400 replies to this topic

[Blauerdrakken]

Dornish, on May 2 2009, 07.02, said:

If and only if it is taught as being on the same level of validity as Greek, Norse, etc myths, I'd agree.

Level of validity is not relevant. The Greek, Norse, and other mythologies have not had quite as much impact on how the world that we live in has formed and how our history has played out. I wouldn't want a school to teach creationism (or any Christian belief) as though it had any validity whatsoever any more than I would want them to teach that it did not have validity. Leave the whole discussion of what is valid and what is not to the churches. In schools, they should be studying religions only in the context of "these are the various beliefs that exist", and "these are the things in our history and in our society that came to be because of these beliefs."

[Dornish]

the Blauer Dragon, on May 2 2009, 12.27, said:

Level of validity is not relevant. The Greek, Norse, and other mythologies have not had quite as much impact on how the world that we live in has formed and how our history has played out. I wouldn't want a school to teach creationism (or any Christian belief) as though it had any validity whatsoever any more than I would want them to teach that it did not have validity. Leave the whole discussion of what is valid and what is not to the churches. In schools, they should be studying religions only in the context of "these are the various beliefs that exist", and "these are the things in our history and in our society that came to be because of these beliefs."

To me that attitude sort of shits on critical thinking. You can't bring up a worldview without someone questioning its validity, especially one based on bronze age myths. Some student is going to point out that biblical creation is silly, and this forces the teacher to take a position, not good.

Churches are the last place people should look for validity. Logic and reason determine validity not faith. What in our society was influenced by creationism apart from the current bullshit evolution controversy?

[CiaranAnnrach]

EHK for Darwin, on May 2 2009, 11.17, said:

Mockery and criticism is not persecution. And the regular Catholic or the lazy Methodist has no common cause with the evangelical getting ripped a new asshole for blaming earthquakes on evolution teaching.

So, the primary focus of your crusade isn't really the normal mainstream church, but then the extreme right wings? Such as the groups that refuse medical service, etc.? That's a bit different than what I thought you meant, and might work. Just be careful that the level of attack remains at criticism and mockery; it'd only take a handful of overzealous rednecks drunk up on beer to escalate things to a level where it would be considered persecution. But good luck with it! Just, let me know when you're starting so I can go get some popcorn.

[EHK for Darwin]

CiaranAnnrach, on May 2 2009, 12.16, said:

So, the primary focus of your crusade isn't really the normal mainstream church, but then the extreme right wings? Such as the groups that refuse medical service, etc.? That's a bit different than what I thought you meant, and might work. Just be careful that the level of attack remains at criticism and mockery; it'd only take a handful of overzealous rednecks drunk up on beer to escalate things to a level where it would be considered persecution. But good luck with it! Just, let me know when you're starting so I can go get some popcorn.

I'm in favor of taking the opportunities given. Those extreme right wing churches give more opportunities than most. But any statement, action, or expression that qualifies as pretty obviously silly, offensive, or stupid is fair game. Guilt by association should hopefully do the rest of the work.

[CiaranAnnrach]

EHK for Darwin, on May 2 2009, 12.20, said:

I'm in favor of taking the opportunities given. Those extreme right wing churches give more opportunities than most. But any statement, action, or expression that qualifies as pretty obviously silly, offensive, or stupid is fair game. Guilt by association should hopefully do the rest of the work.

Possibly, but possibly not. I'm not going to feel very guilty if you're railing on XXX Church for claiming "earthquakes are 'cause we're teaching evolution" - because I think that's stupid as shit, too. The only way you'd get the guilt by association is if you really directly attack something that is a common belief. Otherwise, it's kinda like saying by attacking George W. Bush, all white people are going to feel guilty by association, 'cause we're all white. And I know for sure that you aren't really feeling much guilt by it.

[Blauerdrakken]

Dornish, on May 2 2009, 09.44, said:

To me that attitude sort of shits on critical thinking. You can't bring up a worldview without someone questioning its validity, especially one based on bronze age myths. Some student is going to point out that biblical creation is silly, and this forces the teacher to take a position, not good.

Churches are the last place people should look for validity. Logic and reason determine validity not faith. What in our society was influenced by creationism apart from the current bullshit evolution controversy?

If a student says "This is silly, none of this is logical", (and the teacher doesn't want to take a stand) the logical response is "many generations of people did not think so, even today there are millions of people who don't think so." My point about influence wasn't strictly about creation theory versus evolution theory, though it makes a nice tie in to the existence of belief in intelligent design. My point was more about explaining that religious belief (particularly Christianity) has had a profound impact on how our societies have developed, what we consider to be moral or immoral, some of the things that we've had to reconcile, many of the struggles that we've had, what laws we've enacted, and what wars we've fought. In that sense, I'm saying treat those beliefs like you would treat the ancient Greek or Norse myths, just acknowledging that they are far more significant and have had a much greater amount of impact on the world as a whole.

[turinturambar]

GdMisfits, on May 1 2009, 14.06, said:

In this article there is a gallup pole that shows 61% of americans reject evolution.  WTF?  Apparently, acording to another pole I will link to when i get off of work, fewer people today believe in evolution than did 20 years ago.  20 years worth of genetic evidence in support of evolution, 20 years of research that supports evolution, and today you are more likely than ever to hear someone say "evolution is just a theory".  At the same time, I am just as likely as i was 20 years ago at age 3 to tell them "yeah, like gravity is just a theory".  in any case, MHO is that this is crazy.  is anyone else disturbed by this?  is anyone disturbed by the 40% that reject adam and eve?

I know very few people who don't believe in evolution.  Even most religious people I know(the more sane ones) believe in evolution, at least to an extent.  

I think you have to take response/non-response bias into account with these polls.

[El-ahrairah]

Horus-SpiderObama, on May 2 2009, 08.11, said:

I have little doubt that President Obama is likely a closet agnostic, he pretty much admits that both of his parents and his Indonesian stepfather were.  They were all intellectuals who had little use for religion.  I think he saw the United Church of Christ as useful in his efforts to help in the struggling communities in Chicago, and so he joined their church.  I also see the potential for good that churches can do and recognise the good that Catholics can do.  I don't think that things are as cut and dry as the poll suggests.

So you think he lied of his beliefs in order to secure his election?

[Blauerdrakken]

El-ahrairah, on May 2 2009, 12.26, said:

So you think he lied of his beliefs in order to secure his election?

Absotively, Posolutely he lied!
Nothing new. Politicians lie. It's hardly shocking.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

EHK,

EHK for Darwin, on May 2 2009, 12.17, said:

How's that for misrepresentation? There's the implicit suggestion there that the two are equally likely propositions. They're not.

Well, Fr. Thomas isn't saying the propositions are equally likely.  He's saying Christ is the God/man who freed the world from true death.  However, he's admitting if the central tenat of Christan faith is untrue Christians are holding to a belief that is insane.  How is what he said in any way a "misrepresentation?

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison, 02 May 2009 - 02:57 PM.

[Watcher]

ljkeane, on May 1 2009, 17.35, said:

I'm asking schools to teach students the scientific facts and not present creationism as 'science' beyond that what do you suggest as a realistic way to address the issue?.

I think you're overstating the influence of conservative religious groups on students especially on those who are not members of their religion, they're also against sex before marriage how well do you think that propaganda is working out?.

You are greatly underestimating the influence conservative religious groups has had on the teaching of physical sciences and biology in American. Because of the amount of noise and nonsense they spew teaching of evolution has been severely stunted. Most public schools now only teache a general overview of the most important known biological theory. In the best cases the schools simply wants to avoid a controversy with students and their parents.

The creationist has lost every time they tried to directly introduce their inane beliefs into a science classroom. But they have had great successes with more subtle approaches. Many school districts are now have at least a few members of religious people that are hostile to science. They have directed the schools they oversee to water down science education.


An important event on the teaching of biology just took place in Texas. Every 10 years they update their science standards, which just happened again in early April. . Because it has a large school age population what Texas buys is what the textbook companies print and then provides to the entire nation. Seven out of the fifteen members of the Texas State School board are avowed Young Earth Creationist. These idiots believe that the Earth was created less then 10,000 years ago and evolution is a myth. These half-wits have a direct impact on what your children are learning.

The science standards have been upgraded from “teach the strengths and weakness” nonsense to the equally incoherent standard of “examining all sides of scientific evidence of scientific experiments.” Science is science because it rejects “all sides” of an argument. But the intent is to allow the school board to buy textbooks that question evolution. The Discovery Institution has several anti-evolutionary biology textbooks that they can now be submit to the school board to become America’s standard biology textbook.

That’s only what has happened to public schools. Private schools can devise their own standards and many of them are abysmal. Even worse then that is the homeschool movement. Where it is believed that the ability to produce a child also imparts on you all the knowledge you’ll ever need to know. One of the driving forces behind the movement was there opposition to the Theory of Evolution. As far as I can tell the parents want their children to remain as ignorant as they are.

Just as bad the people attacking evolution are now trying to get anti-evolution laws passed at a state level. These so-called “Academic Freedom” laws are another attempt to dumb-down America. They based their bills on the Discovery Institute model. These laws would allow two things. First a teacher could teach from non-approved material in science classes (read anti-evolution bullshit). This would be a unique privilege given only to biology teachers. Second it would allow the students to state he or she doesn’t believe the science and not be penalized for not answering test questions correctly.

[Dornish]

Ser Scot A Ellison, on May 2 2009, 15.54, said:

He's saying Christ is the God/man who freed the world from true death.  However, he's admitting if the central tenat of Christan faith is untrue Christians are holding to a belief that is insane.  How is what he said in any way a "misrepresentation?

I wouldn't say its a misrepresentation, but he's presenting a rather atheistic argument, the next line of which would be "What evidence do you have to support this central tenet of the worldview that informs much of your life?"




@Blauer
I see what you're saying and I think it does make a large amount of sense. It is important to understand the motivations of what amounts to a large and politically active segment of the population. Sometimes I think I take my religious education for granted.

Edited by Dornish, 02 May 2009 - 03:29 PM.

[ljkeane]

Watcher, on May 2 2009, 21.15, said:

You are greatly underestimating the influence conservative religious groups has had on the teaching of physical sciences and biology in American. Because of the amount of noise and nonsense they spew teaching of evolution has been severely stunted. Most public schools now only teache a general overview of the most important known biological theory. In the best cases the schools simply wants to avoid a controversy with students and their parents.

The science standards have been upgraded from “teach the strengths and weakness” nonsense to the equally incoherent standard of “examining all sides of scientific evidence of scientific experiments.” Science is science because it rejects “all sides” of an argument. But the intent is to allow the school board to buy textbooks that question evolution. The Discovery Institution has several anti-evolutionary biology textbooks that they can now be submit to the school board to become America’s standard biology textbook.

I don't disagree with you that it is extremely important to ensure that students receive a high level of education and that groups with an anti evolution agenda should not be allowed to dictate the science curriculum. I just don't agree with EHK that the problem with knowledge about evolution in the US is entirely due to religion or that the solution to the problem is to ridicule all religious groups.

[EHK for Darwin]

CiaranAnnrach, on May 2 2009, 12.25, said:

Possibly, but possibly not. I'm not going to feel very guilty if you're railing on XXX Church for claiming "earthquakes are 'cause we're teaching evolution" - because I think that's stupid as shit, too. The only way you'd get the guilt by association is if you really directly attack something that is a common belief. Otherwise, it's kinda like saying by attacking George W. Bush, all white people are going to feel guilty by association, 'cause we're all white. And I know for sure that you aren't really feeling much guilt by it.

Guilt by association never gets applied fairly or equitably. Look at Islam with the whole terrorism thing. A tiny few causing most of the problems, but right now we've got 80% (might be off a bit) of Canada...CANADA...with a negative view of Islam. Smear one Christian group and some of it will splatter the rest to varying degrees.

turinturambar, on May 2 2009, 13.41, said:

I know very few people who don't believe in evolution.  Even most religious people I know(the more sane ones) believe in evolution, at least to an extent.  

I think you have to take response/non-response bias into account with these polls.

Might just be selection bias. I hear and read alot of unfathomably dumb things, but I don't associate with people in my everyday life who spew that shit. Or if I do, the subject doesn't come up in that company. Hell, if you bum around Chicago a while you'd think it'd take an act of god to get a Republican elected anywhere. But there indeed are people that dumb. Alot of them in the south, in rural areas, and to some extent suburbs.

Ser Scot A Ellison, on May 2 2009, 14.54, said:

EHK,

Well, Fr. Thomas isn't saying the propositions are equally likely.  He's saying Christ is the God/man who freed the world from true death.  However, he's admitting if the central tenat of Christan faith is untrue Christians are holding to a belief that is insane.  How is what he said in any way a "misrepresentation?

When you present those two as the only options without any qualifiers, 'equally likely' is more or less implied. If he'd rattled off a few hundred other beliefs, from reincarnation to invisible pink unicorns to leprechauns along with it, he might have been on to something.

Edited by EHK for Darwin, 02 May 2009 - 05:00 PM.

[turinturambar]

EHK for Darwin, on May 2 2009, 16.57, said:

Might just be selection bias. I hear and read alot of unfathomably dumb things, but I don't associate with people in my everyday life who spew that shit. Or if I do, the subject doesn't come up in that company. Hell, if you bum around Chicago a while you'd think it'd take an act of god to get a Republican elected anywhere. But there indeed are people that dumb. Alot of them in the south, in rural areas, and to some extent suburbs.

Well, it's more of a response bias.  People who feel strongly about the subject are more likely to respond to it.  Most normal, sane people are indifferent and don't both with such polls if volunteer and don't seek them out.  Let's be honest, most normal people who believe in evolution don't give a sh!t for the most part to answer any type of poll.  Where as religious whackos with their blinders on will seek out such polls and wear it as a badge of honor.  I mean, I was on my way to an evolutionary  anthropology degree before I switched to a different subject, so I'd say I feel more strongly about it than most.  Yet if somebody were calling me up or sending me mail about a poll I'd tell them to quit bothering me and go on with my life.  A religious fanatic will see it as his/her duty to stop the spread of such evil knowledge such as evolution.

Also, I think you mistake equating republican with dumb.  A lot of people vote towards economic and fiscal areas rather than social ones.  The smartest guy I personally know is a log-cabin republican.  He scored a 35 on his ACT(Personally, I was surprised he didn't get a 36), has an IQ in the 160s, he's already worked with several republican senators, reps, etc, and he has studied at Oxford.  The guy just turned 26.  He's a brilliant young man.  

Also, I have to point out that a lot of traditionally red states have high average IQ scores and test well on national tests.   It's simply a different culture.

[EHK for Darwin]

ljkeane, on May 2 2009, 16.53, said:

I don't disagree with you that it is extremely important to ensure that students receive a high level of education and that groups with an anti evolution agenda should not be allowed to dictate the science curriculum. I just don't agree with EHK that the problem with knowledge about evolution in the US is entirely due to religion or that the solution to the problem is to ridicule all religious groups.

Are you disputing semantics or what? Did I miss an 'almost entirely' or 'nearly completely' qualifier here and there? Clearly 100% of the problem regarding evolution in America is not at the feet of religion. But the lions share is. And the main factor that separates evolution from any other educational subject in terms of general public ignorance IS religion. After reading Watcher's posts, my posts, how can you really dispute it at this point? Religion is just about (qualifier) solely responsible for the existence of a counter-argument to evolution. They've neutered science education to one degree or another and seek to do more. They've corrupted their own kids and actively try to do the same with others.

Religion is at the root of this problem no matter how you look at it. How can schools do a 'better job' when the kids are being brainwashed early and the school boards themselves are under constant assault or threat of assault? This is a public menace that is hurting the country.

[EHK for Darwin]

turinturambar, on May 2 2009, 17.19, said:

Also, I have to point out that a lot of traditionally red states have high average IQ scores and test well on national tests.   It's simply a different culture.

If dumb doesn't work, then I have no problem associating Republican with tragically fucking ignorant. Really, I don't care how much you associate with the basic Republican platform, if you're not embarrassed and disgusted by what the party has become, whether you continue to vote that way or not, you're dumb. Or simply not paying attention.

[El-ahrairah]

the Blauer Dragon, on May 2 2009, 15.32, said:

Absotively, Posolutely he lied!
Nothing new. Politicians lie. It's hardly shocking.

Despite my abhorrence of his policies, I think Our Dear President is rather truthful as far as politicians go.

Ser Scot A Ellison, on May 2 2009, 15.54, said:

EHK,

Well, Fr. Thomas isn't saying the propositions are equally likely.  He's saying Christ is the God/man who freed the world from true death.  However, he's admitting if the central tenat of Christan faith is untrue Christians are holding to a belief that is insane.  How is what he said in any way a "misrepresentation?

Yes - as a Christian I agree my beliefs would be fairly utterly insane if they were not true. Rather like C.S. Lewis's "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord" trilemma.  

Watcher, on May 2 2009, 16.15, said:

That’s only what has happened to public schools. Private schools can devise their own standards and many of them are abysmal. Even worse then that is the homeschool movement. Where it is believed that the ability to produce a child also imparts on you all the knowledge you’ll ever need to know. One of the driving forces behind the movement was there opposition to the Theory of Evolution. As far as I can tell the parents want their children to remain as ignorant as they are.

Now this I have to take personally...

As a proud member of the homeschool movement (which as everyone knows is an evil conspiracy of neo-fascists hiding from the Black Helicopters and awaiting the Rapture), I'm quite happy with its even worse than abysmal standards. My ignorant parents have done a pretty good job thus far, such as getting both me and my older brother ACT, PSAT, & SAT scores in the 99th percentile. They even got him into college (to study, among other things, the Theory of Evolution).

[Lord of Oop North]

EHK, sometimes when I read your posts, I almost believe that America is in the midst of a devastating civil war. One being waged between the forces of religion and the forces of atheism. Cities are being leveled. Genocides are being carried out. Millions are in imminent danger of total annihilation. The cultural war is on and in heat! Heck, until I visit your country again, I am going to keep believing that. Is Vegas taking bets? Wolverines!!!

[Horus Bergeron]

El-ahrairah, on May 2 2009, 14.26, said:

So you think he lied of his beliefs in order to secure his election?

I definitely don't think that he's the first politician, and to add to that I think that many in our society lie about their beliefs to pacify society, family, friends etc.  I won't judge him negatively on that, true or not, bc I often feel the same pressure.  I cannot imagine my mother's dying thought to be her concern for the damnation of my soul because I don't necessarily follow the teachings of the Bible.  I don't want to be judged every day in my life because people will believe me completely lacking in faith.   I'm not an atheist but I define myself as agnostic.  It doesn't change my values or make me different from a complete theist except that I do not accept the doctrines and theocracy of any established religion.  Yet and still I am damned in the eyes of many in this country.  

Whether he lies about his beliefs or not, atheism or agnosticism is such a stigma that it makes no sense not to play societies game and avoid their judgment.  Life is short and some of us would rather not spend the rest of our lives explaining ourselves.  He had enough stigma just by trying to be the first black elected leader in the Western World without adding the first black-agnostic elected leader in the US.  It isn't worth it just to prove a point.

I don't need an election to have reason to lie about it. He too had been lying about it for a long time.  There's a chance he even lies to his wife about it bc she strikes me as more religious than he is. Noone likes being ostracized.

Edited by Horus-SpiderObama, 02 May 2009 - 05:51 PM.