Anti-evolution teachings gain foothold in U.S. schools [Archive]

heyjupiter678

12-04-2004, 12:37 PM

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/11/30/MNGVNA3PE11.DTL

Evangelicals see flaws in Darwinism

Anna Badkhen, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 30, 2004

Dover, Pa. -- The way they used to teach the origin of the species to high school students in this sleepy town of 1,800 people in southern Pennsylvania, said local school board member Angie Yingling disapprovingly, was that "we come from chimpanzees and apes."

Not anymore.

The school board has ordered that biology teachers at Dover Area High School make students "aware of gaps/problems" in the theory of evolution. Their ninth-grade curriculum now must include the theory of "intelligent design," which posits that life is so complex and elaborate that some greater wisdom has to be behind it.

The decision, passed last month by a 6-to-3 vote, makes the 3,600-student school district about 20 miles south of Harrisburg the first in the United States to mandate the teaching of "intelligent design" in public schools, putting it on the front line of the growing national debate over the role of religion in public life.

The new curriculum, which prompted two school board members to resign, is expected to take effect in January. The school principal, Joel Riedel, and teachers contacted by The Chronicle refused to comment on the changes.

The idea of intelligent design was initiated by a small group of scientists to explain what they believe to be gaps in Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which they say is "not adequate to explain all natural phenomena. "

On an intelligent-design Web site (www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org), the theory is described as "a scientific disagreement with the claim of evolutionary theory that natural phenomena are not designed.''

Critics such as Eugenie Scott, director of the Oakland-based National Center for Science Education, say the Dover school board's decision is part of a growing trend. Religious conservatives, critics say, have been waging a war against Darwin in classrooms since the Scopes "Monkey Trial" of 1925. Tennessee schoolteacher John Scopes was convicted of illegally teaching evolution, but his conviction later was thrown out on a technicality by the Tennessee Supreme Court.

"There's a constant impetus by conservative evangelical Christians to bring religion back into the public schools," said Witold Walczak, legal director of the Pennsylvania branch of the American Civil Liberties Union. "The end goal is to get rid of evolution. They view it as a threat to their religion."

The intelligent-design theory makes no reference to the Bible, and its proponents do not say who or what the greater force is behind the design. But Yingling, 46, who graduated from Dover High School in 1976, and other supporters of the new curriculum in this religiously conservative slice of rural Pennsylvania say they know exactly who the intelligent designer is.

"There's only one creator, and it has to be God," said Rebecca Cashman, 16, a sophomore at Dover High. She frowned when asked to recollect what she learned about evolution at school last year.

"Evolution -- is that the Darwin theory?" Cashman shook her head. "I don't know just what he was thinking!"

Patricia Nason at the Institute for Creation Research, the world leader in creation science, said her organization and other activist groups are encouraging people who share conservative religious beliefs to seek positions on local school boards.

"The movement is to get the truth out," Nason said by telephone from El Cajon (San Diego County). "We Christians have as much right to be involved in politics as evolutionists. We've been asleep for two generations, and it's time for us to come back."

Emboldened by their contribution to President Bush's re-election, conservative religious activists are using intelligent design as a new strategy of attacking evolution without mentioning God, Scott said.

"There is a new energy as a result of the last election, and I anticipate an even busier couple of years coming on," Scott said.

She called intelligent design "creationism lite" masquerading as science. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1987 banned the teaching of creationism -- which holds that God created the world about 6,000 years ago -- in public schools on the grounds of separation of church and state.

John West of the Discovery Institute in Seattle, the main sponsor and promoter of intelligent design, defended the theory he says addresses "evolution follies."

"Mainstream criticism should be raised in classrooms," West said.

The Dover school district's challenge to the primacy of evolution is not isolated. In Cobb County, Ga., parents sued a local school board for mandating that biology textbooks prominently display disclaimers stating that evolution is "not a fact." A federal court is expected to rule next month.

In Grantsburg, Wis., a school board revised its science curriculum to teach "various scientific models of theories of origin." In Charles County, Md. , the school board is considering a proposal to eliminate textbooks "biased toward evolution" from classrooms. Similar proposals have been considered this year in Missouri, Mississippi and Oklahoma.

"There is nothing random about this," said Barry Lynn, executive director of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "You might say it's a planned evolution of an attack on the science of evolution."

The drive to bring more religion and what have been labeled "moral values" into the classroom goes beyond challenges to Darwin's theory, Scott said. The Charles County school board also proposed to censor school reading lists of "immorality" or "foul language" and to allow the distribution of Bibles in schools. In Texas, the nation's second-biggest school textbook market, the State Board of Education approved health textbooks that defined abstinence as the only form of contraception and changed the description of marriage between "two people" to "a lifelong union between a husband and a wife."

"The religious right has a list of topics that it wants action on," Scott said. "Things like abortion, abstinence, gays are higher up in the food chain of their concern, but evolution is part of the package."

This drive has found fertile ground in this part of Pennsylvania, where billboards reading, "Many books inform but only the Bible transforms" line the road, and family restaurants offer free booklets titled "What the Bible says about moral purity" and "The Bible is God's word" at the door.

"These brochures give you an idea where some people in this community are coming from," said Jeff Brown, 54, who, along with his wife Carol, 57, resigned from the school board after they voted against changing the biology curriculum.

Yingling, who voted in favor, said she believes God created the world in six days and doesn't believe in evolution "at all." Another board member who supported the measure, William Buckingham, refused to say what he believes but has identified himself as a born-again Christian.

But religious beliefs or motivations should be beside the point, said Richard Thompson, an attorney who represents the board members. Thompson is the president of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., a pro-bono firm whose Web site promises "the sword and shield for the people of faith."

The decision was "supportive of academic freedom more than anything else, " Thompson said.

While not talking about his own religious convictions, Thompson added, "When you look at cell structure and you see the intricacy of the cell, you can come to the conclusion that it doesn't happen by natural selection, there has to be intelligent design." Thompson said he is ready to represent the board in the Supreme Court if it comes to that. Some parents and teachers in Dover already have asked the Pennsylvania ACLU to sue the board on their behalf. Walczak said the organization's legal team is studying the case before deciding whether to go to court.

Brown, the former school board member, says he is not arguing with other people's religious beliefs.

"Don't get me wrong: I don't have a problem with having these booklets where people can pick them up. But I do have a problem with people shoving this down the throats of our children on taxpayers' dollars," Brown said.

"I happen to believe both in God and evolution," he said, and his wife nodded: "Hear, hear."

The Browns appear to be in the minority. Although public schools have been teaching evolution for decades, a national Gallup poll in November 2004 showed that only 35 percent of those asked believed confidently that Darwin's theory was "supported by the evidence.'' More than one-third of those polled by CBS News later in November said creationism should be taught instead of evolution.

"A guy came up to me and said, 'Wait a minute, you believe in God and evolution at the same time? Evolution isn't in the Bible!' " said Brown, nibbling on a deep-fried mozzarella stick at the Shiloh Family Restaurant on Route 74. As he became more agitated, his voice grew louder, and other customers -- mostly gray-haired women and elderly men in baseball hats -- turned their heads to look at the couple. Carol Brown kept putting her index finger to her lips, gesturing for her husband to be quieter.

After the Browns left the restaurant, a waitress in her 30s slipped a note to a Chronicle reporter.

"Beware," it read. "God wrote over 2,000 years ago that there would be false prophets and teachers. If you would like to know the truth read the Bible."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recent actions in the teaching of evolution

Tennessee, April 2003: Blount County's Board of Education votes not to adopt three high school biology textbooks because they do not present creationism alongside evolution.

California, September 2003: The Board of Trustees of the Roseville Joint Union High School District (Placer County) decide not to enact a district- wide policy on teaching evolution. Science teachers have told the district that they do not want to add anti-evolutionist materials that are not state- approved.

Oklahoma, April 2004: Textbook legislation passes after it is stripped of a provision that all textbooks include a disclaimer describing evolution as "a controversial theory which some scientists present as scientific explanation for the origin of living things" and "the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced a world of living things."

Pennsylvania, October 2004: A Dover, Pa., school board votes to include intelligent design in the district's science curriculum, making it the first such school district in the country.

Georgia, November 2004: A lawsuit is filed against the Cobb County School District over this disclaimer inserted into textbooks: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

(Source: National Center for Science Education; Chronicle research)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

National polls on the issue

In your opinion, is Darwin's theory supported by evidence?

Supported by evidence, 35%

Not supported, 35%

Don't know enough to say, 29%

Which best describes your views of the origin of life?

Man developed with God guiding, 38%

Man developed with no help from God, 13%

God created man in present form, 45%

(Source: Gallup Poll, conducted Nov. 7-10. The poll surveyed 1,016 adults; the margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.)

Percentage favoring the teaching of creationism instead of evolution

Overall, 37%

Kerry voters, 24%

Bush voters, 45%

Self-described evangelical Christians, 60%

(Source: CBS News poll, conducted Nov. 18-21. The poll surveyed 795 registered voters nationwide; the margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.)

----------

David

12-04-2004, 01:07 PM

Emboldened by their contribution to President Bush's re-election, conservative religious activists are using intelligent design as a new strategy of attacking evolution without mentioning God, Scott said.The Basic Minimum Christianists are at it again. Do they all take vitamin B shots every morning?
"The religious right has a list of topics that it wants action on," Scott said.Oh, I imagine. And not so surprisingly enough, nowhere on that list would you find anything about minding their own damn business. This is something that so few see, let alone understand: The religionists are in the SAME business as the government schools -- social engineering & indoctrination.
Yingling, who voted in favor, said she believes God created the world in six days and doesn't believe in evolution "at all." Another board member who supported the measure, William Buckingham, refused to say what he believes but has identified himself as a born-again Christian.Again, it's the government schools that have, after decades of deliberately avoiding the teaching of clear statement & coherent, rational discourse, brought the whole sorry country to this impasse: hordes of government functionaries in bed with hordes of religionists, & everybody's seemingly complete inability to distinguish between a "fact" & a "belief."
But religious beliefs or motivations should be beside the point, said Richard Thompson, an attorney who represents the board members.A strange day, indeed, when the only person around who seems to understand the problem is a lawyer!

A guy named Richard Mitchell understood it, but he is now dead. (I recommend his work to all.) A long time ago, he said, "The issue is not curriculum or methodology or family life or even the private enterprise system. The issue is freedom. The mind simply cannot be free without the power of thoughtful inquiry. If the mind is not free to gather knowledge, to form understanding, to judge of worth, & then, out of the best that it can do in knowing, understanding, & judging, will what it deems good, then there can be no such thing as morality, a system intended to judge the worth of individual choices."

"History, as H.G. Wells said, 'becomes more & more a race between education & catastrophe.' And by 'education' he didn't mean basic minimum competence or an indoctrination impervious to thoughtfulness. However, by 'catastrophe' he meant catastrophe."

David

12-04-2004, 01:15 PM

The school board has ordered that biology teachers at Dover Area High School make students "aware of gaps/problems" in the theory of evolution.Here in La-La-Land, curriculum is set not by biology teachers but by school boards. And so it goes. . . .
"There's only one creator, and it has to be God," said Rebecca Cashman, 16, a sophomore at Dover High. She frowned when asked to recollect what she learned about evolution at school last year.

"Evolution -- is that the Darwin theory?" Cashman shook her head.This chit doesn't exactly appear to have fully grasped the intricacies of the subject of her ire. But she's going to make up her "mind" anyway! I bet she learned how to do that in the public schools.

(Source: Gallup Poll, conducted Nov. 7-10. The poll surveyed 1,016 adults; the margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.)

Percentage favoring the teaching of creationism instead of evolution

Overall, 37%

Kerry voters, 24%

Bush voters, 45%

Self-described evangelical Christians, 60%

(Source: CBS News poll, conducted Nov. 18-21. The poll surveyed 795 registered voters nationwide; the margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.)Imagine polling voters of various stripes on the teaching of Planck's Constant.

One day, perhaps . . . ?

Anything is possible, even likely -- here in La-La-Land.

GateandGarden

12-04-2004, 01:23 PM

:mad: This makes me so mad I don't know where to begin.

First of all, that girl they intereviewed, the complete dumbass--"There's only one creator, and it has to be God," said Rebecca Cashman, 16, a sophomore at Dover High. She frowned when asked to recollect what she learned about evolution at school last year. "Evolution -- is that the Darwin theory?" Cashman shook her head. "I don't know just what he was thinking!" So, I'm guessing she didn't really learn the first thing about human evolution in her high school classes. I didn't either. I had my science ignorantly telling the whole class that Darwin took back everything he said on his deathbed, a complete lie. "I don't know just what he was thinking!" (?!?!) Maybe he did a hell of a lot more research than you did? Scientific research over superstition, what a concept.

"Yingling, who voted in favor, said she believes God created the world in six days and doesn't believe in evolution 'at all." What the hell? Who still believes that? All of the Christians I know say that six days could easily be interpreted as six million years. Has no one seen or read Inherit the Wind? There is more than one way to think about something. These people sound like the people on that Ann Coulter fan board who speak of the one TRUTH.

"Georgia, November 2004: A lawsuit is filed against the Cobb County School District over this disclaimer inserted into textbooks: 'This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.'" I'm so tired of explaining to people that a theory is the strongest thing in biology, because, unlike Christian fundamentalism (and fundamentalism in other faiths), biology acknowledges the idea that we can't be entirely certain of much, a concept oh so very foreign to the most narrow-minded of religious fanatics. Only physics has laws; every other branch of science has theories. They say "theory" like it's a synonym for "hypothesis" or "hunch" or something.

Bottom lines: People have got to figure out that the metaphysical cannot explain the physical and vice versa. And people have got to honor separation of church and state more than this. :distress:

Thanks for posting this, Mikki. Gives me an opportunity to vent. :)

Hillary

heyjupiter678

12-19-2004, 05:22 PM

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002119831_evolution15.html

Lawsuit challenges "intelligent design"
By The Associated Press and Knight Ridder Newspapers

HARRISBURG, Pa. — Eight families have filed a lawsuit against a school district that is requiring students to learn about alternatives to the theory of evolution, claiming the curriculum violates the separation of church and state.

The ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State said the lawsuit is the first to challenge whether public schools should teach "intelligent design," a theory first advanced in the late 1980s, which holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by some higher power. The two organizations are representing the parents in the federal lawsuit.

The Dover Area School District voted 6-3 on Oct. 18 to require ninth-grade biology teachers to read a statement that Darwin's theory of evolution, that life evolved through a process of natural selection, is "not fact" and that "gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence." The directive, scheduled to go into effect in January, is believed to be the first such requirement in the country.

The ACLU contends that intelligent design is "neither scientific nor a theory in the scientific sense; it is an inherently religious argument."

Witold Walczak, legal director for the Pennsylvania ACLU chapter, called intelligent design "a Trojan horse for bringing religious creationism back into the public school science classroom."

One of the parents bringing suit, Tammy Kitzmiller, expressed concern that the school board would mandate the teaching of "something that isn't accepted as science." Kitzmiller has two children who attend Dover High School.

Officials of the school district, which has 3,600 pupils, could not be reached yesterday to comment on the case.

School board member William Buckingham, who led the change as the leader of the board's curriculum committee, has said that he proposed the change as a way to balance evolution with competing theories that present an alternative view of how life began.

Two of the three dissenting Dover board members have resigned in protest. Angie Yingling, a board member who originally supported the policy, said she later reconsidered her vote.

"Anyone with half a brain should have known we were going to be sued," she said. "You can't do this."

At least one other district has recently become embroiled in federal litigation over teaching evolution. A federal judge in Georgia is considering the constitutionality of a suburban Atlanta district's decision to include a warning sticker about evolution in biology textbooks.

Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company

Hawkeye

12-19-2004, 06:23 PM

Well if Dissention can say Jesus is a fictional chartacter, then that school can do whatever it wants.

GateandGarden

12-19-2004, 06:29 PM

Well if Dissention can say Jesus is a fictional chartacter, then that school can do whatever it wants.Huh? :shocked:

Hawkeye

12-19-2004, 06:33 PM

GateandGarden

12-19-2004, 06:47 PM

eh, my position on this is a big Don't Care. The one plus with evolution is it's the one section in Biology that brought my average up (Genetics, which is probably FAR more useful I couldn't undertsand one lick) But do kids need to learn about Evolution, no. Do I care if they do, no. Is this issue important, no.It's important because it's not okay to teach religion in public schools. It's also important because the students need a well-rounded biology education, and I think you'd be more gung-ho about that if you were a fan of biology. I don't like math classes at all, but I'm not going to say "It's not important for students to learn algebra" just because I didn't like it at all. I guess it's good that you're not a member of the school board. And it good to know that separation of church and state is of such concern to you. :rolleyes:

But I'm going to continually remind you that you said at one point that people can't be gay and moral at the same time, which is utterly ridiculous. How do you expect me to trust your statements to make sense after that? :shrug:

Hillary

dissention

12-19-2004, 07:01 PM

Well if Dissention can say Jesus is a fictional chartacter, then that school can do whatever it wants.

You certainly do embody the definition of "ridiculous." :xoxo:

Nothing from the Bible should be taught in public schools, period. But with states like Mississippi and Michigan forcing public schools to have banners that say "In God We Trust" put up, I fear that pretty soon The Passion will be shown to all students. :rolleyes:

dissention

12-19-2004, 07:03 PM

But I'm going to continually remind you that you said at one point that people can't be gay and moral at the same time, which is utterly ridiculous. How do you expect me to trust your statements to make sense after that? :shrug:

Hawkeye also said she was glad we invaded Iraq because it would cost her less on gas.

amber

12-19-2004, 07:08 PM

GypsySorcerer

12-19-2004, 07:09 PM

Nothing from the Bible should be taught in public schools, period. But with states like Mississippi and Michigan forcing public schools to have banners that say "In God We Trust" put up, I fear that pretty soon The Passion will be shown to all students. :rolleyes:

Historically, the U.S. hasn't been the best at separation of church and state. The Government has let religion seep through on certain occasions; no wonder why we have the current battles.

How do those states get away with putting those banners up? I'm actually kind of surprised Michigan is one.

dissention

12-19-2004, 07:10 PM

The important part of this issue is the fact of separation between church and state - It's called the constitution, it's called law. It's supposed to be a fundamental tenet of our society. hello? hello in there?

Yeah, but the Supreme Court has ruled that it's constitutional to use public tax dollars to send kids to private religious schools, so that fundamental tenet has been tossed out the window, unfortunately.

I think I should erect my Jesusland map once again. :xoxo: :wavey:

dissention

12-19-2004, 07:11 PM

How do those states get away with putting those banners up? I'm actually kind of surprised Michigan is one.

Beats me, but they've passed state laws that *require* them in public schools. It was all done immediately after 9/11, so it's obvious that rational thoughts were not factoring into these stupid decisions.

amber

12-19-2004, 07:13 PM

Yeah, but the Supreme Court has ruled that it's constitutional to use public tax dollars to send kids to private religious schools, so that fundamental tenet has been tossed out the window, unfortunately.

I think I should erect my Jesusland map once again. :xoxo: :wavey:
yeah, i didn't say we were good at it, i said it's nevertheless important that it exists and is supposed to be an integral part of our society... :laugh: :rolleyes:

GateandGarden

12-19-2004, 07:14 PM

I think I should erect my Jesusland map once again. :xoxo: :wavey:Yeah! I love that thing! :D

Hillary

amber

12-19-2004, 07:15 PM

Did you see robert smigels cartoon on snl, where on santa's map the red states were called "dumbf***istan"? :lol:

wondergirl9847

12-19-2004, 07:20 PM

Why can't we teach religion in school? Children should learn all about various religions that people believe in all around the world.

GypsySorcerer

12-19-2004, 07:21 PM

Why can't we teach religion in school? Children should learn all about various religions that people believe in all around the world.

I see no problem with religion being taught in a history class, but when actual beliefs are being taught as truths, that's where we get into problems.

dissention

12-19-2004, 07:22 PM

Why can't we teach religion in school?

Because it has no place there. :)

dissention

12-19-2004, 07:24 PM

but when actual beliefs are being taught as truths, that's were we get into problems.

Which is why religion has no place in the public school system. It's simply impossible to teach religion in anything but a biased manner.

amber

12-19-2004, 07:26 PM

Which is why religion has no place in the public school system. It's simply impossible to teach religion in anything but a biased manner.
Yeah, besides, that's saved for college classes called "comparative religions" and stuff like that. Which does not compare at all to "teaching alternatives to evolution" in public schools.

GypsySorcerer

12-19-2004, 07:26 PM

Which is why religion has no place in the public school system. It's simply impossible to teach religion in anything but a biased manner.

I don't think you should teach religion, but I think it should be placed into its historical contexts....like the Crusades in a world history class.

GateandGarden

12-19-2004, 07:27 PM

I don't think you should teach religion, but I think it should be placed into its historical contexts....like the Crusades in a world history class.I agree. :nod:

dissention

12-19-2004, 07:30 PM

I don't think you should teach religion, but I think it should be placed into its historical contexts....like the Crusades in a world history class.

Exactly. :thumbsup: :wavey:

Hawkeye

12-19-2004, 08:43 PM

Hawkeye also said she was glad we invaded Iraq because it would cost her less on gas.

what's with this her stuff. It's HE. I think I've indicated that before, why can't you rremember that, but you remember that gas comment from over a year ago.

Hawkeye

12-19-2004, 08:48 PM

It's important because it's not okay to teach religion in public schools. It's also important because the students need a well-rounded biology education, and I think you'd be more gung-ho about that if you were a fan of biology. I don't like math classes at all, but I'm not going to say "It's not important for students to learn algebra" just because I didn't like it at all. I guess it's good that you're not a member of the school board. And it good to know that separation of church and state is of such concern to you. :rolleyes:

But I'm going to continually remind you that you said at one point that people can't be gay and moral at the same time, which is utterly ridiculous. How do you expect me to trust your statements to make sense after that? :shrug:

Hillary

I didn't say the religious version should be taught either. NEITHER should be taught. teaching Evolution is equally as biased as teaching religion. It's cramming evolution down kids throats, which is just a theory as is the creation thing.

GateandGarden

12-19-2004, 09:30 PM

I didn't say the religious version should be taught either. NEITHER should be taught. teaching Evolution is equally as biased as teaching religion. It's cramming evolution down kids throats, which is just a theory as is the creation thing.I think you know that's completely false. And I'll let dissention take that one if he's interested.

ontheEdgeof17

12-19-2004, 09:34 PM

Why can't we teach religion in school? Children should learn all about various religions that people believe in all around the world.

It would be very biased. I had a Religions of the World class, and professor was clearly unhappy with teaching other beliefs other than Christianity.

Hawkeye

12-19-2004, 09:37 PM

It would be very biased. I had a Religions of the World class, and professor was clearly unhappy with teaching other beliefs other than Christianity.

I don't know about your professor but in Buffalo New York teachers do a great job of being completely unbiased when teaching about world religions.

GateandGarden

12-19-2004, 09:48 PM

It would be very biased. I had a Religions of the World class, and professor was clearly unhappy with teaching other beliefs other than Christianity.Aw, that's a shame. I've never taken a class specifically about religion, but every history professor I've had since I've been in college didn't have any problems discussing different belief systems. And the students couldn't tell which religion the professor practiced, if any at all, unless they knew him or her personally. That was never an issue. But I can certainly believe that it doesn't always work out so well.

Hillary

dissention

12-20-2004, 11:17 AM

I think you know that's completely false. And I'll let dissention take that one if he's interested.

Gladly. :wavey:

Evolution involves science. Creationism does not. Get it?

dissention

12-20-2004, 11:29 AM

what's with this her stuff. It's HE. I think I've indicated that before, why can't you rremember that, but you remember that gas comment from over a year ago.

The fumes from our newly "cheap" gas must have affected me on some level, dear.

GateandGarden

12-20-2004, 11:40 AM

Gladly. :wavey:

Evolution involves science. Creationism does not. Get it?Short and sweet. :thumbsup:

wondergirl9847

12-20-2004, 12:09 PM

Evolution involves science. Creationism does not. Get it?

That's crap.

strandinthewind

12-20-2004, 12:10 PM

Gladly. :wavey:

Evolution involves science. Creationism does not. Get it?

Well, not exaclty - no one can prove that evolution is correct or true - it cannot be proven that man evolved from monkeys - thus it is just a theory just like intelligent design :shrug: Also, can one scientifically disprove intelligent design - no one cannot. So, I say teach them all (and I mean all religions' origin stories) and let people figure it our for themselves. Show how species have evolved over millions of years - show the alleged missing link between man and monkeys or some other biped. The problem I see with that is that the religious right and the far left are scared to death to let people do just that (think for themselves) - it is all or nothing - a scorched earth policy if you will - the far right IMO having MUCH more to lose and, is, therefore, more vehement on this. I mean why is it so horrid to say the current scientific theory is evolution and we note none of the world's religions really agree with that - here is what they think - here is how some religions meld the two so they are consistent. I think that is a great topic and probably should be a required class on just that topic.

Anyway - my $0.02 as food for thought.

Edit: or as Christy beautifully and succintly put it "That's crap." :laugh:

cliffdweller

12-20-2004, 12:15 PM

I fear that pretty soon The Passion will be shown to all students. :rolleyes:

Please, don't give them any ideas. :laugh: :distress:

cliffdweller

12-20-2004, 12:19 PM

Show how species have evolved over millions of years - show the alleged missing link between man and monkeys or some other biped.

That would still be seen as conceding too much; do you think the Christian right would never agree to something so practical? :laugh:

strandinthewind

12-20-2004, 12:24 PM

That would still be seen as conceding too much; do you think the Christian right would never agree to something so practical? :laugh:

Sadly - no. AND - that exists on both sides IMO - the far left would never allow this because of the chance people might agree with a religion's theory over evolution (which again is not a proven thing by any means) - so the battle rages on knowledge suffers the casualties :nod:

Interestingly, I do not think the far religious right is against showing how species, even man, evolved over time. I think they are mostly opposed to linking man to another species as that is against what The Bible says. AND - there is no concrete evidence at all that links man to monkeys - in fact a significant portion suggests there is no link - thus the search for the "missing link." To me, it seems natural to assume that apes and man were related at some point - probably a million years ago. But, that is just me :cool:

GateandGarden

12-20-2004, 12:41 PM

Well, not exaclty - no one can prove that evolution is correct or true - it cannot be proven that man evolved from monkeys - thus it is just a theory just like intelligent design :shrug: Also, can one scientifically disprove intelligent design - no one cannot. So, I say teach them all (and I mean all religions' origin stories) and let people figure it our for themselves. Show how species have evolved over millions of years - show the alleged missing link between man and monkeys or some other biped. The problem I see with that is that the religious right and the far left are scared to death to let people do just that (think for themselves) - it is all or nothing - a scorched earth policy if you will - the far right IMO having MUCH more to lose and, is, therefore, more vehement on this. I mean why is it so horrid to say the current scientific theory is evolution and we note none of the world's religions really agree with that - here is what they think - here is how some religions meld the two so they are consistent. I think that is a great topic and probably should be a required class on just that topic.

Anyway - my $0.02 as food for thought.

Edit: or as Christy beautifully and succintly put it "That's crap." :laugh:
I'm baffled as to why you think religious explanations of anything belong in a biology class.

And everything in the field of biology is either a theory or something less than that--does that imply that it's all crap?

Hillary

amber

12-20-2004, 12:47 PM

I'm baffled as to why you think religious explanations of anything belong in a biology class.

Hillary
Yes, i was baffled, too. And, yeah, they are theories, but theories based on sound scientific evidence and principals. And the scientific canon of evidence doesn't really support the timeline, etc, of creation theory.. :confused:

GateandGarden

12-20-2004, 12:54 PM

Whatever the case, this definitely has the potential to develop into a grand and lengthy debate between strandie and dissention, so I'll have my popcorn ready. :nod: :laugh:

Hillary

amber

12-20-2004, 12:54 PM

Whatever the case, this definitely has the potential to develop into a grand and lengthy debate between strandie and dissention, so I'll have my popcorn ready. :nod: :laugh:

Hillary
Ah, gonna sit back and let the boys talk, as usual? :wavey: Well, no one else loves the sound of their own typing more (cept me :D ).

strandinthewind

12-20-2004, 12:59 PM

I'm baffled as to why you think religious explanations of anything belong in a biology class.

And everything in the field of biology is either a theory or something less than that--does that imply that it's all crap?

Hillary

Well, there are scientific ways to prove the existence of God - do a google search and you will see.

Again, I realize evolution is science, but in it can be seen intelligent deisgn - or at least in theory.

Finally, all I am saying (and I knew I would take flack for saying it because people cannot see this issue with clear eyes IMO) is that it hurts no one to teach the two side by side and explain the differences and similarites and let people think for themselves. That concept is just too much for people and the mere mention of it usually provokes yelling :laugh:

estranged4life

12-20-2004, 01:01 PM

Please, don't give them any ideas. :laugh: :distress:

when that comes to fruition, Go ahead and pass out the Hitler youth outfits too and be very afraid.

Brian j.

strandinthewind

12-20-2004, 01:03 PM

Ah, gonna sit back and let the boys talk, as usual? :wavey: Well, no one else loves the sound of their own typing more (cept me :D ).

LOL - Diss will say - as he has already said - that religion is a bunch of B.S. and public funds should not be used to teach it. I will then retort that as long as all religions' theories are being taught, no Const.'s ban on establishment of religion is not being violated. Then, it will turn into an argument on the subjective def. of religion. Well, that was easy :laugh: :wavey: :rolleyes: :cool:

amber

12-20-2004, 01:08 PM

LOL - Diss will say - as he has already said - that religion is a bunch of B.S. and public funds should not be used to teach it. I will then retort that as long as all religions' theories are being taught, no Const.'s ban on establishment of religion is not being violated. Then, it will turn into an argument on the subjective def. of religion. Well, that was easy :laugh: :wavey: :rolleyes: :cool:
:laugh: :lol: :laugh:
Indeed.
I would say that while i have seen scientist try to prove aspects of creation with science, it is crappy, crappy, science. They're really reaching. However, when i googled it, I got too much info to wade through at this moment. But there is a reason why this science isn't roundly accepted, i'll submit for now ;) (maybe i've found something to research during my vacation time from school... :laugh: ) But you are right, there is "scientific evidence" propounded, that's for sure.

wondergirl9847

12-20-2004, 01:08 PM

Finally, all I am saying is that it hurts no one to teach the two side by side and explain the differences and similarites and let people think for themselves. That concept is just too much for people and the mere mention of it usually provokes yelling :laugh:

That's what I'm saying too. Teach both sides and let people make their own decisions. That's what diss and so many others want anyways, for people to use the brain God gave them...or in diss's and other's case, the brain they have that evolved from monkeys. :rolleyes:

:lol: Tee hee!!

Lemme just add that I just cannot look out my window or when I'm on vacation in Colorado especially, look out the car window and look at the majestic mountains, the colors of the sky, the trees, the landscape and think it's all some accident. I'll never believe that...EVAH.

strandinthewind

12-20-2004, 01:11 PM

Ya knew I would just have to post some articles/sites :laugh: :laugh: :rolleyes:

Seriously, I think they are worth reading even though I do not agree with everything said in all of them.

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/Mansproof.html

http://www.wie.org/j11/goswami.asp

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/schick_21_1.html

http://www.dallasvoice.com/articles/dispArticle.cfm?Article_ID=4465

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976

Food for Thought!!!!!! :cool:

amber

12-20-2004, 01:14 PM

That's what I'm saying too. Teach both sides and let people make their own decisions. That's what diss and so many others want anyways, for people to use the brain God gave them...or in diss's and other's case, the brain they have that evolved from monkeys. :rolleyes:

:lol: Tee hee!!
I think they don't teach (or didn't) teach creation science because it's not very...strong scientifically? However, i also think that a fair amount of scientist reject at least part of Darwin's theory of evolution as well. It's now more of a...okay, i can't explain it very well so i'll stop for now. (yes, that is a threat of more to come :laugh: )

amber

12-20-2004, 01:15 PM

wondergirl9847

12-20-2004, 01:18 PM

"The atheist has always maintained that there was no beginning. The idea is that matter has always existed in the form of either matter or energy; and all that has happened is that matter has been changed from form to form, but it has always been."

"If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem."

Exactly! How the frick can something come from nothing first of all? And, if you can believe that matter always was, is, will be....why not God???

heyjupiter678

12-20-2004, 01:21 PM

Again, I realize evolution is science, but in it can be seen intelligent deisgn - or at least in theory.
The difference is that evolution is a scientific theory. Intelligent design is a metaphysical theory and should have no place in a high school biology class, IMO.

amber

12-20-2004, 01:22 PM

GateandGarden

12-20-2004, 01:33 PM

The difference is that evolution is a scientific theory. Intelligent design is a metaphysical theory and should have no place in a high school biology class, IMO.I agree. :nod: Some of you are maintaining that the idea of a creator is something that should be put out there for people so that they can consider it as well and think for themselves. I agree with that but can only think of one class in which it would be an appropriate unit, and it is not a biology class but a philosophy class. (Obviously, I think it makes sense to teach those ideas in a religious class at a religious institution, but that goes without saying).

Hillary

EnchantedSLN

12-20-2004, 01:33 PM

that man evolved from monkeys

Aaaaah. Sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine. Evolution does not propose that man "evolved from monkeys." That's a big oversimplification and misconception, and that's why it should be taught in schools :p.

Religion has no place in publicly funded schools. That's what parents, private schools, churches, synagogues, and mosques are for. It's fine to place a disclaimer on something and say this may or may not be the case, but really, couldn't you do that with anything? And the concept of a "theory" in science is misleading... just because something is called a "theory" doesn't mean it's just a really good guess. The "theory" of relativity can't technically be proven either, but we have no qualms about teaching that.

GateandGarden

12-20-2004, 01:34 PM

Aaaaah. Sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine. Evolution does not propose that man "evolved from monkeys." That's a big oversimplification and misconception, and that's why it should be taught in schools :p.

Religion has no place in publicly funded schools. That's what parents, private schools, churches, synagogues, and mosques are for. It's fine to place a disclaimer on something and say this may or may not be the case, but really, couldn't you do that with anything? And the concept of a "theory" in science is misleading... just because something is called a "theory" doesn't mean it's just a really good guess. The "theory" of relativity can't technically be proven either, but we have no qualms about teaching that.Thank you for all of that. Well put, as always.

Hillary

strandinthewind

12-20-2004, 01:39 PM

The difference is that evolution is a scientific theory. Intelligent design is a metaphysical theory and should have no place in a high school biology class, IMO.

I actually agree with you to a certain degree. But, there is really no way that some kid is not going to raise their hand and ask why evolution is contrary to creationism (intelligent design). I think it is wrong for a teacher to say that they cannot answer that question because the school is funded with public dollars :laugh: I think the discussion whould then happen with the emphasis being that evolution is the current accepted scientific method but here are others - all of which are unproven and here is why. I think to dodge the question altogether does not do the education process any favors.

I think the problem is people, including me, are so fed up with these far religous right people trying to cram Christianity (their highly profitable version of it mind you) down the throats of everyone by stirring up hate to fill their coffers. Alas - the battle will rage on :nod:

dissention

12-20-2004, 01:42 PM

strandinthewind

12-20-2004, 01:42 PM

Aaaaah. Sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine. Evolution does not propose that man "evolved from monkeys." That's a big oversimplification and misconception, and that's why it should be taught in schools :p.

Darlin' I was a preachin' to the common folk and did not want to complicate my sermon with them $5.00 words :laugh: :wavey: (for the unlearned - I am joking here :cool: )

But, since you asked

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/monkeytrial/sfeature/sf_evolution.html

1. Did we evolve from monkeys?

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed
5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.

:wavey:

dissention

12-20-2004, 01:44 PM

That's crap.

How so? Seriously, how can you possibly argue that creationism involves science?

strandinthewind

12-20-2004, 01:48 PM

But you're argument is flawed, Christy. If there is/was a God, he/it would have had to come from something. How could he/it come from nothing to create everything? It defies logic, IMO.

that is where faith comes in. It is sort of like in math - which is the purest for of expression - when the rules have to be "broken" and special def. set forth for it to work. e.g. division of anything by zero :cool:

For the record and again, all I am saying is I have no problem with evolution being taught as the scientific method and perhaps a footnote saying the worlds' religions (all of them and not just the ones now) over time have come to accept it and some will never accept it. For a better explanation - take a comparative religions class - or something like that :laugh: I think to avoid the comparison altogether is an improper method of teaching :cool:

GateandGarden

12-20-2004, 01:49 PM

But, there is really no way that some kid is not going to raise their hand and ask why evolution is contrary to creationism (intelligent design). I think it is wrong for a teacher to say that they cannot answer that question because the school is funded with public dollars :laugh: Well, wouldn't it be different for the teacher to just explain why some Christians disagree with evolution because the kid asked a question than to have creationism in his/her lesson plans? Just a thought.

Hillary

dissention

12-20-2004, 01:49 PM

:laugh: :lol: :laugh:
Indeed.
I would say that while i have seen scientist try to prove aspects of creation with science, it is crappy, crappy, science. They're really reaching. However, when i googled it, I got too much info to wade through at this moment. But there is a reason why this science isn't roundly accepted, i'll submit for now ;) (maybe i've found something to research during my vacation time from school... :laugh: ) But you are right, there is "scientific evidence" propounded, that's for sure.

"Creationism science" is flawed to the Nth degree. It's more than them reaching, they're doing acrobatic back flips sideways in an attempt to give credence to anything they say. :laugh:

strandinthewind

12-20-2004, 01:50 PM

Well, wouldn't it be different for the teacher to just explain why some Christians disagree with evolution because the kid asked a question than to have creationism in his/her lesson plans? Just a thought.

Hillary

Well, don't you think there ought to be a lesson plan for it so there is some sort of uniform explanation out there? And - it is not just the Christians asking the questions.

GateandGarden

12-20-2004, 01:50 PM

that is where faith comes in. It is sort of like in math - which is the purest for of expression - when the rules have to be "broken" and special def. set forth for it to work. e.g. division of anything by zero :cool:

For the record and again, all I am saying is I have no problem with evolution being taught as the scientific method and perhaps a footnote saying the worlds' religions (all of them and not just the ones now) over time have come to accept it and some will never accept it. For a better explanation - take a comparative religions class - or something like that :laugh: I think to avoid the comparison altogether is an improper method of teaching :cool:I agree with all of this. Now I'm starting to wonder why there was a debate to begin with. What a letdown. You and diss could have been at it for pages. :laugh:

Hillary

strandinthewind

12-20-2004, 01:51 PM

"Creationism science" is flawed to the Nth degree. It's more than them reaching, they're doing acrobatic back flips sideways in an attempt to give credence to anything they say. :laugh:

Alrighty Mr. Smarty Pants - start disproving the theories - we are all ears on how you are smater than some of the top scientists in the world :wavey:

dissention

12-20-2004, 01:52 PM

that is where faith comes in. It is sort of like in math - which is the purest for of expression - when the rules have to be "broken" and special def. set forth for it to work. e.g. division of anything by zero :cool:

Which is fine by me, but it also prevents those who have "faith" from partaking in discussions that involve logic, unfortunately.

For the record and again, all I am saying is I have no problem with evolution being taught as the scientific method and perhaps a footnote saying the worlds' religions (all of them and not just the ones now) over time have come to accept it and some will never accept it. For a better explanation - take a comparative religions class - or something like that :laugh: I think to avoid the comparison altogether is an improper method of teaching :cool:

Evolution should be taught as a scientific theory, nothing else. Creationism should not be taught at all because it involves religious beliefs and theories, which have no place in the classroom. That's all. :)

dissention

12-20-2004, 01:53 PM

Alrighty Mr. Smarty Pants - start disproving the theories - we are all ears on how you are smater than some of the top scientists in the world :wavey:

I don't have to disprove their theories, Mr. Wise Ass, scientists that are equally reputable have refuted their theories. It's simply a matter of which ones you believe. :woohoo:

GateandGarden

12-20-2004, 01:54 PM

Well, don't you think there ought to be a lesson plan for it so there is some sort of uniform explanation out there? And - it is not just the Christians asking the questions.I don't see why it should be an issue unless a child brings it up. Science doesn't need to justify itself to religion. :shrug:

Hillary

dissention

12-20-2004, 01:55 PM

I don't see why it should be an issue unless a child brings it up. Science doesn't need to justify itself to religion. :shrug:

Hillary

There's always that famous oxymoron, Hillary:

A Christian Scientist. :lol:

strandinthewind

12-20-2004, 01:56 PM

Which is fine by me, but it also prevents those who have "faith" from partaking in discussions that involve logic, unfortunately. Then all of nathematics is bogus according to this limited and IMO myopic standard :shrug:

Evolution should be taught as a scientific theory, nothing else. Creationism should be taught at all because it involves religious beliefs and theories, which have no place in the classroom. That's all. :)

Well, then when the questions come from the kids regarding why this conflicts with their religion, the teacher should just hand out pre printed cards that say - "sorry we cannot discuss that" :laugh: You "solution" has no practical application in the real world and you know it. Plus, as long as the public school teacher is not trying to establish one religion as THE religion, no law is being broken. I just for the life of me cannot see the harm in a teacher answering those questions and provoking thought in a student. But the far left and the far right go apoplectic at the mention of the thought :laugh: Thus, the battle rages on . . .

strandinthewind

12-20-2004, 01:58 PM

I don't have to disprove their theories, Mr. Wise Ass, scientists that are equally reputable have refuted their theories. It's simply a matter of which ones you believe. :woohoo:

ahhhhhh - subjectivity in an objective conversation - it always comes down to that though :laugh:

strandinthewind

12-20-2004, 01:59 PM

I don't see why it should be an issue unless a child brings it up. Science doesn't need to justify itself to religion. :shrug:

Hillary

Do you honestly think it will not come up every time? If so, I have this bridge for sale in Brooklyn and was wondering . . . . :laugh:

(levity here - that is all)

dissention

12-20-2004, 02:03 PM

Then all of nathematics is bogus according to this limited and IMO myopic standard :shrug:

Talk to somebody else about math, I'm dumb as two fence posts when it comes to the subject. :laugh:

You "solution" has no practical application in the real world and you know it.

My "solution" worked pretty damn well when I was in public school and it was dealt with the exact same way. We had permission slips sent home for science class for us to be able to go to class that involved evolution. It was stipulated that there would be no discussion of religion. And it worked perfectly well. But the Christian's of this country want to have all the cake and to eat it all, too.

But, I forgot, your reality is everyone else's. ;)

Plus, as long as the public school teacher is not trying to establish one religion as THE religion, no law is being broken. I just for the life of me cannot see the harm in a teacher answering those questions and provoking thought in a student. But the far left and the far right go apoplectic at the mention of the thought :laugh: Thus, the battle rages on . . .

Because it is up to me, not my kids teacher, whether or not I want him or her exposed to such religious swill.

ontheEdgeof17

12-20-2004, 02:03 PM

Do you honestly think it will not come up every time?

That's when you say, "That is to be discussed with your parents and spiritual leader." It's the proper thing to say when you are in a teaching role and not one of a professional religious leader.

GateandGarden

12-20-2004, 02:04 PM

Well, then when the questions come from the kids regarding why this conflicts with their religion, the teacher should just hand out pre printed cards that say - "sorry we cannot discuss that" :laugh: You "solution" has no practical application in the real world and you know it. Plus, as long as the public school teacher is not trying to establish one religion as THE religion, no law is being broken. I just for the life of me cannot see the harm in a teacher answering those questions and provoking thought in a student. But the far left and the far right go apoplectic at the mention of the thought :laugh: Thus, the battle rages on . . .But a teacher cannot prepare for every problem every students of every religion may have with a concept. They might be having a lesson on dinosaurs and a student could say "My religion does not believe that dinosaurs existed." A sex education class may be discussing forms of birth control and a student might say "The Pope believes that it is wrong to use contraceptives." Must the teacher anticipate all of these issues and incorporate explanations in his/her lesson plans for each one?

Hillary

dissention

12-20-2004, 02:05 PM

ontheEdgeof17

12-20-2004, 02:07 PM

BINGO!

:wavey:

Taking School Law/Nusing in Schools as an elective DID teach me something. :laugh:

wondergirl9847

12-20-2004, 02:08 PM

I think religion is historical and scientific and should be taught in school. All forms of religion...cults included, atheism, agnosticism (is that the right word? LOL). It's reality, deal.

GateandGarden

12-20-2004, 02:08 PM

That's when you say, "That is to be discussed with your parents and spiritual leader." It's the proper thing to say when you are in a teaching role and not one of a professional religious leader.Yes, Curtis' statement is making me change my mind...as an educator you put yourself in a bad position even by saying, "Yes, Joel, scientists say such and such and some religious instituions do argue that..." because that can easily be crossing the line and it's also far too easy for the teacher to misrepresent some religious institution in trying to speak for them in this way.

Hillary

dissention

12-20-2004, 02:09 PM

Taking School Law/Nusing in Schools as an elective DID teach me something. :laugh:

You do know what Jason will retort with, dontcha?

"When evolution comes up, that's when you say, 'That is to be discussed with your parents and local scientist.' It's the proper thing to say when you are in a teaching role and not one of a professional scientist."

:laugh: :p

strandinthewind

12-20-2004, 02:09 PM

Talk to somebody else about math, I'm dumb as two fence posts when it comes to the subject. :laugh:

no need to state the obvious :D

My "solution" worked pretty damn well when I was in public school and it was dealt with the exact same way. We had permission slips sent home for science class for us to be able to go to class that involved evolution. It was stipulated that there would be no discussion of religion. And it worked perfectly well. But the Christian's of this country want to have all the cake and to eat it all, too.

But, I forgot, your reality is everyone else's. ;)

Because it is up to me, not my kids teacher, whether or not I want him or her exposed to such religious swill.

I think that is avoiding a debate that could make kids smarter and more prepared for the real worls.

As for not exposing your kids to that, you better turn off the t.v. and radio and never let them read a magazine - talk about not living the real world :laugh:

Finally, you are once again limiting this to Christians, which is silly of you. Would you object to your kids learing about Hindu or Buddahist ideas :shrug: or the ideas of the Wiccans, etc. I think not - but you will say yes just to be hard headed :laugh:

GypsySorcerer

12-20-2004, 02:09 PM

I do believe in evolution, but I think that the miraculous evolution of human beings was guided by a Higher Power. :)

And since I have no fact to base this on, it should not be taught in public schools. :wavey:

ontheEdgeof17

12-20-2004, 02:10 PM

I think religion is historical and scientific and should be taught in school. All forms of religion...cults included, atheism, agnosticism (is that the right word? LOL). It's reality, deal.

If the child elects to take the course, I agree completely. It shouldn't be forced, just recommended.

dissention

12-20-2004, 02:11 PM

I think religion is historical and scientific and should be taught in school. All forms of religion...cults included, atheism, agnosticism (is that the right word? LOL). It's reality, deal.

But I'm asking how religion is scientific, yet I've gotten nothing. :confused:

And atheism is not a religion, it's a belief on how things should run. :laugh:

GateandGarden

12-20-2004, 02:11 PM

Finally, you are once again limiting this to Christians, which is silly of you. Would you object to your kids learing about Hindu or Buddahist ideas :shrug: or the ideas of the Wiccans, etc. I think not - but you will say yes just to be hard headed :laugh:Well, diss is against organized religion in general, not just Christianity, right? :shrug:

Hillary

HomerMcvie

12-20-2004, 02:11 PM

wondergirl9847

12-20-2004, 02:11 PM

Talk to somebody else about math, I'm dumb as two fence posts when it comes to the subject.

Me too. Geez, it's really sad with me, seriously. LOL

GypsySorcerer

12-20-2004, 02:11 PM

BINGO!

:wavey:

Very good answer, Curtis. :)

strandinthewind

12-20-2004, 02:11 PM

You do know what Jason will retort with, dontcha?

"When evolution comes up, that's when you say, 'That is to be discussed with your parents and local scientist.' It's the proper thing to say when you are in a teaching role and not one of a professional scientist."

:laugh: :p

Smart Ass :laugh: :laugh:

It is not that I disagree with Curtis' idea. I just think it would be great if kids could learn about all of the theories (and they are ALL theories) and choose for themselves. But, the idea of that happening is so repugnant to the far right and the far left . . .

ontheEdgeof17

12-20-2004, 02:12 PM

strandinthewind

12-20-2004, 02:13 PM

Well, diss is against organized religion in general, not just Christianity, right? :shrug:

Hillary

When's the last time you heard him go off about anything but Chritianity :cool:

GateandGarden

12-20-2004, 02:13 PM

And since I have no fact to base this on, it should not be taught in public schools. :wavey::thumbsup:

strandinthewind

12-20-2004, 02:14 PM

:lol:

Damn lawyers and their $400/hour words.

for you - its only $250 and hour - unless Stew is involved - then it is $600 :laugh: :rolleyes:

For Diss. - no fee could be high enough :wavey:

GateandGarden

12-20-2004, 02:14 PM

When's the last time you heard him go off about anything but Chritianity :cool:You certainly have a point, but I've also heard him say that religion (not just Christianity) is evil and vile to him. And probably lots of other intensely negative terms as well. :laugh:

Hillary

dissention

12-20-2004, 02:15 PM

I think that is avoiding a debate that could make kids smarter and more prepared for the real worls.

As for not exposing your kids to that, you better turn off the t.v. and radio and never let them read a magazine - talk about not living the real world :laugh:

Finally, you are once again limiting this to Christians, which is silly of you. Would you object to your kids learing about Hindu or Buddahist ideas :shrug: or the ideas of the Wiccans, etc. I think not - but you will say yes just to be hard headed :laugh:

Hardly. You just don't seem to be able to acknowledge that it is up the parents, not teachers, what their children are taught in regards to religious beliefs. If I don't want my kids taught about Christianity or Catholicism in public schools, they will not have it force-fed to them. Simple as that. They can learn all they want about that garbage at home or on the internet, but not in school.

strandinthewind

12-20-2004, 02:15 PM

But I'm asking how religion is scientific, yet I've gotten nothing. :confused:

And atheism is not a religion, it's a belief on how things should run. :laugh:

Well, if you could read, you would see about six articles I posted on this - you did summarily refute them, but we ain't seen no specifics yets :cool:

GateandGarden

12-20-2004, 02:17 PM

If I don't want my kids taught about Christianity or Catholicism in public schools...Uh, isn't Catholicism a denomination of Christianity?

Hillary

dissention

12-20-2004, 02:17 PM

When's the last time you heard him go off about anything but Chritianity :cool:

I can't help it if Christians are the ones running this country into the ground, dear. :wavey:

strandinthewind

12-20-2004, 02:18 PM

Hardly. You just don't seem to be able to acknowledge that it is up the parents, not teachers, what their children are taught in regards to religious beliefs. If I don't want my kids taught about Christianity or Catholicism in public schools, they will not have it force-fed to them. Simple as that. They can learn all they want about that garbage at home or on the internet, but not in school.

Assinine view and you know it. School is the vehicle in which children are prepared for the real world. Again, I am not talking about advocating any religion - I am just saying the question will come up and teachers should be able to answer it. if you do not like that as a parent - tough AND it is your duty as such to explain why the world's religions are so repugnant to you. But to deny all kids access to knowledge is just wrong - period.

dissention

12-20-2004, 02:18 PM

Uh, isn't Catholicism a denomination of Christianity?

Hillary

Yes, but they have different views and tolerances on certain things. Just ask the duelling Catholic and Christian missionaries. :laugh:

strandinthewind

12-20-2004, 02:19 PM

I can't help it if Christians are the ones running this country into the ground, dear. :wavey:

so you would not object to a far eastern religion's view of creationism beign taught :shrug: :wavey:

dissention

12-20-2004, 02:20 PM

Well, if you could read, you would see about six articles I posted on this - you did summarily refute them, but we ain't seen no specifics yets :cool:

Honestly, what would be the point? :cool:

ontheEdgeof17

12-20-2004, 02:21 PM

strandinthewind

12-20-2004, 02:22 PM

Honestly, what would be the point? :cool:

Well, it might make you sound, for a change, LEARNED :shrug: :p :nod: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

dissention

12-20-2004, 02:25 PM

Assinine view and you know it. School is the vehicle in which children are prepared for the real world. Again, I am not talking about advocating any religion - I am just saying the question will come up and teachers should be able to answer it. if you do not like that as a parent - tough AND it is your duty as such to explain why the world's religions are so repugnant to you. But to deny all kids access to knowledge is just wrong - period.

No, teachers should do as Curtis explained. :nod:

You still fail to comprehend my point and are looking at it in a very narrowminded way. I'm not trying to deny my imaginary kids knowledge, I'm trying to control the venue in which they gain it. There are places where kids should learn certain things, and I don't feel that they should be learning about religious views such as creationism in school. They can learn about it at home if they're interested. I would never force my views onto my children, but I would control where they hear certain information. They won't be hearing about anal sex at the dinner table and they won't be hearing about creationism in public schools.

strandinthewind

12-20-2004, 02:26 PM

There's no way a teacher can say "Christians believe this", "Christians believe that", when it is not consisitant across the board. The same groups believe totally different things. Teachers shouldn't be giving out info that is sterotypical of that religion, when it could not be the case.

Well, I am not talking about going into that much detail. Again, I am just saying the question will come up and the demurrer to one's parents will limit the knowledge of the kids in the room who do not ask their parents :shrug:

I think you all think I am talking about actually teaching religion to any significnat degree. I am not. I am just saying that when little Joey Smith asks "what about Adam and Eve" - the teacher ought to be able to say something along the lines of "well, that is the prevailing Judeo Christian view - there are other religions with different views - for a comprehensive study of those - take the class called comparative religions and all of you questions will be answered" How that is wrong or establishing a religion is just beyond me :cool:

strandinthewind

12-20-2004, 02:27 PM

No, teachers should do as Curtis explained. :nod:

You still fail to comprehend my point and are looking at it in a very narrowminded way. I'm not trying to deny my imaginary kids knowledge, I'm trying to control the venue in which they gain it. There are places where kids should learn certain things, and I don't feel that they should be learning about religious views such as creationism in school. They can learn about it at home if they're interested. I would never force my views onto my children, but I would control where they hear certain information. They won't be hearing about anal sex at the dinner table and they won't be hearing about creationism in public schools.

But, then you are denying them knowledge of one of the prevailing theories of the origin of man. That is just wrong.

dissention

12-20-2004, 02:32 PM

But, then you are denying them knowledge of one of the prevailing theories of the origin of man. That is just wrong.

You're rich, man. :rolleyes: :laugh:

Nothing is being denied them, I'm simply choosing to teach them myself and in my own way than have it taught to them in public schools.

strandinthewind

12-20-2004, 02:36 PM

You're rich, man. :rolleyes: :laugh:

Nothing is being denied them, I'm simply choosing to teach them myself and in my own way than have it taught to them in public schools.

Hogwash - it is denying them knowledge and you know it - you are just being hard headed because you hate Christianity :shrug: Again, are you opposed to all religions or just Christianity - you have not answered that one yet :wavey:

I think the far left (at which I place you :laugh: :wavey: ) is frightened to death that their kids will think Christianity is a great thing latch on to the idea. That is why they are so opposed to it in schools. Again, I am talking about this scenario only:

Joey Smith asks "what about Adam and Eve" - the teacher ought to be able to say something along the lines of "well, that is the prevailing Judeo Christian view - there are other religions with different views - for a comprehensive study of those - take the class called comparative religions and all of your questions will be answered"

How that is wrong or establishing a religion is just beyond me :cool:

GateandGarden

12-20-2004, 02:45 PM

Hogwash - it is denying them knowledge and you know it - you are just being hard headed because you hate Christianity :shrug: Again, are you opposed to all religions or just Christianity - you have not answered that one yet :wavey:

I think the far left (at which I place you :laugh: :wavey: ) is frightened to death that their kids will think Christianity is a great thing latch on to the idea. That is why they are so opposed to it in schools. :You attribute dissention's position to the fact that he hates Christianity is and extremely far left, but how do explain the fact that Curtis and others on this board share his view?

Hillary

strandinthewind

12-20-2004, 02:46 PM

You attribute dissention's position to the fact that he hates Christianity is and extremely far left, but how do explain the fact that Curtis and others on this board share his view?

Hillary

Because after YEARS of butting heads with him, I know Diss.' arguments pretty well.

As for the rest ya - y'all are just plumb nuts :laugh: :rolleyes: :wavey: :p

The Tower

12-20-2004, 03:03 PM

I'm opposed to all religions. The price of religion is far too high pay.

However, with regard to this thread.....

I don't think that anyone truly knows the answer to the beginning of time, etc, etc. I'm fine with that. I don't have to have that answer. Why religious peoples think that they have to have that answer is beyond me- other than the obvious, which is to control and/or guilt people into giving up their resources to consolidate wealth and power. Which leads me to why I have a problem with the teaching of religion in public school.

I suppose that (young) schools could speak of religion. However, here in the U.S. the christians in power would never allow an unbiased description of islam- they certainly wouldn't allow the speaking of wicca, satanism, etc.

I think that schools should stick religion where it belongs- in the folklore/mythology classes, since that's exactly what religion is anyways. At least in the academic sense. Athena sprang from Zeus's brain, Adam was created from dust- see??? It all fits together!

However, we all know that this is not what this argument it about. The debate is simply devised to allow organized religion (in the U.S. christianity) the opportunity to expand their recruiting powers and control into a wider audience. That's all- plain and simple. Any deviation from that desire will be met with swift resistance.

strandinthewind

12-20-2004, 03:05 PM

The Tower

12-20-2004, 03:20 PM

and it saddens me to realize that these zealots ruin the way knowledge is obtained :mad:

Of course they want to ruin the way that knowledge is obtained. All of their power depends upon ignorance. Why do you think the "home schooling" movement has taken off through the stratosphere over the last coupla decades? Don't even get me started on that one..... The company I work for is filled to the rim with these scary, psycho, home-school, born again, body snatcher, stepford pod-people.

:eek: :eek: YIKES!!!!! :eek: :eek:

dissention

12-20-2004, 03:57 PM

wondergirl9847

12-20-2004, 05:12 PM

LOL She hates when I'm on the computer while she's over. I'm back.

The constellations Orion and Ursa Major are mentioned in the Bible, along with Pleiades and Arcturus (not familiar with these, but I should probably look them up.). I've been looking up stuff in the Bible about space/time etc.

Also, you can separate Christianity from creationism. Creationism is the belief that a supernatural being created the universe. There's nothing in there about Jesus, His teachings, etc. Two different things, IMO.

"Guard your heart more than anything else, because the source of your life flows from it." - Proverbs 4:23. Not only is that a good proverb to live by, the source of our lives does flow from our hearts...it's called blood. Science. ;)

"He created the moon, which marks the seasons, and the sun, which knows when to set." - Psalms 104:19 Science ;)

Creationism should be taught in school. :nod:

Surely, you don't think that Christianity is evil and vile. I think you are confusing Christianity with the PEOPLE who claim to be Christians and do vile and evil things in God's name. :)

Ooh, just found something interesting. "God chose what the world considers nonsense to put wise people to shame. God chose what the world considers weak to put what is strong to shame." I love that because I've always thought that people with certain mental disabilities and children were smarter than people give them credit for. They can see things that nobody else can. I think they are aware of certain things in the world that we "normal" people aren't even aware of. :nod:

EnchantedSLN

12-20-2004, 06:50 PM

The constellations Orion and Ursa Major are mentioned in the Bible, along with Pleiades and Arcturus (not familiar with these, but I should probably look them up.). I've been looking up stuff in the Bible about space/time etc.

...

"Guard your heart more than anything else, because the source of your life flows from it." - Proverbs 4:23. Not only is that a good proverb to live by, the source of our lives does flow from our hearts...it's called blood. Science. ;)

"He created the moon, which marks the seasons, and the sun, which knows when to set." - Psalms 104:19 Science ;)

I'm not quite sure what this proves? The Greeks, Egyptians, etc had been making discoveries about astronomy and medicine and the natural world for awhile before the Bible was written, so it doesn't surprise me that some of those ideas would find their way in. I don't understand what you're suggesting the significance of their inclusion in the Bible is though...

amber

12-20-2004, 06:56 PM

I think she's saying god made those constellations, cause they're mentioned in the bible. *giggle*

dissention

12-20-2004, 07:03 PM

I think she's saying god made those constellations, cause they're mentioned in the bible. *giggle*

Have you ever been to the Institute for Creation Research website? Want to know what their declaration says?

All things in the universe were created by God in the six days of special creation described in Gen. 1:1-2:3. The creation account is accepted as factual, historical, and perspicuous, and is thus foundational to the understanding of every fact and phenomenon in the created universe. Theories of origins and development which involve "evolution" in any form are thus recognized as false and sterile intellectually.

Creationism is not a science, plain and simple. In order for something to be scientific, it must have a hypothesis that can be tested. How can we test something as supernatural and absurd as creationism? Well, just band a group of theobiologists together and make up your own science, that's how. The main flaw in their "research" is their ass backwards approach to "science." When an experiment is performed, no one knows what the outcome will be or what will happen during the experiment. So, in essence, they have no idea if their hypothesis will be proven true or not. Creationist "scientists" begin at the end. They have no hypothesis, they simply believe that a being created everything and set about trying to prove it. They then go back and search for evidence to support the conclusion they already have before any type of research or tests have been done. That is NOT science.

The Tower

12-20-2004, 07:04 PM

Surely, you don't think that Christianity is evil and vile.

Yes, I think that christianity is evil and vile.

:nod:

GypsySorcerer

12-20-2004, 07:04 PM

Yes, I think that christianity is evil and vile.

:nod:

We had this discussion awhile back. :laugh:

The Tower

12-20-2004, 07:12 PM

We had this discussion awhile back. :laugh:

Yes, we did! :laugh:

But, she asked- I don't think the question was directed to me in particular- however, I've had such a christian saturated day today, I just had to say something.

dissention

12-20-2004, 07:14 PM

I've had such a christian saturated day today

My sympathies, dear.

It's rather funny that this thread is still ongoing because I just started reading a new book about Madalyn Murray O'Hair. She could certainly kick the Christianity out of your day if she was alive, my friend. :laugh:

amber

12-20-2004, 07:16 PM

Have you ever been to the Institute for Creation Research website? Want to know what their declaration says?

All things in the universe were created by God in the six days of special creation described in Gen. 1:1-2:3. The creation account is accepted as factual, historical, and perspicuous, and is thus foundational to the understanding of every fact and phenomenon in the created universe. Theories of origins and development which involve "evolution" in any form are thus recognized as false and sterile intellectually.

Creationism is not a science, plain and simple. In order for something to be scientific, it must have a hypothesis that can be tested. How can we test something as supernatural and absurd as creationism? Well, just band a group of theobiologists together and make up your own science, that's how. The main flaw in their "research" is their ass backwards approach to "science." When an experiment is performed, no one knows what the outcome will be or what will happen during the experiment. So, in essence, they have no idea if their hypothesis will be proven true or not. Creationist "scientists" begin at the end. They have no hypothesis, they simply believe that a being created everything and set about trying to prove it. They then go back and search for evidence to support the conclusion they already have before any type of research or tests have been done. That is NOT science.
Yep. *giggle* it's so dumb

dissention

12-20-2004, 07:18 PM

Yep. *giggle* it's so dumb

The dude who created the IRC, Henry Morris, is even dumber. Talk about loons, he's crazier than Coultergeist and that's saying something.

wondergirl9847

12-20-2004, 07:19 PM

Do you dislike me because I am a Christian? :confused: I'm not evil and vile...well, I am when I am PMSing, but that's not the issue here. :laugh:

amber

12-20-2004, 07:20 PM

The dude who created the IRC, Henry Morris, is even dumber. Talk about loons, he's crazier than Coultergeist and that's saying something.
never seen him. I'm sure he is.

The Tower

12-20-2004, 07:39 PM

My sympathies, dear.

Thank you... :xoxo:

To give you an example of the kinds of things that I have to put up with at the place of my employment:

The company I work for is a family owned, heavily christian company- although they try to go to great lengths to insist that they are a business just like any other. The majority of the people that work here are "in" on the deal- meaning that they, too, are part of the cult. However, an outsider like me (much like Invasion of the Body Snatchers) has no idea who is "connected" and who is not. One kinda has to feel people's auras out for six to eight weeks before you figure out if they're "one of them". Even after working here for a year, there are still some individuals that could surprise me in the men's room as a "pod person".

Anyways.....

It's automatically assumed that everyone that works here subscribes to christian ideals (and all the stuff that comes along with it). So, it's never really discussed out in the open because it's a ghetto- ya know, like how I live in West Hollywood- I can basically assume that all the guys in my town are gay. So, there's all this stuff that happens around my job that is foisted upon the entire staff without any regard for the fact that it's steeped in evangelical christianity.

There's this woman out there that has a ministry that's devoted towards getting wheelchairs and other mobility accessories free of charge to the needy who can't walk on their own. It sounds wonderful, right? We go out a find old, broken or unused wheelchairs and this organization fixes them up and gives them to the needy. However, what they don't tell you is that after the impoverished individual is given their wheelchair, a missionary from the cult visits them to introduce/clue them in/recruit them into their religion.

How insidious can you get??? "Here is your mobility. Your life has been changed. Oh, and by the way, this is all due to this religion that we're a part of and you know, you wouldn't be in this condition if it weren't for us so.... we expect to see you at church on Sunday.... and Wednesday..... and Tuesday....."

If they were a truly altruistic organization, they would just give the kids their wheelchairs and drop the creepy missionary crap. But, they're christians and spreading the gospel is what it's all about.

So, the woman who founded this ministry (who is disabled, by the by) is here at my company today. There have been at least five announcements today letting everyone know that this woman is here and that we should take some time to come meet her and on, and on, and on, and on......

Ugh.

The Tower

12-20-2004, 07:42 PM

Do you dislike me because I am a Christian? :confused: I'm not evil and vile...well, I am when I am PMSing, but that's not the issue here. :laugh:

Nope, I don't dislike you because you're christian. But, I do know that your religion considers me an abomination and that I should be put to death, or converted, or whatever other interesting stuff the bible has to say.

So, let's just say that I'm well aware of the religious scriptures and how mercurial and selective they can be.

dissention

12-20-2004, 07:48 PM

Thank you... :xoxo:

To give you an example of the kinds of things that I have to put up with at the place of my employment:

The company I work for is a family owned, heavily christian company- although they try to go to great lengths to insist that they are a business just like any other. The majority of the people that work here are "in" on the deal- meaning that they, too, are part of the cult. However, an outsider like me (much like Invasion of the Body Snatchers) has no idea who is "connected" and who is not. One kinda has to feel people's auras out for six to eight weeks before you figure out if they're "one of them". Even after working here for a year, there are still some individuals that could surprise me in the men's room as a "pod person".

Anyways.....

It's automatically assumed that everyone that works here subscribes to christian ideals (and all the stuff that comes along with it). So, it's never really discussed out in the open because it's a ghetto- ya know, like how I live in West Hollywood- I can basically assume that all the guys in my town are gay. So, there's all this stuff that happens around my job that is foisted upon the entire staff without any regard for the fact that it's steeped in evangelical christianity.

There's this woman out there that has a ministry that's devoted towards getting wheelchairs and other mobility accessories free of charge to the needy who can't walk on their own. It sounds wonderful, right? We go out a find old, broken or unused wheelchairs and this organization fixes them up and gives them to the needy. However, what they don't tell you is that after the impoverished individual is given their wheelchair, a missionary from the cult visits them to introduce/clue them in/recruit them into their religion.

How insidious can you get??? "Here is your mobility. Your life has been changed. Oh, and by the way, this is all due to this religion that we're a part of and you know, you wouldn't be in this condition if it weren't for us so.... we expect to see you at church on Sunday.... and Wednesday..... and Tuesday....."

If they were a truly altruistic organization, they would just give the kids their wheelchairs and drop the creepy missionary crap. But, they're christians and spreading the gospel is what it's all about.

So, the woman who founded this ministry (who is disabled, by the by) is here at my company today. There have been at least five announcements today letting everyone know that this woman is here and that we should take some time to come meet her and on, and on, and on, and on......

Ugh.

Cripes, you poor thing. :shocked: I shudder to think of what I'd turn into if I worked at such a place. I'd be even more hateful than I am now. :laugh:

I know what you mean about the wheelchair deal, though. When I was a kid, we were not the wealthiest of people and each year, the local church would put together Christmas dinners and deliver them to those who needed them. We didn't need them, but ended up on the list and they would deliver them with copies of the Bible, flyers for their kooky school, and all kinds of other crap. They'd read us the gospels practically. Nothing is free with those people, it's all about converting the latest game.

The scary thing is that I DID attend their school. :eek: For two years. And I detested it. Everything about it creeped me out, and I was only seven. :laugh: I just knew from then that it was not for me and that it was akin to a freaking cult.

wondergirl9847

12-20-2004, 07:49 PM

There are all types of religions within religions. The Baptists, Methodists, Church of Christ, Catholics, Pentacostals, Lutherans, etc. have differing opinions on stuff. I just go by what the Bible says. "Love one another"...okee, done. "Don't judge"...okee, done. I don't subscribe to a certain religion, I am a follower/believer of Christ, so therefore, I'm Christian. Even my name means believer in Christ. Went to a Baptist elementary/junior high school...went to many various Pentacostal churches my whole life, but the only happiness I found was within myself and my faith in God, prayer and reading the Bible. :)

dissention

12-20-2004, 07:50 PM

wondergirl9847

12-20-2004, 07:51 PM

Nothing is free with those people, it's all about converting the latest game.

They should have just offered the food. If they read the Bible, they'd know that living the life is witnessing in and of itself. ;)

GateandGarden

12-20-2004, 08:55 PM

Nope, I don't dislike you because you're christian. But, I do know that your religion considers me an abomination and that I should be put to death, or converted, or whatever other interesting stuff the bible has to say.

So, let's just say that I'm well aware of the religious scriptures and how mercurial and selective they can be.Come on now--you know that that's pigeon-holing. I know you've been bombarded by fanatical fundies all your life and I have too, but you must know that it's not fair to label every religious person that way. And I imagine you must've anticipated Christy's response. It's hard for me to believe that you didn't know as you were typing that what you were saying doesn't apply to her and her beliefs. I mean, we did all have a nearly identical discussion/debate a couple of months ago at the most. :shrug:

And I don't you ever offered me a response of any kind when I mentioned gay Christians I knew. That whole concept contradicts what you're saying there.

Hillary

SuzeQuze

12-20-2004, 11:47 PM

[QUOTE=dissention]Have you ever been to the Institute for Creation Research website? Want to know what their declaration says?

All things in the universe were created by God in the six days of special creation described in Gen. 1:1-2:3. The creation account is accepted as factual, historical, and perspicuous, and is thus foundational to the understanding of every fact and phenomenon in the created universe. Theories of origins and development which involve "evolution" in any form are thus recognized as false and sterile intellectually.

...QUOTE]

What I take most issue with is the statement that evolution is somehow "false and sterile intellectually". Quite the contrary, it is quite intellectually compelling. The fossil record is fascinating. Techniques like carbon dating allow scientists to calculate how old they are. I know that evolution is a theory but there is a plethora of evidence to support it. To refute it all because it is "false and sterile" is ludicrous.

I recall listening to a religious leader speaking on David Brudnoy's show years ago and he said that evolution and christianity are not mutually exclusive and that religious leaders generally agreed that evolution was likely fact. I wish I could remember who this was because I was surprised and I thought maybe religious leaders had progressed. But it seems that many have not. :(

This scares the hell out of me. I love biology, I was at one time a bio major (could not handle Physics/Chemistry though, nor those creepy dead things in jars, shudder). Evolution is a really complex theory and you have to stay with it in a disciplined way to understand it. I believe that Darwin saw this phenomenon on the Galapagos islands where birds from one island to another were entirely different based on food sources. He surmised that this was a result of "natural selection" or survival of the fittest. There has been libraries full of research/evidence since to support the theory. But I guess if you strictly believe in creationism then you would think that was all crap. I just want to encourage creationists to at least try to understand the theory of evolution before dismissing it.

strandinthewind

12-20-2004, 11:55 PM

I think alot of people confuse evolving with evolution - the theory. In the former - man could always have been distinct from other closely related species - in the latter, it is assumed that essentially all species came from a common link. I think that is important to remember when looking at the fossils depicting the evolution of species. For example, many believe the dinos evolved into birds over millions of years - but that does not mean the dinos were ever the same species as us, etc. Anway, that PBS site I put up really is a good source for info. on this, to me, fascinating, topic.

Also, Judeo-Christianity was not the first to come up with a theory about the origin of man. A google search will reveal far older (via carbon testing) theories from older religions.

Finally, my Catholic high school taught us the story in Genesis was pretty much symbolic as was the use of numbers and age in The Bible. To me, it makes no difference, because the story of Adam and Eve has lessons in it that can be used to live a "better" life, regardless of whether it is 100% factual, etc.

Anyway - food for thought - that is all :cool:

GypsySorcerer

12-21-2004, 09:42 AM

And, hey, Kathy Bates is nude in it. :laugh:

Totally OT, but kudos to that woman for doing nude scenes. I love her confidence and personality. :nod:

The Tower

12-21-2004, 12:13 PM

Come on now--you know that that's pigeon-holing. I know you've been bombarded by fanatical fundies all your life and I have too, but you must know that it's not fair to label every religious person that way. And I imagine you must've anticipated Christy's response. It's hard for me to believe that you didn't know as you were typing that what you were saying doesn't apply to her and her beliefs. I mean, we did all have a nearly identical discussion/debate a couple of months ago at the most. :shrug:

And I don't you ever offered me a response of any kind when I mentioned gay Christians I knew. That whole concept contradicts what you're saying there.

Hillary

Well, let me see if I can clarify a few things.

Christy's beliefs are her own and are none of my business. I agree that I may have included her as a "christian", however, it appears that she is not one (she has claimed to be a "follower of Christ", which I don't connotate to being a "christian" in today's society, as today's "christians" do not follow the teachings of Christ). So, when I say that christianity is evil and vile, that statement is not relevant to her.

Again, she offered the question, so I offered the answer.

I see the term "gay christian" as a much of an oxymoron as "gay republican". Oil and water do not mix no matter how hard you try, or how much you want them to. Either you accept the tenants of the religion or you don't. And why would someone want to call themselves something that they're not? It doesn't make much sense to me. I don't need to be validated within society by being a member of some group that just so happens to consider me a pariah. Why subscribe to self-loathing?? When one identifies themselves as a "christian" or a "republican", they are automatically tying themselves to the core beliefs of those groups. If you want to deny that those core beliefs exist, then you're just deluding yourself.

I'm so tired of hearing the same old whiny story. "Well, my sect of christianity doesn't believe in x, y, and z- so everything's okay." Sorry, it doesn't work and I don't buy it. Human society is not smart enough to be able to differentiate between methodists, catholics, pentacostals, seventh day adventists, mormons, lutherans, protestants, anglicans, unitarians, evangelicals, baptists, southern baptists, episcopalians, jehovah's witnesses, calvinists, quakers, etc., etc., etc. Especially when you consider that the religions of Abraham were the instigators and continue to be the main proponents of the demonization of homosexuality.

I'm not pigeon-holing, I'm just wary. I don't trust people who would allow themselves to adhere to the principles of organized religion. Somehow, someway, some form of judgement seems to rear its ugly head whenever people are involved with religion. It's just the nature of the beast. Otherwise, people would just be nice to one another and the dogma and the judgement and the bull**** would not even exist.

cliffdweller

12-21-2004, 12:33 PM

Well, let me see if I can clarify a few things.

Christy's beliefs are her own and are none of my business. I agree that I may have included her as a "christian", however, it appears that she is not one (she has claimed to be a "follower of Christ", which I don't connotate to being a "christian" in today's society, as today's "christians" do not follow the teachings of Christ). So, when I say that christianity is evil and vile, that statement is not relevant to her.

Again, she offered the question, so I offered the answer.

I see the term "gay christian" as a much of an oxymoron as "gay republican". Oil and water do not mix no matter how hard you try, or how much you want them to. Either you accept the tenants of the religion or you don't. And why would someone want to call themselves something that they're not? It doesn't make much sense to me. I don't need to be validated within society by being a member of some group that just so happens to consider me a pariah. Why subscribe to self-loathing?? When one identifies themselves as a "christian" or a "republican", they are automatically tying themselves to the core beliefs of those groups. If you want to deny that those core beliefs exist, then you're just deluding yourself.

I'm so tired of hearing the same old whiny story. "Well, my sect of christianity doesn't believe in x, y, and z- so everything's okay." Sorry, it doesn't work and I don't buy it. Human society is not smart enough to be able to differentiate between methodists, catholics, pentacostals, seventh day adventists, mormons, lutherans, protestants, anglicans, unitarians, evangelicals, baptists, southern baptists, episcopalians, jehovah's witnesses, calvinists, quakers, etc., etc., etc. Especially when you consider that the religions of Abraham were the instigators and continue to be the main proponents of the demonization of homosexuality.

I'm not pigeon-holing, I'm just wary. I don't trust people who would allow themselves to adhere to the principles of organized religion. Somehow, someway, some form of judgement seems to rear its ugly head whenever people are involved with religion. It's just the nature of the beast. Otherwise, people would just be nice to one another and the dogma and the judgement and the bull**** would not even exist.

I tend to agree with you. I find myself trying really hard to understand why two of my best friends who are a gay male couple are devout Catholics, and we're talking old school Catholicism here, not an updated, open-minded, "hipped-up" offshoot version of it. They are able to reconcile this issue in a way that I cannot. I suppose if they're happy then that's all that matters, but it doesn't mean that I understand it. To me, it's a mystery for the ages. Why (and how?) can you devote yourself to something that teaches intolerance much less loathes your very existence? :confused:

amber

12-21-2004, 12:37 PM

I tend to agree with you. I find myself trying really hard to understand why two of my best friends who are a gay male couple are devout Catholics, and we're talking old school Catholicism here, not an updated, open-minded, "hipped-up" offshoot version of it. They are able to reconcile this issue in a way that I cannot. I suppose if they're happy then that's all that matters, but it doesn't mean that I understand it. To me, it's a mystery for the ages. Why (and how?) can you devote yourself to something that teaches intolerance much less loathes your very existence? :confused:
Yes, it's basically supporting an institution that works against you. They must feel a very strong religious pull and need to worship within the confines of the structure. You'd think even with the strong pull, they would choose another way to worship, but... :shrug:

cliffdweller

12-21-2004, 12:41 PM

You'd think even with the strong pull, they would choose another way to worship, but... :shrug:

it's also their upbringing too. Sometimes you can't take the Catholic out of the boy no matter what. I think that's going on to a great extent with those two. But it's like I wanna ask them, what has Catholicism ever done for you? (much less rock and roll but that's a whole other story...) :laugh: :thumbsup:

ontheEdgeof17

12-21-2004, 12:43 PM

Yes, it's basically supporting an institution that works against you. They must feel a very strong religious pull and need to worship within the confines of the structure. You'd think even with the strong pull, they would choose another way to worship, but... :shrug:

For me, it's not the religion that sucks, it's the people that "believe" it. Religions were set to bring ppl together, not a part. It is being reversed today....not because of the religion, because of people trying to twist the beliefs around.

just my thought. :shrug:

cliffdweller

12-21-2004, 12:52 PM

Religions were set to bring ppl together, not a part.

Yeah, but people who aren't gay. It's meant to bring heterosexuals together who have breeding potential. :laugh:

Seriously, I hear what you're saying and I wish it were true. I wish the spiritual side of religion could win out over the organized part of it. Then we really would have peace on earth. ;)

amber

12-21-2004, 01:00 PM

. Sometimes you can't take the Catholic out of the boy no matter what. :
yes, unfortunately that's what i've heard is often the case. :laugh:

ontheEdgeof17

12-21-2004, 01:02 PM

Yeah, but people who aren't gay. It's meant to bring heterosexuals together who have breeding potential. :laugh:

Seriously though, the denomination I grew up in, doesn't banish homosexuality and doesn't point them out. They treat them like members of the church, not outcasts.

This could happen in every church, but it won't.

cliffdweller

12-21-2004, 01:07 PM

yes, unfortunately that's what i've heard is often the case. :laugh:

Ooh, ba-dump, (cymbal crash).

Nice.

wondergirl9847

12-21-2004, 01:08 PM

I just asked not to be judged...like, I try not to judge anyone. :xoxo:

cliffdweller

12-21-2004, 01:11 PM

I just asked not to be judged...like, I try not to judge anyone. :xoxo:

I don't think anyone judges you, you're a nice, respectful person. What's to judge?

But in my opinion, you're kind of an anomaly. I haven't met very many positive examples of good, "church-going" Christians.

ontheEdgeof17

12-21-2004, 01:19 PM

I don't think anyone judges you, you're a nice, respectful person. What's to judge?

But in my opinion, you're kind of an anomaly. I haven't met very many positive examples of good, "church-going" Christians.

I'm not judging ya either. :)

I accept every religion for what it is. They all have good points....all have bad points. When I get attacked and shamed for something that is not in my control, I lash out cuz it hurts to think that people that believe in love and understanding can turn around and not believe it and think it is okay. :shrug: Some are like that. Some are not.

wondergirl9847

12-21-2004, 01:28 PM

Kidding.

I don't go to church anymore. I went to a church regularly for about 4 years or so. Met some people who lived the life....and some that didn't. :( That's everywhere, no matter what religion. One person in particular touched my heart and soul. Unfortunately, I haven't seen him in about 4 years. :(

I was just making that statement for clarity. I don't claim to be a saint or holier than thou. I try so hard to follow what Christ said...to love everyone, not judge, be kind, respectful towards people. Follow the 10 commandments, some which are extremely easy to follow (not killing, not commiting adultery, etc. LOL).

Being a Christian is a difficult thing because like all of you said, there are various ways to interpret the Bible and people do twist things to their advantage. I don't have the answer to solve that. I have faith that God will see my heart and know my intentions.

I can guarantee you that hating anyone of any race, creed, religion, etc. is not something to participate in. It's hard to love people who do horrible things (9/11 highjackers, Timothy McVeigh, rapists, murderers, child molesters...etc.). How in the world does God expect us to love them!?! I don't know...I'll ask Him when I die.

I have to come to my own conclusion, I guess, in regards to what God wants me to do, how to treat people, how to interpret the Bible, etc.

I guess the title of this post should be....I DON'T KNOW. :laugh:

strandinthewind

12-21-2004, 01:37 PM

LOL - What do you mean "I don't know?" - I know EVERYTHING :laugh:

Seriously, I know Tower and I have gotten into this before, but here I go again :cool: I think it is GREAT that the Republican Party, the Churches, etc., have gay people in them - at least they are working to change the bigotry :shrug: I mean without them and the probably initial insignificant change they make, I think it would be worse. I also think that over time the changes are significant. I mean the openly gay Az Congressperson spoke at the 2000 R convention. Granted, he did not discuss his orientation (IMO there was no cause to as he was not talking about that) and the Texas delegation prayed for him while he spoke - but the fact that he was even there in the first place is a significant step that I think could not have been achieved without the baby steps taken by activitists within the party for the ten years prior. I think the same thing about the major churches of the world - they are more accepting then 20 years ago :shrug: So, I am all for people in the minority raising their voices to be heard - rather than altogether abandoning the ship to the lunatics :cool:

I am not saying the R party, the churches, etc. are any beacon of hope for gay or other minority rights. They most certainly are not (as an aside - the D party is not much better - see Defense of Marriage Act and the overwhelming support for the 11 hertero only marriage amendments just passed last month :shrug: ) - I am just noting some positive changes have been made and I think that is mostly due to the people working for that change. I also am not saying I like the R party or most of the organized religions of the world - I, for the most part, do not and I think they need to change WAY more of their condescending, lying, and bigoted ways before I will. I am just noting the work of those trying to effectuate that change; I think their work is laudable. I mean that has to be a hard sell :shrug:

Fire Away :laugh:

The Tower

12-21-2004, 01:54 PM

Fire Away :laugh:

My opinion is this:

The "benefits" of the republican party and of churches do not outweigh the intolerance and general evil that both institutions continue to do. So for me, even if they decided to love fags and dykes forever and ever, they would still have a lot left to fix. So, why bother?

Again, gay republicans just can't give up their addiction to all-mighty Mammon and they are loathe to admit that simple fact. They know they are only in it for the money, they just can't handle that some consider that distasteful.

And organized religion is simply the epitome of evil. Everyone knows it, they just were brought up with it as one of the bedrocks of society, so they're scared the world will end if it's abandoned. Fear is the best way to control people- always has been, always will be.

So, for me, it seems a little silly to try to gussy up Satan's palace. I would rather just tear the whole damn thing down.

wondergirl9847

12-21-2004, 01:54 PM

cliffdweller

12-21-2004, 02:03 PM

Think about 50 years ago...blacks were considered no better than animals and were unfortunately, treated like them. :( Women were not treated very great either. They were second class below white men.

And unfortunately many people in positions of power used scripture to justify these gross injustices. Yes, it's very scary, very scary indeed...:shocked:

strandinthewind

12-21-2004, 02:09 PM

I didn't mean the title of this THREAD...I meant, my POST! LOL Silly willy.

You know what I think (well, hope, anyways)? I hope/think that this generation of people will make great changes to the world. Slowly, people are becoming more tolerant and caring. Think about 50 years ago...blacks were considered no better than animals and were unfortunately, treated like them. :( Women were not treated very great either. They were second class below white men. Pfftt. LOL Today, things have changed for minorities and women. :nod:

I know - I was just yanking your chain a little :wavey: :cool:

I totally agree that society has progressed towrds a more caring society more in the last 50 to 100 years than it did for the prior 2000 years. I think MUCh of that change was due to people within the bigoted organizations working for change - or at least their presence certainly helped enlighten some, but certainly not all - even if the society is still bigoted :shrug: So, I say, if you can stand the smell, work away!!!!!!! :cool:

GateandGarden

12-21-2004, 05:57 PM

My opinion is this:

The "benefits" of the republican party and of churches do not outweigh the intolerance and general evil that both institutions continue to do. So for me, even if they decided to love fags and dykes forever and ever, they would still have a lot left to fix. So, why bother?

Again, gay republicans just can't give up their addiction to all-mighty Mammon and they are loathe to admit that simple fact. They know they are only in it for the money, they just can't handle that some consider that distasteful.

And organized religion is simply the epitome of evil. Everyone knows it, they just were brought up with it as one of the bedrocks of society, so they're scared the world will end if it's abandoned. Fear is the best way to control people- always has been, always will be.

So, for me, it seems a little silly to try to gussy up Satan's palace. I would rather just tear the whole damn thing down.
I do understand what you're saying, and much more than I did before you wrote the last two posts that explained and elaborated on it. I really hope you didn't think I was attacking you or anything like that in my last post to you. I tend to want to speak for friends and acquaintances who identify as Christians and liberals (not exclusively in the political sense of the word). But I certainly do understand your viewpoint. I have a friend who is as open-minded and accepting of other religions, races, cultures, and sexual orientations as she can be, but she insists on calling herself a Christian and being a part of organized religion because it is all she has ever known. Sometimes I wish she would just drop it, because I suspect her heart isn't even in it. I think she just holds to it because it appears to be the norm. (And, as you've already said, fear is a very poweful tool as well). But I think there is some reason she needs it in her life, something that I don't understand, and I have a need to accept her exactly as she is. Now that I think about it, that whole description applies to quite a few of my friends. I also think that even when the various chruches come to completely accept all the things they've rejected for no real reason, there will still be so much to fix that it seems much easier to just throw in the towel. I personally have never had any use for organized religion at all. It never did anything to make me happier or more fulfilled as numerous evangelicals tried to tell me it would. But I want to understand and accept those who value it for themselves and don't wish to push it onto me or use it as an excuse to hate me. This is admittedly shallow, but if it makes them happy and it's not hurting me, there's a decent chance it's something innocuous, right? As Jason said, people are working for change, and change is happening. That change could never be good enough for me, but if it's worth it to someone I care about, then I'll be respectful of that person's wishes.

But let me just stress as much as I can that as a lesbian and an agnostic who is generally fed up with more people and ideas than I can name, I really do understand where you're coming from.

Hillary

The Tower

12-21-2004, 06:40 PM

I really hope you didn't think I was attacking you or anything like that in my last post to you.

Not at all, sweets. Don't worry about it. :xoxo:

But I want to understand and accept those who value it for themselves and don't wish to push it onto me or use it as an excuse to hate me. This is admittedly shallow, but if it makes them happy and it's not hurting me, there's a decent chance it's something innocuous, right? As Jason said, people are working for change, and change is happening. That change could never be good enough for me, but if it's worth it to someone I care about, then I'll be respectful of that person's wishes.

I would love to be able to comfortable with the fact that there are nice people out there that are part of organized religion. Alas, I am not. It would be easy for me to say that because they are nice people their participation in their religion doesn't hurt me. But, it does. They are the silent partners in a larger organization whose core goals include the desire to discriminate against me (at least) or see me dead (at worst - hiya Fred Phelps). Extremist or not, the overall agreement that christianity is good allows the "good" idea of the sinner homosexual to be demonized.

Change is happening. However, this last election showed a disturbing trend towards younger people who are still in the stone age. Gay marriage is as much of an inevitability as interracial marriage was. It will happen. But to ignore the sleeping giant of the tacet majority of christians that agree that homosexuality is wrong is just plain crazy. I won't support participation in any organized religion no matter how nice the person is, nor how innocuous they may seem.

GateandGarden

12-22-2004, 04:43 PM

Not at all, sweets. Don't worry about it. :xoxo:

I would love to be able to comfortable with the fact that there are nice people out there that are part of organized religion. Alas, I am not. It would be easy for me to say that because they are nice people their participation in their religion doesn't hurt me. But, it does. They are the silent partners in a larger organization whose core goals include the desire to discriminate against me (at least) or see me dead (at worst - hiya Fred Phelps). Extremist or not, the overall agreement that christianity is good allows the "good" idea of the sinner homosexual to be demonized.

Change is happening. However, this last election showed a disturbing trend towards younger people who are still in the stone age. Gay marriage is as much of an inevitability as interracial marriage was. It will happen. But to ignore the sleeping giant of the tacet majority of christians that agree that homosexuality is wrong is just plain crazy. I won't support participation in any organized religion no matter how nice the person is, nor how innocuous they may seem.I know it took me forever to submit any kind of response to this, but I've been thinking on it a lot ever since you posted it and wanted to make some kind of decision (however tentative) before posting comments of my own. Your words are very compelling and I do believe I can say with confidence that I agree with them now. I have been back and forth on this issue all of my life. I have a magnet on my fridge in my dorm that says "Spiritual people inspire me, religious people frighten me." I displayed it proudly for months at one point, then I became infatuated with a woman who just happened to be a Christian fundamentalist and I put the magnet away. When she denounced me and my homosexuality, the magnet went back on the fridge. The point of this boring story is that I have a shameful habit of compromising my beliefs because I am so afraid of offending people. But I don't support participation in an organized religion. I also believe it garners intentional or unintentional support of the prevailing bigotry and narrow-mindedness in general. And I do not think that choosing one's own spiritual path requires one to be a participant in organized religion at all, as several Ledgies have already pointed out. I hate to step on people's toes so much that I am very hesitant to express myself sometimes. But you heard it from the source--organized religion=bad deal, spirituality and being a "person of faith"=cool with me :cool:. And, of course, that standpoint is not going to alter my feelings for those I love who do participate in organized religion. It is not an attack on the person--a point you've already made. :nod: Thank you for making me sit down and really think about this. :xoxo: I'm notorious for changing my mind on this subject--ask anyone who knows me in "real life," but I feel like I'm finally starting to move in a positive direction where this subject's concerned. I just wanted to let you and others know before this thread becomes a distant memory. Hope y'all enjoy my philosophical meanderings. :p :laugh: :)

Hillary