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 suggest you read the First Amendment which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" Denying the Creationists the right to their views and the right to teach them is a violation of this amendment.
They, the creationists, have every right to present their views in any manner they choose. Similarly, the evolutionist have every right to say what they believe, also guaranteed by another clause of the First amendment.
You may disagrre with their point of view, but you have no right to suppress their point of view any more than they yours.
If the preponderance of evidence does not convince the. (assuming there is such a preponderance there is not much you can do about it.
"Live and let live"
Keep your religion where it belongs
You are correct, in my opinion, that creationism is religion, not science and should not be taught as science in schools. It may however be discussed as a competing theory to evolution and shown to be scientifically invalid on any number of points. My tradition says the world is only slightly more than 5,00 years old. This is a demonstrabily inaccurate claim and as such should not be presented as fact. I may however be presented as tradition of an old culture.
There are many ways to skin a cat so too speak. I prefer one that doesn't let the government interfere more than absolutely necessary.
Honestly, it seems to me like advocates of states' rights don't mind if people's rights get violated at all as long as it's the state government that does it and not the federal government.
Freedom of religion is not the same as freedom FROM religion. Being exposed to an idea is NOT the same thing as being forced to agree with that idea.
But you think the State and federal government has the authority to force, not mere tolerance, but acceptance of views contrary to their religious views... and I'm not talking evolution here.
People are now persecuted for saying "homosexuality is perverted", and any teacher who said that would be punished. But, with your endorsement, teachers are *encouraged* to say "Homosexuality is normal and healthy".
So before you whine about ideas with no basis in reality being forced on people, using the label "religion", revisit your premises.
Generally speaking, science deals with the natural, while religion deals with the supernatural. Occasionally, a religion may cross over into the realm of the natural, in which case its theories can be be empirically and scientifically tested. For example, in the Quran (the holy book of the Muslims), it states that the sex of a child is determined by a man's sperm at the time of conception, which is completely true, and can be tested and proven scientifically. Yet the Quran also states that the universe was created by Allah, but we don't allow that to be taught in science classes because it cannot be tested or proven using scientific means.
If the theory deals with natural events, and can be tested using physical means, then its origin is irrelevant. It is only the supernatural and the unprovable which must remain isolated from government and its institutions.
The First Amendment clearly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," and I think they meant it.
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.
That would be true of other religions, too, such as Darwinian evolution.
The difference is that Christianity is presented as religion, while Darwinian evolution is presented as science. It isn't.
I wonder if TX could respond by structuring those charter schools as private voucher-funded schools, with the vouchers being good at any school. So the gov't could indirectly fund these schools that blatantly teach creationism without establishing a religion. It's like if the gov't gives food stamps or other benefits, it doesn't mean the gov't is endorsing every food product someone buys with them. I actually don't have a problem with it as long as it does not appear that the gov't is endorsing a religion.
But in response to your argument, it should be noted that the First Amendment also prohibits the combination of church and state, and public schools qualify as a state function, because they are paid for with taxes. I don't have any kids of my own, but if I did, I would not want the government to force religious indoctrination on them through the public school system.
It would be a lot simpler to avoid the creationism vs evolution fight in schools all together. There are plenty of other scientific areas for schools to focus on.
Creationism does not have to be taught that there was a particular source, rather that there was some unknown force that caused the original creation. That is not establishment of a religion, it is a scientific explanation of the as yet unexplainable.
So many people get wrapped up in "religion" and preventing that at all costs that they blind their thinking to rational viewpoints.
Evolution is scientific theory. It is testable. Scientific theory is not about consensus just as global warming should not be about consensus. Understanding evolution theory is a significant foundation for other areas of science. Building blocks should not be ignored because there is a competing theory.
As well, consider the gap between the fossils of two creatures. Then an intermediary is found. The creationists then require an intermediary between the two smaller gaps. and so on. If a million small steps are found then they say it only 'micro-evolution'. (A concept invented to confuse). Conclusion- no evidence and no argument can be used on those with set minds.
Carbon causes warming, printing money creates jobs. Same same.
And why not? That's what the original Darwinian hypothesis says we ought to observe: lots of small, incremental steps between Species A and Species B. The Darwinian hypothesis disallows "jumps" (known as saltations) between the two species. And if there really were lots of small, incremental steps between A and B, then each step should have reproduced and then died — so where are its remains?
>If a million small steps are found then they say it only 'micro-evolution'. (A concept invented to confuse).
Actually, the terms "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" have been standard terms in the Darwinist community for many decades. And the only confusions came from within its own ranks: the Darwinists actually believe that given enough time, "micro-evolution" turns into "macro-evolution," despite the fact that THAT is completely a matter of faith: there is no evidence, neither geological nor genetic, that the accumulation of small changes in this or that trait leads to radical changes in things like body-plan (which would be a macro-change).
And as for there being literally a "million small steps" between one fossil and another . . . you should be so lucky, Lucky. Most fossils show no transitions at all; some only show a few transitions.
It was noteworthy in its day because it admitted that the gaps in the fossil record are real; i.e., they are not an artifact remaining after various geological strata were shifted due to natural disasters, human meddling, etc. According to Eldrige and Gould, the reason there are gaps in the fossil record is not that the intermediates have been lost; it's because the intermediates never existed. There's nothing to be found.
They also took seriously the mathematics of people like Sir Ronald Fischer and Sewall Wright in the field of population genetics, who both showed that in large populations, single mutations — even the rare beneficial ones — would easily get swamped by the overall "gene frequency" of traits within the population. In other words, large populations tend to pull mutants — good ones and bad ones — back into the mainstream, because large populations like stability. So in order for a really big change to occur in a species, a smaller subpopulation must be split off from the rest and allowed to survive on its own. In a smaller population, the gene frequency of particular traits is much lower, so a mutant would have a far higher chance of surviving and getting its mutant trait "fixed" in the smaller population until it, too, becomes mainstream.
It's an inventive hypothesis, but it also stretches the limits of plausibility: did this happen in ALL cases? Hard to believe. And in organisms that already have smaller populations, e.g., mammals, a natural catastrophe would be just as likely to kill off the entire small population as it would be to split off part of it and allow to survive on some remote new geographical location.
Punctuated equilibrium was a brave attempt to save Darwinism from the mounting criticism that the original hypothesis predicts something that we ought to observe in the fossil record but do not.
"The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They accept that evolutionary change is possible within what they call "kinds" ("microevolution"), but deny that one "kind" can evolve into another ("macroevolution").[14] Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level (i.e. speciation) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.[15] In creation science, creationists accepted speciation as occurring within a "created kind" or "baramin", but objected to what they called "third level-macroevolution" of a new genus or higher rank in taxonomy. Generally, there is ambiguity as to where they draw a line on "species", "created kinds", etc. and what events and lineages fall within the rubric of microevolution or macroevolution.[16] The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is not supported by the scientific community."
I will say I don't like that last sentence. I can just imagine if I went to wiki on global warming that same sentence is used.
Misc comments:
"anti-clerical writers", "hardcore Darwinist believers". "Darwinist community". various other put-downs, etc.
A lot of people are described nowadays as hardcore right wingers when they are for economic freedom (pardon the expression).
Burgess shale- this location of a rich variety of fossils shows how fast evolution works.
'Design'- agreed, it is not an attempt to reconcile but to overrun science with religion.
Gaps- proof that Darwin was wrong, but when a gap is filled it is micro-evolution. Like carbon changers creationists have been caught in fraud - the human and dinosaur footprints for example.
Easy to claim that the designer came down, discontinued the old model and replaced it with the new shorter armed bigger headed variety as that fitted the grand plan which only our priests know about.
Large populations - enable more diversity.
Final cause- something to do with atheists for the intelligent designer. We do not want to call it god so call it a space alien and it is ok. Better, as there is nothing there, no need for a name. Actually I prefer Steven Weinberg's In Search of a Final Theory tho' you could say he is also a hardcore darwinist, zionist, capitalist etc.
Indeed? For example?
Thanks.
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...
Has it been tested?
Design is testable, too.
>Scientific theory is not about consensus
No, but institutionalized religions are. Darwinism is institutionalized religion.
>Understanding evolution theory is a significant foundation for other areas of science.
For example?
>Building blocks should not be ignored because there is a competing theory.
You think Darwinism is a necessary "building block" for understanding science? I can't think of a single case where that would be true, nor can I think of any scientific discovery requiring Darwinism, or that occurred because the researchers cleverly applied Darwinian ideas.
To take just one notable example, the discovery of the helical structure of DNA by Watson and Crick, as well as the indisputable fact that it's not just a molecule but a chemical hard-drive — an information-storage device —storing and transmitting information about the organism in the form of a discrete digital code (A, C, T, G) required zero knowledge or assumptions of Darwinism.
Darwinists, of course, later retro-fitted the discoveries of Watson and Crick into their hypothesis, but that came later; they applied knowledge of biochemistry to Darwinism; Watson and Crick did not apply Darwinism to their research on DNA.
I'm well acquainted with Miller's book, and his work.
In turn, may I recommend 2 books by Stephen Meyer:
1) Signature in the Cell (about why DNA or RNA could not have evolved by Darwinian methods, and why design is a better hypothesis for explaining how they came to exist); and
2) Darwin's Doubt (about why the Burgess Shale formation in Canada, as well as the Chengjiang Shale formation in China — both extremely well preserved and dating back 0.5 billion years to an era known as the "Cambrian" — offers solid evidence against the Darwinian hypothesis of small incremental changes over long periods of time. Darwin himself was aware of the findings in Canada but the Chinese ones are recent. These formations show indisputable evidence of a "Big Bang of Life" (popularly called the "Cambrian Explosion"), in which many different kinds of organisms — each unrelated to the other in terms of basic body architecture (each body plan known in paleontology as a "phylum") — all occurred more or less simultaneously — within only a few millions years of one another — and with no intermediate forms showing how one body plan could have evolved into another. They simply appear, all at once, with no intermediates between them, and — just as significantly — with no precursors before them.
Design has nothing to do with trying to reconcile religion and science; in fact, I think the entire "war between science and religion" was bogus to begin with, having been propagandized as such by anti-clerical writers starting in the Enlightenment (Voltaire was one).
The point of design is to show that "final cause" exists in the universe, and is not limited to what goes on subjectively inside the head of a human.
You speak about the possibility of one having religious faith yet embracing Darwinism, with no contradiction. Fine. I'm speaking of the possibility of being an outright atheist yet embracing design, with no contradiction.
For good measure, I'll also recommend David Berlinski's witty and wise book, "The Deniable Darwin".
geneticists embrace this theory
I did not say "geneticists don't embrace Darwinism." I said Darwinism is, and was, unnecessary for discoveries in genetics.
"Embrace" means "retro-fit" or "shoe-horn." First comes the discovery, then comes the attempt to explain it via Darwinian mechanisms; i.e., the embracers imagine scenarios in the distant past in which imagined mutations were fortuitously selected for survival by an imagined natural selection. Then they imagine this happening successively until they arrive at the desired result: the present-day concrete facts they see in front of them.
This is great fun, but is hardly scientific, even if done by scientists.
No major innovative discovery in genetics came about by the researchers "applying" Darwinism to the data.
Nothing has ever been predicted by "applying Darwinism" to present data.
For example, after DNA was explained as being a helically-shaped, molecular sized, digital storage device, some biochemists later tried to retro-fit a Darwinian mechanism to explain how it could have come into existence. They've all failed for 1 of 2 reasons: either their explanations rely on infinite-loop chicken-egg scenarios (e.g., with DNA requiring enzymes to create the ribose backbone, but the enzymes themselves requiring DNA to code for the proper sequence of the amino acids that compose them); or their explanations stretch plausibility beyond the breaking point, as well as assuming into existence conditions on the early earth for which there is zero geological evidence (e.g., with an RNA World scenario comprising little pools of just the right nucleotides, coming together in just the right sequences, with no destructive reverse chemical reactions happening, etc.).
You're also ignoring the sorry politics of Darwinism. According to David Berlinski, one biochemist told him, "Darwinism? Please. That's just the Party Line."
And according to biochemist Michael Behe (who wrote "Darwin's Black Box" and "The Edge of Evolution") if a young scientist really has doubts about Darwinism as a satisfactory explanation for things, he learns quickly to keep his mouth shut until he his Ph.D. and until he gets tenure. Even then, he has to be careful how he broaches the subject of the weakness of Darwinian explanations to a class of students lest one of them complain to the dean that "Our professor is trying to teach us creationism."
So no, I do not think schools should be afraid of teaching proven scientific facts just because a few fringe nutjobs insist on denying reality. If those fools had their way, they'd insist that schools teach this:
http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large...
The gov't should not establish a religion, not only b/c of the Constitution, but b/c of the benefits of a religiously pluralistic society.
Still, evolution being taught as an origin of the species has holes in it you can drive a semi truck thru. It is a solution by default. It lacks way too many things to be teachable as fact.
1. The fossil record is incomplete with almost all of the transitional forms between the different species missing completely from the record. You have the first animal and then the second. In evolution, a slow process taking thousands or millions or years the transitional forms would be more numerous than the first or second animal. Instead they are missing totally.
2. How did life develop from non-life in the first place?
3. How are we, master of the Earth via the powers of our mind, capable of rendering creations of intelligent design while ourselves being products of random evolution. If the theory of evolution is correct our creations exceeded us when we created our first hut.
The zoologist Professor D.M.S. Watson said it best when he said “Evolution is a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.”
You missed the point about humans gaining sentience. But otherwise, good points.
We're talking about food, right? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
The average Cro-Magnon male was about 5'7".
So much for evolution of height...
I was saving sentience for later. LOL
I wonder what is the purpose of the Watson quote. Is it 'universally accepted', or 'special creation is clearly incredible'?
Yes, when you disagree strongly it is tempting to be rude. I suppose knowing your material can help, but 'manners maketh man'.
How does that prove Darwinian evolution?
>Still, evolution being taught as an origin of the species has holes in it you can drive a semi truck thru. It is a solution by default. It lacks way too many things to be teachable as fact.
True. It lacks empirical evidence, and it lacks mathematical plausibility. Two good reasons not to call it science.
>creation, is clearly incredible."
Clearly wrong. A supernatural deity might be incredible, but the idea that living organisms display obvious signs of having been designed by an intelligence — that living organisms are not the natural result of matter and energy interacting by themselves over long periods of time, because over long periods of time things break down, moving from less probable physical configurations to more probable physical configurations — and are, in fact, a kind of technology, is very credible.
I doubt that. In fact, recent published polls show that the majority of people in the US do not believe in Darwin's account of evolution, even though they tolerate it — or are forced to tolerate it — in their public schools.
>This was the primary point behind the article.
The article is clearly just lefty hysterics. I especially loved the lie that Christian fundamentalists are "chipping away" at a woman's "access" to birth control.
Hello???? Even the poorest woman can save her spare change, scrape together a dollar or two, and buy condoms at any local drug store. The idea that unless something is state-subsidized and "free" it is "inaccessible" is a typical lefty economic myth.
>The wackos who oppose evolution are a tiny minority.
The "wackos" include many scientists working in biochemistry, molecular biology, embryology, physics, computer science, etc. They don't "oppose" evolution. They oppose teaching it as scientific fact when it is, at best, just a hypothesis. Personally, I think it's the materialist version of a creation myth: creation without a creator.
Scientific people do not follow Darwin's account. For one thing, he thought one reason species change Lamarckina evolution, in which giraffes' offspring grew longer necks due to their parents physical stretching. That turned out to be false. Scientists do not follow a great man or sacred text. Everything's open to new experiments that change our understand or in some cases usher in a new paradigm.
That's what's beautiful about science: when someone proposes a particular theory, but after substantial testing that theory turns out to be only partially true, we can discard the parts which are proven wrong while still accepting the parts which are correct, and human knowledge moves forward.
This is a far superior method of acquiring knowledge than the dogmatic approach of religion, which imposes the binary demand of either full acceptance or full rejection.
He's considered the father one particular slant on evolutionary theory. Various theories of evolution existed well before Darwin.
>religion, which imposes the binary demand of either full acceptance or full rejection.
I supposed that's why there are so many different sects in Christianity and Judaism.
---
Actually yes, it is. An inflexible leadership in a particular church refuses to acknowledge the validity of multiple viewpoints, instead claiming a monopoly on all knowledge, and so the church splinters.
Tycho Brahe lost the end of his nose in a duel fought over a scientific dispute.
In any case, I don't understand what you mean by a "flexible leadership". Do you mean that the leadership in a particular religion ought to keep an open mind about new knowledge and new facts when they come to light? Is that what you mean by "flexible" leadership?
And yes, that's exactly what I mean.
>And yes, that's exactly what I mean.
Then it follows that Objectivism is a religion. It was Ayn Rand herself (later echoed by acolytes like Peikoff) who ridiculed the notion of intellectual flexibility by means of "keeping an open mind" when she suggested that by doing so, one's brains would leak out.
It's a funny line, no? But its message is clear: "question others, but don't question me."
And when some of the original inner circle did start to question her — the Brandens, Murray Rothbard, Robert Efron, Edith Efron, Robert Hessen, Allan Blumenthal — they were excommunicated. Sounds like religion to me.
That's the way an inflexible religious leader of a cult would talk.
Talking about what schools should teach would be a much more pleasant conversation, if there wasn't a gun in the room mandating children go to school and everyone's paying for it.
So yes my issue is with taxation..... As well as a few other things..... I have a few issues lol.
The text of the 16th Amendment reads as follows:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
If the 16th Amendment were changed to what I have written below, would that address your concerns?
Alternate hypothetical amendment:
"Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, only during times of war. During times of peace, there shall be no taxation on incomes, from whatever source derived, though there may be taxation on imports and production. In either war or peace, taxation must have apportionment among the several States, with regard to census and enumeration."
WHY?
The affluent would pay for the bulk, and would get a certificate stating how much they donated. A great way for McDonalds to say it's more patriotic than burger King. Businesses advertise all the time about the charities they donate to. They would no doubt flaunt that they contribute to a government that protects everyone.
The word "legitimate" is vague, but I assume he bases it off of protecting individual rights, and when your rights are infringed upon, you pay a fee to right it. He could also mean things like drivers liscences and National Parks and such.
I am curious to see what he will say though, I'm merely speculating.
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.
But I told you I have a lot of issues lol. Currently we have a war on terror and a war on drugs and who knows how many other wars we are involved in. It should say without an approved declaration of war.
But beyond that, I don't care what the paper says. I wouldn't agree to someone approaching me on the street with a pen and that contract. Nor an army telling me to agree to it. Some guy with an army approaches me and tells me he's only going to take my money if he decides to go to war with someone. Sorry no dice.
Have you ever seen the website http://www.theobjectivestandard.com ? I think you would like it, they are extremely rational in their blog posts and articles. The problem is you have to subscribe to get some of the full articles. Send me a private message of you're interested in reading some of them though and I can help you with that.
I only bring them up because they actually have a very sound system for a government with out forced taxation, although I would love a second opinion on it.
Here's the article http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issu...
http://history1900s.about.com/od/1910s/q...
And thanks for the offer. I'll have to check that site out. :)
I'm going to bed good night!
Thanks for that though I did need some history on it and that was a good start. It gave a nice glimpse of the good intentions behind income tax. If the poor were being taxed more than the affluent it's easy to see why they would search for a more fair method. I just wish they would have gone down the other road: no one gets taxed instead of everyone.
Why wouldn't there be affordable private schools for the poor in a free market?
Your argument sounds like old-fashioned 1930s Soviet agitprop: "Comrades! Private farms? Under that system, only the filthy rich would be able to afford bread! Our system of publicly owned collective farms makes it possible for poor people to obtain a guaranteed minimum number of calories!"
That you for this insight into the ridiculous.
Don't forget we all hold certain things dear and here you are trampling on one of mine. It would take no great effort to post volumes of webpages that exhibit the least desirable elements of your own special interest.
We know yours and choose to not rub your nose in things that are smelly. We don't need to post those things to build up our own persona.
Show us the same courtesy we show you. It's called being a gentleman.
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.
Besides, your assertion that it is unprovable is itself already refuted. There is proof in the form of a person who died in a particularly horrific manner some 2000 years ago. Just because you don't want to accept that does not refute it.
I believe in creationism. Please don't force your evolutionary crap on me.
Have you ever heard of a Catholic monk named Gregor Mendel?
Newtonian physics was wrong.
There is no proof that Archae swallowed Bacteria and formed an endosymbiotic relationship. Words like probably are not proof.
No they don't. In fact, Molecular dating tests often show results that are contradictory from one another. The "gold standard" in evidence is still the fossil record — which predominantly shows gaps between the phyla ("stasis"), not a plethora of incrementally transitional forms, as Darwinism predicts.
And the movements of celestial and planetary bodies is a natural occurrence, not a supernatural one. Science is concerned only with the natural. Religion is the realm of the supernatural.
So science dismisses quantum mechanics, string theory, and Einsteinian physics. Cool.
There are scientific theories, entertained by scientists, which involve multiple universes, interwoven universes, varying numbers of dimensions, some physical, some temporal.
Science is indeed concerned with the supernatural.
A simple question: what caused the Big Bang?
Sections of Christianity are not pushing certain agendas, they're trying to preserve traditional views. And what about Moslems? You think "radical" Moslems are going to disagree with creationism? How about fundamentalist Jews?
And what about those who believe the world rides on the backs of 4 elephants, who in turn ride the back of an enormous turtle swimming the cosmic sea?
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.
My problem lies where I have trouble believing that a Christian who understands what their faith is based on can be a leftist dem. But I've met many who claim the same religious precepts as I, but insist that there is no inconsistency in voting for a "leader" who is vocally opposed to everything we are to follow. Who makes a stand that the most basic of all religious, moral, human right can be violated, not by a court or leader, but by the guidance of some min wage plus "counselor" in "planned parenthood".
It's not surprising to find many inconsistencies in their lives as time goes on. One moral surrendering ALWAYS leads to more.
That said, the comment is made about a bible phrase being used in a textbook. Since we don't have the full context of how it is used, we cannot make a reasoned evaluation of whether or not it really is religious indoctrination. Here's a possible scenario in which it would not be religious indoctrination: "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. Can science provide evidence to support or refute that proposition?"
So yes to Map.
Also, plenty of intermediate stages of animal development have been found. I don't know why you think they haven't.
If species evolution was ongoing then every single species in the fossil record would display traits of where they came from and where they were evolving to. The hard evidence in the fossil record shows that all these complete animals lived at one point of time or another. It does not prove the progression of one to another.
As I understand evolution, it is "spontaneous" mutation that provides an advantage over the non-mutated type which results in the mutated version having a better capability at survival.
That also brings up the question of those plants/animals that have shown little mutation over tens of thousands of years - sharks and cockroaches come to mind, as they have been virtually identical for seemingly forever. If evolution is "fact" would these creatures not have continued to mutate and evolve?
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.
We don't even know if Neanderthals were a subspecies of Homo sap, other humanoid species have been discovered contemporaneous with both Neanderthals and homo saps, and it's even possible that both came from a now-extinct species. We're not even clear whether Neanderthal and homo sap interbred.
If a self-proclaimed "scientist" believes that a dog is a cat, he apparently *does* have the right to force his belief into the science classroom.
In a free society, it sure does. And the parents have the corresponding right to pull their children out of such a classroom and put them into some other classroom where they teach "dogs are dogs" and "cats are cats."
I don't understand what that means. You mean the theory has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt?
Mind showing us some of that proof?
"A Dissent from Darwinism"
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/...
Thank you. And in turn, let me repeat my recommendation of Stephen Meyer's "Signature in the Cell" and "Darwin's Doubt."
>One is that the scientific basis of evolution has been tested over and over in thousands of ways
Tested and failed. Name one test Darwinism has passed.
>Second is that opposition to evolution is all but entirely outside the scientific community
Indeed? See:
"Dissent from Darwin"
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/index.p...
and,
"A Dissent from Darwinism"
downloadable PDF of scientists who agreed to become signatories to the following:
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
"This was last publicly updated July 2013. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position."
Enjoy!
This is what Al Gore has given us; reality by consensus. It doesn't matter what the majority of Americans believe; after all, in the 19th century, the vast majority of Americans believed in Biblical creation. Why, what changed? High priests with strings of letters after their names to prove that they spent most of their young lives in the shelter of academia read the works of men who actually did research, jumped to conclusions, and declared those conclusions "reality". Trusting in the High priests of science, other academics in charge of educating children, in possession of religious beliefs contrary to those of most of the country (they are "scientists" after all, and the bedrock of science isn't faith, but doubt) and like any high priesthood enjoying the feeling of superiority and celebrity, decided to impose their beliefs on the impressionable minds of children and voila, the country's popular views change... not because of reasoned argument, but because of emotional coercion.
"The science is settled"... "Most scientists agree"... and of course, if you don't agree, you're not *really* a scientist, or not the right kind of scientist.
The religion has changed, but not the tactics.
"Accept evolution as a fact"... again, we need to work on definitions. Macro evolution, micro evolution? Evolution happens; did it happen to people? Can it create new species? What time frames and environmental conditions are necessary? Is it reactive or proactive?
There's lots of "wiggle room" with regard to questions such as "creationism" and "evolution", so "yes/no" binary polls are meaningless with regard to what people really believe.
A lot of Christians believe creationism is true, but shouldn't be taught in the classroom, because that is no the place to teach it.
Just as a lot of Christians and non-Christians don't believe the classroom is the place to teach about sex.
It is bigoted in the extreme to put "science" on one end and "Christianity" at the other end of the spectrum, especially considering the history of science.
I always find it amusing that among the "atheist" crowd, it's Christians who are the devil, not Moslems, Jews, Buddhists, Scientologists, Wiccans, Hindus, Greens or even Satanists.
This is the reward for "tolerance".
And both the Jewish and Muslim faiths both come from the same origins as Christianity and believe that a deity created the world. Whether they have lobbyists on the subject is irrelevant.
Really? So Jews and Moslems dismiss the Garden of Eden, Adam and Even, Cain and Abel, Noah, Abraham, Moses and all that?
Yes, the arrogance of fundamentalist Christianity is what built this country and made it the pinnacle of human civilization. It wasn't Moslems or even Jews who created it, nurtured it and made it great. And it SURE as hell wasn't atheists.
I note with amusement that you left out Buddhists, Scientologists, Hindus, Greens and Satanists. There are example of the last two being forced into the classroom...
Why do we allow these fools at any level to be allowed to interfere or even be involved in such matters?
So far, evolution is a viable theory for how species adapt over time, and even mutate and result in new species. It has not, as of yet, explained the evolution of humankind - there is still a "missing link." And even if that missing link were discovered, there is still the question of how humankind developed sentience.
Unless and until science can answer that with absolute certainty, that leaves creationism a viable, and even required, answer to the question.
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.
One of the problems with human evolution is not a missing link.... but an unexplainable existing link.
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.
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.
I did not expect that to happen. o_O