Evolution vs Creationism, Why are we having this silly debat

Post Reply New Topic

NO. First of all, the creationist crazies are not catholics, they are evangelicals. They exist. They want

Just because you weren't "brainwashed" it does not mean that public schools should teach creationism as science. If only because we would like that separation of church and state thing. And just because you were not brainwashed, it does not mean the groups that want to push creationism in schools do not exist. They exist, and as long as they exist, they deserve bashing.


Public schools already teach evolution.

The problem is with the push to teach creationism in science classes because some Christian fundies really believe they can do it. If the curriculum is bad now, when kids get impaired of their reasoning and get taught that science = religion the US will be much worse.




Among many other things, yes. Denial so is not going to make it false.

It is not something I manufactured, and neither am I the leader of atheists, nor anything close (which is a moot point, since there is no leader, and atheism is not a religion or anything close to it). It is just the shared opinion of many (militant) atheists. And you are right, your opinion would not count in that situation.

Any Christian (and people of any religion really) is just as guilty of detriment as another, whether they're fundamentalist or "peaceful". Just believing in what they do contributes to the decline of humanity, as TheBicyclingGuitarist has already explained well in this thread:


Although, I don't agree with the part in italics, since their strong conviction in fairy tales is damaging to themselves too.


Actually, the whole meaning of being brainwashed (or indoctrinated) is that, when you were too young to make decisions for yourself, they told you what they think is true, and since your teachers were an authority figure, which we are taught to trust, you believed them, and continue to. (It may be that your belief is a product of schizophrenia or another mental disorder that causes magical thinking, but that doesn't appear to be the case with you, and what I described is by far the most common circumstance.

So-called moderate Christians that don't condemn the crazed attempts of their fundamentalist branches to control public schools and public law and thus threatening the separation of church and state are enablers. Until your pope does not call these nuts out (and he should also do something about those Ireland bishops that covered for paedophiles) then we'll be free to bash xtians including you in the attack.

What's really scary is that several of the potential Republican candidates for the next Presidential election are full-blown flaming creationist nutjobs. I fear for the security of our country, and for the human race, and our planet, if someone so out of touch with reality and apparently lacking critical reasoning skills, basic scientific knowledge, (and possibly SANITY) is elected to the highest office of the most powerful nation on earth.

Actually, that's not the scariest thing going on. Even more frightening is that there are so many Americans so misinformed about this subject that such a candidate could conceivably win the election. de Tocqueville allegedly said a people gets what government it deserves (this quotation has various attributions).

I assume you aware that being a Creationist Nut Job is not a criminal act.

ruveyn

To answer your first question "why are we still having this debate?" you would have to ask creationists that because they are the instigators who insist on keeping the debate alive by defyng the evidence for evolution.

What you believe is important if you go public and try to manipulate public policy like change the public school system to teach to "give equal time" to the theory that the moon is made of green cheese because you cult says it is.

On this forum you see athiest pounce on christians all of the time about the existence of god debate. But you rarely see "evolutionists" pounce on creationists without the latter attacking evolution first- in my experience.

Orthodox jews can be as rabibly anti-evolution as any christian fundie but for whatever reason Jews dont pressure the media and the school system to surpress belief in evolution the way christians have in the USA.

Nor has any other non christian religion yet- in the USA.

So athiests dont bash non christians because non christians dont bash them.

I am weird when it comes to this belief.

I think creationists, creation scientists, etc, make good points on some issues, but are mainly crazy conspiracy theorists who thinks the government is out to control the minds of students and turn the world atheist through scientific means and indoctrination

I think evolutionists, natural history scientists, etc, make good points on some issues, but are mainly a group of conforming nitwits who cannot follow their own scientific method if it bit them in the ass, and thinks the creationism community is out to indoctrinate children into believing their religion and taking science out of the classroom and replacing it with religion.

my personal belief on this issue that that we have no definitive answer and should not pretend less than 100 years of technological innovations gave us a ton of rock solid answers. There is very little evidence supporting creationism, there is very little evidence supporting common ancestry, or the big bang, and neither of them can fit into the scientific method.

Take high level physics (weird numbers) out of the equation and every "new theory" nowadays will break down. Science should only deal with touchable, seeable, testable, things. Not guesses, assumptions, and bias.

Lets stick with "real" science. You know, medicine, biology of modern day animals, even archeology using facts and not belief systems.

The origins debate is stupid and completely useless in the long run.

we are going to invent a time machine one day and go back in time to realize that we were DEAD wrong!

But if debating over useless crap makes you happy... than "break a leg"

It doesn't affect you until you hear its being taught to your child.

We ought to stop trying to convince each other to convert to a specific philosophical belief, and let each person have their own belief. There is no convincing anyone that is firmly grounded in a belief of anything other than what they currently believe. What I learned is that it's not my responsibility to convince anyone of anything, it's each persons own responsibility to expand their awareness and to upgrade their philosophies and beliefs. No one can do it for another person, if someone want's to believe mankind was damned because Eve ate an apple, let them. The only thing I don't agree with is how certain religions aggressively impose their beliefs on others to win converts, we see this as a common practice with many Christian sects, but they don't know any better because they were conditioned and prepared for it.

The quality of science education in the USA has nothing to do with the fact that evolution strongly based on, but not restricted by, the studies and works of Charles Darwin, has vastly more evidence than ANY creation myth, be it the Inka myth of Wiraqucha springing from the waters of Lake Titicaca so as to create the sun and then travel the globe teaching the arts of civilization, the Creation and Flood Myth of Sumer, which the Biblical account of the flood is unsurprisingly similar to, by the way, the creation of the world by Pangu in Chinese Mythology or the creation of the world by an elderly blind women emerging from the Earth with two children on her breasts and creating the world as she walked, as told by the Tiwi of the Torres Strait Islands.

Anyone ambivalent to teaching a creation myth, at the expense of others, such as the ones I noted above, in place of what is supported by overwhelming empirical evidence consistent with reality, that is, Darwinian evolution, is not doing bad but rather doing nothing. It is much like the person who does not get vaccinated for fear of Autism, or some other nonsensical reason not related to their actual ability to be vaccinated safely: They are not actively spreading measles or Hepatitis C but they are not doing their part to prevent the society and community that supports them from being impacted by said diseases. And by the way, without understanding the evolution of living things, the green revolution, the human genome project, zoolinguistics and modern medicine, among countless other things, would not exist, not to mention all the institutions and developments that they required.

Ruveyn wrote:

To damn near everyone in this thread and other related threads you would think it is a criminal act punishable by death to have an opposing view on this topic.
These are the same ones that preach (read that as SCREECH) diversity and tolerance.

And what's with all this yammering about teaching creationism in school?? They sure as hell taught evolution the whole time I was in school (public schools in the fanatically right wing "fundie" south and midwest) and probably even when my parents went to school.

I believe in both evolution and creationism and don't see why the belief in a creator of the universe is illogical.
I certainly don't believe in an all knowing and powerful god but I do believe that something caused a big bang that created the universe.
Many people don't realize this but Darwin was Not an atheist.

Not only are the cristians criticized in this debate but all theists and even some agnostics.
Unfortunately some people cant accept that other people have different beliefs without insulting them.

The Evangelical Christians can get crazy with their ideas and force them on other people.
Denying everything proven by science is ignorant and when I attended catholic school we were taught the theory of evolution.

Debating this is pointless because the evolutionist and the creationist will never change their views simply because of a debate on an internet forum.

One of my aspie-related abilities is that I can read and absorb details much more intensely than most other people. I have read the Bible, and it never states (in a meaningful way) that Adam was the first man! The only statement that Adam was the first man is from 1Cor where it refers to Adam as the first man and Jesus Christ as the second man. That is obviously metaphorical. Read Genesis 1,2 very carefully if you are not convinced of this. Adam as the first man is certainly the tradition, and it may even be a reasonable inference, but it is not implied by the text.
This has an important bearing on creationism. All Biblical dating of the time man has been on earth is from the assumption that Adam was the first man. If you throw away that assumption, then the dating which is consistent with anthropological evidence is also consistent with the Bible.

"And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living."
Genesis 3:20

Well, you could use that as an argument, but Chavah would be the first woman though.

It's just a scare tactic, equivalent to saying that they'll be taught a heretical doctrine and they'll go to Hell because of it. Atheists having no Hell shouldn't be so concerned though really, even if it weren't merely a ploy. And the "Separation of Church from State!" ones, oy. Try separation of State from Church for a change, it's closer to the meaning of the precedent of the Anglican Church back in England to which the constitution refers anyway.

Iamnotaparakeet wrote ""And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living."
Genesis 3:20 "

Even if Eve were not the first woman, according to the Bible, she became the mother of all living people through Noah. Hence, Eve as the mother of all does not imply that she was first. While Adam may have not known about Noah, the flood, etc., we also do not know how he would have known that Eve would survive to bear children, that God would not create other women, etc.