Campaign for veto of Bill on creationism in Tennessee

[carmonk]

NinjaPower said:

Jimbeaux said:

I find it amusing that folks way over on Treasure Island get worked up over a proposed legislative bill in one of 50 states.

I think people get worked up because they (quite rightly) believe this to be the 'thin end of the wedge' and the worlds only (very well armed) superpower will end up ruled and occupied by complete mentalists who dismiss basic science as 'sorcery and witchcraft'

Looks like some of your own intelligent, well spoken, celebrity residents are also completely staggered at the thought of mental religious types with their fingers on the nuclear trigger running the country:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qy0Dldv7AOI&fea...

Matt Damon has talked st in the past but he's bang on there.

[anonymous-user]

carmonk said:

Matt Damon has talked st in the past but he's bang on there.

Yep.

You can see in his face that he is genuinely terrified and upset that a country as advanced and civilised can even consider people like Palin and similar for extremely important roles.

Staggering.

[julian64]

I find the upsetting thing about watching that video, is the way the pro darwin people manage to tip the balance and pat themselves on the back for proving Darwin.

Only they didn't prove Darwin. The bit of the case that tipped the balance was them being able to prove that inteligent design was creationalism re-badged, and that had been rejected by the supreme court.

So in effect Darwin didn't win the day with the power of science. The lawyers won the day with a technicality linking it to a previous religious theory.

I came away having watched that trying to work out why the lawyers, or indeed anyone else thinks that is any sort of victory. It merely highlights the fact that there are some very very dumb people in the states

[TheHeretic]

julian64 said:

I find the upsetting thing about watching that video, is the way the pro darwin people manage to tip the balance and pat themselves on the back for proving Darwin.

Only they didn't prove Darwin. The bit of the case that tipped the balance was them being able to prove that inteligent design was creationalism re-badged, and that had been rejected by the supreme court.

So in effect Darwin didn't win the day with the power of science. The lawyers won the day with a technicality linking it to a previous religious theory.

I came away having watched that trying to work out why the lawyers, or indeed anyone else thinks that is any sort of victory. It merely highlights the fact that there are some very very dumb people in the states

Are you sure you understand the issues here?

[cymtriks]

Plenty of people believe in creation all over the world, even in the UK.

It isn't just confined to the US!

The main problem with creationism is not the Bible, it is how the bible has been interpreted. Interpreted their way it conflicts utterly with the mainstrean science theory. However there is no reason to suppose that the current creationist view was ever intended by the original authors of the Bible.

Take Adam and Eve being the first people, totally at odds with mainstream science but completely compatable with a tribal history in which context the "first people" would be the tribal founders.

[TheHeretic]

cymtriks said:

Plenty of people believe in creation all over the world, even in the UK.

It isn't just confined to the US!

The main problem with creationism is not the Bible, it is how the bible has been interpreted. Interpreted their way it conflicts utterly with the mainstrean science theory. However there is no reason to suppose that the current creationist view was ever intended by the original authors of the Bible.

Take Adam and Eve being the first people, totally at odds with mainstream science but completely compatable with a tribal history in which context the "first people" would be the tribal founders.

Yeah, you've done that, (in fact, it seems to be the only thing you seem to talk about on these threads). We get the tribal thing. I don't think anyone needs convincing of these sorts of things. If the bible was simply considered to be the exaggerated ramblings of people many moons ago, 'bigging up' their own tribe, and so on, then we wouldn't have this situation. However, we don't.

The interpretation of the bible is, as you say, important. That is what young earth creation, and ceprearionism/intelligent design is all about the bible being inerrant. Herein lies the problem. I'm afraid it is a case of the stupid vs everyone else.

[Jimbeaux]

cymtriks said:

The main problem with creationism is not the Bible, it is how the bible has been interpreted.

This^^

[TheHeretic]

Jimbeaux said:

cymtriks said:

The main problem with creationism is not the Bible, it is how the bible has been interpreted.

This^^

I don't think anyone has said otherwise, have they?

[Jimbeaux]

TheHeretic said:

Jimbeaux said:

cymtriks said:

The main problem with creationism is not the Bible, it is how the bible has been interpreted.

This^^

I don't think anyone has said otherwise, have they?

Not sure; I know I did not imply that anyone has.

[matchmaker]

voyds9 said:

I bet they can't even agree which particular god created us all.

Dave Allan said:

May your God go with you - whoever he is

[dudleybloke]

But if gods real then it should be called gmgw.
climate taxes should be leveyed against churches and not motorists.

[Derek Smith]

Jimbeaux said:

TheHeretic said:

Jimbeaux said:

cymtriks said:

The main problem with creationism is not the Bible, it is how the bible has been interpreted.

This^^

I don't think anyone has said otherwise, have they?

Not sure; I know I did not imply that anyone has.

It is not a matter of interpretation. It is a matter of faith. If you want to prove you believe then it is easy to do so. All you have to suggest is that you believe that the world if 100 years old, or that the bit of crap biscuit is really someone's body and that Mary was a virgin. You 'prove' your faith because you don't mind looking like a complete idiot because you believe.

So much easier than doing something difficult, like getting burned at the stake for heresy.

It is group dynamics. You suggest that Liverpool is the best team in the world despite ample evidence to the contrary being available to everyone. But if you suggest that Bellamy is, perhaps, a little past his best then you are shown not to be a real supporter.

So you have to say that humans and T-rex gambolled together in the sand and the human returned and swept over his footprints to test the belief of the great and the good.

Jews were told they were the chosen people. This was implicit in the christian belief (no one goes unto the father but by me). And so with all other religions. you are better than the previous one and then you are better than the one which comes after you.

It is not just the case of misinterpretation but of deliberate manufacture of impossible tests of belief.

I was told that the life expectancy of noah and that lot was around 900 years (or so). When I asked about the 3 score years and 10 I was told that applied 'later'. That stuck in my mind for 10years or so until I answered it myself.

It's a funny old thing, this religion lark.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

If you teach creationism, how do you decide which creation story to teach. There are thousands of them, from all over the world. There's a part of Nigeria where they believe the Earth is the excrement of a giant ant. And why not, it's no more or less ludicrous than the christian/judeo 6 day/spare rib creationist story.

And if you feel you have to teach creationism to give the other viewpoint in biology lessons, then you have to teach holocaust denial in modern history lessons, and witch doctoring in medical school. And if some potty parent believes 2+2+5, then that needs to be offered up too, as an alternative viewpoint, in the interests of balance.

Bonkers....absolutely bonkers.

[TheHeretic]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

If you teach creationism, how do you decide which creation story to teach. There are thousands of them, from all over the world. There's a part of Nigeria where they believe the Earth is the excrement of a giant ant. And why not, it's no more or less ludicrous than the christian/judeo 6 day/spare rib creationist story.

And if you feel you have to teach creationism to give the other viewpoint in biology lessons, then you have to teach holocaust denial in modern history lessons, and witch doctoring in medical school. And if some potty parent believes 2+2+5, then that needs to be offered up too, as an alternative viewpoint, in the interests of balance.

Bonkers....absolutely bonkers.

And lo, this is where the flying spaghetti monster was spawned from.

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

Edited by TheHeretic on Tuesday 10th April 21:18

[Jimbeaux]

Derek Smith said:

Jimbeaux said:

TheHeretic said:

Jimbeaux said:

cymtriks said:

The main problem with creationism is not the Bible, it is how the bible has been interpreted.

This^^

I don't think anyone has said otherwise, have they?

Not sure; I know I did not imply that anyone has.

It is not a matter of interpretation. It is a matter of faith. If you want to prove you believe then it is easy to do so. All you have to suggest is that you believe that the world if 100 years old, or that the bit of crap biscuit is really someone's body and that Mary was a virgin. You 'prove' your faith because you don't mind looking like a complete idiot because you believe.

So much easier than doing something difficult, like getting burned at the stake for heresy.

It is group dynamics. You suggest that Liverpool is the best team in the world despite ample evidence to the contrary being available to everyone. But if you suggest that Bellamy is, perhaps, a little past his best then you are shown not to be a real supporter.

So you have to say that humans and T-rex gambolled together in the sand and the human returned and swept over his footprints to test the belief of the great and the good.

Jews were told they were the chosen people. This was implicit in the christian belief (no one goes unto the father but by me). And so with all other religions. you are better than the previous one and then you are better than the one which comes after you.

It is not just the case of misinterpretation but of deliberate manufacture of impossible tests of belief.

I was told that the life expectancy of noah and that lot was around 900 years (or so). When I asked about the 3 score years and 10 I was told that applied 'later'. That stuck in my mind for 10years or so until I answered it myself.

It's a funny old thing, this religion lark.

OK.

[dudleybloke]

I like the fact that Christians choose to conveniently forget the 5 or 6 other "prophets" around before christ who where apparently products of immaculate conception and virgin birth, who where all carpenters before getting visited by god.

[TheHeretic]

dudleybloke said:

I like the fact that Christians choose to conveniently forget the 5 or 6 other "prophets" around before christ who where apparently products of immaculate conception and virgin birth, who where all carpenters before getting visited by god.

We had a carpenter visit the boat. I don't think he was the son of God. He was a son of a 'something else'.

[julian64]

TheHeretic said:

julian64 said:

I find the upsetting thing about watching that video, is the way the pro darwin people manage to tip the balance and pat themselves on the back for proving Darwin.

Only they didn't prove Darwin. The bit of the case that tipped the balance was them being able to prove that inteligent design was creationalism re-badged, and that had been rejected by the supreme court.

So in effect Darwin didn't win the day with the power of science. The lawyers won the day with a technicality linking it to a previous religious theory.

I came away having watched that trying to work out why the lawyers, or indeed anyone else thinks that is any sort of victory. It merely highlights the fact that there are some very very dumb people in the states

Are you sure you understand the issues here?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you to read it with your OTHER hat on .

[TheHeretic]

K

julian64 said:

TheHeretic said:

julian64 said:

I find the upsetting thing about watching that video, is the way the pro darwin people manage to tip the balance and pat themselves on the back for proving Darwin.

Only they didn't prove Darwin. The bit of the case that tipped the balance was them being able to prove that inteligent design was creationalism re-badged, and that had been rejected by the supreme court.

So in effect Darwin didn't win the day with the power of science. The lawyers won the day with a technicality linking it to a previous religious theory.

I came away having watched that trying to work out why the lawyers, or indeed anyone else thinks that is any sort of victory. It merely highlights the fact that there are some very very dumb people in the states

Are you sure you understand the issues here?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you to read it with your OTHER hat on .

I have several hats, however, I've tried them all, and I still ask the same question. The court case was never about proving Darwin, nor was proving Darwin part of the program. What it was about was proving that intelligent design was a religious doctrine, and in-scientific, therefore should not be in the science classroom. Which bit of the film are you talking about with regards to patting themselves on the back?

[hairykrishna]

julian64 said:

I find the upsetting thing about watching that video, is the way the pro darwin people manage to tip the balance and pat themselves on the back for proving Darwin.

Only they didn't prove Darwin. The bit of the case that tipped the balance was them being able to prove that inteligent design was creationalism re-badged, and that had been rejected by the supreme court.

So in effect Darwin didn't win the day with the power of science. The lawyers won the day with a technicality linking it to a previous religious theory.

I came away having watched that trying to work out why the lawyers, or indeed anyone else thinks that is any sort of victory. It merely highlights the fact that there are some very very dumb people in the states

Did you watch the same video? The big issue is not if Darwinian evolution is 'correct' or not. It's that creationism is religion, not a scientific theory. I doubt the 'pro darwin' people would have any objection if it was a rival scientific theory being taught - that's one of the big differences between science and religion; conflicting views and debate are allowed in science.