 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 |