoticon after my comment about the state of the world. I wasn’t referring to evil so much as monumental stupidity.


Actually, I don't think I agree with Voltaire in this instance. It's not what you believe in, but how you believe in it that causes the atrocities - unless you simply define any belief leading to an atrocity as absurd, in which case the phrase is virtually meaningless - it becomes "When men stop believing in things that lead to atrocities they will stop committing atrocities."
Tempted though I am to consider your views as wiser than Voltaire’s or that he churned out meaningless phrases (it’s not a phrase by the way, it’s a sentence), I will stick with his I think. The aphoristic quality of his statement should not, in my view, lead us to assume that he was suggesting that there is a simple and direct correlation between absurdity and atrocity. I tried to explain this in response to Virgil. For me, the sentence is valid if we think of it like this - if people are willing to believe in nonsense then there are others who will exploit that gullibility. Each individual inhabitant of Nazi Germany who believed in the ideas of Hitler did not necessarily commit any atrocity (although they might have) but their general acceptance is necessary for evil to thrive. This is why I see Golding’s novel as relevant. The boys who support Jack might not themselves commit atrocities (though some do), but Jack is able to exploit their fears and unwillingness to question.


You state or imply that belief in creationism is an absurdity, and therefore if taught, will lead to atrocities. Is that not what you are saying?
Not really. I don’t mean that a few lessons of creationism will make students run for the nearest axe and embark on a killing spree. However, I am saying that if people allow others do their thinking for them and fail to question what they are told to think, we will eventually end up with a body count.


I have lots of respect for religious people. I'm just mentioning things that could appear to be absurd.
The odd thing is then that I don’t have much time for religious belief yet I would not consider the Amish way of life as absurd. To me, they do not appear absurd; in fact, in many ways I would say the opposite. Their rejection of what you called ‘the modern world’ strikes me as laudable.


This is amoung the silliest things I've ever heard. MacBeth was ambitious and is tragic; Odysseus was ambitious and was a conquoring hero. Author's are people like you and me. They are not devinely inspired. They are artists who have opinions, points of views, change their minds from one work to another, disagree. They are not sacred or special, other than their language skills.
I didn’t say that writers and/or their works are sacred, merely that they have produced food for thought about human experiences and situations, which are relevant when discussing certain ideas. This is not to say that either Macbeth or The Odyssey is the definitive word on ambition, simply that they offer something to consider when formulating our ideas. That is why I said that this is a Literature forum. I wasn’t saying that the discussion was off-topic, merely that I would expect the contributors to such a forum to subscribe to the view that writers do have something of value and interest to contribute to a discussion of ideas.


And so do I, but there's nothing that says it's definitive as to human nature. It's Golding's perspective. It's not Homer's or Dante's or Dickens or Shakespeare's or ...
I don’t follow your point here. Is it that there is no definitive conclusion to be reached or simply that Golding is not as definitive as the authors you mention?


If I might try to qualify Voltaire's statement, it might go like this: Humanity will always find reasons to committ atrocities, it doesn't take an absurdity.
Virgil rewrites Voltaire to clear up any confusion! I think Xamonas articulated my other objections.


A simple and reasonable justification for all the examples you give is that there are too many humans, and, in the greater scheme of things, it is good to cull the species.
So you consider culling human beings as ‘reasonable’? What standards of ‘reason’ are you applying? To me, that is a belief that leads to atrocities.


Humanity will always find rationales for comitting atrocities.
Actually back to the Nazi scenario, the halocaust seemed perfectly reasonable Hitler and his henchmen.
The problem is not the rationale for committing atrocities but the gullibility of those who accept that rationale, especially in the case of Nazi Germany. Hitler and his henchmen would not have been able to succeed had not sufficient numbers of people accepted the doctrine of ‘The Final Solution’. Genocide needs its administrators, after all. Michael Burleigh’s book, The Third Reich: A New History (Winner of the Samuel Johnson Prize for Non-Fiction) is worth reading for its exploration of this.


Without approving of killing large quantities of people, I offered what is to me a perfectly sensible reason, i.e. that there are too many people. A belief that there are too many people is not based anything except mathematics. (People x consumption per person) > (consumables available). If that inequality holds, then some action is required.
This completely overlooks so many assumptions. What is meant by ‘too many people’? Too many people for what and according to whom? For each to have enough ‘consumables'? Wasn’t it Gandhi who said that the world has enough for each man’s need but not for each man’s greed? The idea that such a proposal is not based in anything other than mathematics is itself absurd. Moral judgments are being made at every stage.

[The Unnamable]

I recently watched a TV programme about the diminishing numbers of Asian elephants. Part of the problem is the huge market for Asian ivory, especially in Japan. They interviewed a young Japanese consumer and asked him if he felt guilty buying ivory products. He looked amused by the question and replied, “No, why should I?” He was told that the elephants from which the ivory came were being hunted out of existence. The man didn’t seem to understand. He finally replied, “but they get all the ivory from dead elephants in the elephants’ graveyards. They die from natural causes so why shouldn’t we use the ivory?” He genuinely believed this. To me, this is an absurd belief that has very negative consequences. You could argue that this isn’t really a belief as such at all, merely a case of ignorance of the facts. It appears to me that in that it resembles some of the debates already taking place on this forum. Besides, I was thinking more about this type of belief when I asked the question. You could also argue that what he believes is irrelevant – it’s what he does as a consequence of that belief that matters. True, but what he does is innocuous to him. He sees himself as simply buying the waste products of elephants that died naturally (presumably after a long and happy life). I think such beliefs need challenging. If he continues to consider buying ivory as legitimate then, even if he no longer does it himself, the society in which he lives is unlikely to be challenged in its assumptions and elephants will continue to die. It’s not just about what we actually do but what we think, which is a powerful determinant of what we do.

[Whifflingpin]

"Tempted though I am to consider your views as wiser than Voltaire’s or that he churned out meaningless phrases (it’s not a phrase by the way, it’s a sentence), I will stick with his I think."

Like Xamonas Chegwe, I don't believe in the "absolute truth of holy books," even when written by a Prophet of Reason, like Voltaire. I prefer to think for myself.

"Wasn’t it Gandhi who said that the world has enough for each man’s need but not for each man’s greed? " There you go again, depending on some other sacred writing. Time changes all things. In Gandhi's day, the world held enough for man's needs, but mankind did not have the will or the infrastructure to ensure a fair distribution, so local excesses of need over supply occurred. Xamonas has pointed out that the human population has vastly increased since then, so Gandhi's words may not hold good even globally for much longer. -

must dash, she who must be obeyed is waiting in the car - much more pressing than global calamity.

[The Unnamable]

Like Xamonas Chegwe, I don't believe in the "absolute truth of holy books," even when written by a Prophet of Reason, like Voltaire. I prefer to think for myself.

As do I. However, even the great Unnamable is not so arrogant as to think that the likes of Voltaire have nothing to teach him. This is a Literature Forum. May I ask if there are any writers you consider able to supplement your own intellectual powers?

The extent to which thinking for oneself is possible is another issue – one covered at length in the Language as Power thread if you are interested.



"Wasn’t it Gandhi who said that the world has enough for each man’s need but not for each man’s greed? " There you go again, depending on some other sacred writing.

I think you fail to distinguish between depending on other people’s writings and referring to them in acknowledgement that they have had something interesting and worthwhile to say.

Time changes all things. In Gandhi's day, the world held enough for man's needs, but mankind did not have the will or the infrastructure to ensure a fair distribution,
And lack of infrastructure of course, was (and remains) part of the reason. It has nothing to do with a lack of inclination to ensure fair distribution on behalf of those who benefit most from unequal distribution.



Xamonas has pointed out that the human population has vastly increased since then, so Gandhi's words may not hold good even globally for much longer. –
Even ‘much longer’ implies it is currently. If the West decided to stop consuming at the rate it does and also stopped eating meat, vast amounts of resources would be freed up. But why argue about the mass starvation of billions of people and the destruction of the planet when we have more pressing matters.

[Pendragon]

Here are some world views that are absurd and dangerous by my reckoning:

The belief that you have the right to kill those that do not agree with you.
The belief that you the government of your country/the leaders of your religion are infallable and must be obeyed without question.
The belief that people that share your nationality/skin colour/religion/sex are intrinsically superior to all others.
The belief that it is right to have sex with children or to rape another person of any age.
The belief that you are the reincarnation of Ghengis Khan and that all Chinese people must be slaughtered.

Would you defend the right of anyone to hold these world views (even if they promised not to act on them)?Since I may have been the torch that touched this whole thread off over on the other thread, let me state here an emphatic ABSOLUTELY NOT to every one of these statements, XC. I used a foolish example (i.e. if people believe the world was created by Puff the Magic Dragon) to try to stop name calling and put downs for what people believe about the creation of the Earth. It was a mistake I will not make again. I considered these beliefs harmless, and if people wanted to stick to them like glue, I said I would respect the person, not the belief, or at the least, that is what I intended to say. But people's right to a belief ends when it destroys another person's rights to life, liberty, or the persuit of happiness. That is why the constitution makes certain the government cannot force us to have a national religion.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

That is why the constitution makes certain the government cannot force us to have a national religion.

In your country perhaps. The head of state over the pond here in the UK is also head of the established church. A truly secular government is the exception not the rule.

And, if the US has no national religion, please answer me these:
Why does "In God We Trust" appear on your coins? (As well as being plastered across everything else official like measles?)
Why is the phrase, "One nation under God" included in the pledge of allegiance?
Why does the president (most presidents - I'm not singling out the present incumbent - no current politics from me, Oh no!) finish every speech with "God bless America"?

Perhaps you're not as godless as you believe. ;)

[Virgil]

In your country perhaps. The head of state over the pond here in the UK is also head of the established church. A truly secular government is the exception not the rule.

And, if the US has no national religion, please answer me these:
Why does "In God We Trust" appear on your coins? (As well as being plastered across everything else official like measles?)
Why is the phrase, "One nation under God" included in the pledge of allegiance?
Why does the president (most presidents - I'm not singling out the present incumbent - no current politics from me, Oh no!) finish every speech with "God bless America"?

Perhaps you're not as godless as you believe. ;)
Have people not taken any classes in logic? Perhaps this focus on post modern crap squeezes out important stuff like rhetoric and logic? Because there is no national religion, it does not follow that there is no belief in God. There is non-denominational prayer at the beginning of every session of congress and other functions. Actually Bono from U2 was just recently here at a prayer function with the president. No national religion means that neither Roman Catholicism or Anglicanism or Baptism or whatever is an official religion of the country. That's all. There is a line drawn between government function and religion; where that line is drawn is an evolving issue of debate and discussion. It evolves over time.

[RobinHood3000]

It may be non-denominational, but it's still prayer. The problem with a major argument for keeping the "Under God" in that Pledge of Allegiance, for example, is that even when you try to include everybody that believes in any god, there's still people that get left out. C'est la vie.

[Fontainhas]

"As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities."

Uuu, I didn't know that one. Love it. :banana:

[rachel]

It may be non-denominational, but it's still prayer. The problem with a major argument for keeping the "Under God" in that Pledge of Allegiance, for example, is that even when you try to include everybody that believes in any god, there's still people that get left out. C'est la vie.

In Canada-the western part at least, I cannot speak for the east, the word God is mentioned in the national anthem obviously because it was a very religious country when put together.
But absolutely no prayers are allowed in parliament of any sector of the government nor in schools nor any public assemblies excepting naturally Easter morning service in the outdoors.
I have no problem with that. I found really when I was a child and it was still done that it was a forced thing, a rude thing and it made me ashamed because Christ Jesus was gentle to all, eating with the tax collectors and prositutes etc.He of course taught them not to walk this way for their well being,but it in no way affected His deep love for them. So I think it needs to be in the home and in the heart. You cannot legislate loving God, that is why under the law which was but a shadow to the coming of Christ God showed how flawed such a thing was even though we convenated with Him. Like in a marriage He wants our heart not our being conscripted. The same about believing anything at all. that is why I love the scripture where God says" come let us REASON together." That is fair I think. :D

[The Unnamable]

It evolves over time.
Ah-ah, so you do believe in evolution! :D

I must own up, Virgil. I have never taken a class in logic. I refused to enter a building whose existence I considered nothing more than a mental construct.
I got an 'A'. :D

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Have people not taken any classes in logic? Perhaps this focus on post modern crap squeezes out important stuff like rhetoric and logic?


Rhetoric: Language designed to have a persuasive or impressive affect on it's audience, but which is often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.

And that's important stuff? Sounds like using language as control to me.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Because there is no national religion, it does not follow that there is no belief in God. There is non-denominational prayer at the beginning of every session of congress and other functions.

And does this lack of denominationality mean that muslims, hindus, sikhs, buddhists, jains, pagans, followers of native American beliefs, atheists and anyone else that isn't mainstream christian gets fairly represented?


Actually Bono from U2 was just recently here at a prayer function with the president.

(Warning. The next passage contains sarcasm. Those of a nervopus disposition should skip it.)
Bono, you say? I take it all back. If Bono agrees, it must be true. :nod:


No national religion means that neither Roman Catholicism or Anglicanism or Baptism or whatever is an official religion of the country. That's all.

So you are saying that generic christianity is? Sounds like it.


There is a line drawn between government function and religion; where that line is drawn is an evolving issue of debate and discussion. It evolves over time.

Somebody beat me to it on the 'evolves over time' comment. But I felt it needed emphasising.

[Pendragon]

And does this lack of denominationality mean that muslims, hindus, sikhs, buddhists, jains, pagans, followers of native American beliefs, atheists and anyone else that isn't mainstream christian gets fairly represented?




So you are saying that generic christianity is? Sounds like it.



I couldn't fairly say, XC, honesty being the best policy here. I do know that Wicca and Voodoo are recognized religions in the USA, and that we have our share of everyone you mention, plus more. There is much argument against the wording on our money, the pledge, and the prayers in the Senate/House, etc. Are we Godless, you asked? No. But I would be hard pressed to tell you why sometimes when I see the fighting among churches and religions...

[RobinHood3000]

And that's important stuff? Sounds like using language as control to me.
Speaking of which, omission is a form of control.


1 : the art of speaking or writing effectively: as a : the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times b : the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion
2 a : skill in the effective use of speech b : a type or mode of language or speech; also : insincere or grandiloquent language
3 : verbal communication : DISCOURSE

[Virgil]

(1) I broke a personal rule here on this thread, never to debate politics or religion. I wound up to my despair doing both. The reason that drew me in was that I saw a gross flaw in Unnamable's logic( ie, belief in absudites lead to atrocities). I will complete my points here and never discuss this again.

(2) First I would never poke my nose in some other countires politics or traditions. I would never ciriticize how other nations resolve their conflicts, especially between religion and government. I don't think it's appropriate. There are nations in Europe that still bow down to Kings and still have state sponsered religion. With Europe's history of religious strife, I don't think anyone there ought to be lecturing the United States.

(3) I said there was a line that evolves over where religion and government meet. We are a democracy, the first and oldest deomcracy on the face of this earth. 90% or thereabouts in America believe in some form higher diety. That line, drawn where it is, reflects that democracy. Some day we may be an atheistic nation. Then that line will reflect it so. People from all over the world still come to the United States for religious freedom. My wife is Jewish. Her family was persecuted in Europe. They are the proudest Americans I know, and they worship this land. Never do they feel, despite the fact that they are a very small minorty, do they feel that they are being slighted.

(4)
And does this lack of denominationality mean that muslims, hindus, sikhs, buddhists, jains, pagans, followers of native American beliefs, atheists and anyone else that isn't mainstream christian gets fairly represented In my observations of congressional daily prayer invocations, I have seen rabbis, protestant ministers, Catholic Priests, Greek Orthodox priests, muslim Imams, and perhaps sikhs (although I'm not sure I can tell). I don't see why there would be a reason for the other religions not to participate. We are a respectful and pluralistic society.

(5) The non-denominational prayers that I have heard and actually been in the audience for go something like this: Let us pray in the traditions that you have been brought up in and believe; almighty God (or I've even heard Universal Creator) we thank you for the blessings you have bestowed upon us and pray for your wisdom in guidence in the decsions that lay before us.

(6) I don't feel I have to rationalize my country's traditions to any outsider. There are more immagrants trying to come to our country than we can accomodate. My parents and I (as a three year old) were immigrants to my country. This country has been very good to me. I am proud of it beyond anyone's comprehension. If you don't like it, then don't live here. We won't mind.

[The Unnamable]

(1) The reason that drew me in was that I saw a gross flaw in Unnamable's logic( ie, belief in absudites lead to atrocities).
It was HIS fault!!! :D


I will complete my points here and never discuss this again.
After such a foul slur on my powers of reasoning, I will make no such promise. ;) Voltaire’s comment is no more intended as a piece of strict logic than is any other aphorism. Virgil, given your current attack of apoplectic nationalism, you might like this:

“No people can be great who have ceased to be virtuous.”
Dr. Johnson An Introduction to the Political State of Great Britain.

He was referring here to the behaviour of British colonists in America. If we examine this logically, it is flawed, perhaps even grossly flawed. What does he mean by ‘great’? What does he mean by ‘virtuous’? Is Johnson stating that there is a direct and logical correlation between greatness and virtue? There is no universal law that insists this must be so; “it just doesn't follow” to quote Virgil. In which case, does the great Dr. Johnson also require rewriting? This kind of deconstruction is fine by me but if you attack it on the point of pure logic, then you should be consistent and attack every statement of its nature.

I believe that Voltaire was pointing out that the gullibility of the many enables the evil of the few to thrive and set the agenda for barbarism.

A lot of the ideas here are worth considering in the light of Stanley Milgram’s Experiment:
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15073

“In order that all men may be taught to speak truth, it is necessary that all likewise should learn to hear it.”
Dr. Johnson ( or The Great Flawed Logician as he was known in his vaudeville days)

[blp]

With Europe's history of religious strife, I don't think anyone there ought to be lecturing the United States.

We are a democracy, the first and oldest deomcracy on the face of this earth. 90% or thereabouts in America believe in some form higher diety. That line, drawn where it is, reflects that democracy. Some day we may be an atheistic nation. Then that line will reflect it so. People from all over the world still come to the United States for religious freedom. My wife is Jewish. Her family was persecuted in Europe. They are the proudest Americans I know, and they worship this land. Never do they feel, despite the fact that they are a very small minorty, do they feel that they are being slighted.

I don't feel I have to rationalize my country's traditions to any outsider. There are more immagrants trying to come to our country than we can accomodate. My parents and I (as a three year old) were immigrants to my country. This country has been very good to me. I am proud of it beyond anyone's comprehension. If you don't like it, then don't live here. We won't mind.

Blimey. Where does it come from? What is it in response to? Mysteries, mysteries.

The sense of America's absolute, unimpeachable rightness in the world, held by many Americans, seems linked to many of the atrocities it has committed around the world in the name of its national interest, which is often elided as if there's no contradiction at all, with the idea of spreading democracy.

The idea that any person, state or institution is above criticism is undemocratic, so it's a shame America keeps insisting on its absolute rightness on the grounds that it is democratic. You might even say, absurd.

This idea that America is the world's first democracy is debatable at best. The word is, after all, a coinage of the ancient Greeks. In 1900, the only country in the world that had universal suffrage was New Zealand.

Europe, at various points, has had problems with religious conflict, so all the citizens of its present day secular democracies are disqualified from criticizing America? Did you say you'd taken a course on logic, Virgil?

Perhaps you were simply trying to give us an object lesson in absurdity.

Meanwhile, in another part of the forum, I think I must be the reason you accuse Unnamable of defending racism in literature. As so often, this point was dealt with fairly exhaustively at the time. Whether you agree with the general conclusion (the text was not racist) or not (you obviously don't), it's pretty disingenuous of you to bring it up as if your view was accepted as fact.

Unnamable, since we're allowed to talk about the Nazis (hooray!), there's a passage from Adorno I like where he says that Nazi slogans like 'Blut und Bloden' (Blood and Soil) were widely seen as ridiculous even at the time by the German population. Adorno's view is that the Nazis used absurdity as an assertion of power - effectively saying, they didn't even have to try to make sense.

The creationism debate you begin with relates closely to that statement some Bu****e made recently about 'the reality based community' (seen as a bad thing). My memory of this is not good, but wasn't the condemnation of those of us naive enough to believe in empirical evidence being used to justify the Iraq war? The step from belief in the absurd to body counts does seem short. It seems to become something the would-be perpetrators can use to facilitate their cause, however cynically.

To go back to the Nazis, there's obviously a great deal of mysticism and occultism surrounding their rise and their objectives. The main point, as I see it, is that opening the door to any of this is to begin to shut down the kind of critical thinking, logic and empiricism that is needed in order to prevent atrocity.

[Theshizznigg]

I've read on with this debate, and I find some fundamental facts interesting.

There has been many claims as to the origins of the problems of mankind, problems which stem back to the earliest point of human history.
Humanity has been commiting atrocitties since the first murder and has been continuing down the line ever since.
We must not forget that such things as genocide, political murder, masscres, have all been part of the human make-up since its initial start in the universe.
Many of the causes of these problems would seem to be religious ferver caused by fanatical groups within a religion.
We must then remember that these religous fanatics only stand for a part of that religous makeup, and it would be wrong, and essentially ignorant for us to "Paint Everyone" with the same brush, as it were.
What often happens is that evil minded people, often doing as they do, see a religion as a weapon, or a way to increase their power and thus use it to their own ends.
Hence the reason that Christian history is marred with political scandal, murder, and outright attrocities like the spanish inquisition. And, is also the reason that the Moslems in recent times have marred their national image by being driven by religious fanaticism to declare Jihads, and use acts of terror against people.
So then all cause for religious strife would originate from leaders who are otherwise ignorant or use the church/mosque/temple/offices as a weapon against those hatred that they themselves foster then drive the masses to follow.
It is then essentially those fanatics in any system, whether it be Communism, Socialism, Theism, or Universalism, that are the cause of religious strife in the world, and thus the truly dangerous element of religion. Therefore it is up to those in the majority to will themselves against the much louder minority.

"Anything, will have people who use it properly, and those who abuse it."

The Crusades, or "taking up the cross" happened for them most part because the papist system believed that the Holy land should lie in the hands of Christians, and was a direct result of the previous wars that had enveloped Byzantium, and major parts of Spain and Sicily. It was a way for those religious leaders to make up for the Christian territory that had been lost, and also a chance for Europe to be united under a common enemy.
Better to have them fighting the Saracen and Moors than other fellow Christians, and at the same time they could increase their land holdings and power. This in turn served the Church two major purposes, since they were doing what they thought was a service to God, and at the same time keeping peace in the Christian land, and was thus both political and religous.

As for the origin of world problems? I know the answer, but I will leave that for you all to decide.

Of course this is totally off course of the original subject :goof: Oh well, maybe someone will start a Nazi religous forum :lol:

[Scheherazade]

The topic of discussion in this thread is 'Does it matter if people believe in Creationism?' Please avoid turning it into country/people bashing session and, as always, no current politics!

Thank you!

[Theshizznigg]

I believe in creationism, I don't believe in the use of faith, or religion as a weapon. Save that for the politicians.

[Christian]

Patriotism is not a great deal more than an idealistic dream which often has little bearing on reality. You don't own your country it owns you, and you are completely free to do all that it commands, for democracy is merely a dictatorship by the majority, people cannot govern others until they are capable of governing themselves (Hegelian Philosophy on the state I believe)

But to the topic ;) Is creationism any more rediculous than the idea of everything came from nothing or that we evolved "Once upon a time in a land far far away"? The only thing that seems to be evolving is the theory of evolution itself, I cannot even keep up with the different amendments which have been placed to the evolution religion, and I don't mainly on account of it needing amendments in the first place.

Christianity has remained the same since the dawn of time and has never changed. Powerful words, but is nonetheless true, why? Because truth remains the same, it is the understanding of truth which alters.

There is a great deal of evidence to support Christianity and you you owe it to yourself to at least examine the evidence that stands to say that this is a matter of life and death and determine for yourself whether it is or not, if you look at it from the Adventist(now salvation is not restricted to a particular church but the best knowledge regarding it seems to be) perspective, which is my perspective, accompanied with an objective outlook you will become a Christian. Prove me wrong, I dare you, it will simply be heaven's gain if you try, for you will come to find you have eternal life if you but reach for it.

[blp]

There's a great thread for this kind of stuff, Christian. Perhaps you've dropped in already. It's just called Evolution vs. Creation. The purpose of this thread you've just posted in is not to argue about whether creationism and Christianity are true or not. Still, just one point I can't let go by: Christianity has not existed since the dawn of time. It's commonly acknowledged among Christians and non-Christians to have existed for about 2,000 years.

[Pendragon]

Christianity has not existed since the dawn of time. It's commonly acknowledged among Christians and non-Christians to have existed for about 2,000 years.Quite correct. If you don't mind a Bible quote, BLP, I think it's in Acts, "They were first called 'Christians' at Antioch", a city I'm not even sure exists in modern times, certainly not the same as then. :nod:

[Christian]

Christ the Son of God before the world was, is and ever will be the same both in intention and character, this is the point.

[The Unnamable]

Christ the Son of God before the world was, is and ever will be the same both in intention and character, this is the point.
That might be your point Christian but I asked the question because I don’t believe and think some beliefs are absurd. Creationism does strike me as one such belief but there are plenty of others. The one thing I have to distinguish me from an organism that acts purely on instinct is my rational faculty. It enables me to consider the meaning, purpose and value of my existence. I choose to do so without recourse to any supernatural being.

I believe that not only are some beliefs absurd, they also help prevent any real improvement in the lot of mankind by offering solutions that divert us from the real issues. If we believe Moses the Raven’s promise of ‘sugarcandy mountain’, then we are less likely to address the real causes of suffering, as well as less likely to embark on a course that offers hope of genuine improvement.

I think a lot of the fake respect that political correctness insists we accord to all beliefs has enabled nonsense to make dangerous inroads. The moral cowardice of those who are too intimidated by the threat of being labelled racist/sexist/narrow-minded to say what they believe is already having a destructive impact on independent thought. If you say anything about race other than that racism is evil, you are immediately suspect.

Most frightening to me is the fact that absurd beliefs are not only respected but also considered as deserving equal rights with all others. The idea of teaching creationism as a possible explanation is even more frightening.

What would people think if I started teaching astrology as a viable explanation for human existence? Some people believe in it just as strongly as others believe in God. To pretend that it’s anything more than nonsense gives it legitimacy it doesn’t deserve. If, having ‘found’ astrology people cease in their search for answers, the chances of us all finding them are diminished and the bigger and more popular the absurdity, the less likely is our capacity to avoid disaster.

[blp]

It's a tough one, Unnamable. The whole thread is premised on something a lot of people just aren't going to buy into.

Have you come across Frances Wheen's book 'How Mumbo Jumbo conquered the world'? It's a bit of a mess in a way and he lumps post structuralism with a lot of more legitimate beefs, but overall it paints an interesting if frightening picture of the pervasive acceptance of nonsense, from Hilary Clinton's astrologer to half baked management theory and 'blue sky thinking' under Thatcher.

[RobinHood3000]

I recall a political comic I once saw that sums my position up rather nicely, I think.

[The Unnamable]

It's a tough one, Unnamable. The whole thread is premised on something a lot of people just aren't going to buy into.
HAL:
for wisdom cries out in the
streets, and no man regards it.
King Henry IV Part 1 Act 1. Scene II

I intended “to vex the world rather than divert it.” ;)

Don't know the Frances Wheen book. If I see it, I'll give it a go.

[Pendragon]

I recall a political comic I once saw that sums my position up rather nicely, I think.Robin, mon ami, you know I believe in a Ceator. I also believe that church is where you should learn about the Bible, science class is where you learn about science, for I also believe in Evolution. Your political cartoon was priceless. Kind of puts things in perspective, doesn't it? :lol:

[blp]

HAL:
for wisdom cries out in the
streets, and no man regards it.
King Henry IV Part 1 Act 1. Scene II

I intended “to vex the world rather than divert it.” ;)

Words to live by. :nod:

[RobinHood3000]

Robin, mon ami, you know I believe in a Ceator. I also believe that church is where you should learn about the Bible, science class is where you learn about science, for I also believe in Evolution. Your political cartoon was priceless. Kind of puts things in perspective, doesn't it? :lol:
Indeed it does, amigo!

[ennison]

Wow 'boiled alive in chip fat'. Tasty. The next big thing in Burger King. It's always a delight to listen to the apostles of evolutionary theory pontificate about fossils and Lucys and missing links and the latest mumbo-jumboism of science which can neither save their mortal flesh nor satisfy their (almost invisible) immortal souls. I dig your crazy handles coves. By the way what Mr Voltaire really said was 'As long as people eat KFC, chickens will be roasted' A bad translation again. Responsible for several atrocities.

[cuppajoe_9]

There are lots of scientists that believe in God, including I may add Albert Einstein. If Albert Einstein can believe in God, it is not an absurdity that adds to any cumulative dangerous effect.Sorry, this was brought up very early in the thread, but nobody challenged it and I can't let it slip by. Alberta Einstien absolutely did not believe in God. 'God' (capitalized) means Yahweh. The Judeo-Christian fellow. To let Einstein speak for himself:
The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events — provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.So no, Albert Einstein did not believe in God. He was a deist, at best. I do not post this as a sort of atheist apologetics piece, I am merely very very sick of hearing "well Einstein believe in God, so you should to", as if that was a valid argument, or even true. Needless to say, my patience has already been expired with this sort of silliness: http://snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp. *Sigh*. Oh well, moving on:
t's always a delight to listen to the apostles of evolutionary theory pontificate about fossils and Lucys and missing links and the latest mumbo-jumboism of science which can neither save their mortal flesh nor satisfy their (almost invisible) immortal souls.See, this is why the rest of us are concerned about creationism. Thanks to the influence of intelligent design, belief in a theory backed up by absolute mounds of empirical evidence is now looked upon by large sectors of the public as some sort of religion, only without the repect that religion automatically recieves. This sort of thing is exactly why we need to be more educated about evolutionary theory, not less. If ennison (sorry to single you out but, in all fairness, you asked for it) knew a bit more about the theory, he would not be so quick to dismiss the Lucy fossil as 'mumbo-jumboism". The argument that both intelligent design and evolution are both simply a matter of belief, and therefore deserve equal class time, is harmfull to science and education in general. Not all beliefs are created equal, I'm sad to say. My theory that there is a small teapot in orbit around the (dwarf) planet pluto is not on equal footing with your theory that it isn't.

[ennison]

Ah 'tis her lack of knowlege of the theory that leads her to dismiss it as just a theory. Lucy was either human or not. Personally I believe she was every bit as human as you or I, maybe even a bit more. No 'missing link' has been found because... well ... it's missing. And what happened several million years ago is not subject to the proof of empirical investigations.

[alennox21]

He made the seas;
the dry land too, it was formed by his hands.
Come let us bow down; bending the knee before the God who made us.

No; I don't think it odd that you think God made the universe. I'm puzzled by anyone
who could remotely think otherwise.
Frankly, it's so evident, I find it totally beyond logic, how anyone can think otherwise.

I'm not a zealot. I have a gift. Fear of the Lord

Having said that, this is a family and community matter, it should be outside schools.
I'm Roman Catholic. I declined an excellent job offer in Richmond, Va. in the mid 90's
when I learned a Baptist minister would be giving a commencenet speech at a HS
my childern would eventually attend, should I move there. Although, the minister
might be Christian, it offended me that my children would subjected to a possible
interpretation of scriptures which were not in agreement with my church's teachings.



re-v

[RobinHood3000]

Evident? How?

[alennox21]

Simply, use your senses.
No. Disregard your senses.

Imagine, no senses. Would not your mother, sister or wife care for you?

re-v

[RobinHood3000]

Therein is the eternal question: without the senses, what would we be?

A definitive answer requires, and if such proof exists, then the purpose of faith is undermined. Hence my agnosticism.

[alennox21]

Forget sense!
Would not your mother, wife or sister care for you?

I understand if it's too personal a question, and you need not reply.

re-v

[cuppajoe_9]

Ah 'tis her lack of knowlege of the theory that leads her to dismiss it as just a theory. A theory, in science, is a hypothesis that so well explains the available empirical evidence so well that it is accepted as fact. Gravity, for example, is 'just a theory'.
Lucy was either human or not. Personally I believe she was every bit as human as you or I, maybe even a bit more. Lucy was not a human, but her ancestors are. No, she is not more human than me, it is not logically possible to be more of a homo sapiens than a homo sapiens.
No 'missing link' has been found because... well ... it's missing. The missing link is not something that you can actually find, it's a request for logically impossible empirical evidence. It can't be found for the same reason that you can't link two points connected on a line by drawing more points on a line, not to the standards of the creationist, anyway.
And what happened several million years ago is not subject to the proof of empirical investigations.Nothing is 'subject to the proof of empirical investigations'. Proofs happen in mathematics and logic, not in science. There is always room for doubt in empirical evidence. Ask John Locke, who invented the empirical theory of knowledge. Better yet, ask any credible scientist.
Simply, use your senses.
No. Disregard your senses.

Imagine, no senses. Would not your mother, sister or wife care for you?I hope so. What in blazes does that have to do with the origins of the universe?

[Nightshade]

Can I say somthing?
I belive that certain parts of the evloutionary theory as I have been led to belive it ( I know that grammer is appaling but Ive had a bad day and its 3am so please forgive me) is absurd and totally illogical. For me God is the most logical belief and hence I belive in creationism but I guess Im a bit of a cheat because I also belive in evolution-- that is I belive that evolution is a tool of Creation. that creation is an eternal process.
But then like robin said if we had definate tangibale proof other than that which you see through the lens of faith, faith in it self would be redundant.
I dont think though that absurd beliefs nessiceraly always lead to atrocities it can but thats more than absurd beliefs thats a conviction rather than a belief There are all sorts of harmless absurd beliefs out there. One off the top of my head is never leaving a pair of scisorrs open, as itll bring bad luck ( well actually the superstion is itll ange the jin wholl get back at you).


What in blazes does that have to do with the origins of the universe?
Um although thats my reactionn too I think I may be wrong here but do you mean alennox21 that forget the senses that you think with and just accept God and then see him as it were?:S
OT: what is re-v??:confused:

[cuppajoe_9]

I dont think though that absurd beliefs nessiceraly always lead to atrocities it can but thats more than absurd beliefs thats a conviction rather than a belief There are all sorts of harmless absurd beliefs out there. One off the top of my head is never leaving a pair of scisorrs open, as itll bring bad luck ( well actually the superstion is itll ange the jin wholl get back at you).It isn't that absurdities always result in atrocities, it's just that atrocities would be impossible without them.

[Nightshade]

NO I dont think so it doesnt need an absurd belief to make someone go out and shoot people, thats sorry a bit of an ilogical stament dont you think? It means that people only do things because of beliefs and belief systems. WHile as I see it most people do things in an attempt to get somthing for themselves.

[cuppajoe_9]

NO I dont think so it doesnt need an absurd belief to make someone go out and shoot people, thats sorry a bit of an ilogical stament dont you think? It means that people only do things because of beliefs and belief systems. WHile as I see it most people do things in an attempt to get somthing for themselves.The idea that drawing attention to yourself is worth the lives of innocent people is a pretty absurd belief, n'est pas?

[alennox21]

Hey, where do you think you come from?
Mother, wife, sister and daughters.
More to the point given no senses, who would maintain you? Who would provide your sustanance?
The universe is on a mad dash to the total opposite pole of love. It's evident that love is the opposite pole and sustains life.
Of course you can commit me to an assylum, but my wife sister and daughters will be at my side.

And, the beauty of it is the beginning of the universe really is no farther away than a loving touch.

Okay, put me in a straght jacket

re-v

[cuppajoe_9]

Hey, where do you think you come from?
Mother, wife, sister and daughters.
More to the point given no senses, who would maintain you? Who would provide your sustanance?
I don't think you're crazy, but you've hardly explained yourself.
Mother, wife, sister and daughters.
More to the point given no senses, who would maintain you? Who would provide your sustanance?My mother, (hypothetical) wife, sister and (hypothetical) children, presumeably. What are you driving at? I gather you're trying towards a 'first cause' argument of some sort, but you're not being very clear.
The universe is on a mad dash to the total opposite pole of love. It's evident that love is the opposite pole and sustains life.What makes you think that the universe is on a mad dash towards hate? Actually, what does that mean?
And, the beauty of it is the beginning of the universe really is no farther away than a loving touch.

Okay, put me in a straght jacketIf you insist, but I really am interested in what you are driving at.

[Nightshade]

The idea that drawing attention to yourself is worth the lives of innocent people is a pretty absurd belief, n'est pas?

Not really, Im not sure Id concider it a belief -- I guess thats where it gets tricky where all these eventually end up disinergrating semantics :rolleyes:--
anyway as I was saying is that what they are believeing and do they consider the people at all?

Hows this for an example. War is an attrocity. But war is not always absurd, more often it calculated and scarily logical using the example of macedonia and babylon when which it was went in and masscured the others that was absurded it was cold caluclacted revenge and seizing an opertunity to become a wealthier stronger country.

The building of the suez canal wasnt absurd was it? And yet the egyptains and they are taught this in school- hold that that was an attrocity inflicted on the natives that hundreds if not thousands of 'natives' died /were killed in the digging of that thing. Bu it wasnt absurd it was buisness.

[cuppajoe_9]

The building of the suez canal wasnt absurd was it? And yet the egyptains and they are taught this in school- hold that that was an attrocity inflicted on the natives that hundreds if not thousands of 'natives' died /were killed in the digging of that thing. But it wasnt absurd it was buisness.The idea that British pounds are of more value than Egyptian lives is absurd in the highest degree, in my humble opinion. Of course now I'm defining 'absurd' in such a way that I can't possibly be wrong, and defending one of Voltare's little quips is hardly worth it. If I was in your place, I would stop arguing semantics with the obstinant little Canadian over the internet and go to bed.

[Nightshade]

huh well I might stop arguing with you but am too wound up by the 'incedent' we had here tonight to be going to sleep. so Ill just keep arguing :D

And again I hold that that isnt absurd its egoand ethingcentered greeed and selfishness nothing absurd in it at all.:nod:

[cuppajoe_9]

And again I hold that that isnt absurd its egoand ethingcentered greeed and selfishness nothing absurd in it at all.Well I don't know about you but I consider greed (where it leads to murder) and ethnocentrism extremely absurd. I'll just keep saying that you know...

[Nightshade]

But its not absurd as in foolish it makes a twisted but definate sense. mind you I will agree with you that if we follow it back to the root latin surdus meaning harsh then yes absurdity often leads to attrocity.
but then again love is absurd.

[cuppajoe_9]

but then again love is absurd.You make an interesting point. Again, I'm not interested in defending Voltaire all that vigorously. I think the trick in arranging an atrocity is to convince a lot of people of somthing absurd ex. that aryans are the 'master race', that your country is better than every other, that money is worth more than human life. Ya know, that kind of thing.

[RobinHood3000]

Forget sense!
Would not your mother, wife or sister care for you?

I understand if it's too personal a question, and you need not reply.

re-vFeh, not at all. Just as a warning, though, recent events have me a bit tightly wound, so I'm a mite bit cranky.

If I lost all sense, sure. If they lost all sense, probably not. If everyone on the planet lost all their sense, well...we'd be someplace like where we are today.

Now I'm sure you have a profound, earth-shattering point to make on that basis, so go right ahead.

[Nightshade]

I dont understand the point alennox21 is makeing and being confused will get me annoyed which I really havent the time or energy for today so can someone explain it to me?!

please

What do women have to do whith the creation of the world?

[ennison]

Thank you for taking the time out to reply even if you don't see the joke in the bit about being more human. Anyway your pursuit of the line that only Lucy's ancestors are human is not only dangerous but wrong. I'm sure Locke was a fine feller but he would not have fallen into the trip of misreading scraps of evidence to jump to such erroneous conclusions. Good wishes to you and your odd bonnet.

[alennox21]

My point is who will sustain you? The universe is running to disorder.
Take your house; If left untouched and not maintained it will eventually
atrophy, wear away.
I didn't mean to limit the idea of God to a gender. I want to point out the idea of care and love. It's a slam dunk when I refer to mother, wife, sister or daughter. And that, cosmologically, the beginning is also the present and future. It all starts with Love.

re-v

I'm sure that is pretty easy to understand.

[cuppajoe_9]

Anyway your pursuit of the line that only Lucy's ancestors are human is not only dangerous but wrong. I'm sure Locke was a fine feller but he would not have fallen into the trip of misreading scraps of evidence to jump to such erroneous conclusions.Scraps of guesswork my arse. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution. The fact (that's right, fact) that evolution occurs is as sure as anything else in biology. Either we arrived at the truely breathtaking biodiversity that currently exists on earth through evolution, or it was designed by a cosmic prankster who took great pains to make everything look like it evolved.
The Genetic code is the same for almost every organism, meaning that a piece of RNA in a bacterium codes for the same protein as in a human cell.If you or anybody else has a convincing non-evolutionary explaination for that, I would be absolutely fascinated to hear it.

[cuppajoe_9]

I dont understand the point alennox21 is makeing and being confused will get me annoyed which I really havent the time or energy for today so can someone explain it to me?!

please

What do women have to do whith the creation of the world?
It's some sort of an argument from order, if I'm not mistaken. The universe is so ordered that there must be a God to keep it that way. Man, if this is order I'd hate to see chaos.

[RobinHood3000]

Care and love do not a Supreme Being prove.

[Pendragon]

Answering the original question, i.e. Does it matter if people believe in Creationism?, I will quote Thomas Jefferson: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to other. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to think there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Que sera, sera. :) For the record, I believe in both, that God started the world and evelution shaped it into what it is today. So if one wishes to disagree with me, it is nothing new. I always ask "Has it ever occurred to any of us that we all could be wrong?" :) Infinate universe with infinate possibilities somehow has always appealed to me, and others have wondered the same. What if? I bow out, as I wish no long arguments. This is one man's opinion, take it as such, with a grain of salt. :)

[cuppajoe_9]

Pen: everybody is, of course, entitled to believe whatever they please. They are not, however, entitled to have their beliefs treated as science and taught in biology class, and they are certainly not entitled to misrepresent evidence contrary to those beliefs to achieve that end.

[Nightshade]

Scraps of guesswork my arse. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution. The fact (that's right, fact) that evolution occurs is as sure as anything else in biology. Either we arrived at the truely breathtaking biodiversity that currently exists on earth through evolution, or it was designed by a cosmic prankster who took great pains to make everything look like it evolved.If you or anybody else has a convincing non-evolutionary explaination for that, I would be absolutely fascinated to hear it.

ok not saying your wrong but Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source!

[cuppajoe_9]

ok not saying your wrong but Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source!
I know, but it sure is a convenient one. If it was possible to post a link to the full text of The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins I would've done that. I read through the article and it's cited fairly well, and it's all the information in one place. I'll take what I can get.

[Nightshade]

somehow missed this page when I posted the last one....

Pen: everybody is, of course, entitled to believe whatever they please. They are not, however, entitled to have their beliefs treated as science and taught in biology class, and they are certainly not entitled to misrepresent evidence contrary to those beliefs to achieve that end.

Im not being picky really and Im ot even saying I truley disagree with you but just for the sake of the argument...
look isnt all science belief? I mean the scientific method of proving somthing is to attempt to disprove it and if you cant then its proven, or somthing along those lines I fund it all very strange when they explained it to me. And the thing is representing evidence is in fact just that representing things in a certain light. and you do it all based on your assumcions and schema. SO if I belive in a supreme being then everything I see that is so perefct and amazig in life simply reinforces that belief, as well God made it that way like a little self sufficent program. but if you dont belive in God then the fact that everything runs so smoothly on its own well it reinforces that belief doesnt it?

What is science anyway, where does science stop and belief begin?
I do however think that eveloution theory should be thought in schools not as the gospel truth but as a very viable theory and along side it can be mentioned other theories but not I suppose in a science lesson although they should be mentioned in the lesson as a side note like 'How we got to this point in human exsistance and how human exsistace came about in the first place has lots of differant theories as this is a science lesson we will study the most popular scientifically accepted theory while others like creation will be covered in things like RE and whatever you belive is truly immaterial as you should still be aware and have an understanding of both sides of the argument'

or thats how Id do it if I was tecahing it.

[cuppajoe_9]

If there was a good reason to think that the theory of evolution is essentially incorrect, then it would warrant quite a bit of class time, but there isn't. Granted, science is based on belief in the validity of empirical evidence, but I don't think that's a belief that is subject to very much serious debate. If the empirical evidence suggests that species evolve, that's what should be taught in biology class. If the empirical evidence suddenly began to suggest that species were actually intelligently designed, then that's what should be taught, but it doesn't. If the ID crowd want their ideas taught along side evolutionary theory in classrooms, they had better have a pretty good scientific theory to work with and they don't. Scientific theories, for one thing, have to be falsifiable and testable in experiment.

[Nightshade]

Maybe evloution just shouldnt be taught in schools- well not the whole we all decended from a single anscestor who was a monkey thing( although to tell you the tuth I get a bit confused is that evolutionary theory? I vebeen planning on reading darwin since I visited the natural history museum :eek2: ( has it really been 2 months?!)ago. But rather they should teach the bits no one argues about like narurl selection and say right the rest is taught at a higher level where we are les likly to completly shape your opion also or say right go away and read this this this and this look it up and make up your own mind about what you tink come back and write me a good essay ( like for PSHE or somthing) on what you belive why you do - no answer is wrong.
Because lets face it Your never ever going to prove to either side that the other is 100% right.
I for one like Pen belive in both, quite conveniantly I might add and I really dont see the huge and enormous conflict if betweeen the 2.

[RobinHood3000]

For one thing, Night, if something is not disproven, the scientific method does not dictate that it is automatically proven. That's why evolution is still around, because there's mounds of support for it and nothing disproving it, but no empirically rigourous evidence. The fact that humans are required to admit they don't know everything is one of the more appealing aspects of science for me.

The thought that humans are descended from a single, ape-like ancestor doesn't bother me any. Considering the similarity, it only makes sense.

Science is so much more than belief. Believing you can fly will not put you in the air for very long. Belief alone will not take you where we are today, although all things considered, perhaps we'd rather not be here. Science and belief (namely religion) have one thing in common: they can be as grossly misused for ill as well-used for good.

[cuppajoe_9]

That's why evolution is still around, because there's mounds of support for it and nothing disproving it, but no empirically rigourous evidence.I completely disagree. The fossil record, georgraphical distribution of similar animals, all the plant and animal genomes decoded thus far, observation of existing plants and animals and the correct predictions of their behavior, as well as the physiological similarities across entire phylum constitute rigorous empirical evidence in support of the theory. One could just as easily say that there is no rigorous empirical evidence for atomic theory because nobody has ever seen a neutron.

[RobinHood3000]

Well, just trying to step carefully. :D

[Pendragon]

Pen: everybody is, of course, entitled to believe whatever they please. They are not, however, entitled to have their beliefs treated as science and taught in biology class, and they are certainly not entitled to misrepresent evidence contrary to those beliefs to achieve that end.And I would be grateful to have it pointed out to me just where I have done this. "One man's opinion, take it with a grain of salt." I believe were my exact words. Where do you think I learned about evolution, mon ami, in a revival meeting? Why do you think I believe that evolution took place? Here's a good question for creationists only, not for one's like myself. What color skin did Adam and Eve have? Then why do we have so many different races? Evolution, adaptation to environment, change over time. How long? I cannot even guess and do not try. If science wishes to try to measure the time as accurately as they can, I will not argue. I don't think you could place a being like a God into time anyway, so their measurements certainly cannot be thrown out. I am not going into a classroom to preach. That is what a church is for, and there I will answer to no one who tries to tell me what I may say. The school is for the sciences. Now argue with me if you still wish to do so. I have no argument with anyone.

[Nightshade]

What color skin did Adam and Eve have? Then why do we have so many different races? .

well Im like you sort of but Adam was black and eve was white- clay and bone.

do I get popcorn?:p
:D

[cuppajoe_9]

Pen: I was acutally aware that you don't do that, and I wasn't trying to accuse you of it. I guess I could have been clearer about that. Sorry.

P.S. Adam and Ever were totally plaid.

[Pendragon]

well Im like you sort of but Adam was black and eve was white- clay and bone.

do I get popcorn?:p
:Dhttp://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/ernaehrung/food-smiley-007.gif Why not? :lol: I ask that question a lot because believe it or not, some people who should wake up and live in this century, not the dark ages, still claim "The Mark of Cain" was turning him into a black man. Prejudice will always be with us I fear. I don't know what color Adam & Eve were and it doesn't matter. It ends up the same, we change over time and become many races. But know what? Our blood is all the same color! :)

[Pendragon]

Pen: I was acutally aware that you don't do that, and I wasn't trying to accuse you of it. I guess I could have been clearer about that. Sorry.

P.S. Adam and Ever were totally plaid.No blood, no foul. I assure you that if you are not offended with me, I am one of the easiest people in the world with whom to get along. I have no arguments with people. As I say, hey, we ALL could be wrong...:)

[ennison]

Been away, now I'm back. Well I call change 'change' but you call it 'evolution'. Human beings have always been human beings and the danger of not accepting that is made manifest both in history and at present. You're too smart not to have noticed that. A prominent evolutionist has 'predicted' recently that humanity will 'evolve' into two groups; A genetic aristocracy and a genetic under class. Now regardless of the myriad 'facts' that you direct me to as smoke-screen those ideas are very dangerous mumbo-jumbo. Your point about gravity being just a theory is interesting. Some fifteen years ago while working in construction I fell from a scaffold. Had I the knowledge then that gravity was just a theory I could have consoled myself with the possibility that the angels of empirical science might come to sweep me up into some sort of airy-fairy free fall rather than the 'conclusion' that my 'reptilian?' brain leapt to - the incohate panic that my immediate death or paralysis was about to occur. Did I fly upward? Now that is an interesting question. One must take one's consolation where it is to be found I guess.

[ennison]

As Kim el Dingbat says we should be congratulating the North Korean scientists who have produced their little nuclear bomb. Scientists are such fine reliable folk, motivated only by the rigorous discipline of objective science. As our Canadian friend would say (only less politely) 'My fundament'. Scientists are like the rest of us motivated by half-felt, half-understood, deliberately mis-interpreted impulses. The hymn writer who said 'change and decay in all around I see' has been transmogrified into the evolutionist seeking evidence to support his ready made theory and finding the evidence because he wants to. Any evidence that does not fit is dismissed as just not ready to fit - yet. If the acceptance of this theory as fact is doing anything except closing minds then nothing I've read here or elsewhere offers contrary evidence. With all due respect to Cuppajoe (And that's a lot because he is very intelligent) the dismissal of contrary evidence does not do scientific thought any good and eventually leads to the type of tame scientists of the Kim Dynasty of North Korea.

[cuppajoe_9]

Human beings have always been human beings and the danger of not accepting that is made manifest both in history and at present.

Evolution is a dangerous idea, I don't dispute it. Safety, however, does not imply truth. We're not a the centre of the universe, the sun does not revolve around us, and worse: we're hardly made of anything (atoms are 99% vacuum) and we came from some sort of slime. Violence is going to come of it, I'm very very very very sorry to say, we're going to have to come to terms with it.


A prominent evolutionist has 'predicted' recently that humanity will 'evolve' into two groups; A genetic aristocracy and a genetic under class. Now regardless of the myriad 'facts' that you direct me to as smoke-screen those ideas are very dangerous mumbo-jumbo.

Eeeyup. I'm not going to spell out exactly why I think it's mumbo-jumbo right here because it would take too long (you can read it on the News (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19427) thread in the General Chat if you'd like), but the point is there are some bad scientists out there. However, there are also some very good scientists out there, it's just that they aren't always the ones who make the news.


Your point about gravity being just a theory is interesting. Some fifteen years ago while working in construction I fell from a scaffold. Had I the knowledge then that gravity was just a theory I could have consoled myself with the possibility that the angels of empirical science might come to sweep me up into some sort of airy-fairy free fall rather than the 'conclusion' that my 'reptilian?' brain leapt to - the incohate panic that my immediate death or paralysis was about to occur. Did I fly upward? Now that is an interesting question. One must take one's consolation where it is to be found I guess.

The point is that in science, a theory is not "just a theory". 'Theory' in science doesn't mean 'educated guess', it means 'a hypothesis that so well explains all the available data that it is accepted as fact. The 'reptilian' brain comment is interesting. Nobody's dispariaging your brain, and there's no reason to think that just because we evolved from less intelligent creatures that our powers of reason are not to be trusted. Our more recent ancestors probably would have accepted without question that the best treatment for madness is to drill a hole in the skull to let the demons out, but that's no reason to think that you and I are morons.


Evolutionists have closed minds

Some do, some don't. No reason to lump all of us into the same category.


As Kim el Dingbat says we should be congratulating the North Korean scientists who have produced their little nuclear bomb. Scientists are such fine reliable folk, motivated only by the rigorous discipline of objective science.

Some scientists are immoral, yes, particularly ones who will be killed by insane Stalinist dictators if they act morally. This has nothing whatsoever to do with evolutionary biology.


he hymn writer who said 'change and decay in all around I see' has been transmogrified into the evolutionist seeking evidence to support his ready made theory and finding the evidence because he wants to.

I've heard the 'scientist as religious figure' lament a number of times. Frankly, it's hogwash. If you look to any reputable evolutionary biologist for the answer to a moral problem, he will tell you to look elsewhere. Richard Dawkins, for example, frequently reminds his readers that he would not want to live in a society which takes it's ethical cues from evolution. I really cannot overstate the imporatnce of reading The Selfish Gene if you want to understand evolutionary theory.


Any evidence that does not fit is dismissed as just not ready to fit - yet.

Yes, evolutionary theory has to change to acomodate the evidence, just like any other good theory. There have been challenges, but so far no fatal ones. The ID crowd's frequent cry that "half an eye is useless" has lead to a number of researchers tracking the evolutionary process of the eye. It's not as complicated as one might think, and they've even been able to track the process in currently existing animals with rudamentary eyes.

A piece of fatal evidence to evolutionary theory could be quite simple (dig up a human skeleton in pre-cambrian rock and we need a new theory) but so far it hasn't happened.


With all due respect to Cuppajoe (And that's a lot because he is very intelligent) the dismissal of contrary evidence does not do scientific thought any good and eventually leads to the type of tame scientists of the Kim Dynasty of North Korea.

Thank you very much. I completely agree. That's why I am so very happy when contrary evidence is not dismised but studided and evaluated, as in my 'half an eye' example.

[ennison]

Reckon I've said all I want at present. My reference to the reptilian brain was a joking aside about that part of the brain which evolutionists claim is a vestigial remnant of the creature from the dark lagoon that you my friend and them seem to think was our ancestor. That part which is involved in profound things like 'flight or fight'. I wasn't implying that you had insulted me though no doubt in your apostolic evolutionary zeal the urge to do so might have flitted through that part of your own brain. I note that you have refrained. I remain deeply suspicious of the ammoral relatavism into which the too ready acceptance of evolutionary theory is leading us. I am a creationist without being one who reads the Genesis account literally. There are other interesting things to talk about and no doubt judging by the frequency of your posts I'll have the opportunity to converse ethereally with you elsewhere. I'll leave it to some of the American creationists to wield the cudgel for a while and deng dont they just swing it about!

[cuppajoe_9]

I wasn't implying that you had insulted me though no doubt in your apostolic evolutionary zeal the urge to do so might have flitted through that part of your own brain. I note that you have refrained.

I was never under the impression that I insulted you. You, on the other hand, have certainly just insulted me.


I remain deeply suspicious of the ammoral relatavism into which the too ready acceptance of evolutionary theory is leading us.

*sigh* Ok, one more time: evolutionary theory says nothing whatsoever about how humans morally ought to behave. It is a scientific theory like any other. Any resulting moral relativism is the fault of the interpreter and not of the theory.


I'll leave it to some of the American creationists to wield the cudgel for a while and deng dont they just swing it about!

Fortunately, around here anyway, they don't.

I'll see you around.

[ennison]

Sorry my jousting friend - 'reptilian brain' is what some of the brain specialists sometimes call that part of not just yours but all our brains. Oh I do not like having to explain my explanations. Please take no offense by my reference to our conscious and unconscious impulses. We ALL have them. You should have noted more that I said you had 'resisted'. As Burns said visible bad behaviour is one thing easy to criticise (He often justifiably was) but we should observe that we do not always note or know what is resisted. I've enjoyed our exchanges but as one who tries to practice what has been preached to him from the pulpit and experience and Book I would not want us to part on unfriendly terms. It's probably my rather ironic sense of humour that leads to these misunderstandings but this is definitely my last post in this bit. You may have the last word. Do you think that our American friends are fearties?

[Pendragon]

You may have the last word. Do you think that our American friends are fearties?If by this particular word which I confess I have yet to come across, although I read a lot of British Literature and am up on a good bit of British slang, me China, you imply that Americans are afraid, no. I am not and never have been. Take the time to read the whole thread and you will see where I stand. Better yet, go and read the extra-long Evolution VS Creationism thread and find my stance there. And others as well. Cowards need not apply here. :nod:

[cuppajoe_9]

Do you think that our American friends are fearties?

If anything, they have the opposite problem.