How Fundamentalist Collectivism Empowers Hardliners Against the Wishes of Most Americans
From the article:
-------------------------
This is one reason that, no matter how often the courts try to kill it off, creationism ends up being presented again and again in classrooms as if it’s a scientific theory. The majority of Americans agree that evolution is how humans came to be. Despite this, as Slate recently reported, Texas students in charter schools are not only being incorrectly taught that evolution is a scientific “controversy” (it’s actually not controversial among scientists at all), but are being given religious instruction in the classroom. It’s not subtle, either, with one popular science workbook opening with a Bible quote, “In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.”
Only about 21 percent of Americans reject the label of Christian, which means that the majority of people who accept evolution is a fact are actually Christians. So, if there’s so much Christian support for the theory of evolution, why is this such a struggle? The problem is that the Christian right has successfully framed the issue as a matter of atheists and secular humanists against Christians. While some pro-science groups like the National Center for Science Education, try really hard to avoid talking at all about religion – except to say it should not be taught in science class – the truth of the matter is the pro-evolution side is strongly associated with atheism and secular humanism.
A lot of Christians actually believe that creationism is not true and should definitely not be taught in the classroom, but coming out and saying so can feel like you’re siding with the atheist team instead of the Christian one. Unsurprisingly, then, the notion that pro-evolution forces are atheist and secularist becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Nearly all the most prominent voices on the pro-science side of this issue are atheists or agnostics, because they, for obvious reasons, aren’t particularly worried about being perceived as not Christian. Once again, identity works to scare Christians into toeing the party line even if they privately disagree with what the leadership wants.
-------------------------
This is one reason that, no matter how often the courts try to kill it off, creationism ends up being presented again and again in classrooms as if it’s a scientific theory. The majority of Americans agree that evolution is how humans came to be. Despite this, as Slate recently reported, Texas students in charter schools are not only being incorrectly taught that evolution is a scientific “controversy” (it’s actually not controversial among scientists at all), but are being given religious instruction in the classroom. It’s not subtle, either, with one popular science workbook opening with a Bible quote, “In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.”
Only about 21 percent of Americans reject the label of Christian, which means that the majority of people who accept evolution is a fact are actually Christians. So, if there’s so much Christian support for the theory of evolution, why is this such a struggle? The problem is that the Christian right has successfully framed the issue as a matter of atheists and secular humanists against Christians. While some pro-science groups like the National Center for Science Education, try really hard to avoid talking at all about religion – except to say it should not be taught in science class – the truth of the matter is the pro-evolution side is strongly associated with atheism and secular humanism.
A lot of Christians actually believe that creationism is not true and should definitely not be taught in the classroom, but coming out and saying so can feel like you’re siding with the atheist team instead of the Christian one. Unsurprisingly, then, the notion that pro-evolution forces are atheist and secularist becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Nearly all the most prominent voices on the pro-science side of this issue are atheists or agnostics, because they, for obvious reasons, aren’t particularly worried about being perceived as not Christian. Once again, identity works to scare Christians into toeing the party line even if they privately disagree with what the leadership wants.
I did not expect that to happen. o_O
Identifying a hypothesis that says that there may be some other force, as yet undiscovered, that is the source of the origination of life and/or for sentience of humankind, is not even close the establishment of a religion.
The problem with that thought is that no one does it, because maybe it's not needed or even unwise. Fire fighting began as community volunteer and as private groups on contract paid for by primarily business owners. The same applied to much of security guards. Teachers were often hired by families. Roads were often built and maintained by private business and individuals. Water and sewer systems can easily be a private business, and probably much cheaper. How much more is only left to the imagination?
Driver's Licenses and other licenses of any kind are a real problem in a free and free market system. In a majority of the licensing systems, they are actually used in a form to limit the ability of an out of area labor force to come in and do work, or by an association of practitioners seeking to elevate themselves. DL's for example, in their original form were intended for commercial users of the highways, only, not for private traveling. How much of it now is more than a money taking system, and a forced state, or den national ID? At 16 or 18, the young person actually demonstrates competence, then if managed right and paid for every four or so years, no other competency requirement is ere made.
National Parks, even with government operation now charge user fees. Does anyone think that government officials do it better than a private business?
As to legitimate government - Yes, I define that as only and strictly to reactively defend the natural rights of individuals.
Tycho Brahe lost the end of his nose in a duel fought over a scientific dispute.
The average Cro-Magnon male was about 5'7".
So much for evolution of height...
Indeed? For example?
>That is, creationism is up against a scientific theory that's proven its effectiveness big-time, again and again and again.
Name *one* thing Darwinian evolution has proven "big-time".
> But the other problem is that, by definition, creationism can make no predictions.
Intelligent design actually has made some predictions — you're not *au courant* with biochemical research. But I will ask you this:
1) What facts of biology has Darwinism predicted? For example, since Darwinism claims to know the origin of species, can it predict what the next species in a particular phylum will look like and what traits it will have?
2) What facts of biological history has Darwinism ever retrodicted? Can it confidently prove to us why one species became extinct?
I answer "no" to both questions. You're welcome to provide evidence to prove otherwise.
What evolutionary mechanism caused our moon to be unique in its size with relation to its parent?
What evolutionary mechanism covered 2/3rds of the Earth with water?
What evolutionary mechanism in the primordial oceans generated the first living organisms?
At what point do coincidences accumulate to a point where one can no longer simply accept them as coincidences?
There are two issues being conflated here; the Biblical account of creation and creation.
It is mental laziness to assume that the universe was always here and always as it is at the moment; it's also "scientifically" wrong.
It is also mental laziness to assume that the universe is as it is, and evolved to its current state by mere coincidence.
Science should restrict itself to the "how", and religion should restrict itself to the "why".
As for the Biblical account of creation....
There's a scene in "Have Spacesuit, Will Travel" where the protagonist is trying to explain his difficulty in learning from massively more advanced aliens. He used as example presenting a New Guinea native with a television. He might figure out how to change the channel, but he'd never figure out how the images appear.
Likewise, trying to explain the creation and nature of the universe *in scientific terms*, which was never the ultimate purpose of the Bible, to primitives to whom, as been pointed out, DNA, subatomic particles, the states of matter, universal gravitation, etc are impossible concepts, would be a fruitless waste of time, which might actually interfere with your intent.
"A Dissent from Darwinism"
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/...
My wife and I, 5'0 and 5'6" have two babies. One of them is a geek like us. The younger girl appears much cooler. Geekiness may not inherit in a Mandelian fashion.
Not so. Darwin himself believed that humans and closely-related species such as apes both branched off from a common ancestor.
>There are many other differences as well, so refuting Darwin's theories does not equate to refuting evolution entirely.
That's part of the problem. Aside from generally refusing to debate skeptics publicly, evolutionists use weasel words to define "evolution" in as slippery a way as possible. To some, it simply means "any kind of change over a long period of time." (If that is what is meant by "evolution," then obviously everyone agrees that things have changed over long periods of time.) Others more carefully hew to a classical Darwinian definition: evolution means "dissent with modification from a common ancestor" whose dual causal mechanisms are "random mutation" and "natural selection." (That's a very different definition from simply saying "Things have changed a lot over billions of years.") But when debating with skeptics, Darwinists often switch between one definition and another, sometimes unwittingly, sometimes intentionally.
>Also, plenty of intermediate stages of animal development have been found. I don't know why you think they haven't.
We think they haven't because they haven't; even paleontologists admit this. You disagree with the very professionals in the field with whom you claim to agree? Great. Post pictures of, or give us links to, the "plenty" of intermediate stages.
One of the problems with human evolution is not a missing link.... but an unexplainable existing link.
And proclaiming that God created the heavens and the Earth in that context is no more "religious" than proclaiming that life here came from life out there.
They even have a multitude of "original sins"; a basic tenet is that Man is not a part of nature, is universally destructive of "the environment", that our pollution stinks worse than natural events or the pollution of other species, and that any attempt at capitalism is evil.
I'm acquainted with Paul Ehrlich and his discovery of "salvarsan" to cure syphilis. It's included in a famous anthology of stories about great pioneers in medicine titled "The Microbe Hunters" by a bacteriologist using the pen-name of Paul de Kruif.
A great classic! Free PDF download here:
http://laurieximenez.files.wordpress.com...
Should evolution... *as a mechanism for the existence of life* be taught in a highschool or earlier biology class? That evolution happens does not have to be in dispute. That evolution is the mechanism by which Man became Man has not been established, and such a curriculum cannot be complete in a highschool or earlier biology class.
Some specialized teaching should be reserved for college-level courses, which can dedicate themselves to the subject. In my opinion.
I believe in creationism. Please don't force your evolutionary crap on me.
Load more comments...