Banning "evolution"

The Core RPGC Main Forum
41

Personally, I’m not a religious person, but I do agree with the guidelines set down in The Bible like ‘love thy neighbour’ etc. However, I do find it hard to accept The Bible’s version of historical events. It’s just like any other history book; in order to interprate it, you need to know exactly who the author is, and in what context it is written. This is very difficult to do, as it’s assumed that not all books of The Bible were written at the same time, most of the authors are not known, and this is even before it is translated, after which, some of the meanings may change entirely.

The fact that some people will put blind faith into a book is beyond me. There is overwhelming scientific evidence for the theory of evolution, and yet there are people who will just dismiss it because they think it goes against what The Bible teaches, because they only considerate the text literally.

That’s why I have a problem with the strict minority of Christians who follow The Bible word for word. Where is the proof that this is even the same document that was set down in writing hundreds of years ago?

By the way, I don’t mean to sound so derogatory concerning The Bible, believe me when I say that I agree with a great many of the teachings set down in it, and I have the utmost respect for anyone who is religious.

42

I really shouldn’t have made that blanket statement :stuck_out_tongue: I’m Catholic.

And don’t forget that the same thing applies to them too. That whole “instead of worrying about the speck in someone else’s eye, focus on the log in your own” thing. (Heh, some of Jesus’ parables were so lame >>;; ) I guess we’re all hypocrites.

Anyways, the point is, the only person we can use as an example of how to lead a “holy” life is Jesus, because he followed the spirit of God, and not the word. And that’s kinda vague, but I can’t think of any other way to put it.

43

Originally posted by Tomiko
[b]I really shouldn’t have made that blanket statement :stuck_out_tongue: I’m Catholic.

And don’t forget that the same thing applies to them too. That whole “instead of worrying about the speck in someone else’s eye, focus on the log in your own” thing. (Heh, some of Jesus’ parables were so lame >>;; ) I guess we’re all hypocrites.

Anyways, the point is, the only person we can use as an example of how to lead a “holy” life is Jesus, because he followed the spirit of God, and not the word. And that’s kinda vague, but I can’t think of any other way to put it. [/b]

Yes, sadly I guess we can be looked at like that. Your last statement is quite clear, as well, nothing wrong with it.

Well, one religious debate that didn’t go to the shitters. I’m glad for that.

44

Originally posted by Evangelion
The creation THEORY.
The Big Bang THEORY.
That comparison is vacuous since it completely ignores what the word “theory” really denotes. A “theory” is not just a guess at something or a creative interpretation of something. You can’t say, for instance, “well, I think that water is created by little purple leprechauns, so that’s my theory.” That’s not a “theory”; that’s not even a hypothesis. By the scientific method, a conjecture or hypothesis arises when someone has an interpretation for some observation that is based on some reasoning. Then, various tests are performed, <i>and recorded in detail</i> so that anyone could repeat them on his own if so inclined. If these tests are methodologically sound, and if they appear to support the hypothesis, and if they use good sampling techniques, <i>and</i> if they haven’t been rejected due to someone having discovered some flaw in them or the reasoning behind them, only <i>then</i> the hypothesis could possibly be considered a theory. A theory is much more than an assertion. You might as well say “well, I know that the theory of gravity says that things fall down, but <i>my</i> theory is that they fall up!” and then claim that that’s a “theory” that’s just as legitimate as the theory of gravity.

Yes, it’s still possible to say “well, but it’s not <i>proven</i> to be true,” but it’s impossible to “prove” something is always true in that sense, even something that can be easily observed. I might show you ten thousand examples of things falling down and not up, but you could still say, “well, that doesn’t prove that gravity always works.” However, it’s possible to establish <i>beyond a reasonable doubt</i> that something is true, or even further, that something is “generally” true (which for all human intents and purposes is the same thing as establishing that something is always true). That happens when more and more evidence accumulates in favour of a theory, no evidence accumulates against it, and no one is able to reject the theory. That is what has been done with the theory of evolution.

You can put a theory to a test; for instance, you might try sitting down and verifying that Stephen Hawking’s mathematics are right when he talks about the Big Bang. There are no tests that can be done to “verify” religious creation because it is inherently impossible to verify. And that’s just fine, since religious creation doesn’t really conflict with the Big Bang theory. One can believe that god somehow jump-started the Big Bang; the theory contains nothing to deny that scenario. As someone else touched on, there is absolutely no reason why science and religion should not peacefully coexist, because they occupy completely different realms. Science does not infringe on religion’s realm in the slightest. The list of great scientists includes both atheists and priests.

45

And then SK opened his mouth and wrote 3 paragraphs on 2 unimportant lines because he’s infallible.

I love you with my pee pee SK.

46

Originally posted by Tomiko
because he’s infallible.
Damn straight.

47

Jesus walking on water is mentioned in Matthew, Mark, and John.

48

Actually, that comparison bugged me too :stuck_out_tongue:

49

To SK’s first paragraphs, yes that is all quite true, what I said makes sense, but yes, yours makes more sense, common sense actually. I should have clarified that, but it’s a huge unrelated debate in itself, but I was using the term theory loosely. I stand corrected.
EDIT: Actually, in my defence I wasn’t comparing them, I was pointing out the word “theory” in both ideas. Sure one holds more weight than the other, but I wasn’t approaching them that way.

Originally posted by Sephiroth Katana
As someone else touched on, there is absolutely no reason why science and religion should not peacefully coexist, because they occupy completely different realms. Science does not infringe on religion’s realm in the slightest. The list of great scientists includes both atheists and priests.

Yes one of those person’s was I and the exact point I tried to make.

50

SK said what I was going to say. If you’re going to talk about “theories” , talk about the “theory” of gravity. A theory is nothing more than a set of undisproven hypotheses. When you call something a theory in the scientific sense, its not just an assumption. It is an accurate explanation sitting on a lot of observations and explanations.

The creation “theory” is not a “theory”, its a myth. I can call anything a theory, it doesn’t mean it is one.

51

I never meant to imply, 984, that all Southerners are “backwards cousin-marriers,” but what I wrote was pretty close to saying that, so I put my foot in my mouth and I apologize for saying what I did.

The topic, now that I’ve looked closer into it, still bothers me. In fact, I thing this is wrong on many more levels than I saw in my first glance.

Firstly, as has pointed out, this is only a superficial pleasing to the hardliner Christians who still want to see evolution banned by the government. This reflects very poorly on my view of Kathy Cox. In an effort to ease tension, gain more political influence, or just out of sheer stupidity, she’s basically treating the people of Georgia like idiots. Rather than actually deal in any firm way with the subject of evolution, she’s giving out a compromise that she thinks both sides will be too stupid to see it for what it really is.

Secondly, this article indirectly shows that the hardliner Christians in the south are still putting pressure on the school boards to ban the teaching of evolution in the class rooms. This point is especially displeasing because it gives Christians a bad name. They try to impose their views on American society rather than allow people to develop their own views, or allow science to continue on its merry way. Considering that a fundamental part of American society is the freedom of religion and the freedom of thought, this religious push the hardliner Christians are going for is appalling.

I don’t have anything against the belief in Creationism; I just feel that it should be taught inside the church, not in a school setting. Imposing it upon the education system is only a way of trying to force non-Christians to share a belief in creationism. It’s a choice that should be made by, not forced upon, an individual.

A scenario for envisioning the banning of evolution and the teaching of creationism is to envision a school in a foreign country, where Christianity is not the main-stream religion. It’s an absolutely absurd situation trying to envision a Hindu school teaching the Christian beliefs of creationism. Then, on the flip-side, envision the teaching of only Hindu beliefs of creationism in American classrooms. This would be no less valid than teaching Christian creationism, yet the hardliner Christians would be in an uproar over such a proposition.

I think evolution provides an outside view of our existence, as science is a neutral, non-religious understanding of the world. Because it’s just as valid to teach students in India the theory of evolution as it is to teach American students the theory of evolution, it’s a valid standard suitable for teaching in the classroom. That is why I support the teaching of evolution in school, while I shudder at the thought of teaching creationism.

So when I saw the topic, I just jumped to the conclusion that the hardliner Christians in the Georgia government were once again trying to remove evolution and replace it with Christian Creationism. And call me overly sympathetic, but I always think of that school in India when I hear about such things. Coupled with the fact that I’m a little burnt out and tired, I just blurted out my prior comment without thinking about it for too long. I’m really sorry about it, 984, and I hope both that you can forgive me and that my commentary on the situation can provide you with some insight as to why the whole situation bothers me as much as it does.

52

Of course…but it’s still not entirely proven

53

Sigh

Evangelion, the only reason that it’s called the “theory” of gravity, isn’t because it hasn’t been proven. The theory of gravity has been proven countless times. In fact, both of us could very easily prove it right now by simply dropping an object.

The reason they are called “theories” is a more philosophical thing than a true definition. Philosophy teaches us that it is impractical to assume that our observations will always lead to the same result. An example would be the life of a turkey. Every day a farmer comes out to feed it. One could presume then, that there’s a “law of feeding”, that every day when the farmer comes out, it’s to feed the turkey. The only problem with this is, that come thanksgiving, the farmer isn’t going to be coming out to feed the turkey.

This can be applied to modern science as well. Due to our limited understanding of the underlying basis for which the rules of our world are based, there’s no telling if they may arbitrarily change at any point. Tommorrow we may wake up, and gravity may no longer exist. This is the basis for the scientific meaning of “theory.” A theory is simply a series of observations that hold to be true under the current conditions of our world. There’s no telling however, if those underlying conditions may change.

54

Just to clarify, Eva, “creationalism” is not a theory. It is a belief.

55

What’s not entirely proven?

And Eva, nothing is proven in science. Things are just undisproven. That’s the strength of science. Its not because you’re uneducated that something doesn’t have support that makes it an accurate description of what IS happening.

56

Originally posted by Evangelion
Of course…but it’s still not entirely proven
As I said, to use “proven” in that sense is meaningless because nothing can be “entirely proven.” After all, just because objects have always fallen down since the beginning of time doesn’t “entirely prove” that they always will. Nonetheless, that theory can be shown, by means of that evidence, to be generally true or true beyond a reasonable doubt, concepts which amount to the exact same thing as “entirely proven” as far as all human experience and perception are concerned.

57

Sometimes I wonder if anyone actually reads what I write…

58

Sure thing, GM. I agree with you on the commentary issue. I think Kathy Cox has good intentions in mind and is trying to reach a compromise, but she’s going about it the wrong way. I have no problem with teaching of evolution. As for teaching of creationism, well, I wouldn’t mind it if it were done in the venue of a general religion class that touched upon the beliefs of the major world religions.

As for the comment about inbreeding, GM, it’s a very touchy issue among Southerners. I’ve particularly been more sensitive to Southern jokes over the past two years or so as I have developed a sense of Southern Pride. As they saying goes, American by birth, Southern by the Grace of God.

Zell Miller’s recent comment, “Once upon a time, the most successful Democratic leader of them all, FDR, looked south and said, ‘I see one third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished.’ Today our national Democratic leaders look south and say, ‘I see one third of a nation and it can go to hell.’” has really touched home with me as I feel it’s not just a DNP issue. It seems to be more of an American institution to berate the South rather than some process reserved to the Democrats.

About a year ago, CBS was planning a Beverly Hillbillies reality television show. They would take a family from the Appalachian mountains, most likely from around Franklin, North Carolina, and they would drop them in Beverly Hills to the amusement of the “civilized” portions of the nation. Once again quoting Zell Miller (I really admire the man), “They know the only minority left in this country that you can make fun of and demean and humiliate and put down and hardly anyone will speak up in their defense are hillbillies in particular, and rural people in general. You can ridicule them with impunity. Can you imagine this kind of program being suggested that would disrespect an African-American family and denigrate a Latino family?”

Why is this acceptable? Why is it okay to paint every Southern soul as inbred hicks? As Klansmen? I have never met a single person affiliated with the Klan or any hate group, and I’ve been to plenty of areas where these mentalities should supposedly be more prevalent. I’ve met people that have sometimes fallen into stereotyping, but everyone does that. I’ve seen no sneers of superiority over the basis of color.

I want to restore the South to its former glory. I want the South to rise again. I want it to cement itself in American society as a region deserving and just as receiving of respect as other regions in the US. We have made progress. We are not backwater hicks. It is time for the rest of the nation, the rest of the world, to recognize this. It’s a two-way road. We can improve and improve and improve, but as long as no one else will recognize this, it means nothing. As long as visions of the South are represented as Deliverance, as slack jawed yokels, as hicks in some fucking CBS reality show, the South will never be given the credit it’s due.

That’s why it touched home, GM. I’m just reminded of the hypocrisy in comments like yours.

Sidenote: I was confused at first why they said Kathy Cox was a Republican. Then I went to look at the Georgia absentee ballot request form, and apparently the Secretary of State is Cathy Cox, a Democrat. So we have two Coxes with the same phonetic first name. Kinda funny.

59

Arrg ye mateys yer got me.

I admit defeat. Seriously, I was just trying to give another look at things, but I knew that would be quite difficult against people who were a lot more educated than me. I stand corrected, again (I HATE science so I’m really not on familiar grounds anyways). Thanks.

60

That’s just stupid! Personally, I don’t agree with the idea of evolution, but STILL!! Banning the word won’t do squat!