Present: 1 ; Medieval: 0

[Skybird]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4545822.stm

I especially liked: "It provoked US TV evangelist Pat Robertson to warn the town was invoking the wrath of God." Might be a show worth the money, so let him come.

I do not say that Darwin necessarily was right, his theory holds contradictions concerning body hair (or the lack of it), sweating, eye fluids and ratios between muscle and fat tissues that it cannot explain without a lot of complicated manouvering. There are other scientific evolution theories as well, most of them even weaker than Darwin's. But the so-called "water-ape-theory" by Sir Allistair Harding (I hope I remember his name correctly) for example has some charms and explains special details of human that differ them from apes that darwin cannot explain very elegantly.

But all seems to be better than making religiously motivated belief in superstition and the intellectual horizon of the Dark Age the education-program of public schools. Even the theory of aliens visiting earth and planting intelligent life to create a race of willing sex slaves has a far higher degree of reason than creationism, I say.

for that judge!

[Hitman]

The separation of church and state is enshrined in the US constitution, they say.

Yeah, that's probably why all their dollar notes have the legend "In God we trust" :rotfl:

It provoked US TV evangelist Pat Robertson to warn the town was invoking the wrath of God

It is a good relief to know that drilling for oil in Alaska, emitting massive CO2 gases, making several hundreds of species created by God dissapear each year and killing other humans with death penalty is not relevant to God, and He instead gets angry because of teaching a certain theory about biological evolution at school as being right.

really I could laugh my butt off when I consider that the Bible has way less fundaments to proof what it says than Darwin to proof his theory. If that evangelist had to proof the truth of the bible in the same degree as he demands the others to proof Darwin's theory, he would be really in dire straits.

[Konovalov]

This is all part of the "Culture War" in Bill O'Reilly's view. Then there is the "War on Christmas", and the "War on.....", yadda yadda yadda.

Interesting title to your thread by the way. Are you saying that Evangelicals such as Pat Robertson or anyone else for that matter who believes in a higher power being responsible for creation is "medieval"?

Has anyone been here? http://www.dinosauradventureland.com...ntent=home.php or check out a fellow Australian citizen over in America Ken Ham. Link in below post.

[TteFAboB]

Hitman, is it so difficult to live with the different?

Biology class teach Darwin and whatever else.

Religion class teach creationism, intelligent design or whatever else.

It's that simple, religion has no room in a biology class and vice-versa, if religion is not taught in public schools, then creationism or whatever else have no room in public schools unless the law is changed.

Konovalov went straight to the point when he mentions it is all a political debate.

It is too bad Pat Robertson is a bluff, I had high hopes for him when he said Hugo Chavez should be assassinated, but then he never presented any plan, any idea, never went ahead with it, if he really wanted to assassinate Hugo Chavez I would certainly start donating weekly to his church.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Konovalov

Then there is the "War on Christmas"...

I suggest everyone wish people a "Merry feast of Saturnalia" or "Io, Saturnalia!" (pronounced 'Yo Saturnalia') and really pi$$ off the people who say this Happy Holidays/Seasons Greetings stuff is taking over and that Christmas should be the focus.





Incase you didn't know the Feast of Saturnalia is the Roman festival 4th century Christians took over and changed to Christmas.

[Skybird]

@ Konovalov,

Taking the pictures, allegories and parables in, for example, the bible as true, word by word, is representative for a far less developed and/or educated mind, that reflected the state of human mental and cultural evolution in earlier times that had far lesser knowledge and thus lower degrees of ratio, understanding and intellectual capabilities. Before that even natural phenomenons like blizzards, storms, sun darkenings, were brought into conjunction with gods causing this phenomenon. Man does not bear to live in a world without security, where the future is uncertain and it'S forming cannot be explained or understood, and cannot be controlled, so he artifically creates a system of explanations. More developed civilizations referred to a monotheistic God, and today the West believes science can and will explain everything - but science that is restricted to it's current dogmas only, is a religion as well. In so far you are right. I think indeed that certain people still live with their body in the present, but their heads and hearts stuck in the medieval. I do not believe in mircale and wonder. But I know that sometimes our knowledge simply is not good enough to understand a phenomenon. Then we ignore it (like f.e. UFOs, at least that's what I do after having red a lot about UFOs), or we call it miracle, or link it to a higher beeing - for whose existence we do not have the smallest hint or proof, only man-made myths and man-told stories. Certain sects in the Gnostic tradition for example refuse to accept that Jesus got killed, they say instead another man was crucified, while he escaped execution and lived the rest of his life in the hidden. As you know Islam is saying something similar about Jesus, calling Christians liars when they accuse the Jews of having murdered him. What does any belief help in this? Nothing. We do not know, and never will know for sure. If we would have been there and seen with our own eyes, than we would know - and wouldn'T be in need to replace lacking knowledge with believing anything, something, no matter what. Some days I believe the sky is green and the grass is blue. On others I am quite sure it is the different way around... and occasionally I sit down and read a book about neurological and chemical processes in the eye, brain and nervous system - and understand that all my former beliefs about colours have nothing to do with how eye and brain really process the impact of photons on the retina. The human eye does not produce a sharp image on the retina, it is a very unfocussed, blurred image instead, like people see with around 5 or 6 missing dioptrines and no glasses to correct that. The "sharp" reality we think we perceive is an artificial creation only, created inside our brain. We have not the smallest evidence that the reality out there really is what we see, hear, taste. we create our realities inside our heads. and that includes our beliefs in gods and supernatural entities as well. When we see or hear something - this is only a proof that eye, nerves and brain are working like intended. It is no evidence for any kind of reality beeing of that kind as what we perceive it. a physic may tell you here that 99.99999...% of what you see - is empty space in fact, and the rest of it is no hard matter, but an abstract tendency to exist, or to exist not.

Now, this is the real wonder of life, isn't it...?

The wonder of evolution that keeps the motor spinning is that every new answers nevertheless creates new questions and increases our awareness how little we do know in fact . the iniverse is awareness, is mind, and it wants to play with itself and understand itself. And that way of viewing at it is something I like very much. It points at something that is far too big to be messed up by man's follies on earth. But no chance I ever would declare it a separate entity of superior nature and origin No way to make God and me/you/others two different things.

It's so much easier to explain life to be the responsebility of somebody else. And labelling him/her a God convinces us that he will not fail in meeting that responsebility, making our life sweet and well-protected. And when he/her fails and someone we loved was lost, we ask: "Wha us? What have we done wrong?" My question is another one: "Why not us? Why always the others, only?"

Nietzsche's Zarathustra has declared God a dead body, a corpus that was created by man's willingness to stick to what he calls "small thinking". He does so not for nihilistic reasons, but to make man aware of the "divine" (=great) potential in himself, and that way become a new man, a superman that is beyond that primtive stadium of simply believing in Gods. In German the term is "Ãœbermensch", not "Supermensch". "Ãœber" means "above", or int his context: "beyond". The superman of Nietzsche has nothing to do with supernatural talents or racism. It is directed at religious emancipation of human mind and evolution leading it to higher and higher levels of potential and ability.

If you believe you are small and depend on some God, you always will remain that way and never move beyond your self-declared borders. There will be no growth. Not accepting to do so is taking responesebility and includes the risk of failure or going wrong. but look at sportsmen and competing athletes training for a championship: winners are made by their belief that they could become more than what they have started as years ago. They are driven by the will to grow beyond their initial limitations. Ambition is a two-sided sword, it can lead to far, or not far enough.

Man this forum really has a grip on me... I am also on hollidays, that may explain it

[Skybird]

Science without religion: leads to A-bombs, corruption of knowledge for economical reasons, and such. I fear scientists with no religious feeling, they have no sense of responsebility, no admiration for the beauty the universe is displaying them, and do not care for the purposes their knowledge is used for. This science is a toool of violance.

Science with religion: leads to insight, understanding, finding one's place in world and life, and a more peaceful mind and desire to work for the benefit of all, not the interests of some only. This science is a tool to acchieve mental developement.

Have you noticed how many great scientist were truly believing people? einstein? Heisenberg? And so many others? no matter if theys were about a god or not? I mnean their attitude towards life and universe.

Why people always think that religion necessarily must be around Gods I do not know. To me, Gods and religions are exclusive to each other.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Why people always think that religion necessarily must be around Gods I do not know. To me, Gods and religions are exclusive to each other.

As a favorite musicians of mine said,

We have missiles which can hit an exact target the size of a window from two thousand miles away, but we can't make our transit run on time. Why? Because one of these things does not involve explosions.

Religion without God is like timing without explosions for many people. And people are, by and large, readily suggestible.

There's also irony in that, since that also shows where science goes without compassion.

[Konovalov]

I gave the wrong link to that Australian guy in the USA in my earlier post. Here it is: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/li.../l_081_04.html

Also, this was an interesting series which has just concluded on the Beeb over here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/progra...y_of_god.shtml

[Hitman]

Hitman, is it so difficult to live with the different?

Biology class teach Darwin and whatever else.

Religion class teach creationism, intelligent design or whatever else.

Either I explained myself bad or you misunderstood me

That is exactly what I meant, I want that both biologists and religious are free to teach all visions in their respective areas....what I was critizising is that religion is used to critisize a certain bilogical theory and vice versa. I consider correct that Darwinism is taught just as one more explanation possible (And not the only possible one), but I also demand that this is taught based on biological reasons, not on religious ones! I think there are enough scientific reasons to teach that, without having to rely on religion.

Keep them separated and at the same time open to all sensibilities, that was my message

[Skybird]

I thought the issue was about creationism beeing taught not in religious but biology lessons. And this is what has been the dispute in earlier times when it popped up, too, or not? that it was demanded that creationism should be taught at school, no matter what lesson, but Darwinism should be banned from school, completely. The case this judge just decided may have had it'S specific characteristics, but the problem is far more general. It is about a general clash between science and a religious dogma and the influence they are allowed to project, it is about raising the acceptance for creationism in general and banning opposing views, from science, for example. And it is about turning a religious belief into a pseudo-science that should rival conventional sciences and beat them on their own ground if not by fact and evidence, then by applaus from the public and public acceptance, so that the religious dogma gains dominance that way. The pseudo-scientific books that are puiblished from a perspective of creationism are cloaking themselves as hard science, and that way they gain more acceptance. I consider it both in content and approach to be as dangerous and crippling to our culture as for example Scientology (that in almost all Western and Central Europe is not accepted as a religion). This wider perspectve is what makes this so dangerous. If it were just that single school and creationism beeing aught in religious lesson exclusively, I could say: hey, let them have their small thought for a small world, we must not care for them, it will cause no effects anyway. But it is a far bigger dispute.

Unfortunately this is a problem that has reached Europe and especially the new Easterneuropean coutries as well. It is found in Germany to a low degree, biut it increases, but in parts of Eastern Europe the idea of creationism is described to fall on ripe fields. I mean, the probolem is not exclusively American.

[TteFAboB]

I don't see it as a religion versus science dispute, it's entirely political in my eyes, one spectrum wants to completely exclude and "ban" the other from existence and they feed on their cause.

Unless you live in a small hegemonic principalty or a little village, it's unpractible to teach religion in public schools, the purpose of a school is to prepare the individual for adult life, it is far better to leave religion outside and let the family handle that, adding religion to the public curriculum can have too many disavantages, there are private schools for that, and anywhere a population is unhappy about the lack of religion in the public school, they can organize and set their own classes after school, the effect would be the same.

However, this harmonious acceptable atmosphere is nowhere near the real debate, those who use the creationism flag want Darwin out for good, and the ones who took the other flag want to destroy not creationism, but the religion itself. The public schools were turned into WWI trench warfare, and all soldiers are slowly rotting in their trenches, blind pawns fighting for a lost cause.

[tycho102]

Originally Posted by TteFAboB

The public schools were turned into WWI trench warfare, and all soldiers are slowly rotting in their trenches, blind pawns fighting for a lost cause.

Which is why "home schooling" is beginning to take off, especially in California and northern states. The teachers' unions are vehemently opposed, and have started putting editorials in newspapers, defending the state-run institution.

[XabbaRus]

From my understanding they weren't saying you can't teach intelligent design. They were just saying that is sholdn't be taught in science class as a science, that it should be taught in religious education or philosophy class.

I discussed intelligent design at uni in PHILOSOPHY lectures and tutorials. It is crazy. I do agree that it is political, however my understanding is that it is the evangelical christians who want Darwinism outlawed.

Skybird said it well that Darwinism though it has flaws has supporting evidence better than the argument for intelligent design if you are going to get into the Scientific method of proof.

This is where Darwinism ergo Evolution is science based. A theory that is subject to interrogation and having facts available to support the theory and that can survive interrogation by peers.

Intelligent design hasn't been subjected to or able to undergo the scientific method as it relies on faith. IE it is a philosophical discussion. It is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of god. That is what makes philosophy so much fun to debate.

However in the US the way it has been presented seems that ID was actually a pseudonym for creationism and used as an attempt to get it through the rules.

[donw]

For what its worth...(and I am NOT trying to sway "opinions" one way or the other...This just might be an interesting read for some of you.

http://www.doesgodexist.org/

Something was once told to me, that I have never forgotten...

"When my last day on earth is before me, and the end is in sight, I would much rather have lived a life believing in God, and find out I was wrong....then NOT believing...and be wrong