A War on Science
When Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution nearly 150 years ago, he shattered the dominant belief of his day – that humans were the product of divine creation. Through his observations of nature, Darwin proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection. This caused uproar. After all, if the story of creation could be doubted, so too could the existence of the creator. Ever since its proposal, this cornerstone of biology has sustained wave after wave of attack. Now some scientists fear it is facing the most formidable challenge yet: a controversial new theory called intelligent design.
In the late 1980s Phillip Johnson, a renowned lawyer and born-again Christian, began to develop a strategy to challenge Darwin. To Johnson, the evidence for natural selection was poor. He also believed that by explaining the world only through material processes was inherently atheistic. If there was a god, science would never be able to discover it.
Johnson recruited other Darwin doubters, including biochemist Professor Michael Behe, mathematician Dr William Dembski, and philosopher of science Dr Stephen Meyer. These scientists developed the theory of intelligent design (ID) which claims that certain features of the natural world are best explained as the result of an intelligent being. To him, the presence of miniature machines and digital information found in living cells are evidence of a supernatural creator. Throughout the 90s, the ID movement took to disseminating articles, books and DVDs and organising conferences all over the world.
To its supporters, intelligent design heralds a revolution in science and the movement is fast gaining political clout. Not only does it have the support of the President of the United States, it is on the verge of being introduced to science classes across the nation. However, its many critics, including Professor Richard Dawkins and Sir David Attenborough, fear that it cloaks a religious motive – to replace science with god.
Watch the full documentary now
Why?…if the story of creation could be doubted, so too could the existence of the creator? What a bunch of ****! One does not imply the other. Narrow minded. These arguments are designed to breed doubt. In truth, the bible is not to be taken literally, especially Genesis, anyone who thinks so is not very astute. But this is all part of the big lie that keeps people divided which is what the elitists want. Abortion,****, and Creation – all arguments to weaken the middle class…wake up.
There is more to the world around us than just what we can see, I am certain of that. And I don’t mean only the microscopic organisms…
However, I can’t make myself believe in god the way it is presented by the major religions today (with, possibly, the exception of Buddhism, whether one sees it as a religion or not). If the Bible, for example, is to be taken literally, than it means nothing, it’s just a bunch of **** that anyone with a questioning and open mind wouldn’t believe; if it is not to be taken literally, than I don’t know what it means and what it talks about. Surely nothing that I can understand. (Personally, I believe the god of Moses was of alien origin, that’s the only way I can make sense of it, but it still doesn’t explain how did this alien come to exist.)
Having said the above, the evolution theory has its own gaps, and one shouldn’t take it as a bible either. To me, it is simply a theory that, for the time being, and at current level of our knowledge and understanding, offers the most rational answers to most questions – but it shouldn’t be forgotten that it doesn’t offer all the answers…
There is more out there than the science today, void of any spirituality, and even belligerent towards it, can explain. Perhaps a tiny bit of it could help… :-)
WTC7: My standard for interpreting the Bible is to take it litterally unless it is impossible to do so, and we are sure it is figurative in nature. The art of the matter comes into being by knowing what is literal and what is figurative which is not always easy. Trust but verify is a good policy to follow for any faith that you might have.
If God is real (and I believe He is), then how would He get his message out? What would be the best way? The Bible tells what is most important to have faith, but does not bog down on all the particulars we now think “vital” such as the creation account. It would be nice for our generation to have a nice 400 page book of detailed creation expiditions, but we are one of the first generations in which such WOULD be useful. Perhaps that is why Jesus (whom I believe to be God also), said, you need to come with the faith of “little children” and just trust me. Trust first; understand later. And if you never fully understand, then just keep believing in the One that does.
Charles, is it really a good idea to trust first and understand later? Certainly we can’t trust just anyone who demands our faith. If that were the case, we’d have to follow every religion, and I don’t think I can take on more than two or three right now because I know I’ll just screw that up.
The dishonesty of the godly never ceases to amaze me. I suppose anything is justified when you are certain that you are serving an angry and jealous god.
Why are the godly so afraid of evolution? Religion is about control and authority, it has nothing to do with truth or morality. An honest review of the history of religion should be enough to convince you of this. Somewhere along the line, someone in the religious community decided that the Bible was the literal word of their god and authority usually demands complete obedience; Galileo wasn’t persecuted and shown the instruments of torture because he was an evil man, he was persecuted simply because he implied that the church was wrong, he questioned their authority and was threatened with torture and death for his impetuousness.
Claiming that some parts of the Bible are meant to be taken literally and other parts are meant as simple metaphors is an absurd cop out and merely allows the believer to move the goal posts when truth (again) starts casting doubt on their faith. This “god of the gaps” approach leaves the religious with an ever diminishing deity and that must be very uncomfortable for them; a thousand years ago, gods were responsible for everything but now they are left with less and less to do as humanity begins to understand how the universe works.
Tim: I meant to trust the Christian God first and understand His reasons for doing things later. I wouldn’t advocate trusting everything or every religious philosophy first before testing its merits, as that would be impossible and not prudent.
Eric Howe: Well said. You have some really excellent thoughts and valid criticisms of religious people. However, I don’t know what you think is the “dishonesty” of the “godly”. Can you give it to me in a nutshell? I don’t want to guess at your meaning there.
In response, the Bible is indeed composed of things to be taken litterally and other things to be understood metaphorically. When Jesus said “I am the Good Shepherd” He was talking about people, not sheep, as not a single sheep is mentioned in the Bible being tended by Jesus anywhere. There’s nothing wrong with that. Every religion does that and I dare say all atheists do too. Metaphore is widely used in everyday language, why not in Scripture also? That is a blanket criticism that is unfounded.
What do you mean by a “god of the gaps”? What “truth” are you talking about that is diminishing God? Evolution? That’s a very shakey “truth” to stand on indeed, and one that has not diminished God in the smallest amount.
I would agree with you, however, that religion is about “conrol and authority” but true Christianity is about life itself; it’s about a relationship with God who is indeed the creator who loves us and wants us to be part of who He is as God.
Eric, I would like to appologize to you on behalf of the “Christian” community, as you’ve obviously been hurt by someone who called themselves a “Christian.” I’m sorry. Some of us are overly zealous, and others are just plain evil-hearted and a rotten-to-the-bone hypocrite which is exactly what Jesus hated most too. I just read today in my Bible that Jesus had his harshest rebukes for the “religious” of His day; against the Pharisees, the Sadusees and the Scribes.
I also had a brand new insight into an old parable I just re-read today. Jesus said that the Kingdom of Heaven is like a “dragnet” that is cast into the sea and brings up all kinds—some good and some bad; the good was kept and the bad was cast into eternal damnation. Wow! I had a brand new insight today and it was the fact that religion and even Christianity (the Kingdom of God) has both good and evil inside it together and always will until the end of time. It’s no surprise to God. It will only be in the end that the good will be blessed of God and the evil exposed by God and fully punished. It’s just a fact of life; where there is money and power, there is evil, but not everyone is evil. A few of us are the “real deal” and for the rest, I do sincerely apologize. Perhaps that is also why Jesus said that “braod is the way that leads to death, and many will follow that way, but narrow is the way that leads to life, and only a few will find it.”
Keep asking questions, Eric, until you get an answer you know comes from God Himself and then believe rather than doubt. Let me know if I can answer any more of your questions as briefly as I can.
I agree with, Eric Howe:
Circular Logic, and more circular logic.
It is so redundant! Any thing you ask of religious people, they refer to the Bible. With due respect, but this is all they have. Al least if there was something “new” they could offer, people might sit up and take notice!
Instead, parables from thousands of years ago. That they can not change to keep up with the times. All they can due is to interpret them in different ways, to mean different things. And add more fancyfull tales.
Eric Howe: Religious people oppose evolution because without a god they have to admit their hopes and dreams and heaven and hell are all mythology.
Evolutionists passionately oppose religion becuase if if religion is correct and evolution not correct, they there is a god and therefore accountability to that god for our actions. There is no mystery here to either groups actions.
Achems Razor: Charles B. is a Christian. Chrisitans use the Bible for their life questions. He is consistent, not circular in his logic. Buddhist, Hindu, Muslims, and even atheists us thier own theories and concepts to address life problems. Charles B. was trying to answer Eric Howe’s quesiton from his base of understanding.
Should we say your logic is “circular” when you use quatum theory consistently, as you have done several times to address issues and questions? No. You are consistent also.
KK
Kelly K:
Thank you for pointing that out to me. Yes you are right, I do use Science as my logic. So then I am consistent in my viewpoints also.
But you did scare me, I thought you were going to say I used circular logic until I read further.
What I meant by circular logic, for religion, there is no new avenues for them to discuss, they have no recourse except what is written in the Bible which is static, unchanging. so they go around and around. They cannot offer anything new that people have not heard before.
Regards. :D
Achems Razor: Ok. Understood. You always seem to be consistently logical but not “unemotional” which mirrors how I like to view myself.
Charles B. and others like him are trying to “play ball” outside of their main experience in life. You can’t blame them for using the old “stand by” as they don’t feel it is old or outdated, but cherrished. Something new is not “new,” but a threat.
Like anyone, take the truth where you find it, but not the rest if it doesn’t help you. I heard a philosopher say, “In some way, every man is my teacher”. He’s trying very hard to give life questions outside the “box” of his religion I think while still being consistent in his own right. He is persistent, isn’t he?
KK
Kelly K:
Yes Charles B. is persistent, which is good. All us Atheist’s and other Religions got to him once. But I told him not to throw in the towel.
because he, one man alone was holding his own, against all of us. So yes, I do have respect for Charles.
Thanks Kelly K. and Mr. Razor. Sorta.
I do get passionate, don’t I?
I don’t know what “new thing” would qualify for an effective argument, to be honest. I really do believe that there is a God and He inspired the Bible and therefore it litterally has an anwer for everything if you look for it.
At least the Bible or Torah or the Quran can be referred to by all as a “standard”. Something “new” like Mr. Razor wants just doesn’t seem possible as an “athoritative” text unless he’s thinking of a new scientific discovery, say a big rock uncovered in New Jersey that says, “God was here and you were not! Ha! Ha! P.S. I, God, wrote this 4.5359305020 billion years in advance before the day it will be discovered New what you will call “New Jersey” on October 8th 2011! Do you like my big rock that I just made? Check for Plotonium halos, please!”
I’m totally joking, by the way, but wouldn’t that be a nice big rock to find? I could see the New York Times headlines now: “God’s Graffitti Found in NJ Farmer’s Field! Hoax Suspected.” ;-)
Please stop believing in Me! That was useful when you were all savages – you don’t need it anymore! You can now start thinking by yourselves!
@God, you forgot to include this clarification of your rules:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28151
Thanks God, but now we know all know you are real! So what is the right religion? Is it like you said on South Park – The Mormons?
The scientist was right in the documentary, science is objective and religion is subjective. Therefore, in the public spheres we will go with what we know to be true and observable; for example that the earth is very old as exemplified by the grand canyon, and in the private sphere you can guide your life by your own personal subjective beliefs, aka your chosen religion or unchosen religion. Everyone, can admit that some things are left to be explained, for example on the Global Calgary News recently they showed footage of a tranparent entity crossing a room that was captured by the security cameras. Something that is not supposed to happen by Christian views or by the views of atheists. The search for truth is slowed down by people holding on to the status quo like a child holds on to their blanky when mom figures it is time for them to give it up and grow up. Whether there is a creator or not people can still choose to be kind, good, and moral. And by the way, the bible has no answers for the presence of Dinosaurs on the earth but I think we have proven without a shadow of a doubt that they existed and anthropologists have still to find the missing link if there is one.
Just an observation… with these types of documentaries, it’s always hard to find an actual review of the documentary and not just personal opinions on the matter or heated debate. I love the site though, I haven’t watched one I didn’t enjoy yet.
Most people look at what they want to see, subconsciously they are always thinking of what they want to see. There is much that happens in our environment which we fail to notice, although minute, but significant. Now in order to be better en lighted we need good observational skills which will help us look at thinks that we fail to see. Science provides us with such a skill, not the bible,qoran, torah, geeta….etc. So please get rid of all these books and lets embark on a journey of enlightenment.
I’ve read all the posts above, and I would have something to say…
First, I don’t think that religion is about control of the masses and manipulation. The vast majority of religious people have no connection with authority, and they have no reason to impose religion based on that. Also, a great deal of clergymen really believe what they teach. It’s not that they want to manipulate the public. No one is as indoctrinated as the one who indoctrinates…
Then, the Bible DID suffer changes along the history, contrary to what the Church claims. Even the fact that languages to which is translated are so different yelds many different interpretations. I often find myself laughing at the minister when he preaches intimate meanings of what Jesus said here and there, because I know those meanings are absolutely nonsense in English for example.
To what Charles B said, “god of the gaps” means that less and less things are explained by the existence of God. Thousands of years ago the occurence of pregnacies were explained as miracles, the lightnings, the rain, the floods, plants growing, the Sun setting and then rising again in the morning, everything was explained by “the works of God”. Nowadays we understand many of these things as natural fenomena.
As for the metaphores in the Bible, who decides what is metaphore and what is literally true? Along the history, less and less things were held as biblical FACTS. One can only wonder, is ANY of the things described in the Bible true? A thing to remember, the Bible was written in the Bronze Age. By people with limited knowledge. An all knowing God would have given a more interesting and more understandable message, that could reach ALL the humans. And by the way, God showing in the clouds, waving to people and shouting here and there would make, I think, a more compelling evidence that he exists.
I can’t believe that in this day and age that something like intelligent design would even be considered part of any learning curriculum.
With all the available information, to grasp onto bronze age myths and legends is just bizarre.
Charles B,
I think that your argument that we should “trust” first and then understand is a horrible one because it begs the question. In other words it sets out to prove what it already assumes, or that It assumes that something is true in the first place without leaving room for error, and understanding becomes extremely restricted. Something should be accepted because it is justified with good explanations and evidence,but if a body of knowledge has no justification of that sort then we do not have to accept it. The faith you present is precisely what people are criticizing because its subversive to scientific epistemology that has proven itself to work and improve.
They don’t understand natural SELECTION. It’s not blind chance like a deck of cards. It’s a step process that builds upon itself.
These people don’t understand the actual scientific theory of evolution. People who believe this tripe are ignorant and want to believe in magical faeries to do everything, which is simply ignorance.
What the –?? This is ******!!!!! They don’t understand natural SELECTION. It’s not blind chance like a deck of cards. It’s a step process that builds upon itself.
These people don’t understand the actual scientific theory of evolution. People who believe this tripe are ignorant and want to believe in magical faeries to do everything.
God. Is. Imaginary. Deal with it.
what is to say magical fairies do not exist?? I mean as far as any logical person should be concerned the idea of a magical fairy and the idea of evolution are only that, IDEAS. None has been proven as a clear cut fact, and none has been disproven either. Evolution is appealing makes sense, is nice and logical but dispite how awesome it looks on paper and the legions of fossils that have been collected it will never become scientific 100% fact like I dont know, the speed of light??
Why? Because science is all about experimentation and as they havent or cannot devise any experiment to test evolution then it will always be classified as just theory and nuthing more. I suppose the only reason people cling to it despite the possibility of it being one-day proven wrong is that it belongs to the family of science. Better believe in an outragious theory under the umbrella of science than I dont know another under the umbrella of religion or spirituality… I suppose its to do with the age we live in.
It all comes down to credibility. Science is more credible nowadays so people believe in it as opposed to any other discipline. If we were to assume it were a person, it is not to say that all that comes out of its mouth is the truth and nothing but the truth just because it got acouple of things right in the past and has overthrown the old-master its brother, religion.
An example of scientific theory that in the past actually went out of paper and into public policy was the whole thing to do with sterilizing so called genetic inferior ppl to stop them breeding and thus spreading there bad genes that I believe was used in america in th early 20th century – the idea is simple looks good on paper but I think we can all agree it wasnt right whatsoever, not only morally but scientifically aswell as you know I dont see no genetically superior peeps walking about that arose from that piece of social experiment. My point being this are some of the dangers when this soo called theorys are believed so strongly that they become public policy due to public support and its opposition which in this case are creationists and other ppl with alternative ideas are rediculed and laughed at as being ignorant and irrational.
@ Luke Wilson – Im not sure if i agree with you on this… but ill state how I feel and you let me know if its the same.
The use of “science” to perpetuate your belief is an abomination to science.
Science inst a belief structure its an evidence structure. No matter how much you believe it without evidence it is not science. With evidence, even if you dont believe it, it is science.
If for some weird reason over the next 300 years people found millions of fossils of faeries on the moon… even thought I might not “believe it” I would have to accept the evidence.
Religion brings death. It’s relationship with Jesus that brings life. The godly aren’t afraid of the theory of evolution, it’s just that when you have been set free from the law of sin and death, you don’t need any theories to go by. I would be kind of like a woman that looked, dressed, smelled, talked, and acted like … See Moreyour wife coming into your home and trying to convince you she was your real wife. Once you took just a moment to look into her eyes or get close to her, you would know she was an imposter and would have no desire to be with her. That doesn’t denote fear, just that you know the truth.
We should dismiss religion’s function so readily, it is first and foremost, the peacekeeper of the masses.
God, and everything that comes with him/it, served a purpose, He stands for ultimate justice. If it were not for the intricate circular logic manifested in his word (the bible) societies would not have formed. Without heaven or hell, the everyman’s right and wrong, there would be no consequence to bad behaviour. Woman would be raped, goods would be stolen, there would be no security and everybody would be free to do as he please.
Right and wrong are man-made concepts, as I believe religion and God are. The christian way of life provided a pillar for culture and society to form. I’d argue that it doesn’t have a place in current day society as we have laws of our own at this point, but it just goes to show it’s effectiveness. A non-believer can only be humbled by it’s effectiveness to make man into basically a docile creature, adopting morals and codes of conduct that are fairly outdated, to say the least.
Even though I can’t stand the ignorance the bible instills into children due to indoctrination by simpleton parents, it has brought structure to an otherwise instable (early) human mind. While i’d implore religious folk to teach no religion until the child as a defined personality and the frame of reference to actually reason for himself, I know this question would fall on deaf ears.
I believe religion to be a crutch for the gullible and easily manipulated, and we’d need to reintroduce natural selection in humans to rid ourselves of it.. Well, i’m guessing come 2029 (the predicted quantum revolution) will kick some shins as well, but to rid us of religion and bestow enlightened reasoning globally, it will need some seriously jaw-dropping material.
I personally can’t wait.
there was right and wrong and morals and order before any judging god thing that promised a nice afterlife if we did as he says.
i completely agree religion has been benefical for the evolution of our societies however i wouldnt give it the credence you seem to.
remember the monotheistic god concept is relatively new. most gods before didnt concern themselves with human trials and tribulations…they had their own to deal with.
but like i said i do agree to a degree.
i suggest taking a look at this for a starting point to research into this idea of yours, as there has been lots of exciting work in this area.
en . wikipedia . org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion
I disagree with the existance of right and wrong before religion manifested due to the following reason:
Morals are judgements of behaviour that are passed on by parents/child rearers. There is no reasoning to morals as they are instilled in a child too young to base his own judgement seeing as there is no frame of reference at that point. Morals are thus irrational (from the child’s pov) in the scope of human behaviour yet are beneficial to societal structure.
Religion brought a sustem of unified moral codes to be subjugated on every new-born, effectively making it a self-sustaining system. God, as we know him now, wasn’t the first and certainly not the only god to force a lifestyle onto humans, but at any rate, he who created religion, created morals. Morals are not exclusive to monotheistic Gods (lol, plural paradox)
Whether or not they cared for human trials and tribulations, humans formed certain elements of their lifestyle to please them.
You overestimate the credence I mean to bestow on god/religion, although it’s apparant from my comment as to why. I’m late for an appointment and I hate breaking off mid-ramble but we’ll pick this up later.
stay tuned.
Religion is good business, they don’t pay tax, they have no products to sell, and they have a lot of money… maybe I’am in the wrong profession. maybe I should try priesthood
the 2 reason of death in all of man history is war (2nd only to mosquito bite) and the main reason of war is religion.. your seeing it now in the middle east and part of african..
the word that kill most are infidel(extremely racist prejudice) and in godname(use for charge and battlecry)
the #1 enemy of science is religion.. cause their ideas is completely opposite.. religion is 1st unchanging and if there in power they will force all to be unchanging.2nd blind believe. while science is 1st for constant change, improvement, and revolution. 2nd scientist should prove themself first..
so maybe god is right were already civilist we should stop relaying on him were no longer savage
I would rather believe Charles Darwin who wrote his own book based on what he observed, and on experiments people conducted. Darwin never said that he had all the answers.
Instead of believing a book that was not even written by God, or Jesus. in a time when there were lots of Gospels being written besides the 4 main ones that make up the Bible.
Why should everyone have to believe in the Bible, i thought we all had free choice.
Wars have never been fought over evolution unlike every war that was fought over religion.
Billions of people have died over the Bible, even though it say’s thou shalt not kill…
I myself am a Agnostic and i believe in what i can see with my own eyes. that i know will be the only truth.
Constantine Francis Chassebeuf De Volney, published in 1793 “The French Citizen’s Catechism”. In 1797 a translation by Mr. Volney into English was accomplished. Under the title “The Ruins of Empires” on page 145, hints of “Intelligent Design” flow from the eighth system of his chapter on ‘Origin and Filiation of Religious Ideas’. “…They pretended that this universe, these heavens, these stars, this sun, differed in no respect from an ordinary machine; and applying to this first hypothesis a comparison drawn from the works of art, they raised an edifice of the most whimsical sophisms. A machine, said they, does not make itself; it has had an anterior workman; its very existence proves it. The world is a machine; therefore it had an artificer (maker or designer).
In his publication, on page 146, the word ‘intelligence’ is ascribed to the Great Artificer; the plan pre-existent in the understanding as the ‘logos’(the second grade of divinity). Finally, the ‘spirit’ completed the divinity of the Artificer.
Volney wrote, “And here, Christians! is the romance on which you have founded your trinity; here is the system which, born a heretic in the temples of Egypt, transported a pagan into the schools of Greece and Italy, is now found to be good, catholic, and orthodox, by the conversion of its partisans, the disciples of Pythagoras and Plato, to Christianity.”
In his book, Mr. Volney addresses leaders from diverse religious backgrounds. A brief history of their origins as they all stemmed from religious ideas developed by Africans. That the world today, should continue to be locked and bound by the evolution of ideologies; first expressed artistically in rock art that can be found at Game Pass Shelter, is astounding! That the root of beliefs, morphed into so many diverse religions, continues to hold sway over the descendants of humans who recorded their ideas around 27,000 B.C.
Volney stated, in his description of Ethiopia, and the ruins of Thebes “There a people, now forgotten, discovered, while others were yet barbarians, the elements of the arts and sciences. A race of men, now rejected from society for their sable skin and frizzled hair, founded on the study of the laws of nature, those civil and religious systems which still govern the universe.”
By all accounts, they still do and will do so for a long time to come. It is a lot like the DNA evidence that resides in all humans: it’s there forever!
Well I believe in evolution but in opposite direction ;)
e.g Monkeys are d-evolutionary product of Humans who lost their true path just like Darwin.
Not a bad vid on the issue, but as a popular treatment, always going to leave out much.
Sorry the US science teacher had to lose his job, but pity no mention was made of the worse case of Rupert Sheldrake. He was a respected figure until he challenged darwinian orthodoxy. He was blackballed from research institutes & funding for 25 years – by the darwinian Establishment. It is dogmatically intransigent where dissenters are concerned.
Sadly, darwinians such as R Dawkins commonly accuse the opposition of ‘ignorance’. Yet this same man has yet to realise that Darwinism is a materialist theory. So, he feels free to theorise about ‘memes’ – immaterial ideas that evolve. He is too ignorant of basic philosophy to distinguish materialism from idealism.
Re the role of chance in natural selection, Miller committed a gaffe. If the present order of the universe were truly a haphazard result of chance events, any & every alternative shape of things would be explicable in the same terms. Fine, but that is a profoundly unscientific assumption, which boils down crudely to, “Grit happens”.
Science assumes & seeks the order of the universe. An outlook that dismisses this, ends as an unscientific & charlatan means of explaining all by denying any coherence. OGT
hehehe I still get a kick out of this They keep calling evolution a theory when its been proven over and over life is no more then basic chemistry amino acids Bond all by them selves all the time and the line between the organic and inorganic is very thin its only the simple minded people that cant hold this in their heads
I think you mean ‘natural selection’ – Darwin’s evolution theory? Other forms of evolution theory have been around for hundreds of years.
It has been ‘proven’ that DNA is not just chemicals (see Perry Marshall website, or Harold Bloom’s). It embodies coded information, which has to be decoded to form an embryo. This implies that some form of intelligence exists in matter, which scuppers Darwinian materialism.
By Darwin’s 19C definition, matter is dumb, inanimate & lacks motility. Breach that fundamental, & you have no coherent way to distinguish life-forms from ‘stuff’.
This is a matter of logic, not theology. OGT
IF your religious view requires you to reject science then so be it. Just clench your teeth in biology class, ace the tests by spitting back what the teacher wants to hear, pass the course and move on. If you are an IDer or creationist, you certainly won’t have a career in science anyways, so it doesn’t really matter.
I’m taking an intro cultural anthropology class right now and the prof is laying his left-wing view of society on pretty thick. The course makes me think, gives me a couple new angles to look at society, and in the end I still think he’s living in a hippie dream world. So what? I don’t get pissed, I have no burning desire to petition to change the course content… I learn what he wants to hear, take notes on it, and ace the tests by repeating it back to him. In the end, I’ll still be a libertarian plus I’ll be 3 credit hours closer to graduation.
What gets me is where you guys come up with the guts to try to weasel your pseudoscience into public classrooms. Your opinions are BLATANTLY based SOLELY on a very narrow minority religious opinion… WTF guys!? How can you possibly think that’s kosher? If you feel that strongly about it, send little Johnny or Sally to a private Christian school, or better yet, home school them like all the REAL hardcore fundamentalists do. Don’t try to make ALL of us scientifically illiterate.
Creatio-whaa!?
you seem to be a krazy, mixed-up, right-wing kid who wants to get some issues off his chest. It must be tough being a conservative in a college where all the cats have long hair & wear flared trousers. There is you in a three-piece suite holding a Right to Life banner, as they gaily dance the night away to jass music.
Never you mind. Hang on, son. In a few more months, you will either go into daddy’s Wall Street business, or get a commission & participate in the Israeli invasion of Iran.
Fear nothing of Armageddon. You’ll get a bit of Rapture, then spend eternity with the angels, dropping napalm on all those dirty, pinko, liberal, hippie rascals in Hell. Hahaha, you’ll have the last laugh, son.
Also, don’t worry about that atheistic Darwin stuff. Avoid loose females, keep reading the Good Book, & vote Republican. I’m sending you a Pat Boone LP. Enjoy! Auntie Nelly
Old Git Tom, still insane as ever…
Have you been diagnosed? Are you muttering and scratching yourself on the streets and walk into libraries to post your random insanity?
I kid you, Tom! I kid because I love…
But, I’m serious, you are a whacko…
@Chief
Hello! I do not mean to gush, but your post was incredible! I read and re-read it and copied it to read offline.
If you do not mind.
Thank you, very much, for that post!
Have you read James Henrick Clark? He really openned my eyes about world history, although he has been marginalized by many of my professors…
There is a documentary based on his thesis, “The Long and Mighty Walk” narrated by Wesley Snipes, it is a powerful piece of work.
Maybe Vlatko can look it up? I think you would like it.
He said, “The history of Africa… The missing pages of World History…”
(Paraphrased)
Randy,
if sanity is encouraging Israel to start a nuclear war with Iran, I’m crazy as a coot, no two ways.
Word on the street is, Iran bought old nuclear rockets from the Ukrainian mafia years ago. Israel just wants to provoke the ragheads into using them, then they can let rip big time, screaming blue murder about defending eretz Israel.
Hey, but I’m just a whacko. What’s the sane word from Yankee Diddle Land? The world of psychology awaits with baited breath. OGT
Randy,
if you are into history, download ‘Tragedy & Hope A History of the World in Our Time’ by Carroll Quigley. OGT