 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Creation v Evolution
|
|
|
Subject: Creation v Evolution From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 01 Oct 00 - 10:20 AM I heard on BBC World Service last night that in the face of pressure from creationists, evolution theory is be removed from biology syllabus in Kansas schools. The report claimed that more than 50 per cent of Americans reject evolution science in favour of the judaic creation story. Here is Britain, where religious influence is in decline (as it is in most western European countries, even approaching free-fall in Ireland) this is hard to comprehend. However I am aware that religion and fundamentalism are growing in the states and most parts of the world. How do Mudcatters see it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Rick Fielding Date: 01 Oct 00 - 11:12 AM Other than in pretty small isolated rural areas, it's never been much of an issue in Canada. Interestingly though, we now have an actual fudamentlist Christian as leader of the opposition in the Government. He's a huge fan of American style politics, and is pretty vocal about Capital punishment, abortion, welfare, multi-culturalism, Gay rights, prayer (Christian) in schools, and bilingualism. Since the vast majority of our population is concentrated in our large cities (lotsa pretty empty country spaces) more moderate opinions tend to always hold sway. His supporters will always be hugely vocal,(and the press love that) but the real conservative positions never seem to be more than a blip here. It's interesting to watch though. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Clinton Hammond2 Date: 01 Oct 00 - 11:13 AM There's no gods And precious few heros {~` |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Roger in Sheffield Date: 01 Oct 00 - 11:19 AM I see it as Open mind versus Closed mind The only religion I currently hold to is Sun worship*. I love sunny days they make me feel good, without the sun life on Earth would die Not sure that life on Earth would die with out organised religion and I could certainly do without all the vile hatred some religions put out Roger *If a Monty Python style Lord appears above the clouds I reserve my right to be converted on the spot |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: GUEST, Banjo Johnny Date: 01 Oct 00 - 12:00 PM If you absolutely must worship a god, the Sun makes a most convincing candidate. == Johnny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: wysiwyg Date: 01 Oct 00 - 12:50 PM My personal policies are: To question the necessity of any thinking being cast in terms of Something VERSUS Something Else. (My experience being that Truth usually is roomy enbough for Something AND Something Else, neither of which quite make sense without the other). To refrain from discussing something this complicated issue, chockfull of various bits of old mixed up stuff, with anyone with whom I am not (yet!!) close enough to exchange a look in the eye, a song, a snog, a laugh, and perhaps a bit of childlike wonder or even prayer. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Rick Fielding Date: 01 Oct 00 - 12:56 PM Smart thinking Susan. That's why I just gave a reasonably objective overview of the Canadian Political situation. Dumpin' on folks' beliefs, hurts..so why bother? On the other hand I LOVE discussing religion and politics with friends. Two things my Daddy said NEVER to do, 'cause it wasn't polite. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Bud Savoie Date: 01 Oct 00 - 01:02 PM Welp, I can see the potential for trouble on this thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Roger in Sheffield Date: 01 Oct 00 - 01:09 PM Creation, Evolution, a bit of both? where do you stand Praise? Do you think it is right to remove information from a syllabus to facilitate a certain version of a Truth. Or is it better to give as much detail as possible to people and let them make their own choices? Roger |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: paddymac Date: 01 Oct 00 - 01:17 PM As I recall that Kansas story, it was a local school board that voted to delete evolution from the curriculim in favor of creationism. The vote was 3-2. At the next election, a few months later, the composition of the board changed and the creationsim/evolution policy was promptly reversed. Those kinds of "local" things happen sporadically, and the press usually gives them far more coverage than they're worthy of. Religious fundamentalism in the political realm has indeed been on the upswing here for the last twenty or so years, but if the current election cycle is any indicator, the political influence of those folks is beginning to ebb. I recall a press note a year or so ago to the effect that there's even a theatrical version of the famous/infamous "Scopes Trial" playing to modest success on the southern small town circuit. Despite the fundamentalist (i.e.; intolerant) quirks that happen here from time to time, the vast majority of the population is tolerant of a great variety of religious expressions. It was not without reason and sad experience that the founding fathers so clearly separated church and state. Theocracies, of any sort, are just bad forms of government. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: kendall Date: 01 Oct 00 - 02:00 PM Was it really 400 years ago that Galileo was persecuted for his observations? Seems like just yesterday. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: flattop Date: 01 Oct 00 - 02:01 PM I know nothing about Sheffield but the religions that I see here in Canada are not much into vile hatred. Quite the opposite, in spite of different beliefs, they seem to be into helping people within their fellowships and without. They especially seem to enjoy helping the sick, the poor, the needy, the homeless, the families who are struggling in our economic system, the mentally ill who spend too much time on mudcat reading the furball of the day. Perhaps that one of the reasons that pew perching is plummeting. Their message may not be nasty enough to appeal to sinners like you and me, Roger. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: John Hardly Date: 01 Oct 00 - 02:03 PM I appreciate that you straightened out the facts, paddymac, and I like your take on it. I also very much appreciate Susan's take on it--issues of faith are unwisely discussed without the physical evidence of a life lived/changed by that faith--the 'net isn't a good vehicle for that--hypocracy is almost invited by the anonymity. I would, however request that you think about the characterization of only one of the sides as being "intolerant". I think you might agree that the preponderance of people these days who consider themselves to be knowledgable believe creationism to be intolerable. The "separation of church and state" that we have was instated to protect religion from persecution by a "state religion" as well as to keep the government from being corrupted by a religious oligarcy. To, as a matter of course, be instructing in public schools (paid for and attended by religious and non-religious citizens) that creationism is false is intolerant and is a use of state monies and facilities to persecute religious beliefs. It's not an easy question. Should the state be allowed to tell a religion that is law-abiding, that it's theology is objectively wrong? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Gary T Date: 01 Oct 00 - 02:35 PM It was the Kansas State Board of Education (ten people) that stirred up the fuss, by rejecting portions of testing standards prepared for them by a committee chosen to do so. The Theory of Evolution was the significant subject matter eliminated from state testing standards, portions of which were rewritten by non-professionals in the area of education/testing/curriculum, and which were rather transparently espousing the views of Creationists. While various local school districts could include the teaching of Evolution and/or Creationism as they saw fit, this move by the State Board of Ed. had the practical effect of making science education in Kansas suspect, in that a graduate of any Kansas high school would not necessarily have been taught what the rest of the country (and most of the world) considers standard scientific knowledge. In the most recent state election, the leader of the anti-Evolution faction lost her seat on the board and the "voting split" on this issue has shifted. I'm not sure whether or not the testing standards have been changed yet to what the original standards committee recommended, which would be in step with the rest of country, but it's a pretty sure bet that they will be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Ely Date: 01 Oct 00 - 02:35 PM Touchy subject. I was an atheist from a religiously-liberal family ("unprogrammed" Quakers with scientific backgrounds) attending high school in a pretty solidly Southern Baptist district (a suburb of Houston, Texas) and there were numerous occasions when I and other non-Christians felt the pinch. At my brother's National Honors Society induction, they had a Baptist preacher speak and he spent the whole time waving a Bible at the audience. The Christians thought it was great but the growing Hindu and Muslim population made such a fuss that there was no prayer/moment of silence of any sort at graduation that year. That doesn't sound like much but it's a huge concession in an area that usually prays for everything (including football games, as some of you may have seen in the news recently). We always got the "you don't have to believe it but the law says I have to teach it" speech at the beginning of the evolution section of every biology class. I have always been of the opinion that each person's truth is largely their own, so they should be taught as many different views as possible and allowed to make up their own minds. I don't understand the appeal of fundamentalist religion but I can tolerate it as long as nobody tries to make it my only option. I have always believed that religion was the parents' responsibility and would very much prefer to see it out of public schools. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: wysiwyg Date: 01 Oct 00 - 02:41 PM Hmm, well Roger, I think I am much more interested in getting to know you and what you mean by your questions, than in the questions themselves, because if I answer them from my assumptions about what you meant, and give in exchange something about which you will form a number of assumptions about what I meant, then we will not have exchanged something that we might have otherwise valued greatly. And I won't settle for a counterfeit of the real communication that would be required to open up these questions, look around inside them, consider the other viewpoints inherent in them, and have a good time doing what I have come to call Making Sense. Rick, I think you got what I said, about discussing them thar thnags with friends... it can be as intense as making love, to Make Sense, but it has to be made, it is not just there to display usually, and that is what I like to do is Make Sense. Fortunately *G* there is no prohibition I know of on doing so with more than one partner. Of course the time to build a cart that will haul is a limiting factor. How many can I know deeply at one time? Only one I know can do that easily is that God dude, and I am learning as much as I can frm Him to widen my circle as far as I can without losing effectiveness. But partnership does seem to be necessary on these really tough questions. Must be my prejudice for two-headed thinking, that twin thing, excuse me. Also, Roger, I don't think we agree on what the key issue underlying this situation is. Not that I am sure I have the right idea on that myself. But for instance, I have worked in the education sector, in parent and community involvement and organizational change, and I would not address the question as you have defined it-- I'd want to bring in the view I have had of good people, teachers and administrators, caught up in a system that makes them seem to forget why they joined that system in the first place, usually to change the world and move it toward a dream or a vision of wholeness that they have. I won't start a discussion, my end of it, from blame, and then try to sort out which a**hle is more or less blameworthy. Last week I had a great talk with someone with whom I have taken the time to learn, mutually, the rhythms necassary to Make Sense for hours at a time. We talked about: Which side of the street are you walking on? On my side, there is no need to worry about getting a parking ticket, what's wrong with the courts, we oughtta fire the police chief, the meter maids are corrupt-- which they certainly may be, over there on his side. But I disabled the parking meters on my side, long ago, and I stay on this side of the street as much as I can. Now, some of the people on the other side are SO ATTRACTIVE I can't seem to resist occasionally going over there for a cup of coffee, but then I always wanna drag them over to my side! Because I just can't stand to be on the other side for too long, the coffee gets so bitter and stale. Hey flattop, some smokin' imagery there! Good wording! Furball of the day! PPP! And hey, I'm definitely coming to Toronto on my next big explore. Me and Hardiman. Clearly the best next trip. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Gary T Date: 01 Oct 00 - 02:50 PM Ah, John Hardly, I'm afraid I have to disagree with your perspective.
'The "separation of church and state" that we have was instated to protect religion from persecution by a "state religion" as well as to keep the government from being corrupted by a religious oligarcy.'
'To, as a matter of course, be instructing in public schools (paid for and attended by religious and non-religious citizens) that creationism is false is intolerant and is a use of state monies and facilities to persecute religious beliefs.'
'Should the state be allowed to tell a religion that is law-abiding, that it's theology is objectively wrong?' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: catspaw49 Date: 01 Oct 00 - 02:52 PM How 'bout them Mets? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Gary T Date: 01 Oct 00 - 02:58 PM Spaw, quit trying to rile up our calm discussion with volatile, controversial issues like the Mets! It's all the self control I can muster not to rise to the bait and wade into that one. VBG, of course. (Point taken, though.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: catspaw49 Date: 01 Oct 00 - 03:01 PM (:<)) Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Jon Freeman Date: 01 Oct 00 - 03:03 PM OK, let's propose a theory here: Evolution seems to have some foundation but there is the missing link. How about aliens really exist, they visited this planet and that we were in fact genetically modified? Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: thosp Date: 01 Oct 00 - 03:07 PM Spaw -- more to the point -- WHAT HAPPENED TO THE YANKEES!!!??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: thosp Date: 01 Oct 00 - 03:16 PM Jon -- i agree - i bleive that it was Prometheus who was responsible for our modifacation -- and did he pay the price! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Rich(bodhránai gan ciall) Date: 01 Oct 00 - 03:39 PM Let's see. Do I want to believe that I am the the handiwork of a supreme being that doesn't make mistakes..................Or do I want to believe I crawled out from under a rock in a swamp? Rich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Mooh Date: 01 Oct 00 - 03:50 PM God created evolution, right? I love this discussion, but I might comment that we had better be more concerned about where we're going, given the environmental mess we've created as a race, than where we've come from. Created or evolved won't matter in the universe once we've killed ourselves by destroying our habitat. That said, study of evolution will help us understand better how to fix our trouble than the study of creation, that is, if one takes them as opposites (which I don't). If one accepts the idea that we've been created through evolutionary forces, with or without the hand of (a) God, then maybe the compromise position exists. It does for me, and I do consider myself Christian. Oh yeah, and Spaw, I'm more worried about the Leafs today... Peace, Mooh. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: rube1 Date: 01 Oct 00 - 03:53 PM Jon, you must have been reading Zecheria Sitchin's book or books lately. In them, the great unanswered questions of history and time point back to his translations of Sumerian cuneiform tablets. These books, written by the world's foremost authority on cuneiform translations, offers an explanation of ancient creation myths that is rooted in science and scholarship, not conjecture. I've looked for informed criticism of his works and have found a conspicuous absence of scholarly debate. Where are the other great minds willing to take him on? Between creationism and evolution lies the source of ancient knowledge-Sumer. THE TWELFTH PLANET is the first book of the series THE EARTH CHRONICLES. Questioning minds will find them endlessly fascinating. Biblical scholars will find interpretations deepened. Evolutionists and scientists will find many of the ancient historical links that for centuries have been missing. Back to the original question, creationism vs evolution: neither explanation, by itself, is fully satisfying. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: John Hardly Date: 01 Oct 00 - 03:57 PM Great humor guys, and I suppose I ought to just drop it as you wish. Gary T, if you're interested in my replying, PM me, otherwise I'll gladly submit to your having the last word. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: DougR Date: 01 Oct 00 - 03:58 PM How old ARE you, Kendall? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Metchosin Date: 01 Oct 00 - 04:32 PM Years ago in Junior High, a friend asked me how I knew we weren't just someone' or something's science project for which they got a "D"? I spent a number of years staring down a microscope at lifeforms that had no ability to perceive they were being observed and smiling when I remembered his question. Took me a moment Spaw, but I couldn't figure out why you seemed to be soliciting a comment from me. Duh! Combination of egocentricity and the fact that baseball isn't my strong suit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Jon Freeman Date: 01 Oct 00 - 04:50 PM I've read nothing... I am just try to wrestle with my own Christian beliefs and my limited sciecntific knowledge (which is more based on things that I know we can do now) and fail to make the 1+1=2 and try to work out alternatives. Is it possible that a) There is a super power and b) that there are other invisible creatures and c) that some of what we (in my Bible) call angels were in fact aliens? It is the only way that I can make sense of it all. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Ely Date: 01 Oct 00 - 05:11 PM What has always amazed me is that some of the people I knew who were most opposed to evolution were ag types. What did they think selective breeding was? If it wasn't for [human-directed] "evolution", we wouldn't have any of our familiar food crops or livestock. Oh, well. I guess a lot of it depends on your background and what you already know. I don't know it all about evolutionary theory, of course (nobody does), but there is a lot of stuff that I don't understand about religion, either. Where did God come from? It makes no more sense to me that He was just "there" than it does to my fundamentalist acquaintances that life "just happened". Maybe I just don't know enough about Christianity. I wonder, do these parents object to their children learning about Classical myths, too? What about the days of the week (the names of which are all pagan)? Christmas trees? Easter eggs? What about all the holidays that Christians borrowed from earlier religions? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Troll Date: 01 Oct 00 - 05:18 PM Since there is very little I can do about it (the truth or falsity of either theory) I don't worry about it. The METS! Get real. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: John Hardly Date: 01 Oct 00 - 05:30 PM Ely, It's likely that your ag friends have noted that in an empirical way, selective breeding casts more doubt than confirmation on evolution (as currently taught). John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Ebbie Date: 01 Oct 00 - 05:44 PM A slight segue here: One of the weird complications in religion discussions is that we frequently tend to say Christian when we mean godly or whatever. I'm sure we have all known people whom we would term godly, when we know nothing at all of their beliefs as far as Jesus, the Christ, is concerned. I am in awe of godliness- in the sense of love, wholeness, openness, clarity, wide-views, acceptance, (put in your own awes here)wherever I find it but I really am not speaking of Jesus when I say that. I suspect I'm not alone in this. And surely Jews and Moslems don't say that. So why do we? One thing that occurs to me is that in my experience, fundamentalists, per se, tend to view the ecumenical movement as one of the greatest threats to christianity (that word again!)And I suppose the pope may feel the same way about the pick and choose approach that many modern Catholics use these days. Back to the sujbect: I agree with those who suspect the truth is a combination of both creation and evolution and I don't perceive a conflict between them. On the one hand, it doesn't seem that in nature, things get better by themselves- a scrap of a thing left in the rain tends to rust or rot, not metamorphose into a car or a racehorse- but on the other hand, physical laws clearly govern life- and that information is repeatable. On the third hand, (Don't you think human beings should have three hands? Two to hold something and the third to do the work?) it seems to me to take a greater leap of faith to believe that life itself just happened from materials already there (Question: Where did those materials come from? Answer: They were always there. Seems like that's a statement that could come from the creationist side.)than it is to believe in the hand of a Creator that set everything else in motion. (Maybe we are somebody's ant farm? One goldfish to another: Of course, there is a god. Who do you suppose changes our water?) Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Jeri Date: 01 Oct 00 - 06:15 PM OK...here goes. The biggest problem occurs when schools don't teach kids TO think, not WHAT TO think - how to ask questions, get different opinions, research, use evidence. Truth is more than what someone tells them. Many religious leaders have answers for everything. People expect that - there will never be an unanswered question, and whether it's right or wrong is impossible to determine if the answer is based solely on belief. They rely on people's distaste for uncertainty. Creationists argue that science is just another belief system, and there are some that believe all the fossils ever found are hoaxes. It's a bit like sitcking one's fingers in one's ears when one doesn't want to hear something. What's frightening about parents not wanting their kids to learn evolution is that what they're really doing is preventing the kids from hearing views different from theirs. If the kid doesn't hear different explanations, they don't have to ever decide whom to believe. That amounts to mind control.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Naemanson Date: 01 Oct 00 - 06:22 PM I am glad to see the general run of this thread has not developed into a bash the (choose your favorite religion, religious person or skeptic). You all deserve congratulations for that. I am one of those who cannot accept creationism. I would rather like the picture of humanity hauling itself up by the bootstraps from the soup of the primordial biologic ooze. It makes more sense to me than being the science project of anyone, either space aliens or supernatural being. Having said that I would like to point out there are many real scientists (as opposed to creation scientists) who have no trouble fitting their faith into their lives as they work on the science of evolution. This is as it should be because we are after all talking apples and oranges. If the creationists hadn't insisted on taking their religion into the schools we wouldn't be having this debate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 01 Oct 00 - 07:01 PM Thanks to Gary T for additional info - that's the story I heard, rather than the more local stuff Paddymac mentioned. But Prometheus, thosp? Wasn't he the ultimate flamer - the guy who played with fire? Much to my relief, the evolutionists seem to be winning in this thread, if only because Praise is below her usual form *BG* What truly amazes me from the posts here is the discovery that there are people in the educated world who deny evolutionary science. I really had no idea. If I read right, John Hardly, you are saying that to teach evolutionary science is to persecute religion. Again I'm amazed. It doesn't leave much room for the "bit of both" theory! I suspect flattop knows full well that you don't have to go to Sheffield to find the vile downside of religion. Just look at history (before it is banned for being counter-creation!). But a good point from Rich - looks like religion was invented for our peace of mind. Here's a thought for creationists, if any can be bothered. Scientific opinion is reaching broad agreement that conditions for life as we know it (but not necessarily life itself) are replicated a millionfold across the universe. And there is a statistical probability of life itself existing, or having existed, on 5-15,000 planets in our own galaxy alone. Presumably there is no theological argument why this need not be so? And there are of course millions of galaxies. Now: one god (albeit three-in-one) for the whole lot? Or one per planet? One per galaxy? If it is one for the lot, is it plausible, or merely risible, that a god with so much scope to keep boredom at bay could be bothered to play a small-minded game with Planet Earth, in which extra points are awarded according to how much we flatter and worship him; and godly intervention may be sought in illnesses, exam results and even ballgames, according to numbers of candles lit, prayers offered etc? Maybe God needs to get a life, or to join the Mudcat? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: bbelle Date: 01 Oct 00 - 07:09 PM Anyone need a fourth for Bridge? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 01 Oct 00 - 07:32 PM What's with this idea that there has to be some kind of conflict between evolution and creation? If creation means anything, it's about what keeps the whole show on the road here and now, not about something that happened or didn't happen once upon a time.
Incidentally, why pick on Kansas? Back in 1897 the General Assembly of Indiana pased a law ruling that the value of Pi was four |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: catspaw49 Date: 01 Oct 00 - 07:32 PM I prefer Hearts....good strategy game with a beutiful combination of skill and chance blended together. AND Mooh..........Not to worry about the Leafs. Count up how many times they play the new team down here in Columbus, the Blue Jackets, and figure all of those to be wins. See, your season's looking better already isn't it? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: catspaw49 Date: 01 Oct 00 - 07:38 PM BTW Mac......Indiana-Dan Quayle. Nuff said. (apologies to DaveO, Dulci46, Homeless, and any other Hoosiers) Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: bbelle Date: 01 Oct 00 - 07:44 PM Ah, c'mon 'spaw ... Quayle wasn't Indiana's fault ... they'll be livin' that one down 'til the end of creation. Hearts it is ... moonjen |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: flattop Date: 01 Oct 00 - 07:45 PM Praise is not just below her usual form. She left the building. Ya got a wee break, Fionn, because Praise signed off after she posted. I believe that you are a journalist. You probably know that news is generally exceptions, not the norm. I stick with my original statement that most religious people that I see are doing good these days, not evil. A few exceptions make the news. If you have to go back through history to find examples, perhaps Christianity can't be all bad. Going back through history you might even uncover an evil scientist or two or an educated and unscrupulous journalist. Who knows? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Mbo Date: 01 Oct 00 - 07:56 PM Well Fionn, you could look at it like this too. You're not really singing, and what you "sing" does not come from your heart. A heart is a muscular organ that has no ability whatsoever to produce emotion. Your brain is an organ of which tiny neurons are firing rapidly and constantly, having more "feeling" when a song is memorized means nothing more except that neurons are firing differently. "Love" is just a mixture of chemicals and nerves. "Singing" is just a column of air vibration the cartilage in your vocal cords. Come to think of it, "music" is just a bunch of sonic vibrations. All depends on how you look at it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Bill D Date: 01 Oct 00 - 08:00 PM It simply makes no difference...one person can believe in evolution 'without' religion, and another can believe that evolution is just the way God planned and designed it all to work. And, of course, one *can* postulate clever aliens who manipulated the gene pool....and dozens of variations on any of these themes!. The important thing is that all these approaches involve not only different ways of viewing, but different concepts of logic and proof....as well as different premises and first principles! So, as Praise says, it takes some careful talking to even decide how to do the discussion...
Fortunately, in most of the countries we Mudcatters live in, there is reasonable 'freedom of religion'.......but freedom OF religion requires freedom FROM religion for those who desire it in order to make sense.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: John Hardly Date: 01 Oct 00 - 08:05 PM Fionn, If you read right then I wrote wrong. What I tried to say is that (though there is no need to deny the teaching of evolution) it is persecution (though that may be an inaccurate word to use) to tell people of faith that they are wrong--granted a pluralistic society. I also added the fact that we are talking about state schools funded by both the religious and the non. Right now it seems to be a good compromise to allow for both--teach evolution but allow that a god might have had a hand in it. The place where this becomes more explosive is contained in Gary T's statement that "theology is not an objective matter". Actually, any theology believed is, to that person, and objective matter. That's what belief in a religion is after all. It doesn't imply how dogmatic one might hold those beliefs--I, for one, believe what I believe and of course I think that I'm right to a certain extent (or I wouldn't BELIEVE in the first place). Gary would have been more accurate had he said "theology is not an emperical matter". We tend to be able to live in a pluralist society as long as those theologies held objective do not interfere with the rights of others to believe as they objectively believe. So far, our society has had room for, and respect for many diverse beliefs. The irony to me is that Christianity, as I understand it, is a matter of volitional belief--thereby theoretically posing no threat. In a pluralist society Christians should be able to participate in our democracy on an equal footing with other citizens. If, informed by one's religion, one believes something to be good for a society he should vote for it and if he thinks it is harmful to society he should vote against it. The reason the boom is soon to be lowered on what you have been referring to as Fundamentalist Christians is that, counter to their own theology they seem to think that they can change the souls of man by changing his behavior--diametrically opposed to true Christian theology IMO. Society won't have it and will strike back. Incidentally, rather than "religion invented to give man piece of mind", I might say "Man lacks piece of mind because he eschews his natural state of faith" Respectfully, John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: kendall Date: 01 Oct 00 - 08:10 PM I dont know how anyone can deny the existence of evolution. You can see it with your own eyes! How do you think ,say, the aids virus has managed to survive? because it EVOLVES and stays ahead of our science. But, as Bill said, maybe it in itself is Gods plan? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: John Hardly Date: 01 Oct 00 - 08:22 PM Spaw'n'Moonjen, I AM A CRAZED HEARTS ADDICT! Deal me in. Do you play Jack of Diamonds or no? John Millring Hardly |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Ely Date: 01 Oct 00 - 08:45 PM JH, I'm sure some of them saw it. But some of them didn't, either (probably because none of them had ever stopped railing against it long enough to find out that "Darwinism" means something besides "your grandfather was a monkey"). [in general, not to John Hardly specifically] So, is it NOT persecution for people of faith to tell other people that their theology/lack thereof is wrong? One could argue that that's what happens when they only teach Christian creationism, or evolution "with the help of God". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: bbelle Date: 01 Oct 00 - 09:16 PM kendall ... you wrote "I dont know how anyone can deny the existence of evolution." The "how" is because they believe differently than you. Very simple. It's called "freedom of thought." We still have that, don't we? moonjen |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Little Neophyte Date: 01 Oct 00 - 09:29 PM Did you ever see the movie Contact? I think that movie gave me the clearest answer to the questions surrounding Creation vs Evolution. Little Neo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: John Hardly Date: 01 Oct 00 - 09:50 PM I'm such a dumbshit. Is there an acronym for that? It's "peace not piece".--------John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Metchosin Date: 01 Oct 00 - 09:57 PM Wow! Hearts used to be my strong suit. Did you also know it as Dirty Aggie or Bu**er Your Buddy?...Moonjen, John, looks like we have enough players to start a game. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: bbelle Date: 01 Oct 00 - 09:59 PM John, join in, the Hearts game is going strong. BTW ... you are in good company ... "Dumbshits R Us." moonjen |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Metchosin Date: 01 Oct 00 - 10:06 PM OK! Dumshits unite! Whose got the two of Clubs? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: GUEST,Lyle Date: 01 Oct 00 - 11:01 PM Well, I shouldn't get into this because I could write volumes which I imagine nobody would read, but as a member of the science community in Kansas, I need to respond at least a bit. First of all, the title of this thread is wrong if you are referring to what happened in Kansas. NEVER confuse CREATION with CREATIONISM!!!!!!!!! Every major religion that I know of, and a lot of religious bodies that I know little of, have their own idea, belief, dogma, call it what you will, about the creation story and noone in any public school has ever questioned those. Creationism, on the other hand, is a very narrow and specific belief system that was brought to the forefront in this country in the late '60's and early 70's, mainly by Henry and Gish (they being the leaders). Their believes are too long to go into here, but some of them are that the world and everything in it was created at the same time about 6000 to 10,000 years ago. Obviously, that does away with geology, physics, chemistry, and biology as it is practiced today. Evolution is being singled out by the creationists as the "bad guys" because of the emotion it generates, and the purpose of the creationists is to have one and only one creation story, and that one should, they say, be taught in public schools. In Kansas, a group of science persons wrote State Standards for science. IMHO, they were excellent. Then some of the fundamentalist creationists got elected to the State Board of Education. They rewrote what the science people had written about evolution by taking it completely out of the standards. It was later shown that the board member who rewrote what had been written by science people was written by: Ta Dum - a Creationist. Also - never forget that all fundamentalists are not creationists. We recently had a primary election for school Board officials in the state, and all but one of the anti-evolutionists lost. Several of the candidates (from both parties) have assured us that the original standards will be back in place in January. Two lessons to be learned here: 1- There is a difference between creation and creationists and 2 - Be careful of very biased strong willed people who are single issue. Their most recent MO seems to be to get on local boards disguised as something else until they are elected. Lyle |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: John Hardly Date: 01 Oct 00 - 11:13 PM Why am I always dealt the loner queen on the hold hand?!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: bbelle Date: 01 Oct 00 - 11:16 PM You should ask? Because you are a dumbshit! *BG*
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Gary T Date: 01 Oct 00 - 11:38 PM Well, John, I would say "You're just lucky, I guess." (Didn't say it was good luck--VBG.) I too love Hearts. Haven't had a chance to play it with humans for a while (my wife doesn't care for it), but I play it, so to speak, on the computer. Dang programs don't seem to have a learning curve--can't worry them or mislead them very well. Now you all have me itching to get a local game going. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Troll Date: 01 Oct 00 - 11:42 PM Maybe God's pissed at you.***BG*** troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Amos Date: 01 Oct 00 - 11:55 PM The thing about this stupid argumnet that always ends up making absolutely no sense to me is this. Given that there are more than 2 billion creative individuals on this planet, in various states of disrepair, just counting the ones who are operating meat bodies, why in hell would anyone assume that creation as a component of reality or the driving force behind the existence of All-that-is or any part thereof should be attribtuable to just one pointof view or one spiritual entitiy?
You have to take due care not to get tangled up in the identification between "Creationism" as a fundamentalist Bible-based doctrine and any other model which includes creative powers of any sort into the ontology of things. One of them seems to map a lot closer to observed data than the other. 'Course that's just common sense, which never did stand up real well to revealed Truth. Sigh.... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: CarolC Date: 02 Oct 00 - 01:22 AM I like swamps. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: katlaughing Date: 02 Oct 00 - 01:27 AM Guest, Lyle, thanks for your *on-the-spot* reporting from Kansas. It was very interesting. Your advice re' "stealth" candidates for school boards and the like is of note. That is something that has been going on for about twenty years. We have a school board member here who has been tracking such activity, across the nation, for at least that long and has been a guest speaker on the subject. Sad to say she is not running for re-election this time. She is tired of fighting them. Unfortunately, here at least, a lot of people agree with the Creationism teachings and want board members who agree, or, they are voting uninformed. We already have at least two members of that type and a new election coming up with at least one more identified as such. It is worse, as those who predominate have demanded and gotten an exclusive school, financed by the district and state, which allows them to teach in a very strict, old-fashioned way, along with stressing creationism. The way that they are funded, by the board, is out of all proportion to any other student body. kat
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Naemanson Date: 02 Oct 00 - 02:02 AM I think the problem is that creationism is so easy to believe in. If you want to understand evolution you have to work at it. In 1985 my parents were driving home to Maine through Georgia and stopped in to visit us. They recounted a conversation they overheard in a local diner. Apparenly the people involved had just come from church and were discussing what they knew of evolution. As they seemed to understand it there was a monkey that one day turned into a human. Until people are better educated this kind of misunderstanding will continue. And the education will not take hold in people who don't want to hear it. So this debate will continue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Dave the Gnome Date: 02 Oct 00 - 05:08 AM My good pal Wilf, a lifelong socialist and atheist, insists that evolution cannot possibly be right. If it was, he figures, how come we still shit? ('scuse the language) Seeing as we have had thousands of years to adapt a better and cleaner way of getting rid of waste products why haven't we adapted to produce nice clean, shrink wrapped, waste products - especialy after we have just got out of the shower... Trust me to bring the conversation to a new level:-) What has the Forth bridge got to do with it BTW???? D the G |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: JulieF Date: 02 Oct 00 - 07:37 AM Sorry - I can't pass this one by without adding my minor contribution. I have no problem with people who believe in guided evolution, that 's their choice and I have many friends who are commited Christians but I can't cope with people who ignore vast tracks of knowledge in the name of creationisms. There is no place for creationism taught as science. I have read round the subject to some extent and a less scientific discipline is hard to find. There may be scope to mention that believers of certain religions have other views. Anything more detailed should be taught in religious education. I revel in the fact that we are not the centre of the Universe and there may be many many surprises out there ( but not here yet I think). I can marvel at nature without the need to see a creators hand ( but that's beside the point - we are talking what constitutes science here). I greatly agree with the statement that you should teach children to both think and respect other people's view. For example , my daughter is an atheist but she knows not to debate the point with her 95 year old Great Grandma. It was a difficult balance to get - as it is surprising how much religion is taught as fact in junior school. It was a proud moment when at the age of 5 ,she came home and announced that she thought that Adam and Eve were the first people to evolve. All the best Julie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: kendall Date: 02 Oct 00 - 08:14 AM You are right moonjen. However, this is also right..NO AMOUNT OF BELIEF CAN CREATE A FACT. By the way, Daewin never said "Survival of the fittest." He said "Natural selection." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Mooh Date: 02 Oct 00 - 08:21 AM 'Spaw. The Leafs, created and evolved, playin' who? Oh yeah, another new team, just what we need to make mediocre teams look good. Go Leafs Go! Mooh. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: GUEST Date: 02 Oct 00 - 08:37 AM Kendall, you seem to me to be in favour of evolution it's scientific base. I would be happy to accept evoloution if there were not so many gaps. Why is it that the "missing link" for example can not be found and that there appear to have been sudden changes with no intermedite stages? It is OK to believe science and follow the evidence but if you follow the evidence and were a true scientist, you would have to acknowledge these gaps. IMO, the sad point of all this is that the "Evoloutioninsts" try to use their arguments to disproove any possible existance of a God and visa-versa. Why is it that so few people are capable of considering combinations of factors? Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: JulieF Date: 02 Oct 00 - 08:58 AM The idea of a missing link is has largely been bypassed as what we have is a common ancestor which in recent years has been pushed further and further back ( chronologically) Julie Ps I've never tried to use evolution to deny the existence of God - you would always be countered by - he set it up and knew where it would end argument. I favour the Bable fish argument over the non existence of God. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Grab Date: 02 Oct 00 - 09:21 AM Sure, scientists working on evolution theory have stuff they can't explain. There's some wierd shit out there, mainly cos genetic mutations are random and hence unpredictable - also, being random, there's the possibility of the same mutation occurring spontaneously in 2 different places, which'd screw up your time-line good style. The thing is, no scientist ever says they know everything about a field. Science is about investigating, checking that what you think is happening is actually happening, etc. Think Newton vs. Einstein - Newton's theory was fine for most stuff, but it broke down at high speeds. Einstein produced a better version which explained the time-lapse as you speed up, but there's still stuff in there which isn't answered yet, even 80 years later after the attention of dozens of super-genius physicists. Someday, someone will solve it, and then there'll most likely be another puzzle inside that to solve. It's like the old saying - inside every small problem is a large problem waiting to get out. The deeper you dig, the more complex you find the universe is. But the key is that scientists are prepared to dig, find out stuff, think up new theories to explain them, and ditch old theories if they don't give a good enough explanation (or if they're proven to be just plain wrong). The moment anyone says, "Well, it's obvious, it's God, there's nothing we can do about it, and we shouldn't meddle with His handiwork", they may as well go back to their cave and chant to the Big Light In The Sky. Belief in God is fine - I personally believe in God (although not in Christianity) - but the moment someone insists that theoretical reasoning and dogma MUST take precedence over provable evidence, they've stopped being a reasoning being. They've proved that they're not capable of thinking for themselves - and why should we take notice of someone incapable of rational thought? Think back to the Greeks, the masters of intellectual argument. Lacking the ability to carry out complex experiments, their theories into physical phenomena threw up some bizarre theories and paradoxes - the proof that the tortoise can always avoid the arrow is just one (Xeno's paradox?). Or even in our times, think of Freud's conclusions which sum up roughly as "women don't find pleasure in sex, therefore there must be something wrong with the women". If pure theory doesn't match with the real world, the problem is with the theory, not with the world! :-) The moment you introduce the possibility of an infinitely powerful God into calculations, working anything out becomes impossible. As soon as you find something you can't immediately explain, it's obvious that it's God at work, not some physical phenomena which you've not thought about but could conceivably solve with some serious thought. The Deus Ex Machina may have a simplicity to it, but simplistic solutions are only suitable for children - the real world is complex, and hiding from it is not a solution. Grab. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Mrrzy Date: 02 Oct 00 - 09:40 AM Who was it who had no need for the God hypothesis? And moonjen, I could use a fourth for bridge if you ever break out of your hearts game (no JoD for me, thanks). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: GUEST,The Yank Date: 02 Oct 00 - 09:50 AM "Creation Science" is an oxymoron. But what really frosts my butt is my children being forced by humanist teachers to study the Theory of Gravity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Jeri Date: 02 Oct 00 - 09:54 AM Jon, I think the vast majority of people have found a way to mesh religious beliefs and scientific theories. When I was young and in Sunday school, I was taught that the way the creation was explained in the bible was figurative/symbolic. In other words "On the first day..." simply meant "first." Creationalist fundamentalists say there is no symbolism, and take the whole thing literally. "If he said 'day,' he meant 'day." I wish I could find the book "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking. A different science altogether, but I remember in it he said something about the facts and scientific conclusions doing more to prove the existance of God than to disprove it. I don't know why science and religion have to be in competition. It doesn't make any sense at all to claim fact is fiction or that facts disprove anything but dogma. As far as missing links, we're finding new fossilized creatures all the time. I'm not sure exactly when the science of archaelology began, but we haven't been digging things up for very long. The fact we haven't found something yet doesn't prove it doesn't exist. We only have pieces of some creatures, or we may only have found one of them. The fact we haven't discovered something doesn't mean it doesn't exist - especially when an historical chain of events leads to the probability that it does. The theory of evolution explains how man got from one stage to the other, and there is plenty of evidence supporting that theory. It's logical to believe the same thing continued. Question: Wasn't 'Lucy' considered 'the missing link' at one time? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: katlaughing Date: 02 Oct 00 - 10:16 AM Jeri, I have that book, it is excellent. Have you tried www.bibliofind or www.bookfinder? One of them should have it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Wesley S Date: 02 Oct 00 - 10:44 AM God created evolution. Teach them both and let the students decide for themselves { the point of going to school is to teach people to think for themselves isn't it??}. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: GUEST,Praise who needs a cookie! Date: 02 Oct 00 - 11:00 AM Down with ***ism! May Truth beset ***ists! Pick your poison, and find an antidote. LOVE AND TRUTH ARE NEVER FAR APART. When looking for one, it's a good idea to look for the other too. They have a way of subverting what you think if you leave one out of your figuring. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Little Neophyte Date: 02 Oct 00 - 11:07 AM Oh I really like that advice Praise. 'Love and truth are never far apart' When I look for one and find the other at the same time, I know I am onto something big. I figure whatever give meaning is the right answer. Little Neo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: kendall Date: 02 Oct 00 - 11:29 AM Guest.. I believe in God, and, I must believe in evolution because it is right before my eyes. The problem is, we lack the intellect to understand the whole picture. Its like the fable of the 3 blind men describing an elephant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: bbelle Date: 02 Oct 00 - 11:49 AM Jeri ... yes "Lucy" was considered the missing link. I worked with the paleontologist who discovered "Lucy." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: wysiwyg Date: 02 Oct 00 - 12:13 PM Neo, this one follows-- another comment du jour, which I uttered this morning spontaneously, for the benefit of staff and anyone else within spiritshot-- "The truth will set you free. *G* It will also get you into a lot of hot water." ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: mousethief Date: 02 Oct 00 - 12:39 PM The relationship between funamentalist or evangelical Protestant Christianity on the one hand and Evolution on the other is very specific to certain occurrences in both science and theology in the 19th century. It's nearly fruitless to try to understand the "circle the wagons" mentality of anti-evolutionists nowadays without studying how things came to this pass. There is a very good book on this subject -- "Without God, Without Creed" by James Turner, which has shaded all my thoughts on the subject. Anyway, the main idea of the book is that with the rise of modern science, preachers tried to move away from the older way of approaching religion (e.g. we believe this because it is what was handed down to us) to a new, more scientific way of approaching religion (e.g. we believe this because it "makes sense" of the world as we find it). But then when mechanistic evolution threw out the "God hypothesis" in the 19th century, certain theologians found the foundation they had been standing on for over 100 years suddenly disappearing from beneath them. This gives rise to the hatred and fear of evolution -- not because it disproves God, necessarily, but because it takes the wind out of the sails of the sort of "rational religion" that was popular in the mid-19th century. (Which, coincidentally, is when the literalist reading of Genesis first rose to prominence!) Of course not all theologians had based their understanding of religion on science; some had held to older models; some had developed newer models that were not so dependent upon science. Both these strains have continued to do just fine, and to some extent the former adherents of the "rational religion" school have jumped into one or another of these camps. But some have been unable to make the transition, and for them evolution is seen as a threat to their religion, to be fought at any cost. Since this is what (to at least some extent) is going on in the evolution/creationism "debate," it is highly unlikely that either side is ever going to convince the other of its own correctness. It's not really a "debate" at all but more like a lobbing of word-bombs back and forth between two very entrenched armies (if you'll excuse the military metaphor). FWIW, I am a Christian believer, and am agnostic on the topic of trans-species evolution.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Little Neophyte Date: 02 Oct 00 - 12:46 PM Praise, I had heard that saying a little different. I think it was Amilia Airheart who said..... 'The truth will set you free but first is will piss you off' LN |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Penny S. Date: 02 Oct 00 - 12:52 PM The evidence for evolution does not only lie in the fossil record, which is incomplete, but in DNA, which reveals the commonality of living things - Kipling's one blood - and the relatedness of species. If there were a separate creation of each type of creature, then why make it look as if there weren't, which is what genetic evidence does? If the creatonists are right, they raise an appalling question about the nature of a god who would have created an immense puzzle, in which all the pieces point those who search for truth in the direction of a lie. I do not believe God to be like that. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Metchosin Date: 02 Oct 00 - 01:17 PM to add another variable, cataclysmic evolution as opposed to or along side of gradualism, is now back on the front burner. Interesting, considering the vilification that Velikovsky received from both sides of the debate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Biskit Date: 02 Oct 00 - 01:36 PM Kendall, There has been persecution of one group or another since Og, and Tonk (the cavedudes) were pitchin' rocks at each other! Personally, I don't know for sure, and sometimes I have doubts,..because I am human, and have a mind, and freedom of choice.But I believe I'll follow the path of J.C. as best as I can, being kind, and a man of peace,and prone to daily meditation,cannot be a bad way to spend ones life. And in the end,(if indeed there is an end), there is nothing else. Why! I've lost nothing. But on the other hand, If I choose not to believe, and what the "Word" says is true,I'll have lost paradise. If you don't believe in Something, You'll fall for anything! peace"through understanding"-Biskit- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Roger in Sheffield Date: 02 Oct 00 - 01:42 PM Sorry woke up in a bad mood yesterday Not helped by hearing on the news of the Human Rights Act (comes into force today in England), a Church of England spokesperson was reported as saying the act may come into conflict with the teachings of the church. I jumped to the coclusion that this was directed at the contentious issue of homosexuality which the CoE still cannot reconcile . So I apologise for upsetting anyone, your beliefs, my beliefs are all valid and equal so lets have equal rights. Wrong thread for this I know Roger |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: kendall Date: 02 Oct 00 - 01:45 PM I also belief that Jesus is "The Christ" he represtents the path to God. I'm not sure if he is the ONLY path. On a lighter note...if Kipling was right, One Blood..if its all the same, How come there are no Swedes in the Mafia? (Archie Bunker) We are like the Three Stooges, none of know much for sure, but that doesnt stop us from acting like we know everything. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: MMario Date: 02 Oct 00 - 01:49 PM "punctuated equilibrium" is the phrase I have heard, and that makes the most sense to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: sophocleese Date: 02 Oct 00 - 02:13 PM Read that first as punctured equilibrium MMArio, caused me a giggle.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Biskit Date: 02 Oct 00 - 02:38 PM Well said Kendall, I reserve the right to question everything!I also BELIEVE that God is pissed off about all those folks being murdered in the name of God. I just had a really vivid picture of Mel Brooks and Gregory Hines Tap Dancin' across the stage and singin':the inquisition...-Biskit- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: GUEST,Debbil's Advocate Date: 02 Oct 00 - 02:50 PM Pox on both yer houses, ya silly ninnies. Anyone who has delved into the real evidence is forced ineluctably to come up with the plain conclusion that the entire planet was a gigantic pound, where genetic engineering experiments once used to gain social points by high-toned matrons of the first Galactic Confederation as conversation pieces were dumped when they were no longer the latest and greatest thing.
They used to just ship them to the incinerator but a big bleeding heart movement formed up somewhere on one of the outer planets and gradually made enough noise to stimulate legislation; as a result, the fashion-statement du jour of the patronized genetic artist could no longer just be offed in a ray-beam -- they had to set up a very expensive dump which took a lot of money. Fortunately the Confederation was still prosperous back then and could afford the terraforming expenses. So this whacky argument is settled now. It was no more an act of God than the Bronx housing developments. It was engineered by a bunch of artsy-fartsy genetic-engineering artists for their affluent patrons, creating poetic "statements" for rich salons out of biomass, fusion tools, and some really slick software applications. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Biskit Date: 02 Oct 00 - 02:57 PM Oh Geezus on a pogo schtick! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Jon Freeman Date: 02 Oct 00 - 03:16 PM Jeri, I don't think that "Lucy" was ever considered to be that missing link but I stand to be corrected on that. There was the famous missing link one which proved to be a hoax, using bones of both humans and apes. I think it was called the Piltdown Man. Another problem that I have with religion is that there appear to be noticible peoriods of activity followed by inactivity - how's about the Star in Bethlehem was a space ship? Jon (possibly being slightly outrageous but interested to read any comments). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Biskit Date: 02 Oct 00 - 03:25 PM Dear Debbils Advocate, You may be watchin' a little to much of the sci fi channel,I prescribe an evening walk, somewhere far away from vehicular emissions. Live Long and Prosper,-Biskit- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Jed at Work Date: 02 Oct 00 - 03:26 PM Creation v Evolution? Those are my only two choices? We don't teach Santa Claus, Wed don't teach the Easter Bunny in our schools, but there are valuable cultural lessons surrounding some of those characters ... why would anyone teach creationism? If it offends someone's personal religious perspetcive, they do not need to attend the public institution that teaches the modern understandig of life's origins. They can remove themselves from the society that teaches a contrary perspective and teach their own perpectives within their own community. Why would a small minority dictate to the majority, and why should their narrow perspective be allowed to dilute the edcuation of the majority? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Greg F. Date: 02 Oct 00 - 03:37 PM No good reason I know of, Jed, but it happens all the time. Question is, why do we ALLOW it to happen? :-) Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Jed at Work Date: 02 Oct 00 - 03:42 PM good points, Kendal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: wysiwyg Date: 02 Oct 00 - 03:59 PM OK, gang, some of you have made it clear you know enough about the universe to decide everything and manage it excellently. Now get off your butts and go to it. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Jed at Work Date: 02 Oct 00 - 04:06 PM agreed Greg. As some have already pointed out, there are many wonderful and meaningful stories about where we came from and why we're here ... it seems nearly every human that has walked the earth has heard a story from his culture that addresses these issues. Why is the creationist story the only opposing perspective? I suspect that the creationists simply mistake the envelope for the message. And this has also been said, but I think it bears repeating; creation need not conflict with evolution. For me, the book of Genesis (my culture's story) is all about who we are, as humans ... it sets the tone for what our role is and describes our relationship to God and each other. The 'creation facts' the story uses are the envelope. The challenge to bring purpose to our lives, is the message. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Little Hawk Date: 02 Oct 00 - 04:17 PM In responce to Clinton Hammond, who said: "There's no gods And precious few heros" I say that there are many gods (all of us), and we are ALL heroes...just for coming here in the first place and taking on this reality. I understand what Clinton means, however...he is simply looking at the other side of the paradox. "You're right from your side and I'm right from mine" - Bob Dylan said that. LH
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: domenico Date: 02 Oct 00 - 04:26 PM For what it's worth, here in the Good 'ol land of granola-chewin'-tree-chainin' Be-Z-erkely California, many of us hold onto a simple philosophy.... Creationism is a belief, Evolution is a fact. You can witness evolution in your own lifetime, whereas the choice to believe in Creationism is wholly owned by you. I have yet to hear a Christian voice state what to me should be the most obvious choice of paths.... "God created the big bang!" This would be the most sensible apporoach to the whole thing, leaving those that need to have faith in a higher power alone to chant their mantra, count their beads, burn their incense, kiss their snakes, or what have you, insert-ritual-here, and the rest of us can have our children raised in an informed, well rounded manner, leaving their decisions on faith to be answered by their heart, and nobody elses.... "Argghh, I hate the midwest!" -Grumpy Smurf, Retired Miscreant- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Jeri Date: 02 Oct 00 - 04:31 PM Clinton was referring to the song by Brian McNeil. OK...and now for something completely ridiculous. I don't know if anyone has thought this one up already. Probably. How about Earth as a prison colony?
Come and hear my story, lads, I will tell to you no lie, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Biskit Date: 02 Oct 00 - 04:43 PM It's no small wonder your Grumpy,...Smurf You think all this happened by accident???Take a drive, you're certainly in the right geographical area, Drive up to Point Reyes an watch the sunset,walk among the redwoods around Bodega. While you're there be quiet,quiet your mind Brother,and listen with your heart. Then come back and tell me it was all an accident.Peace"through understanding"-Biskit- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: GUEST Date: 02 Oct 00 - 05:00 PM Now get off your butts and go to it.
~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: MMario Date: 02 Oct 00 - 05:11 PM grumpy smurf/domenico... you say "I have yet to hear a Christian voice state what to me should be the most obvious choice of paths.... "God created the big bang!" " on the contrary - there are a number of sunday school educational sets out there that profess exactly that; I was raised to see no conflict with creation and the scientific explanations of the univers (the theories never do explain where that first jolt/monobloc/whatever comes from) I taught from educational materials that illustrated the seven days of creation using galaxy formation and evolution as part of the wonder of the creator's universe. AND I might add, that these materials have existed for a MINIMUM of three decades, have been in use at least that long and are still in use. Christian and Creationism are not synonyms |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Biskit Date: 02 Oct 00 - 05:12 PM Oh Yeah, By the way Little Hawk,I AM NOT A GOD!You maybe a lesser God,I don't know.All I know for sure is I am not. I mean Man, thats way to much pressure, It's hard enough to muddle through this life without screwin' somethin' up. without havin' to be responsible for Famine,drought,pestulance(sp) see there I'm not even sure of the spelling of it you think I want to be responsible for (IT)!!??!and a whole bunch of other things that are seen as wrong with this world?? I Think NOT! I'll just stay with the course I'm on.-Biskit- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: catspaw49 Date: 02 Oct 00 - 05:19 PM Didja' ever notice that what you eat affects the color of your pee? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: John Hardly Date: 02 Oct 00 - 05:34 PM Mousethief, thanks for the post, you said it better than I could have. Jed at work, The reason the damn neandertal<<<-----------see! funny joke)creation people don't just butt the hell out is that they pay equally for the school. But I am pretty sure that if they remain insistant they will be shown the door--history is pretty clear on that count. Domenico, How have you witnessed evolution in your life time? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: mousethief Date: 02 Oct 00 - 05:42 PM Thanks, John! (I was beginning to wonder if anybody had even read my post!)
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Little Neophyte Date: 02 Oct 00 - 05:52 PM Why Alex, I always read your postings, with a cute little mouse like that at the bottom, how could you not. I bet there are lots of people who read your postings and just sit back quietly taking in your thoughts. Little Neo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: mousethief Date: 02 Oct 00 - 06:06 PM This thread is too big! Please use this new thread to continue this conversation, and don't post to this one! Thanks!
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Jeri Date: 02 Oct 00 - 06:07 PM John Hardly - how about the development of drug resistant microorganisms? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Jon Freeman Date: 02 Oct 00 - 06:10 PM Just to prove I do read your posts MouseThief, I will do... Jon (who even reads Bonnie's posts sometimes) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: domenico Date: 02 Oct 00 - 06:11 PM Biskit, as an artist, I cannot deny beauty, nor can I deny the beauty in chance, as I've been practicing it all the time. One does not need to say "Today, I will create *x*". *X* happens, and nature is definitely the most accomplished artist in that field. You can ascribe a higher power if you must, but nature is Chaos and chance, and its results are stunning, I'll not deny it. Mario, I thank you for being the first voice that *I* have heard along those lines, and I'm glad to know there are more out there. I've been around, and was raised through (by virtue of schooling, mentors or church attendance) damn near every facet of the Western Christian spectrum, including Methodists, Baptists, Mormons, Re-Organized Mormons, Catholics, and good 'ol New Ager/Unitarian/Insert-Progressive-Term-Here types. On average, people are either of the non-committal "I've got my faith and that's all that matters" bend, or of the rabid, frothing "God created Adam, Darwin be DAMNED!" persuasion. I am THANKFUL that there are people who can vocally accept both in tandem, and that was my point of this post, was to offer that bone for people to chew. As to Mr. Handy, there are certain things that can be witnessed testifying to nature's inherent changes. Even looking through as little as 3 generations, we're taller, faster, stronger, fatter, women are mestruating sooner, etc... Now, people may be quick to say "Diet!", "Healthcare!", or "Peace!", and the answer is of course, a resounding "No sh$#%@, Shirlock!" These are factors that change who we are, and we have been reacting to stimulus/circumstances since the dawn of time. Warming climates?, less fur, less meat?, more greens, more greens?, less disease, less disease?, more population... flat teeth win cool climate?, plants die... need meet, Grog of pointy teeth chew on furry critter, Grog live through ice age, Grog's kid have pointy teeth too, maybe he live, too.... Lastly, there are many evidences to where we came from, and including the DNA Penny mentioned, our bodies have collections of parts that no longer are used, such as wisdom teeth and various internal glands and organs, and the most beautiful example, the embryonic-fetal growth cycle, which take us from our most primitive smimming/gill breathing/tail flapping fish phases through our bi-pedal post-partum phases. To think of man as anything but an animal is naive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Creation v Evolution From: Jeri Date: 02 Oct 00 - 06:18 PM Post here, or I swear I'll write another dumb song. (See mousethief - I read your posts too.) |
|
Subject: Go to part 2, dangit!!! From: kendall Date: 02 Oct 00 - 06:49 PM Debbles advocate...you sound like a writer for Monty Python!!
Mousethief said it so well. |