Intelligent?
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.
During a round-table interview with reporters from five Texas newspapers, Bush declined to go into detail on his personal views of the origin of life. But he said students should learn about both theories, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported.
"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."
The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.
Christian conservatives - a substantial part of Bush's voting base - have been pushing for the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. Scientists have rejected the theory as an attempt to force religion into science education.
COMMENTARY
So, life is too complex to be explained by evolution - even though that is exactly what biologists have done - so it must be that a sentient diety set this whole thing up? Aside from the fact that teaching a clearly religious view of life's creation in public schools (as part of a science unit, no less) is absolutely absurd, there is a larger issue at hand.
It seems so simple to me to reconcile these two arguments. There are a great many scientists that are religious, pious people that believe in God AND evolution - though I suppose they would be considered false believers. So why can't these two concepts get along? Why is science not the study of God's work? The reason lies at the very heart of the reason why fundamentalists are so obnoxious, yes, but also dangerous and scary. This reason is because to them, the world is black and white. It is one way or the other. It is evolution or creationism (or, "intelligent design," in the mills of the evangelical propaganda machine). It is Republican or Democrat. You are either with us or against us. While I believe in an objective reality, I hardly think that is what Ayn Rand meant.
It is not Christianity, or Islaam, or the devil that flies planes into buildings or blows up abortion clinics and gay bars. It is the resignation to ignorance and easy answers, the subjugation of the individual and his/her power of reason to the dogma of one singular school of thought and moreover, the men and women who preach this path, that are truly to blame.
posted by A. K. Brown at 13:32
32 Comments:
Intelligent Design is not a theory. Or at least, its status as a scientific theory is controversial. (Evolution's is not.) AP needs to check itself.
15:33
Great article n8han!
http://slate.msn.com/id/2062009/
And you're (the author)right...even using the word "theory" is incorrect.
Theory - "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."
How do you test God creating the Earth???
15:58
sigh,
I guess I have to comment on this as this anti-evolution stance has had me upset for a long time.
First of all, and the absolute non-negotiable bottom line, is there is NO PLACE what-so-ever for the teaching of "intelligent design" in the public school system. It is not science, nor is it even some sort of metaphysical pseudoscience that the sci fi channel loves to make documentary and reality shows about. IT IS THE EVANGELICAL RIGHT WING AGENDA.
The teaching of intelligent design in schools would further undermine what little separation of church and state actually exists, and pushes the Christian view onto others. The next step would be to have mandatory bible class after your chemistry lesson.
Science is a philosophy, following a set of rules and practices. Why can't these "Christians" see that evolution does not attack their views? That it is simply a theory that takes into account what is observable in our limited experience? Additionally, what is worrisome is that its lessons are at the heart of biological science. If the Christians have their way, the advancement of science and human progress will come to a halt. We are even seeing it now as other countries make progress in research areas condemed by the conservative right.
Additionally, Alex's point of the Evangelical black and white system is at the heart of the matter. But it just doesn't stop there. They make judgements based on the current dogma of the conservative right. Evolution and whatever religion can be reconciled, there are countless ways to mesh the two together. If not, you should have the mental stamina to keep them separate, and use evolution as tool to understand biology. For example, that's what we do in quantum physics! All the german spun wave equations and convienient polynomials developed by rich French mathematicians with nothing to do, are pretty much wrong. They only allow us to approximate what is going on (though really well), and are a tool to understand something that we don't have the tools to exactly describe. Couldn't the Christians consider evolution as such a tool?
23:42
Just some more info...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/05/opinion/05krugman.html?
If k.o.b. reads this I will be interested in hearing his take on teh global warming side of this (yes, that is a challenge).
16:49
I just want to get this straight (pardon the expression):
1. Teaching about the existence of an opposing point of view in publically funded education is ridiculous regardless of the make-up of a community. Why should local government decide what's best for their people? Oh wait...gay marriage should be the exception.
2. Creationism is exclusive to Christianity, and everyone knows it is those darn Christians that are always causing problems in this world.
3. Faith, defined as unquestioning belief in something without physical evidence or proof, can peacefully co-exist with a theory that disputes that belief if the person has "mental stamina." Why would you need stamina if there is no conflict?
4. Use of the word "Christian" is synonymous with aggressive evangelicals, but we had better not hear you stereotyping Jews, Muslims, gays, or any other "victim" class. And God forbid (if you'll still permit me to use that expression) we profile to catch the bad guys.
5. You can pick and choose what parts of the Bible to accept and still be a good solid Christian.
6. Separation of church and state means no religion is allowed.
I'm so glad we have such intelligence around to give us hope, or does the word "hope" carry too much baggage now?
00:19
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
10:34
I'll make this easy:
1) I don't know how you pulled gay marriage into this one (maybe just to try and piss me off)...they don't teach about that in science classes for the same reason "intelligent design" shouldn't be taught there ... because it is NOT SCIENCE
2) No, it is not just Christians responsible for all the world's evils (and I never said that by the way) just a bunch of them. About as many as fundamentalists of the (INSERT RELIGIOUS PERSUASION HERE) "faith."
3) I think the point is that a person with the mental stamina to think about reconciling the two concepts would realize there is no conflict. But burn-the-gays churches (see, I can pull it in too) generally don't teach you to think on your own. Wait, didn't God give us the power of reason? Or was that the Devil too? It is so confusing in my big queer head.
4) For the record, I never confuse Chrstian with Evangelical, and one fundamentalist school of thought is just as destructive and foolish as the next. Nice attempt to bait me in with the word "victim." Doesn't deserve a response.
5) I wonder how Jerry Falwell would respond to this one. I think you better check in with "Justice Sunday II" and Tom Delay before you make such a bold statement...you may not be toeing the party line here. And you know what happens to liberals and non-loyal Reublicans...they BURN IN HELL!!!!
6) Not to over-simplify, but no, you're wrong. Propoganda, propoganda. We HAVE to get you off of the Fox News and the Rush Limbaugh...or is that the oxycoton talking???
And I am going to add my own here:
7) You are such a smart and educated person that I can not believe you are actually defending teaching religious mythology in a science class...it is astounding.
Your attempt to turn this into an argument over political correctness and other issues, besides the one I wrote about, was transparent at best.
But, it is typical. We wont think about the many ways we are getting screwed if we are deliberately divided as a population, and distracted by arguments over words.
Here is a link to a nice follow-up:
http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2
10:40
I guess I too should respond, again
1. Teaching various schools of thought is great. But should be restricted to the proper forum. Intelligent design is not science, and therefore has no place being taught along side evolution in a science course. This is an inarguable point. Intelligent design belongs only in a religion/culture class. And, about your governmental restrictions over the people. The government has no right controlling and regulating what it thinks "is best" for its people. Free speach and press are part of the United States, well at least they were supposed to be.
2. Yes, I'm glad you finally get it! Christians, and in fact many religious groups are responsible for most if not all the conflicts in the world.
3. This problem is, people don't want to have both! The far right is black and white. This is no middle. You're with us, or against us. A Patriot or a terrorist. The thing is that these anti-evolution radicals can't keep separate philosophies apart. Science does not deal with the divine, and the divine faith is often irrational and does not apply to science. You can have both, but you must keep your rules and practices pure to each philosophy.
4. Wow. You baiting us here? Evangelicals are often profiled because the preach hate and intolerance. That's why gays and jews aren't seen in that way. We don't have a 700 club that spouts hate and messages of slander against all those who are different from us. We also don't ask God in "prayer" to strike down members of the supreme court on national television so we can fill the spots with good Christians.
5. Pick and choose from the bible. Apparently you can. The bible isn't the whole bible. Don't you remember? Aren't there several books that the church left out because it didn't go with what the church wanted?
6. That's exactly it, in public institutions. In private settings and for personal reasons you should do what you want, but religion has no place in the government. The government should be a mediary, impartial in this respect so all viewpoints are treated equally. What the "Christians" want is not equality. They want the government to force their belief system on everyone else. This is wrong.
7. I have to aggree with Alex. I applaud and lament the religious right's ability to brain wash educated and intelligent people into thinking what they want.
Oh and intelligent and hope don't belong in the same sentence, unless its something like this:
Intelligent design is destroying all remaining hope that future generations of american scientists will be able to compete with foreign scientists in the academic forum.
15:11
One post for each of you because I can't stand the smell of wading through both piles at once.
Alex
1. I can't believe you are accusing me of dragging Gay into this post to piss you off. Go back and read your previous posts. To date you have managed to pull "gay" into: an article on Harry Potter book burning, an article about non-cooperation with the Rove situation, a commentary on Roberts (OK it may belong in there), an article about Bloomberg and abortion, and then this post. Yes, you started the gay thing with a comment on gay bars. It supports my opinion that you are liberal due to one prevailing issue that dominates your otherwise intelligent thoughts and forced you to justify other liberal views - enemy of my enemy is my friend. Oh, and by the way, show me where in the article it says that intelligent design should be taught in SCIENCE class. Bush said "education" and "schools" should teach diverse thoughts not that it should be in Biology class right after disecting worms.
2. I wasn't responding to you on this point, but as long as we're on it...Yeah those damn Christians and their box cutters and suicide bombs...those missionaries can be brutal - unlike those gentle Islamic Imams. Give me a break with your equivalency.
3. How is there no conflict between God creating Eve from Adam's rib and man evolving from some other animal over millions and millions of years? This is the pick and choose theory and the concept of being Christian but not buying into the Gospel. It's not stamina - it's non-belief. This is a black/white issue - you can't be a little pregnant.
4. Again, not aimed at you.
5.See above for pick and choose.
6 & 7. I'm not a Bible thumper by any means. I haven't been to church in years and have been to services only on holidays before that. I have not made up my mind about the role of religion in my life. That being said, I don't dismiss religion as "mythology." You hide behind the separation of church and state as your reason for opposing religion in every facet of community. It's fine with you as long as nobody teaches it in public, talks about it to others, or lives by their beliefs, but you really think it should be removed from society entirely because it's really a ridiculous story that's fun to read but shouldn't be taken seriously. I would have more respect if you were just honest about it and said you think it's all a load of bull. But that would be too politically dangerous. So for now, the left pretends that it's possible to be a believer and non-believer at the same time, while acting to remove it from our culture through the "separation" argument. Stand up for your beliefs and let your leaders know you don't need them to pretend anymore - tell them to be honest about their beliefs. On second thought don't, I'm not sure a one party system will be good for America.
21:54
And Gerd...
1. Like I told Alex, please point to the part where Bush wants it taught in science class. I'm all for another forum, as long as that forum is just as required as the science class, which religion classes usually aren't. You know as well as I do that it will never be required because it may upset non-believers. It's OK, however, to pound intelligent design believers with evolution because EVERYONE knows it's the truth right?
As for your other point, you are opposed to environmental regulations too then right? What a ridiculous statement. The whole reason for the existance of a government is to do "what's best for the people." That's why we have elections - to elect those that we believe will do what is best for us.
If you are opposed to governmental regulation why do you support regulating religion in the classroom? Is it because it's publically funded and not everyone is a believer? Hello - stem cells anyone?
2. A society's value system is based in religion. Remove religion - remove the value system. What will then replace that system - school? Ah ha - I see a strategy emerging.
3. I agree with you and Alex on this point. The right does have more absolutes than the left and we are proud of it. We are not reluctant to draw a line when things get too blurred and stake out one side of an issue. It's called standing for something. If you see everything as shades of gray, you can never devise a set of rules to live by, which means anything goes. This is what the left has become - fence sitters, flip-floppers, non-committers, and apologists.
4. I don't understand this response. Are you saying that gays and jews don't profile or that it's OK because they are correct in doing so? Also, are you saying that gays and jews don't try to block judicial nominations?
5. Couldn't tell you. I'm not a good Christian.
6. How is the government teaching Christian beliefs by acknowledging intelligent design? This goes back to my original question, how is intelligent design exclusive to Christianity? As far as I know most religions don't preach evolution.
7. And the point that brings it all together. Religion celebrates free will and our ability to lead our own lives. Christianity preaches what has traditionally been considered right and wrong and the divinity in CHOOSING the right thing to do. You are essentially saying that there is no room for passing along common values. People should decide morals and values on their own. So government should not decide what is best and neither should religion, right?
23:21
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
11:51
The only thing intelligent about "Intelligent Design" is how it is designed to manipulate children at an early age to believe a mythological story about a rib, rather than keep it in churches where it belongs. They DO want it taught in science classes. See the case where the Georgia school board put the stickers (later struck down by those damn liberal judges) in the science books discrediting evolution.
There is absolutely no way that any religiously-based material should be required reading and/or teaching in any publicly funded school except in a historical context. If you want to teach values, then teach them in a secular fashion. It is for the same reason you stated below, that not everyone agrees on this topic but everyone pays for this education, that religion should not be taught in schools, and in the same vein abortions should not be publicly funded. It is exactly the same rationale.
The reason there is no conflict comes down to a incredibly important difference between Christian sects. Some that take the Bible literally, and the other takes it as parable (which, by the way, are the majority). The reason there is no conflict is because if you believe it is parable, then there is no conflict between the study of how things work because science doesn't say that there is no God - it just studies what it observes, and it can't "observe" the absence of God. A big idea...but let's try here.
And by the way, you have no right to pass judgement on someone's beliefs who believes in the parable side of things and has gone to church their whole life, by calling them a non-believer as you seem to do above. Come on now...they are more Christian than you or I could ever hope to be.
If you want to believe people came from mud and ribs, go ahead...just don't force anyone else's kids to beleive that. And if you want your kids to learn it, send them to Christian school - let's not forget that to all the p's that want this, that option exists.
As for picking and choosing parts to believe, our mother doesn't believe in hell or the devil...is she a good Christian? Is she a Christian at all?
As your last two points, about the left. God it is like a scratchy phonograph that just wont shut up.
I don't think the stories are bullshit or lies, but I do think they are meant to teach, not be taken literally. Don't try to box me into a neat package for your fascist friends to exploit. I think their message is valid, but I don't think that it needs to be taught in a religious context in public schools.
I don't want religion to disappear all together. In fact, I pray quite often - but that is my personal relationship with my, well, "God" if it makes it easier for you to understand. And that brings me to your last point to Gerd.
Yes, religion does celebrate free will and the ability to choose. Precisely why religious arguments for the outlawing of abortion are fellacious even in their own declared biblical substantiation. The divine gave us free will to choose what we believe to be right and what we believe to be wrong, and to suffer the consequences - so keep it out of my Constitution, keep it out of our schools and keep it out of my face. If I want to hear about it, I will go to church, or temple, or whatever.
Now, as for the gay "thing" justifying your theory of my liberalism being based on one thing (and thanks for telling me - I never knew before).
The Bloomberg article is based on an event that was big here in NYC..something you wouldn't have heard much about. I was not pulling it in, it is part of the context of the larger dialogue about the Mayoral election here. As for the other two, gay issues were part of several different issues I introduced, and besides that, I am not the one with the problem - you guys are. You started it.
Being outside the club may have been a foray into understanding, no, genuinly WANTING to understand, other's plights, that is true. But it is hardly the only thing I care about...and I don't have to prove that to you.
I will know more of life and people and this world being motivated by the want to understand them the way I wish they would understand me, than anyone, like yourself, will ever know being motivated out of nothing more than greed and fear. Your motivation is crystal clear, and I can see (pardon the expression) straight through it.
17:10
Your article was on Bush, not those people in Georgia. I know you like the "gray" but lets talk about the same article you started with and the same one I commented on.
So...no public consensus - no funding for stem cells then, right? You know that you can never get consensus on ANY issue, you are the party of non-absolutes after all. Therefore, what percentage of the population has to agree to make it OK to fund? You must have a number in mind. I'm pretty sure there are some communities where over 90% of the population would agree to teach religion in school. Why can't we dictate what we teach at a local level if we fund schools locally? And by the way, ALL parents DON'T have the private school option. Unless, of course you are in favor of vouchers to fund the tuition?
Also, are you saying that we should do away with laws and let values govern instead? I don't get your free will reasoning.
After all of our rhetoric back and forth, we have finally reached the great schism between blue and red. We have come to the great religious misunderstanding. I didn't realize just how much you don't know about middle America. The majority of America DOES NOT take the Bible as a metaphor for being a nice person. America believes that Jesus really walked the earth and that he was God's son, period. I've lived with, and befriended people from, Birmingham, Omaha, Nashville, Peoria, Dayton, rural Colorado, and small towns in Ohio. You've spent the majority of your adult life in D.C., and NYC. I can tell you that, on this point, you are dead wrong.
Most people that try to make evolution and creationism coexist are academics and liberals. They only hold on to the Christian label because without some level of support from Christians they wouldn't stand a chance at election. In reality, it is a very different form of religion than what fly-over country practices.
You desperately want to believe that a bunch of holiday church goers had the wool pulled over their eyes by some religious moguls that told them what to do last election, but that just isn't the case. The Christian movement for Bush was a grassroots movement from millions of church members, volunteers, ministers, and pastors. It was not forced upon the flock as you want to think. It came from Bush's declaration of his faith and their ability to trust and identify with him as a genuine man of faith. Regardless of his flaws (and he has many), he believed in living life according to his faith and that was the top priority among the Christian voters. I'm sorry to break the bad news to you, but this country is DEEPLY religious, and not just when it's convenient to appear so.
You also don't understand the Bible. There truly is no room for half belief. You either take the leap of faith, or you don't. Yes, you can use the Bible as a parable and simply a model for good behavior, but you can truly only be a CHRISTian if you believe in Christ, and that is just too irrational for liberals and academics.
This is not your fault - look at your social system and peers. It's natural for you to not understand the guy with the NASCAR hat and mullet. Believe me, it's a struggle for me and I'm next to him and his wife at lunch every day. There's just no way for you understand what motivates him. It is the same for my understanding of your personal community. I would never profess to understand them better than you. That's why I'm involved in blogs - because I'm trying to see the other side. Unfortunately, it just degrades into hate for the right no matter what the topic.
I don't fear people, I disagree with them. I point out inconsistancies in arguements. I don't call people liars, traitors, nazis, or evil (except for terrorists). The "fear" accusation is tired and old and just plain wrong. Remember, fear is good if it's something you should be scared of. When any group attempts to change a country that I love and take away what I have, it's not fear - it's standing your ground. Remember, I'm not the one trying to change things, you are.
00:09
“It's natural for you to not understand the guy with the NASCAR hat and mullet. Believe me, it's a struggle for me and I'm next to him and his wife at lunch every day. There's just no way for you understand what motivates him.”
I grew up in Murrayville Georgia and this is a load of baloney if I’ve ever seen one.
09:10
Um, that is only one type of stem cells...there are plenty of others that do receive a ton of Federal funding - they are just not as effective.
As a friend commented to me on the side, your Rush LimFAThead realpolitik arguments are flawed and flimsy at best.
Calling me a liberal wont win you an argument, it just makes it look like you have no point. What is your point anyway? I have heard a lot of political jockeying, but no real reason why it is so important to teach kids that they should keep in mind that everythign they are learing might be wrong - that is the way to a well-learned child. But I forgot...you guys want to keep 'em stupid.
The fact that you don't go to church makes it apparent that you are in this only for the politics, which means you automatically lose. You have mentioned elections over and over again, and this really isn't about elections.
When is the last time you read the Bible? I never said it is a metaphor for being a nice person. I don't understand how you dream this stuff up. Parable...Jesus taught in parable...the use of that word is in the Bible. Of course they believe he walked the earth...I do too. It is not really disputable. What is arguable is a great deal of the myth in the Old Testament. Talk to a few Jews (remember them...they wrote it?) and they will happily agree with me.
I think you are the one out of touch. Most people dream of a good paying job, food, education and healthcare for their kids and family (one out of three a'int bad, huh?), leaving this place better for their offspring and the right to the pursuit of happiness. Not a Republican or Democrat majority, which is obviously your number 1 priority.
You don't want to understand...you want to hone your arguing skills so you can put it to good use. If you think of anything original that hasn't come off of a reactionary radio show/tv network, or isn't a distortion and twisting of someone's words...drop me a line.
13:21
Dear KOB,
KOB said:
"I'm pretty sure there are some communities where over 90% of the population would agree to teach religion in school. Why can't we dictate what we teach at a local level if we fund schools locally? And by the way, ALL parents DON'T have the private school option. Unless, of course you are in favor of vouchers to fund the tuition?"
Wow. If you want to instill religious values in your kids you send them to sunday school or whatever your religious organization offers. Remember those things called churches? Learn your religion there, not in a public school. Oh, and if I remember, its free to go there and learn. So no vouchers needed.
KOB said:
"America believes that Jesus really walked the earth and that he was God's son, period."
I'm pretty sure "america" doesn't believe this. America consists of more than just Christians ya know, or is this the problem? The Red states do know there are non-christians in this country right?
KOB said:
"The Christian movement for Bush was a grassroots movement from millions of church members, volunteers, ministers, and pastors. It was not forced upon the flock as you want to think. It came from Bush's declaration of his faith and their ability to trust and identify with him as a genuine man of faith."
HA! That is the most laughable and propaganda filled statement I've ever heard!
These Church members were TOLD what to believe...I'm sorry its true. They were TOLD that the "evil" librals threatened their way of life with their gay marriage, abortions, and other such sinful ways. That is how Bush won the election. The republicans prayed on the fears of the ignorant and won.
KOB said:
"You also don't understand the Bible. There truly is no room for half belief. You either take the leap of faith, or you don't. Yes, you can use the Bible as a parable and simply a model for good behavior, but you can truly only be a CHRISTian if you believe in Christ, and that is just too irrational for liberals and academics."
HA! again I find this hilarious, yet sad at the same time. How can someone so educated believe this? Its you KOB that does not understand the bible. First, as Alex said, remember the Jews? Yeah, them, the ones the wrote the Old Testament...its parable.
Second, as I pointed out before, there is clearly room for interpretation in the bible. That is one of the reasons for some prodestant faiths. Yup, disagreeing over what the bible means. Also, the old church picked and choosed what writings it wanted in the final version of the bible way back when. So, from the beginning its picking and choosing what you want to believe!
Third, and what most to all Christians forget, is that the bible is NOT the word of God. The bible is the word of God as recorded by man. God didn't write it, he worked through mortals to write it. Hence there is human error, especially since during various translation processes one can swap around meanings of phrases to suit ones own agenda. Can you imagine a divine being trying to explain the intricacies of how it greated the universe to someone who didn't even have the mathematical concept of Zero? Yeah, so God used metaphor and parable to explain himself to his creations.
Do some research about Christianity and how the Red states are using it before you defend it.
19:03
I notice that in your bleeding heart over-emotional rants you chose not to answer my questions - any of you. Typical - you can't answer them without killing your own reasoning.
I could sit here and get into the trenches again, but it's getting old pushing everyone's buttons. Besides I have responsibilities to take care of besides just worrying about myself.
So instead, I will repeat my questions and give you a chance to answer them again without blinding you with anger over things that are too close to the truth.
Do you agree that embryonic stem cells shouldn't be publically funded because of the lack of agreement?
How many people in a community need to agree on something before it should be publically funded?
Do you advocate fewer laws in favor of self-regulation?
Are you in favor of vouchers if parents want to give their children a religious education?
Do you believe in God as a higher power even if you don't take the Bible literally?
Be careful now - don't sound too conservative. And by the way I haven't listened to Rush or any other conservative talk shows in months - I have this thing called work that happens during the day. The only thing I can catch is Air America and Ed Schultz on the way home. I know it makes you feel better to think that we are all just zombies, but sorry it's all original material.
21:47
As for you Gerd...well I'm not sure debate is your thing. You actually have to link arguements and maintain a position, not just quote and squawk.
Here's a tip to get you started, you can't refute arguments with statements like "it's inarguable." It is obviously arguable if you are arguing it. Also, you may want to stay away from statements like "I'm sorry its true." They carry as much weight as, "I'm not wrong, you're wrong."
Oh, and for the record, I remember that there are a few non-Christians in America. Let's see it's about 52% to 48% right?
21:57
Your right...very original.
"I notice that in your bleeding heart over-emotional rants..."
Yeah, that's never been said before. Yet, apparently you care about more than yourself and your own. Maybe if it wasn't illegal for me to get married, or nearly impossible for me to adopt kids, I too could have all that you do. Congratulations on being part of the "in" crowd.
Your questions have very little to do with the argument over teaching creationism in school. You are well learned in the ways of distraction and smoke screening, young Jedi. The truth of the matter is that there is no good reason to teach creationism in public schooling except to try and throw us back to the 1950's, so you have to try and create a different argument where you have clearly failed to communicate your position.
Further, your remarks about having to work do nothing to get me angry or "push my buttons," they just seem like an easy way to dodge addressing your inconsistencies. I work plenty hard and I do a great job - something I don't need your approval on.
Finally, I have had to deal with far more harsh and offensive people than you, so don't give yourself the confrontation trophy just yet.
00:43
Dear KOB,
pot..kettle..black...that's all you're doing.
You never address the issues we bring up. In fact if we bring up points that prove you wrong, which we have frequently, you simply ignore them or just twist words around.
EVERYTHING I said about the bible is true. But instead of addressing them, you just cower in corner of ignorance and lash out at us.
And for you KOB, maybe its YOU that shouldn't debate. I mean instead of responding to what we say, you change directions, and then accuse us of just mindlessly ranting. We challenge the notion of what you believe with fact, yes the everything I said about the bible is fact, and you just get offended and reply with slander.
hmm, I requoted your arguments to make sure you knew what I was responding too.
And squawking? Everything I said about the bible in my responses was again FACT. Or do you simply not even want to try to believe it. I thought you said you were on here to open you mind? Sure, doesn't seem like it. Research the bible a bit. Its you that seem to be squawking with no proof.
And would you please READ what I post for once. When did I ever say that they're weren't Christians in america? I just said that ALL americans where not Christians. Please, would you actually read my posts?
52% to 48%
Anyway, these numbers you showed were the popluar election results, not the number of Christians in the US. Get your facts straight before you blame me of not arguing properly.
In fact, the number of self identifiying Christians in the United States is 76%. This INCLUDES non practicing and causal believers. Oh, look at this! This means that even some of the Christians believe that the right has been going too far in its abuse.
So KOB, stop being a hypocrit.
Please, if you're interested in seeing the other side, address the issues that are brought up. Don't spin it away...we've gone so far from intelligent design.
12:40
above was me
12:41
I guess I should re-clarify the 76% Christian before KOB slanders it up in propaganda.
The 76% represents random interviews with US citizens asking them to describe themselves in terms of religion.
The numbers of actual registered church goers is far less.
In fact, the number of "known" christians described as Adherents (registered, projected, and affiliated with a church) is actually only 47% of the United States.
13:02
Hmmm...Still no answers to my questions. I'm not sure how much more direct I can be with them. Is there a reason you won't answer them?
And Gerd...or anonymous, whatever
You just made the same point in four paragraphs. Did you just get the word "slander" on your word of the day calendar? Anyway, since I'm so slippery in avoiding your questions. Please, list them cohesively and I will address them as long as you promise to do the same. See my next post and I will explain how you are not linking arguments - free of charge for you.
As far as homework goes here are the latest poll numbers on the Newsweek/beliefnet survey in the current issue (total Christians are 85% Gerd).
www.beliefnet.com/story/173/story_17353.html
It can also be found on the Newsweek site.
Please read through them and tell me all about America not believing in God or creationism. My favorite question is the following:
Do you believe the universe was created by God, or not created by God?
Created by God - 80%
Not created by God - 10%
Don't believe in God - 1%
Don't know - 9%
Tell me about parables again...
20:24
Gerd...free lesson. In your earlier post you wrote this:
------------------------------
KOB said:
"You also don't understand the Bible. There truly is no room for half belief. You either take the leap of faith, or you don't. Yes, you can use the Bible as a parable and simply a model for good behavior, but you can truly only be a CHRISTian if you believe in Christ, and that is just too irrational for liberals and academics."
----------------------
My statement was talking about how the Bible specifically states that you have to have total faith and must not need "proof." I'm making the argument that according to the text of the Bible, you can't use it figuratively or "kind of" believe in God. I then make the point that if you do, you are not technically a Christian, because you don't believe that Jesus was the son of God, the very definition of being a Christian.
Let's examine your response.
__________________________
HA! again I find this hilarious, yet sad at the same time. How can someone so educated believe this? Its you KOB that does not understand the bible. First, as Alex said, remember the Jews? Yeah, them, the ones the wrote the Old Testament...its parable.
____________________________
You start out by saying how amused you are - not really a counterpoint there. Then you go into basically an "I'm not dumb, you're dumb," statement by saying "Its you KOB that does not understand the bible." Now here's where debate gets tricky - this is not actually a rebuttal to my points made in my statement, it's just a 3rd grade retort.
Let's move on. Then you launch into a statement...actually you just copy Alex's statement, that the Bible was written by Jews. You then wrap up your witty rebuke of my quote by again stating your opinion without having made any kind of argument. Your entire paragraph says this in summary: "I'm laughing out loud because I think you are dumb. The Bible is parable because it was written by Jews." Now, while this may seem to make sense to you, and maybe some of your friends understand what you are saying, it really doesn't refute my statement that the Bible doesn't allow you to half-believe, it just says "yes it does." Further, it is in no way related to my statement about believing in Christ to be a Christian.
_______________________________
Then you wrote:
Second, as I pointed out before, there is clearly room for interpretation in the bible. That is one of the reasons for some prodestant faiths. Yup, disagreeing over what the bible means. Also, the old church picked and choosed what writings it wanted in the final version of the bible way back when. So, from the beginning its picking and choosing what you want to believe!
___________________________
This is a little better in that it actually makes a point, albeit the wrong one for the quote you were replying to. You are trying to make the point that there is interpretation in the Bible, a fact that is obvious, but not one that I contested in my statement. I stated that there is no room in the text for half-belief, a point that ALL Christian denominations agree on. Splinter sects have different slants on how to practice their faith and where emphasis should be placed, but none leave room for a follower to say "it's good lessons but it's only mythology." Again, you actually got close on this point, but just missed the boat on my original point - how did you put it? You "slandered" my point. Then the wheels fall off again. You start rambling about picking and choosing, blah, blah, blah. Yes this topic came up at some point in the past, but again Gerd, not in the statement you quoted. This is what I mean about linking your arguments to what you are addressing.
______________________________
Finally, you wrote:
Third, and what most to all Christians forget, is that the bible is NOT the word of God. The bible is the word of God as recorded by man. God didn't write it, he worked through mortals to write it. Hence there is human error, especially since during various translation processes one can swap around meanings of phrases to suit ones own agenda. Can you imagine a divine being trying to explain the intricacies of how it greated the universe to someone who didn't even have the mathematical concept of Zero? Yeah, so God used metaphor and parable to explain himself to his creations.
____________________________
I'm not even sure where to start on this one Gerd. Where in my quote did I talk about God writing the Bible? And what's this whole thing about error? Are you trying to argue that God meant for it to be parable but man made errors in writing it so it has been taken literally? I know you can beat the hell out of a calculator Gerd, but are you saying that you know what God meant better than the prophets that wrote the Bible? This is so far off of the argument that you were trying to rebuke that how could I do anything but ignore it?
___________________________
Now I could go back and do this for all of your post, but I think you get the point. I wouldn't be a good teacher though if I didn't make some positive suggestions for improvement. To actually address the point, you could have come up with some kind of fact, quote, or conservative contradiction that actually pointed to the fact that there was room for half-belief. I know that it would be very difficult to do so because it's wrong, but at least you'd be making an argument. Also, you could have tried to show how you can be a Christian without believing in Christ as literally the son of God on earth. I know that this is even harder because these arguments don't exist. I'll give you a freebee to get you started - check out some of the fringe sects that call themselves Christians but have very different beliefs. I'll bet you can find some remote population (like .003% of Christians) that actually doesn't believe in the son of God in a literal sense but still calls themselves Christian.
21:30
"Created by God - 80%
Not created by God - 10%
Don't believe in God - 1%
Don't know - 9%"
While that survey is interesting, the fact that it comes from "belief net" does nothing to assure me it isn't tainted. Can they provide the emperical evidence, proven through the Socratic Method, that would justify God's creation of the Universe as part of a science curriculum? That was, of course, the question posed by the original posting.
I mean, 80% of the country could believe that babies are delivered by a stork, and not a product of sex, but that doesn't mean we should teach it. Oh wait, those that want Intelligent Design as science material probably don't believe in sex ed either.
22:11
And as for answering your questions, I addressed this in my previous post
"Your questions have very little to do with the argument over teaching creationism in school. You are well learned in the ways of distraction and smoke screening, young Jedi. The truth of the matter is that there is no good reason to teach creationism in public schooling except to try and throw us back to the 1950's, so you have to try and create a different argument where you have clearly failed to communicate your position."
--8/25/05, 12:43 AM
22:16
Dear KOB,
what questions? All your posts are really just double talk about how Alex and myself supposedly have no facts.
Your facts are wrong. Please see a real source, the one CITED BY THE US CENSUS...
http://www.census.gov/prod/www/religion.htm
I believe you will see that my facts are correct. So, that puts as back as 76% of people identifying as Christian and 47% actually in registration as such.
And how did belief net do this survey? 1004 people? hmm...in what part of the country did they ask these questions? Its important ya know. This is a common right wing tactic to squew the "results" of public opinion in their favor. Bush's town hall meetings are an excellent example. As such, lets still to the true results that I quote, surveying a much larger and random population. Its a matter of basic statistics.
And your repsones about the bible to me...sigh, what do you think you're getting at? Being a teacher? Don't think so.
You're pulling a Pat Robertson in your responses. You say something, its recorded, and then you say you meant something else. Right.
So what does this quote mean from your post?
"You also don't understand the Bible. There truly is no room for half belief."
Why, half belief, or partitions of belief? Yes, that means literally only believing in part of what the bible has to offer. So you specifically said you can't do it, all or nothing. Your original words say no room for interpretation. But as I clearly state in my post the church only believes in part of the original bible. It cut out books that it didn't like.
So clearly there is precedent for partial belief.
Sorry, no double talking your way out of this one.
Wow, my whole post refering to the bible as NOT the word of God, but the word of God as recorded by man sailed straight over your head. Or, possibly you're just doing your double talk.
The point of this, is that it is ridiculous to take the bible fully and literally, as you and many Christians suggest. It was divinity funnelled though man. So there are mistakes. And as I've pointed out, man over history as edited it and changed its meanings via leaving out books and during translations.
The reference to the concept of Zero is an important one. One you ignore and obviously fail to grasp. Those that wrote the bible didn't even have this basic concept that we take for granted, one that is necessary for the limited understanding of the universe that we have. Now, imagine prophet X of the bible is being spoken to by God. God can't address what he knows literally to the mortal, he'd never understand. So instead he must communicate in words that the prophet will understand. Those being metaphor. Thus, the bible is parable.
And in terms of quotes and facts, where are your references? You demand that I have them, yet you give none that are credible. Religious or other such right or left polarized organizations are not a source of information, just propaganda.
here's a good reference
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/Reformat_EconomicSpiritualandPoliticalMotives.asp
Room for half belief? Arguments for this don't exist? You know this? I think not.
The Reformation. How to interpret the bible differently. In this case, differently from the corrupt Catholic Church.
granted, all the german and european princes did what Bush did, exploit the ignorant.
So where are your facts? Do you dare challenge the reference of the US census and encylopedia.com? What right wing propaganda website will you run to?
23:32
The survey was done by Newsweek and appears on the cover. If Newsweek is right wing propaganda, Alan Combs is handsome. Nice try though. Care to take another swing? Pick up the Sept. issue.
Al,
I believe the article was about Bush suggesting that schools allow the discussion of the possibility of intelligent design along with evolution. Here's his quote:
"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."
I don't see where it talks about preaching in biology. To ignore the existance of an alternate school of thought on the origin of life and only acknowledge one theory is just as dogmatic as Pat and his 700 club. The difference is that there are people such as yourself that believe that one is obviously true and the other is for ignorant people. That makes you closed minded on this topic. After all, we really don't KNOW the truth do we?
Here is the first line of your commentary on the article:
"So, life is too complex to be explained by evolution - even though that is exactly what biologists have done - so it must be that a sentient diety set this whole thing up?"
I believe that finding out that 80% of Americans believe that the universe was created by God (a sentient diety) is very relevant to the topic at hand and it certainly addresses your question.
The fact is that a vast majority of Americans believe in creationism, while a small minority don't believe in it. Yet, when it comes to public funding of education, it is the minority that sets the agenda. The weapon of choice is the concept of separation of church and state, which was written by a bunch of men who, while they didn't want to promote one religion over another, clearly didn't intend to ignore God in public life or they wouldn't have stuck his name all over the Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, our money, etc. Remember, we are "endowed by our creator" with rights.
BTW, bad analogy. You are comparing the existance of the stork with the book of Genesis. While I'm pretty sure you can disprove the stork, I'm fairly sure you can't disprove the creation of man by God - unless you're like Gerd and know more than the Bible prophets. Will you answer this question, from what animal did man evolve?
00:20
Gerd...
I'm tired of making you look silly. Please recite the research method used in the Newsweek survey since you seem to be able to criticize it. Better yet, lets pad the results - say 65% believe in creationism and 20% don't - the argument above still remains valid.
If you still have to ask "What questions?" you are obviously not keeping up on the posts, which is what I demonstrated in my last response to you.
Since you are obviously having trouble with the English language, let me clarify what I meant and give you another chance to reply intelligently to my statement. It's only fair - no child left behind and all. We'll start from scratch and pretend I was unclear -I can live with that. Here goes:
My statement of half belief was referring to the existence of God. You cannot half believe that God exists. You either do or you don't. There. Clear now? Now try to follow the logic below but be careful, Alex thinks I'm a Jedi.
If you do believe in God, how can you not believe in creationism? This is the nature of the conflict between the two schools of thought. To be able to hold both beliefs (creationism and evolution) your logic would have to be that God either sat around and did nothing while we evolved from bacteria, or he helped the process along.
If God does exist AND is omnipotent (that means he is all powerful) AND you still believe that we evolved from other animals, he must have had a part in that process. If this is true, then God essentially created man from animals. Now where did the animals come from? Follow that logic backwards and SOMETHING had to start it all right? What was in the beginning? 80% of Americans say it was God.
Now, you have to admit the whole thing is quite a conundrum (puzzle). To not teach of the existence of this puzzle - as it clearly exists in American culture - under the auspices that intelligent design is not able to be scientifically proven is just plain silly reasoning and counter to the philosophy that education should create inquisitive and thoughtful students.
Further, your assertion that the teaching of creationism will create ignorant students is actually backwards. Truly ignorant children would not know of the existence of the intelligent design concept. They would be just as "programmed" as the children that had no science class and only religion. Who knows the teaching of one of life's biggest questions may actually motivate some young scientist to go out and prove you are right!!!
00:57
Alright...well I think we have beat this one to death.
Clearly there is little room for compromise here. The stork reference was an attempt at a joke to lighten this up a bit, but I guess that is not possible.
I was gonna ask if I poured syrup on my shoe, if you would call it a pancake. HA HA HA!!!
So, I am moving on. We clearly must agree to disagree.
I have a new posting today that I think everyone can agree on...heh heh heh.
09:44
Me look Silly?
I beg to differ. You consistently make yourself look like a one-minded right wing propagandist.
Yes, Newsweek > US CENSUS. Right. You tried to double talk out, and you failed miserably.
and where do you get 80% of americans believing in creationism? Where is that reference? Created by God maybe, but not "creationism." Do you know what that entails? Apparently you're the one in need of a dictionary.
there ya go, English is easy!
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=creationism
and my reference to the concept of Zero is exactly why someone could believe in God and believe in evolution (like the Catholic Church)
God couldn't tell prophet X how he created the universe literally, or how long it look. Due to his lack of understanding, the prophet would never comprehend. So instead he used metaphors like "days" for periods of activity, and other metaphors like this. Can you even open your mind slightly to understand the possibility of this concept?
The minority in control of the education system? You just don't understand and apparently will never grasp anything but your right wing dogman. You say I'm closed minded, well apparently so are you.
KOB, your arguments on intelligent design simply show that you, like others have no concept of science. Intelligent design cannot be proven scientifically. I'm sorry KOB, it cannot. Those that try to fit this into science just make non-sense relations to probability and design-detectors. The notion of intelligence behind something cannot be proven. Science is based on observations, experimentation, then implementation of predictions based on what you've learned.
The teaching of creationism will hurt the progress of biology! How are you so blind to this? Evolution is its core. You can do nothing in biology without this. So by teaching creationism you shake the foundations of science. You create students that will either shun science, or turn to wasteful pursuits, like Intelligent design.
And quit the evolutionary logic crap. Again, its clear you don't know how it works, but you seem to want to argue about it. There are theories in evolution that explain how everything arose independent of a God. And the missing link nonsense? Science isn't complete. As usual you're using classic republican baiting. Its just as bad as the classic mis-quote that Darwin recanted on his deathbed.
12:09
Since we are going around in circles, let's end this with a clear understanding of the arguments for both sides. Please post a concise bulleted list of the arguments against the inclusion of creationism in the public education system, and I will post my arguments. Thanks.
20:20
Post a Comment
<< Home