- Related Stories
-
Americans open to teaching creationism, poll says
September 6, 2005 -
Is Canada the cradle of life?
August 10, 2005 -
Stanford project mixes Darwin with hydrogen
July 21, 2005
The Kansas Board of Education, whose chairman says evolutionary theory is incompatible with the Bible, now requires criticism of evolution the the science classroom.
The story "Kansas educators mandate evolution criticism" published November 8, 2005 at 4:39 AM is no longer available on CNET News.
Content from Reuters expires after 30 days.
Why do they bring this belief matter to the court? It is simple because the conflict ?belief? subject is in the school text book ? as an educational matter. And, both sides do not want their ?spirit? to be educated by the other?s belief ?material?.
So, is Darwin?s evolution or Intelligent-design correct? It is all depends on our belief. It is depends on how we were ?educated? and how our ?educated? belief in control of us.
How do we get our beliefs?
Our belief is constructed by/with all kinds of information (energy) from our environment ? education and experiences. In a way, we can say our spiritual belief is actually merely the byproduct of our environment. Or, we could even say that our belief is nothing but a consequence (result) of the brainwash processes by our surrounding energy.
In case some might say the word ?brainwash? is a bad word to describe that, then apparently they were ?educated? that way ? believe ?brainwash? is a bad word. To feel comfortable, we can switch back to the nicer words -?education? and ?experience? ? as the way we been ?educated?.
A firm belief can be simulated as a strong tree stands in our mind. The tree is planted in our mind when the first ?educational? information (energy) was seeded. By inputting more energy during our growing ages, the belief tree grows taller and larger to the point that it is so hard to bend. Obviously, it takes tremendous energy to bend a big tree.
Whenever belief becomes a subject, people evoke endless arguments. No one wants their belief tree be bent. It is simply because our belief is the foundation for all the prospects of life ? including emotional (control) and economical (survival) prospects.
Every belief has its believers? society. Not only the society maintains the spiritual power of ?control?, but it also provides means of economical activities for ?survival?. Of course, losing believers means less power of control and survival. In other words, the argument between evolution and I.D might not as simple as it sounds ? a belief matter or an educational matter. It is a competition of believer?s economical power too.
Mainstream scientists and the I.D supporters would not bend their belief tree regardless the court ruling. No one will give up their control and survival power.
In this belief bending fight, unfortunately, no one is willing to point out the true meaning of belief and its relationship with control and survival. Well, who wants their believers and followers to know what is behind the curtain of ?education??
No doubt about it, our universe is intelligently designed ? including all scientific, religious and cultural domains. Evidences and proofs are in everything around us - Darwin?s evolution is one of them. It is rather easy to explain to our children that there is no conflict at all - regardless what should be in the text book.
Why don?t we see our text book teach us more about how belief tree influences our mind and controls our brain and body ? spiritually and economically ? control and survival?
In our mind, there are so many belief trees in the forest of our belief. Sometimes, two belief trees do tangle together such as we believe love is everything while we also believe money is everything. It is no conflict for us to have more than two belief trees in our mind. Saying, ?Believe what I believe or I will destroy you,? will only turn the spiritual ?control? into a matter of ?survival?.
Think this way, a boy in the far desert of Africa and a girl in the deep mountain of China would not have the belief trees of Intelligent-design and Darwin?s evolution. They would not argue. Well, they even do not speak the same language ? no debate in words. They might even love and respect each other with the common senses of the natural world.
How do our belief trees co-exist in our mind?
In our forest of beliefs, we all have a strongest ?virtual belief tree? (an equivalent structure, sort of) in our mind. Besides so many belief trees, there are so many other virtual structures standing in our mind too ? one virtual structure for mom, one for dad, one for each friend, one for money, one for milk, and so on. You get the idea. In other words, our mind has a forest (or a city) of virtual structures. Well, a universe of virtual spiritual (mental) structures (abbreviated as MS).
Where does our spiritual energy exist? Some say it is in our heart, some say it is in our brain cells, and some say spiritual energy is everywhere in us. Well, if heart has spiritual energy and brain cells have it too, then every physical structure (PS) of our body should have spiritual energy too. In other words, PS and MS hand in hand exist ? pairing like twins - in every tiny parts of our body.
The benefit of having the perception of PS and MS is that we can strengthen our awareness in communicating with our mind and find proper solutions for all kinds of problems between control and survival ? love and money, for instance. Nowadays, most of our energy is focused in PS structures, less energy is contributed to nursery our MS. That is why we get excited easier.
Academically, the integrated structural model of MS and PS is the stringer to link the spiritual and physical worlds ? two parallel worlds?! The good thing for assigning the ?equivalent? structure (MS) to spirit is that we can then integrate both spiritual structures and physical structures as a whole ?structural model? and utilize the well developed structural theories and methods to analyze the energy behavior among them. In other words, this way, we can use MS and PS to understand how energy builds our MS and PS and explore how mind processes spirit energy among our brain and body - structurally.
Perhaps, the mainstream scientists and I.D believers could use this model to resolve their differences ? waste less survival energy, without giving up control ? scientifically and spiritually, simultaneously.
After all, scientists have spirits too, although some might not believe in spirit stuffs. The 'sense of survival' and the 'sense of control' are the only two fundamental elements in our spirit. Spiritual energy is originated and composed ?by?, the ?sense of survival? and the ?sense of control?. And, they are ?for? the purposes ?of?, well, control and survival. Do I have proofs for that? Proofs are just tools for one to convince the other based on their common beliefs. Do you believe ?control? and ?survival? or not is the only thing matters to you, isn?t it? To know more about how our mind use these two senses and processes energy among MS and PS, please email your request.
OPEN LETTER TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD:
CC:
DOVER SCHOOL BOARD (PENNSYLVANIA)
OHIO STATE SCHOOL BOARD
RIO RANCHO SCHOOL BOARD (NEW MEXICO)
GRANTSBURG SCHOOL BOARD (WISCONSIN)
COBB COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD(GEORGIA)
SHELBY COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD(TENNESSEE)
CHARLES COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD(MARYLAND)
NAPERVILLE SCHOOL BOARD(ILLINOIS)
DARBY SCHOOL BOARD (MONTANA)
BLUFFTON-HARRISON SCHOOL BOARD (INDIANA)
(note -- who am I missing?)
I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.
Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.
It is for this reason that I?m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I?m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.
Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don?t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.
I?m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don?t.
depends on our belief"
>> Belief has nothing to do with it. If there were something like
intelligent design, then evolution is the design mechanism,
WHichever, evolution remains
"No doubt about it, our universe is intelligently designed ?
including all scientific, religious and cultural domains."
>> Sorry Bruce, but there is no indication outside of a few myths
that there is any sort of 'intelligent design'. Nor is there any
evidence of any 'intelligent designer".
"Where does our spiritual energy exist?"
>> Who says there is any spiritual energy? And if there were,
how would you measure it? Sounds like philosophical smoke,
along with the hypothetical PS and MS, (Together, PMS???)
But myths don't die easily. It's just too bad that some people use
myths to try to force other people into behavior patterns.
It makes more sense that God created everything than that you and I came from apes. The only reason people still believe in it is because there isn't anything else but God to expain it, and they don't want to believe in God. Nobody wants to say it, but it's the truth.
If I were a teacher, I would tell people about it, but I'd emphasize on how ridiculous it sounds. I would also point out every time scientists lied and committed fraud to try to prove it, every evidence that proved it wrong, and I would ask every student if they really want to believe they came from apes.
Sorry, but it seems far more logical that we decended from prehistoric apes than prehistoric dirt.
Theories are not ideas pulled out of nothing, that is what right wing religious groups do.
that humans and chimps and other apes share a common ancestor.
ignorance of science. BTW, macro evolution is just micro evolution
over and over during a very long time period. The micro versus
macro argument is a straw man.
Believing in the natural selection mechanisms (recall that Darwin never called it "evolution") requires a certain amount of faith in the system.
We can all go to museums and look at fossils. Indeed it's not that hard to go to a mountain and find fossils yourself. But most people, including me, will never be able to date geological layers based on percentages of radioactive isotopes, or other esoteric methods. For that, I trust the system. I trust that the information that comes from our universities and research labs is generally correct. Why? Because it has proven to be correct over and over. Because we wouldn't see the kind of progress that we see if the system didn't work. There is no conspiracy. There is no bias. The system seeks truth and produces truth.
When people don't believe in the system, for whatever reason, they reject the foundations of human progress. If they don't believe in natural selection, then they have no reason to believe in anything else that the system produces. When they teach others that natural selection may be wrong, they are teaching them to distrust the system. If natural selection is wrong, then anything else may be wrong too. Vaccinations, for instance, may be harmful. Chlorofluorocarbons don't really damage the ozone layer. HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
So the problem is not the waste of resources in teaching something that is wrong and useless. That is actually pretty marginal. The real damage is caused by the legitimization of the mistrust of our academic and scientific communities.
Frankly I would not be surprised if the pain and suffering caused by this mistrust exceeded that caused by fundamentalist Muslim terrorists by a large factor.
There was a conspiracy. The system doesn't work. And you call this progress?!
Scientists tried to push evolution with fake proof, tried to lie to everyone, tried to get rid of God forever, and FAILED. You are trusting in the wrong people.
" If they don't believe in natural selection, then they have no reason to believe in anything else that the system produces."
That's just stupid. Natural selection hasn't been proven anymore than evolution has, there's no reason to believe in it. NO PROOF. It's all just guesses based on someone's need to have another theory besides God. Science isn't the opposite of God, science takes a look at God's work. You can't prove something that didn't happen, and that's why after all these years the best we've gotten from science on evolution was fake evidence that was disproven.
Your trust in the system is just like a catholics trust in their church. You think it's infallible, and you are wrong. The system can be, and often is, WRONG.
You sound like the "If you aren't for us you are against us" crap the Bush admin puts out.
This again comes as no suprise in the land of contradictions, we already had Mr Bush telling people God told him to bomb Iraq, now we got schools telling kids something that has no physical proofs to back it up. Next thing you know they might be taught that God made Americans better then everyone else and that muslims are evil (wait a second, isn't that already happening in the media?) Scary thought...
BIG DEAL! Evolution, as a theory of the origin of live, has done nothing to beter human existance. What is good for? If anything, it made it worse: it was used as justification for the worst political systems the world has ever seen, and it has robbed millions of people of their sence of a higher purpose in live. Even today, evolusion fuels the idea of racial supremacy. Science can survive just fine, with or without it! If it had a practical use, like areodynamics, I could still understand the evolusionists concerns, but it has none. It's about a bunch of strange animals who lived a very long time ago. Big deal, so what, why should I care? What practical purpose does it serve to believe that 65m years ago, there was an animal called T-Rex?
The solution is simple. Limit Biology to a study of live as it exists today. Make it a study about how animals work, not how they originated. Make evolution a seperate optional subject, and everyone is happy. Micro evolution is a fact of live, that can be proven. But Macro-evolution serves no purpose as all.
Let them demonstrate to me how DNA can form through purely natural processes. Until then, that is a religious believe, just like any other.
You might have unwittingly uncovered the problem with fundamentalists. They are repeating the mistakes of the past, because they do not look backwards.
theory of evolution hasn't been good for anything.
Think about this bible nuts.
1. If the bible was true then the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.
2. If the story of Adam and Eve is correct and that is how humans came to be. Then that means all of your bible thumpers as well as gone believe in incest. Lets face it if all you have is Adam and Eve to create all of humanity then it had to be done using incest.
3. If the story of Noah's art is correct and all of humanity except for Noah and his family was wiped out by the flood and it was up to Noah and his family to repopulate the Earth then again we have inset.
There maybe littles bits of truth in the bible but the wast majority of it was writen by humans and have been changed so much from what it was in the beginning that the bible is nothing but an interesting fairy tail.
The bible was not writen by god, not a single word of it. It was writen by man and embellished by man. To take it as gods teaching only shows how stupid the bible thumpers are.
Robert
Who by the way believes in god, but in my own way.
P.S. We evolved you morons!
Yes the Bible does state that the earth is less than 10,000 years old and what kind of idiot would create a world that had the effects of being 1 day old when it was created. It would have problems of movement and volcanic activities that would kill all new life straight away. Even the animals and trees had to be created at an age. The soils would have to be created with enough age that it would be breaking down to produce nutrients into the soil for the plants.
2. yes Adam and eve and Noah would have had to have the insest problem but that was before we Devolved to our current state. If you take som,e notice of human changes and so forth you may notice that we are actually devolving from what we were to what we are today. The oly thing that has improved is technology and understanding becuase the restrictions from governmental bodies has been removed. For a very large amount of our history we were forced to do as we were told or get our heads choped off. (Thanks Roman Catholic Church).
3. The actual origional texts (not copies) were used in compiling the bible and those texts are still readable. The texts did not change over time and if you look at history texts that are not the bible you will notice that they only help to prove that the bible is accurate and true.
Y not have a look at how many holes there are in the evolution bull **** and see for yourself that it would be Imposible for evolution. Even if you do not belive in a God who created the universe you would have to be more of an ignorant moron to belive in something as hocus pokus as evolution. I am still suprised how evolution is still classed as a science with all the Holes and irregularities and lack of evidence there is in it.
2. There has been some discussion into creation. There are other parts of genesis that must be taken into account to show Adam and Eve were not the only people alive, and we in fact descended from several families. No incest was involved.
3. There are many stories about the great flood, and in each of them one man or one family survived. It would only make sense that the flood did cover the earth, but God rescued people around the world so that it could be repopulated in a timely fashion. If you read the bible enough you might find that it seems to be a collection of events between ISRAEL and God, not all of mankind. We can find the events between other people and God too if we just opened our eyes.
The bible is a very important book whether you choose to believe that or not. It is the most expansive history book we have, it details extremely critical points in our history, and it carries the wisdom of men long dead who already lived these lives that we pretend to live. You should respect it a lot more than you do.
Therefore as dogma it becomes a new religion based on the sacrament of Evolution ad does not belong in our schools.
I am amazed that humanists want to advertise to protect America from Christianity while at the same time they want to indoctrinate our children with their Communist ideas.
Christian extremists are equally dangerous as Islamic extremists and many others. Why is it that Judeo type religions are so pessimistic of human potential? Why is it that Western type religions want to end (or force it) the world? Did the God of self-proclaimed western religions forgot to give man a brain?
A lot of civilized foreigners that first hear the term "Intelligent Design", think that this topic might be something similar consciousness studies. But when they realize that this is just a BS Yale (GWB approved) marketing term, they all start laughing of how stupid Americans are. When someone hears that Christians used to ride dinosaurs to church around 4004 BC, it makes you wonder if T-Rex was obese due to a vast human buffet. Ignorance is bliss to all extremes.
According to religious extremists the planet is flat. What's bizarre is that a lot of well educated people believe in the literal interpretation of whatever religious text. This shows that having an education doesn't mean that you are smart.
Is America trying to isolate itself even more and reverse evolution to the early days of Christianity? Leviticus makes you rethink what religion is trying to accomplish - fear.
As for evolution/natural selection not existing, you obviously haven't been paying attention to what's going on literally in front of your nose, namely the rapid mutations of viruses such as influenza, HIV, SARS, etc. Few religious zealots (of any faith, except for a few true wackos who refuse any medical treatment) seem to mind scientists coming up with treatments and cures for diseases that used to kill upwards of a third of the world's population, e.g., bubonic plague, smallpox, measles, real influenza (not the wimpy "flu" that most people complain of - those are just super-colds - real influenza will usually kill you after 1 - 3 weeks of very severe suffering - another example of people not understanding basic science), etc.
It's difficult for the average person to understand what's happening today, much less hundreds, thousands, millions, or billions of years ago. However, techniques like radio carbon dating can be performed by anyone willing to learn, and there are millions of scientists and engineers who have done so, and will gladly volunteer their time to help others learn. Just because you can't understand something doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is bogus. You can't see gravity, but no sane person would jump off a tall building without a parachute, thinking that a prayer to their god is going to prevent them from going splat (and verifying several reproducible scientific principles in the bargain - maybe this isn't such a bad idea, after all!). I think there's a direct correlation between religious zealotry and the rapidly-increasing lack of scientific education, especially among the U.S. domestically-born population. It's not because the average U.S. native-born citizen isn't as smart as their international counterparts, it's because they have been living the life of Riley for so long that they don't feel motivated to work on hard problems, the way their ancestors did. People buy lottery tickets instead of investing for the inevitable rainy days of life, and the sunny days of retirement, and then turn to religion when bad things happen (ignoring the randomness of when and where both good and bad things happen). Do you really think a god chose the U.S. Gulf Coast to be decimated by hurricanes, or Pakistan to be wracked by earthquakes, not to mention all of the other natural disasters (that's why they're called "natural" disasters - DUH!) that have been going on since before the first protein got boiled in the lava oozing out of one of millions of primordial volcanoes? OK, maybe the people who watch soap operas, game shows, and reality TV were being punished by their god(s) - but I'll bet there weren't many of them flattened by their own roofs in Kashmir, so that theory doesn't seem very sound, does it? See? Science isn't that hard - just make some careful observations, come up with a theory (much easier if you build on someone else's work, BTW), test it via controlled experiments, rinse, and repeat, until you have something that stands rigorous testing by anyone else willing to put in the time and effort, not just unilaterally declare it invalid because of ignorance (or, worse, "belief").
Religious zealots don't seem to mind all of the scientific and engineering advances that have gone into the generation and distribution of electricity, much less the increasingly useful tools that use this power for everything from world-wide food production (thereby making billions of lives possible on land that would otherwise support only tens of millions through natural growth), through mass transportation of billions every day, to instantaneous global visual and audible communications (not to mention things like automated human language translation that's not perfect, but getting closer every day). Religious zealots who reject science gladly stay up at night courtesy of electric lighting, typing on computers connected to the Internet, or get on TV or the radio, and spew ridiculous statements, all courtesy of the scientists and engineers who don't have to believe anything about science and technology if they choose, because the principles they rely on can be reproduced anywhere, anytime, by anyone willing to put in the effort, individually, or collectively. It's so much easier to just make up and/or memorize incantations and dogma than to develop sound theories, eventually prove or disprove them - which result in better theories, BTW - and then often come up with useful applications of the knowledge that is developed, usually sooner, rather than later.
I think the scientific and engineering communities need to start staging some "Back to the Stone Age" days, where we just shut everything off except media communications for a while (so the uninformed can see what's going on), and then watch the zealots start to squirm in real time, when everyone else realizes that religion is fine for personal reflection about moral behavior, but prayer doesn't stand a snowball's chance in a very hot place when the scientists and engineers don't show up for work for a very short period of time, and everyone starts to get thirsty, hungry, and worse, especially when it gets dark and cold. Then, you'll see a whole bunch of people suddenly undergo the equivalent of a religious rebirth to support science and engineering "theories" over religious dogma (of any brand).
I do find it quite amusing when religious zealots get their underwear stuck up their butt cracks when anyone dares to challenge their beliefs to scientific tests, or even suggests that there might be an alternative interpretation of their sacred texts (which oh-so-conveniently have holes of inconsistency big enough to sail the largest ship filled with doubt through them). Oh, no, you have to do exactly what the zealots tell you to do, no exceptions, and punishment to those who are so insolent as to question their self-appointed status as interpreters.
The separation of church and state was probably the single most important concept that the framers of the Constitution came up with, even more important than legislation via representation, and guarantee of personal freedoms beyond freedom of religion (which includes a lack of religion, it should be noted).
I've only passed through Kansas a few times while criss-crossing the country over the years, but now I'm going to make sure I never set foot there again, or do business with anyone who does, and encourage everyone else to avoid that place like the plague (Biblical, or otherwise). Let's see if the religious zealots in the government there can pray their way out of the resulting fiscal crisis, when no one wants to do business with anyone there anymore. Hey, Sprint, how about looking for a new state in which to relocate your headquarters, along with American Century Companies (investment management), Applebee's Restaurants, Beech/Raytheon Aircraft, Black & Veatch (engineering), Burns & McDonnell (architecture), Cerner (healthcare information technology solutions), Cessna/Textron Aircraft, Ferrellgas (the nation's largest retailer and distributor of natural gas), Garmin (GPS-based electronics), Hallmark Cards, H&R Block (tax and finance), Interstate Bakeries Corporation (makers of Twinkies and Wonder Bread),
Kansas City Southern Industries (operators of a Class I railroad, at the same level as BNSF, Union Pacific, Norfolk Southern, etc.), Russell Stover Candies, Yellow Roadway Corporation (interstate trucking), etc.? You business folks might consider how poorly educated your future employees are going to be, now that certifiable imbeciles have infiltrated your state's educational administrative offices.
The bottom line is that you either reject all science and technology and go back to living in the Stone Age, permanently out of contact with everyone else (by definition), or you join the rest of us and spend the time you would otherwise be spouting nonsense to help make the world a better place for everyone to live. Do NOT let your god catch you driving your SUV to your crystalline palace church so you can plot how to stop those evil-doers from disseminating reproducible evidence that support scientific theories in the public square, much less the schools, which are also being paid for by people who don't happen to share your beliefs (including those of us outside Kansas who have to pay Federal taxes that your school administrators gladly spend, whether we want them to or not).
All the Best,
Joe Blow
Defender of your right to free speech, religion, etc., for over 22 years via active duty service in the U.S. armed forces - what have you done in support of those freedoms today?
IMO, it is a shame that the creators of "Intelligent Design" did not apply more "intelligence" to the "design" of their "theory". It is so full of holes that it could not hold water under a waterfall.
However, that really is not its purpose (as so many others here have pointed out). It's purpose twofold. The first is to discredit "evolutionary theory". The second is to get the government to promote a strictly religious point of view (in clear violation of the US Constitution).
Truly, this whole debate saddens me for two primary reasons.
First, is that the people who are trying to discredit evolution are doing so from a position of lack of knowledge and believing that is a good thing. I say this because the evidence supporting evolution is SO OVERWHELMING that only people who either do not know or choose to ignore it are those who do not believe it is credible.
Second, as a Christian, it is depressing to see that the people who are attacking evolution by pushing "Intelligent Design" have so little faith in God's intelligence that they cannot believe that God is smart enough to create a system that works as described in evolution (or, more accurately, natural selection). With all our scientific progress, why is it so difficult to believe that someone might have discovered at least one of the principles under which our universe has developed over time?
Forget the inconsistencies of time (Bible vs. evolution) as it is plainly arrogant for us to believe that a year of our time is a year in God's time. Most of the inconsistencies in Genesis can easily be ascribed to an inability of the writers to understand what God was telling them. Especially when you consider that the pursuit of knowledge was specifically proscribed, it is no wonder that the writers would not fully understand what God was saying.
Hey, the end point to a discreditation of science can easily be seen in our fairly recent history. In the Middle Ages, literacy, scientific understanding, and even basic curiousity was at a nearly all-time low. Because of this, people believed in magic, that the Earth was at the center of the universe, the world was flat, and a number of other fairly silly (we now know thanks to science) beliefs.
The question is do we (the US) want to "lead" the way (back) to the ignorance, poverty, destitution, and horrible living conditions of the Middle Ages or continue to lead the world into the future with scientific progress? I hope the answer will be the latter.
STS
What these people need is a good trip to the Museum of Natural History in NYC. Then let them explain the dinosaurs, etc.
What do they say to an atheist who has their children in a Kansas school? Too bad, you're going to learn our religion and like it?
-JM
Instead of trying to take over the world and force your "beliefs" on the rest of us, why dont you go over to Afganistan and fight the other fundamentalists over there.....
appropriate to just let any old myth dominate. We would need
massive studies, and presentations, and debates, and other
educational efforts to establish the optimal myth. And that might
be difficult since myths themselves are aggregations of tales
with no coherent pattern.
It will be very confusing for a very long time..
I imagine that most of us subscribe to the "Big Bang Theory". I would also go as far as to agree with most of you that the earth is very old. (As far as the 65 Billion year theory, why not 60 or 70 Billion?? - That to me is as much of a "myth" as you say Intelligent Design is;) However, nowhere in the Bible referring to the event of creation does it reference the 24 hour "day" as we know it.
Most of the translations of the Bible that are available today are revised versions of the King James Bible. That being said, the original Greek word that was translated as ?day?, really has no English meaning. (So it becomes a "best guess" of the translators. The word 'age' fits as well if not better to the definition of that word, however that made no sense to the original translators so they relied on their own experience and understanding to frame the text.) Just know this: That Greek word was only used to reference the creation event. A completely different Greek word was used to represent the word 'day' throughout the rest of the Old Testament.
For those of you that have read this far, I applaud you for enduring a counterpoint to your mostly one sided discussion (and I use the term lightly). However, I'd like to say that you might have more intelligent discussion and meaningful debate (and... oh wait, even perhaps form a new opinion... but we don't really do that in America now do we?) from people with various opinions and beliefs if Earl, Joey, Bill, and others weren't so insulting and belittling to people who offer somewhat of a different opinion on a subject so mysterious as our own origins?!?! I wonder if thick skulls are part of our future evolution? By the way, if you are so inclined, I believe in "Theistic Evolution" and suggest that you all give it at least a passing glance.
The last thing I'd like to say is this: I believed as most of you seem to and certainly had my reasons not to believe in a "Supreme Being" after all wasn't that me???
mean to do it, if I did.
But I do take a very strong stand against the group of people as
a whole who try to push their version of some myth as a truth
for the rest of the people. If someone wants to believe in
creation, that's fine. Just keep it within the logical bounds of
whatever church agrees with out. Don't try to repaint it as
intelligent design and try to offer it a some sort of science.
If theistic evolution is okay with you, I would hardly argue. IF you
postulate a god who created all the raw material on day one and
then let the defined nature take it's course, you also could have
intelligent design. Both approaches don't try to pass off the
philosophical elements as science, but can accept the science as
a companion for the philosophy.
It seems to be a simple resolution, but I just don't see many of
the ID or creationists accepting it. All I see are the unusual
arguments trying to support a non-evelotionary rationale. In the
long run, those arguments won't even qualify as a footnote in
the history books. But for now, those arguments are a major
impediment to education.
You can't have it both ways. If the bible is the literal truth than a day is a day and week is a week.
Buy the way the word in the bible for day in the ORIGINAL Hebrew is YOM and it means day the same as it did 5766 years ago when it was being described.
If you are not knowledgeable enough about the bible, you should cease to comment on it.
All ?ism? are beliefs ? the cause for different social system and behavior pattern.
All physics laws would not apply to a matter travel at light speed C. Well, matter is impossible to travel at the light speed or matter will disappear (exchanged to energy) ? either way we look it. That is why there are some ?conditions? (some call them mysteries or miracles in myth) cannot be explained by physics and chemistry. There are so called ?quantum light? (energy) can become the ?mass? particles as e=mc2 exchanged. In science, some call the invisible energy ?quantum light?. In daily usage, it is easier to call it spiritual or invisible or virtual energy. The invisible quantum light is hard to measure ?precisely? too ? just like our love and feeling is hard (or impossible?) to measure. Try this, my friendship to you is $1M, and your friendship to me is $2M. So, I better be twice friendly to you. How do you like that?
Our universe is intelligently designed ? seamlessly integrated and optimized. The statement is not scientifically incorrect. Since when, someone used I.D for God? I have no idea. Although no one can ID the ID picture of God, some ?believe? God do exist and some don?t. It is all depends on ?belief?, isn?t it? Like I said, evidences and proofs only good for people have the same belief. Like we both believe e=mc2, then we can communicate friendly about energy. Some might not even believe Work = Force * Distance is energy ? again, it is all depends on ?education?.
Ask some philosophers this; can we measure ?sin?? They might give us volumes of ?plain text? without ?digital impulse? or ?structural drawing?. And, in that text, there are so many fuzzy undefined words. However, words are all we have in use. Try to be empathic. By the way, is the ?word power? a type of energy or not? How to measure that? Can we say the ?empathy feeling? in team sports is ?power? (energy) too? How to measure that? $3M? Laugh!
After 60,000 (or 10,000) years or so, nowadays, we even use the most advanced special effects (3D structural modeling) to describe myths ? and make money. Myths will never go away.
In the event between I.D and Evolution, both parties consider the other ?use myths to force others into behavior patterns?. Like I said, every belief has to use certain myths to gain their believers and followers ? force, energy, control and survival. You tell me, is it analytical science or philosophical fog? Well, politicians and media are using ?modern myths? too, kind of. Some are ?good? myths, some are ?bad?. But, how to define ?good? and ?bad?? By plain text or by energy measurement? Try to be aware of myths and knowing where to put them in my mind is all I can do.
Actually, philosophy and material science do not necessary be two parallel rails. In fact, our ?mind? has been a very nice stringer for both. What is the physical form of Mind? Where is my mind?
That is why I have worked the model to structuralize the invisible energy ? like the special effects do. And, try to analyze PS and MS in whole ? for instance, to find out what kind of stress in my brain cells caused by the ?FREE? word in commercials. Why not, PMS could be a new scientific ID for Mind.
Believe or not, evolution and I.D are already ?memorized? in our mind after all the discussions. That is the positive view of it. How to process memory in our PMS is what we need to find out next.
Here is one line. Faith in God does not require scientific or logical explanations - unless we been educated in a scientific way and mixed faith with science in our belief.
As you note : 'Faith in God does not require scientific or logical
explanations - unless we been educated in a scientific way and
mixed faith with science in our belief." Essentially that means
that ignorant and unthinking people can, and usually do, believe
in almost anything.
If that's your thing, go for it. Just please keep your myth out of
my life. As someone once wrote, there comes a time to put away
the things of a child and to move on to reality.
Will having a chapter in a science class talking about another theory of life really going to destroy the children in Kansas? No. Will it help? Who knows. Don't forget parents, you can still try raising your own children every now and then, teaching them what to believe or not believe.
The problem is that the bible did not come with a stamp "this is a work of fiction, any resemblance to whatever is pure coincidence". Well, considering it was translated/compiled as some propaganda tool by a king who just wanted to ensure his kingdom's success by using religion, they had to stick to make believe.
tale was to contain and why. Maybe the fairly tale would have a
somewhat better pedigree if the original owners really believed
what was written.
Ah, freewill.....
According to the Bible, God creates some things DIRECTLY (like light, the earth and seas, the sun and moon). But, God commanded the earth and seas to bring forth the all that lives.
Also, note that in Young's Literal Translation, the verb "prepareth" is used in several critical places. To me, "to prepare" means to delay a certain event while doing some process which supports that event and takes a significant amount of time to do the process.
Furthermore, 1:21 clearly states that "every living creature that moveth" was brought forth FROM THE WATERS. Obviously, that means they were not always on the land, but came to be on the land.
If you believe in the Bible, there is a great deal there that supports evolution, and absolutely nothing there that contradicts the theory of evolution.
=== === ===
Supporting documents:
=== === ===
For many translations/versions of the Bible, see:
http://bibledatabase.net/
King James Version (AV)
http://bibledatabase.net/html/kjv/genesis_1.html
(excerpts from Genesis)
1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
...
1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
=== === ===
Young's Literal Translation
http://software77.com/onlinebibles/ylt/01_001.htm
(excerpts from Genesis)
1:11 And God saith, `Let the earth yield tender grass, herb sowing seed, fruit-tree (whose seed `is' in itself) making fruit after its kind, on the earth:' and it is so.
1:12 And the earth bringeth forth tender grass, herb sowing seed after its kind, and tree making fruit (whose seed `is' in itself) after its kind; and God seeth that `it is' good;
...
1:20 And God saith, `Let the waters teem with the teeming living creature, and fowl let fly on the earth on the face of the expanse of the heavens.'
1:21 And God prepareth the great monsters, and every living creature that is creeping, which the waters have teemed with, after their kind, and every fowl with wing, after its kind, and God seeth that `it is' good.
1:22 And God blesseth them, saying, `Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and the fowl let multiply in the earth:'
1:23 and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day fifth.
1:24 And God saith, `Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind:' and it is so.
1:25 And God maketh the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, and God seeth that `it is' good.
1:26 And God saith, `Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them rule over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that is creeping on the earth.'
1:27 And God prepareth the man in His image; in the image of God He prepared him, a male and a female He prepared them.
My delving into Genesis in the Hebrew generated an expression that appeared to have parallel expression going on, that could imply not only the origin of general creation, yet also even child birth and rearing and possibly even a 'resurrection' process. Likely to imply that at the heart of all the diversity there is a commonality of enErging that drives it all into existence. One also might note that the word commonly translated as day, is more closely related to the english word era, or something similar that implies a period of time with as common characteristic about it.
Where I share reservations with those leaning to more 'Biblical' expressions, it that the way the process of evolution is interpeted into supporting the survival of the fittest. This is also too short sighted. Survival of the stablest environmental arrangement might be a more approriate way to express it, and may more readily express into a concern of how far one must go it really figure our what is stable.
Sincerely,
Gregory D. MELLOTT
- Micro "evolution" is no proof
- by hannodb November 11, 2005 1:37 AM PST
- Visruses changes. So what. Both my parents have dark hair, but produced 2 blond children. Is that proof of anything new? No, the variable was already written into the genetic code, with a set number of possibilities. The Common cold "mutate" more often than anything else we know, yet it still is the common cold. I've never heard of a cold mutation that changed into a whole new disease all together. The very way they named Bird flu, N3H12 or something, is an admittion that there is a fixed number of variations certain parts of the virus can have. "New viruses" is not new at all, they're just have a new combination of predetermined variables. a Virus would, for instance, have 100 variables, each with a set number of possibilities. These are not mutations at all, they're variations! How about AIDS? AIDS is not new. It's only new because modern transport allowed diseases, that once were confinded to remote jungle regions, to spread across the world. What proof do we have that there ever was a time that AIDS did not exist?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- "Micro-evolution"
- by November 11, 2005 10:28 AM PST
- If you are not a biologist, perhaps you are
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (173 Comments)All species has a set amount of variables that make induviduals slightly different from one another. There are radical mutations that occur outside these parameters, always with negative effect. Genetic code, just like any other form of information, is a language, which require syntax. If you make a syntax error, that code fragment will malfunction, or break all together. If variations was due to macro evolusion "mutations", then non of us would've existed: If you randomly change code with no understanding of its meaning, it will ALWAYS BREAK!
There is enough scientific reasons to question evolution, but those are usually shot down due to its supposed motivation, not due to scietific enquiry. Evolusionists do not want evolution to be questioned, because, if science does eventually proof it to be false, the only alternative (so far) would be a creator. If you have an objection with God, then you might believe in aliens. Few scientists question the existance of aliens. The question of WHO the creator is, is not a scientific question, not yet, anyway. However, to deny even the remotest possibility of a designer (who does not necesarilly needs to be divine), is unscientific and subjective.
Creationism is religion. Intelegent Design is not. It does not say who the creator is, it does not say Genesis 1 is how it happened. If advanced aliens build a planet sized Star Trek like replicator, used zero point energy to create the world, and the left, never to return again, that too would be intelligent design. Concidering that evolusionists now turned to the vacuum of space to come up with a natural explaination of live, where radiation would surely have destroyed it before it could form, Intelligent design is a viable alternative, if you leave your prejudice behind.
unaware that there are several documented cases
of speciation in the past century. A species is
defined a clade of organisms reproductively
isolated by genetic makeup (i.e., a species is a
group of organisms that can interbreed). So far
there are several species of cats, birds, and
insects whose evolution has been documented
(probably more, but that's what I am aware of).
There's even a question as to whether some
remote tribes in Africa and South America have
speciated (e.g., they could not produce viable
offspring with other humans outside their own
people group).
Also, your understanding of the naming of
viruses (such as the notation of flu strains) is
somewhat off base. The convention designates
classes of receptor binding proteins presented
on the viral coat. There is quite a bit of
variation in each class, but there's a finite
number of potential receptor binding classes
since there's some serious physical constraints
on the geometry of the molecules in question.
You can't fight biochemistry and physics.
Note that the term "evolutionist" is typically
pejorative in intent and refers to anyone that
takes objection to "creationism" or "intelligent
design" as scientific theories. Both the terms
'science' and 'theory' have denotative
definitions by which "creationism" and
"intelligent design" do not reasonably apply. In
the sense of science terminology, both would
qualify as a "conjecture", though there are
elements of classical intelligent design (if it
can be called that) that might qualify as
hypotheses (though they don't refute the theory
of evolution in any way).
I understand that people would consider
"creationism" a reilgious belief on the basis of
context and the supernatural element.
"Intelligent design" as presented in Kansas is
simply expurgated creationism (as evidenced by
the fact that they reference a book on
creationism that literally had the word "God"
crossed out and "Intelligent Designer" written
in). However, the intelligent design conjecture
of Hoyle or Dembski would be better termed
"natural philosophy" since they do not apply the
scientific method to their investigations, but
do formulate their conjectures on the basis of
certain empirical observations.
I also think its fair to say that those opposing
teaching of intelligent design in classrooms are
not universally opposed to teaching it in
school, but rather object to it being presented
as "science" or contradictory to evolutionary
theory (it's obviously not the former, and
clasically not the latter either; modern
evolutionary theory does not exclude exogenous
influences on development). The Kansas school
board actually acknowledge "intelligent design"
did not qualify as science and went as far as
proposing a new definition for the term so that
it would fit. The new standards really do
accept, for example, the satirical creation
story of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism as science
under the new definition.
Peronsally, I adhere to the school of thought of
St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas -- which was
more recently affirmed by the Pope of the Roman
Catholic Church. This position accepts the
theory of evolution and accepts the traditional
judeo-christian view that the account of the
book of Genesis is an allegory explaining the
relationship of man and his creator.
Moreover, I agree with St. Augustine's view that
the universe itself is a message from God,
unadulaterated in its truth, and rejecting what
we observe in nature is rejecting this message.