Aw.

[athelind]

"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture," said the Creationist.

Comments

[uhusted.livejournal.com]

*snerk..* heeheehee. No kidding.

[sd-chief.livejournal.com]

Intelligent, educated people were a danger in my country as well. :)

[uhusted.livejournal.com]

Holy cats! Best livejournal _ever_! :D
(Thank you, this was a laugh I needed to make today better)

[rikoshi.livejournal.com]

Two things that drive me fucking up the wall when it comes to this debate:

1) People on the Creationist side of things have no idea what a scientific theory is, and

2) "Intelligent Design" is not science, nor is it a scientific theory, which makes positing the two next to one another has no merit in an academic setting.

Also, you totally cherry picked the best quote out of that article. Possibly the best quote out of the Darwinist/Creationist debate EVAR.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

It has merit in an academic setting - just not a scientific one. The correct setting is a philosophy or religion class.

[rikoshi.livejournal.com]

Fair enough--that was a misphrasing on my part. There's definitely room for intelligent debate on the topic.

The huge thing about the whole debate, though, that really, really galls me is that the really fundamentalist Creationists don't seem to realize that, by disproving Darwinist evolution, you haven't by proxy proven God.

[athelind.livejournal.com]

Nor... and more significantly... vice-versa.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

True. The intelligent creationists (like myself) realize that there is not going to be definitive proof either way, because you can't prove or disprove a cause by looking only at the effect. If God is by definition outside the system, then proving his existence from within it is necessarily futile.

That said, I settle for evolutionists admitting that there is no clear evidence to prove or disprove God - though there is plenty of evidence to disprove a six-day creation. It comes down to a choice - which version do you want to believe? I believe in a God-driven evolution. Nothin in science says it can't be true, and I prefer it as an explanation over random proteins joining together to create life.

[araquan.livejournal.com]

I think part of the problem is that when "theory" is used in common speech, the intended meaning is closer to what science would call a "hypothesis." In science, of course, the terms carry very different meanings. If it were merely the "Hypothesis of Evolution," I could see far more argument against teaching it in classes. But it's got a lot more behind it than that.

[rikoshi.livejournal.com]

Exactly. And if you're going to argue science, know what you're arguing against, and what you're arguing for.

And for God's/Allah's/David Koresh's sake, don't try to pull the "science is wrong because it's not about religion" card.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Amen to that.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

What gets me out of this debate is that it takes the term "Intelligent Design" and co-opts it for those who completely oppose Darwinism. A few years ago, intelligent design simply meant darwinism, with a God at the back of it all. There is nothing in the theory of evolution that says this idea can't be true. (I realize there's nothing that supports it either. Been there, done that post.) But when the term is used interchangeably with "creation science", there is a huge problem.

I really wish there were fewer members of my faith setting out to make us all look like morons steeped in deliberate ignorance.

[paka.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but it's about power and self-righteousness. Remember, when evolution hit, many Victorians loved the idea because it seemed to prove that all the racist and classist exploitation of the late 1800s was natural, and possibly mandated. Some of these, I don't doubt, were also sure that God wanted them to get rid of wolves, bison, and First Peoples. Then you have the Scopes trial, which was clearly about politics as much as fact, and you get to now, when some of the best backers for this creationist bullcrap have their own best political interests at heart.

Somewhere, underneath it all, you've got Darwin's actual theories, or perhaps the way it is the job of parents and after school programs, rather than government-run schools, to pass on religious beliefs. Einstein said something once about if you look for God out there in the universe, your faith will ensure that you can do so.

Personally, it's seriously abhorrent to me to suggest that instead of a god capable of having made such a wonderous and limitless world, God can only exist in the very specific words of some long-dead Jewish writers. I also think that if someone's faith is threatened by the fossil record, they have a far more fundamental problem with their religion than some evil, left-wing intellectual scapegoat.

But then we're talking about Bush's America.

[athelind.livejournal.com]

rodant_kapoor said much the same thing.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure that it's possible to separate religious education from public education. Before people jump down my back for that statement, let me qualify it a bit.

Religion can be loosely defined as the faith through which we interpret our world and our place in it. Religion is the filter that forms our worldview. Our worldview in turn is the filter through which we put every single thing we experience, in order to make it make sense to us. Some worldviews are very narrowly defined, and some are broad. Every single one of them is religious in nature - even if the religion it refers to is atheistic. It still relates to our faith in how our world operates, and that is a religion. By that definition, I don't really like the term "non-religious". But that's another story.

So, if one tries to take religion out of schools, you're left with the rather serious problem of what worldview to teach. The conflict here is not between a religious versus a non-religious education; it's between a theistic versus an atheistic or agnostic worldview. Theist parents don't want their children indoctrinated in atheistic worldviews, especially since the secular, scientific folks scoff at the whole notion that they're teaching religion. They see their own viewpoint as neutral. It is not; what's more, it never can be. It affects the most fundamental aspects of faith for everyone, even those who don't realize it.

The debate is so entrenched at this point that i'm not sure we'll ever get to the following place, but here's what needs to happen:
1) Christians need to realize that a literal interpretation of Genesis is not necessary to accept the Bible as true.
2) Those teaching the Theory of Evolution need to admit that it does have religious significance and be prepared to show how the theory doesn't necessarily cut God out of the picture. In other words, they need to admit that these two worldviews can exist side by side, and still acknowledge the realities of science.
3) Everyone needs to accept the same definitions, so when I say I believe in intelligent design, I don't then have to defend the young earth theory (which is complete ballywash.)

That's my opinion on the whole thing.

[athelind.livejournal.com]

Now we're starting to get into that "define your terms" territory. It seems evident that what you mean by "religious" and "non-religious" are not what I mean by those same terms.

[collie13.livejournal.com]

Personally, it's seriously abhorrent to me to suggest that instead of a god capable of having made such a wonderous and limitless world, God can only exist in the very specific words of some long-dead Jewish writers. I also think that if someone's faith is threatened by the fossil record, they have a far more fundamental problem with their religion than some evil, left-wing intellectual scapegoat.

Wow... thank you too. My faith in christians is greatly bolstered by conversations like this.

[collie13.livejournal.com]

I really wish there were fewer members of my faith setting out to make us all look like morons steeped in deliberate ignorance.

Thank you -- both for reassuring me there are Christians who aren't afraid of science, and for nearly making me snort my Diet Vanilla Coke. ;)

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

You're welcome.

I'm glad you specified VANILLA coke, though. :)

[paka.livejournal.com]

"Oh noes! The evil smart kids are picking on us! But that's okay, 'cause Jeeeeeesus told me to make my belief system mandatory here, as well as waiting for them to burn in Hell!"

I'm amazed they don't find some way to blame Jews, Queers and Roma, while they're at it.

[cargoweasel.livejournal.com]

The problem is not the existence or nonexistence of God, and the right wing is attempting to make the teaching of creationism a referendum on God, which they will win. The good guys need to make sure it is not religion vs. atheism, but science and reason vs. dogma. Galileo vs. the Pope.

We beat these fuckers in the 20s and we'll do it again.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

While I can appreciate and even to some extent agree with the sentiments here, I don't think they're constructive.

There's so much divisiveness happening these days along religious lines that more argument is not what's needed. When people argue, they tend to get more rather than less entrenched in their viewpoint. There will come a point (in this debate, it came years ago) where neither side really hears or acknowledges the points of the other. Evolutionists are characterized by Theists as immoral thinkers who have thrown the baby out with the bathwater; theists pity this position even while decrying it. Theists in turn are characterized by evolutionists as dogmatic, head-in-the-sand, willfully ignorant believers. As soon as the name-calling begins, the real debate ends.

Can we come up with a way to phrase this debate so that it doesn't threaten the most basic elements of the Christian faith? Because it doesn't need to. Similarly, can the creationists come up with a good reason why literal fact and biblical truth must be synonymous? Because that's not necessary, either.

[athelind.livejournal.com]

How did anything Cargo said "threaten the most basic elements of the Christian faith"?

[kreggan.livejournal.com]

Given that the debate is being phrased this way by Creationists in order to frame the debate in such a way that it can be reduced to "God versus Darwin", which makes for great sound-bites on the news media, I don't believe that protestations from Evolutionists (or indeed anyone) that it doesn't need to be about the existence or nonexistence of God are likely to be well-received. The debate is being used as the counter to many years of wins by liberals in excluding traditional Christian theology from larger and larger areas of teaching; the agenda is to reverse those policies. As someone noted further up, it is not a debate about science, or theology, but politics.

[luxatos.livejournal.com]

Well, dangit, velvetpage has said everything I wanted to say...

So... um... ditto?