#36173 - 03/09/10 08:09 AM
Christian oppression and back lash . . .
|
Axis_Sanctuary
stranger
Registered: 09/28/09
Posts: 5
Loc: Tampabay FLORIDA
|
I find it funny how many of us have felt the oppression of Christianity in our lives (for those who felt oppressed ). Many people form groups as if in retaliation to this.
Look at the debate of intellectual design. Darwinist community feels it opens the gates of creationism. Not true. If anything it makes to me the ufo and bible theory come to life. Though I am not a big UFO buff it certainly makes more sense to include it in the bible than not. LOL But that is my sense of humor on things . And those who do believe in a celestial interference will also agree in the modern theory of intellectual design for many ancient societies have mentioned being visited and educated by those "critters" from out of space in astrology and math.
But yet intellectual design is being fought tooth and nail like a good Darwin should. But if the reason is that is gives way to Creationism than I feel the Darwinist is simply fighting Creationism out of reaction while the third party Intellectual Design waits for the Darwinist to evolve.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#36175 - 03/09/10 08:48 AM
Re: Christian oppression and back lash . . .
[Re: Axis_Sanctuary]
|
MawhrinSkel
active member
Registered: 06/24/09
Posts: 853
Loc: Norway
|
"Intelligent Design - So You Don't Have To Be!"
ID is the ultimate theological abdication of reason. Luther would have been proud of this intransigent back-ass-wardness. ID indicates that since God has created everything, we can only understand reality through the bible. You can never learn anything from external experience. You can never evolve or learn or come to grips with anything, short of accepting God as your personal lord and saviour.
The reason groups of Darwinists arise in response to this is because when people come to rape your children you break out your shotgun. This is precisely what ID adherents are doing. They want *my* kids to put their lives in the hands of their imaginary friends. It provokes me. What provokes me even more is that people are buying into their garbage. Then again, I never had much faith in people in the first place.
Luther's final victory over mankind lies in this; that we accept things on faith, regardless of how counter-factual they really are. It's in line with the recent video on Man's true nature (the one where Man is described almost like a contradiction addict).
The moment we abdicate sense, reason and logic in favour of faith, obedience and acceptance we *should* live in a theocracy. We'd have earned no less. Militant Darwinists take it upon themselves to resist the spread of this memeplex for the good of the species, actually. Noble, yet some sheep will never accept reason. They'll follow the sheep with the loudest bell.
If ID were the only theory on the market, or even just the one being marketed the loudest, middle-of-the-road people would assume the Darwinists had run out of steam or arguments. The middle-of-the-road people are the ones who vote. They're the ones who have the power to ensure the right politicians make the laws they want. From such a perspective, intelligent people of all convictions have an obligation to stop us from sliding headlong into theocracy and intransigence. The moment we accept ID as anything more than an unfounded hypothesis with more elocution than sense we are sliding backward. I have yet to see a single piece of ID evidence that hasn't been refuted as wishful thinking, wrongful interpretation or falsification of evidence.
Creationists and ID proponents should be spayed, interred and removed from the population. I don't have the words to properly convey my contempt and distaste for such a conspiracy of idiots.
_________________________
"I'd rather be right than consistent" - Winston Churchill
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#36179 - 03/09/10 01:14 PM
Re: Christian oppression and back lash . . .
[Re: MawhrinSkel]
|
The Zebu
active member
Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 603
Loc: Orlando, FL
|
You said it perfectly.
Intelligent Design, at face value, is a more or less plausible metaphysical speculation. But the key word is "speculation." There is absolutely zero scientific data to support it, nor could there ever be, because the entire "theory" fails to evolve beyond a flimsy feeling that "everything must have come from somewhere." It's a shot in the dark. A blind guess. A little feeling in your gut that there's some kind of a "higher purpose" to the universe. And the moment something like that passes as a legitimate science, our educational system is pretty much- for lack of a more refined word- fucked.
Although, did make a slight mistake-- since ID does not explicitly make any strong biblical references... which is part of the danger. It claims to not be a religious idea, that the idea of a divine architect is palatable to all religions. (Ironically, it makes no room for those with no religion). However, even a superficial glance shows that ID reeks of Christian doctrine, more specifically, creationism. Periodically their PR people may flash a Jew or Muslim who buys their ideas, but heretofore I have not met an ID proponent that wasn't a bible-thumping Fundamentalist convinced that the world was created by Jehovah seven thousand years ago over the space of six days.
I remember a while ago there were some Raelians who tried to support Intelligent Design alongside Christians, who, naturally, freaked out and tried to distance themselves as far as possible, lest they be associated with "weird" ideas like the concept that mankind was created by aliens, or that sex isn't the most abominable thing on the planet.
How amusing it is, this little theater we call "life".
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#36183 - 03/09/10 07:33 PM
Re: Christian oppression and back lash . . .
[Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
|
Jake999
veteran member
Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 1277
Loc: Tennessee
|
If people want their children to "learn" about ID then they can either teach it to them or pay to send them to a private religious school.
AMEN TO THAT! Religious schools are an option. The general population should not have to opt out of learning religious programming in publicly funded schools.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#36187 - 03/10/10 03:53 AM
Re: Christian oppression and back lash . . .
[Re: Jake999]
|
MawhrinSkel
active member
Registered: 06/24/09
Posts: 853
Loc: Norway
|
Heh.
I resemble that observation.
I actually taught science at a private religious school. What? I needed a job, and they paid the same as any other teaching job.
The funny thing was that I was allowed to teach about both the Big Bang and the theory of evolution. Reason? "It's only a theory!"
They were nice people to work with. They didn't know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, but that worked out to my benefit and that of the children in question.
The kids were actually clever enough to squeeze me on it; they asked me whether I personally didn't believe in Genesis. I told them my personal opinion was immaterial and that several possible explanations existed. I also pointed out that a hypothesis backed by evidence is called a theory. It worked out beautifully. I didn't get fired and everyone was happy.
Eventually I got another job, though. Sometimes I still wonder whether that was a good idea. Who's going to teach those kids about science now?
Private schools in Europe are subjected to rigorous quality control, although Britain has become lax in this regard. I don't know how this works in the US, but I know that as late as 1929 the state of Tennessee passed a law banning the teaching of the theory of evolution in schools in favour of creationism.
It was later overturned, of course, but the impulses are still there.
All education is programming or brainwashing, and everyone knows it. This is why using the teacher's desk as a soapbox is wrong. I can't preach my personal *opinions* at school, nor would I want to. I can relate what information exists regarding the topics discussed and how it can be interpreted.
This is intended to instil the kids with a sense of wonder and questioning. Most of the time, it simply works out so that the kids are bored. This is why I sometimes argue points of view that aren't mine; so that kids can pick at my arguments. Hopefully, it makes them critical-minded.
Religious studies here are taught from an allegedly neutral standpoint, although the favouritism shines through easily enough. When using the method of telling time, for example, we say 'Before Common Era' and 'Common Era', indicating that Muslims have a weird way of telling time, as do the Chinese. Not saying this is wrong, just saying.
_________________________
"I'd rather be right than consistent" - Winston Churchill
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#36189 - 03/10/10 04:18 AM
Re: Christian oppression and back lash . . .
[Re: MawhrinSkel]
|
Jake999
veteran member
Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 1277
Loc: Tennessee
|
I don't know how this works in the US, but I know that as late as 1929 the state of Tennessee passed a law banning the teaching of the theory of evolution in schools in favour of creationism.
It was later overturned, of course, but the impulses are still there.
That's true. The famous "Scopes Monkey Trial" was a show trial to determine whether Evolution or Creationism would be taught in Tennessee schools... happened at Dayton, Tennessee at the Rhea County Court House. Two of America's greatest orators of the day (Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryant) squared off to debate the point and is probably one of the best depictions of what happens when politics and religion are considered in curriculum.
I'll recommend the 1960 movie "Inherit The Wind," which is based on that trial. It's short... bout 120 minutes long, and in black and white. For "atmosphere" of what it was like to hold the trial in pre-air conditioning Tennessee back then, turn your heater up to 110° F. (Actually, Maw, if your kids can understand enough of the English in the film it could be an excellent teaching aid.)
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#36210 - 03/11/10 03:49 AM
Re: Christian oppression and back lash . . .
[Re: Jake999]
|
MawhrinSkel
active member
Registered: 06/24/09
Posts: 853
Loc: Norway
|
I briefly considered going back and editing my own post for veracity, but what the hell: I'd better come clean and state the original trial took place in 1925 and not 1929. My memory is sketchy at times. Not that anyone would begrudge me those four years, but we'd better get our facts straight.
This is precisely the reason arguing with evidence is superior to arguing with obfuscation. Facts matter when debating 'truth'. When creationism and intelligent design are intentionally kept separate, it is in order to open two separate fronts on the same topic. When we cross our t's and dot our i's, it makes factual arguments factual.
As has been debated on this topic both here and elsewhere, evolution is *not* a fact. Evolution is a theory for which overwhelming evidence exists. It is the best explanation we have for the way things are today. Saying an explanation is a fact is shaming the debate.
The 'honourable' opposition is claiming that there is truth and untruth. The truth is what the bible states. Everything else is a fabrication and a test of their faith. With that caveat, how could they believe otherwise? They will never cede to evidence or reason, but they *will* respond to evidence that ridicules their opinions. Proof that their opinions are hogwash provokes them and makes them think. The entire debate, when carried out in public, is one which forces both sides to argue on each others' halves of the field.
The curious thing is that while proponents of the theory of evolution commonly provide proof, use the scientific method and are entirely prepared to drop the theory of evolution when it is replaced with something better, creationists/ID proponents argue that their case is true because their creator told them so. Losing the case would cost them their faith. Science could lose its theory of evolution and replace it with another theory, which (let's face it) would probably still not accomodate the divine influence the creationists crave.
Looking at the entire debacle in this fashion shows who has the upper hand *in essence*. However, the entire battle is being fought over public opinion, not who is essentially right. The debate about who is right and wrong has already been fought, and we know who won that one. The current debate is one of public opinion, where we need to pander to the minds of the mediocre so they don't vote for theocratic dogma. Sad but true.
The debate is this: would you rather be allowed to use your brain or would you like to be told what to believe? I'm turning the question into a tabloid version of itself, but I'm guessing you know why I'm being bombastic.
Truth is ephemeral. Religion is claiming sole ownership of it. Science says it's open to revision when better explanations exist. There is nothing fundamentalist about claiming the theory of evolution is *more* true than creationism. It's simply good science. Theory A makes sense and can be backed by evidence. Theory B is backed by a purported holy book of dubious origin and zero corroborating evidence. It's easy for the lazy mind to believe B, since believing in A means challenging their own memeplex. And we can't have that now, can we?
_________________________
"I'd rather be right than consistent" - Winston Churchill
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#36213 - 03/11/10 03:57 AM
Re: Christian oppression and back lash . . .
[Re: MawhrinSkel]
|
XiaoGui17
member
Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 104
Loc: Austin, TX
|
As has been debated on this topic both here and elsewhere, evolution is *not* a fact. Evolution is a theory for which overwhelming evidence exists.
Evolution is both, actually.
A theory explains a set of known facts in terms of what causes them. Evolution is a theory that explains the diversity between organisms and the complexity of individual organisms.
A fact is an objective, measurable observation. Both speciation AND microevolution have been observed and documented. These can be objectively measured as well, in terms of the ability to produce fertile offspring (divergent speciation) and gene frequency within a population (microevolution.) There's no question of what's been observed.
If we wanted to talk theories there, the theory to explain the fact of evolution would be natural selection.
_________________________
Senseless as beasts I gave men sense, possessed them of mind.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#36214 - 03/11/10 04:16 AM
Re: Christian oppression and back lash . . .
[Re: XiaoGui17]
|
MawhrinSkel
active member
Registered: 06/24/09
Posts: 853
Loc: Norway
|
I'd like to direct your response to Richard Dawkins' latest book "The Greatest Show on Earth", where the entire first chapter is devoted to giving a new definition of 'fact' to accomodate something we have overwhelming evidence for. When debating objective truth we'll always run into pitfalls.
While I would also like to think of evolution as fact, the simple reason I don't is that claiming it was would render it unfalsifiable.
We need to maintain a certain scientific integrity while debating it. Certainly we can *treat* the theory of evolution as fact when relating it or building new scientific works on top of, or aggregate to it, but accepting it as fact means we are disregarding the possibility of other explanations. As has been pointed out by members here in the past, certain genetic macro-mutations have indicated some protein developments in past species that could mean other mechanisms than just natural selection were in play.
Not saying this falsifies the theory, only that we need to remain willing to return to the original theory and re-examine it when the need dictates.
Edit: I hold the theory of evolution as *true enough for my purposes for the time being*. If we apply the skeptic/critical mindset to all aspects of life, it leads to total quietism and passivity. There's an whole bunch of diatribes in "Beyond Good & Evil" directed at those Mad Freddy regards as "sceptics". However, Freddy didn't mean 'sceptics' in the modern sense, but sceptics in that they were opposed to any kind of scientific, meaningful pursuit of truth.
When we approach truth, it is for the express purpose of acting according to it. When truth is forever beyond our grasp, do we accept that and play the hand we're dealt or do we agonize over the fact that we cannot achieve 100% certitude forever and ever?
This has given rise to the liberal mindset that all opinions are of equal value and have an equal right to be heard. This is patently false, but in the interest of scientific inquiry, we are forced to listen to fundie arguments, hogwash though they may be.
The moment we have a total and complete chain of ancestor-descendant stretching back from protozoa (or further) up till homo sapien sapien *and every single other species* we have proven that evolution is truth.
Since such a pursuit is a near-complete waste of time for practical purposes, we infer that the current fossil and zoology/genetics/biology evidence creates a chain of relatives indicating that natural selection has taken place.
There really is nothing more to it. We can't in good conscience say that it's *truth*, but it's close enough. Claiming it's truth without 100% certitude is shaming the scientific progress.
Mad Freddy would say "We take this and roll with it". Were he of the jive-speaking persuasion. And English-speaking. Our right to take the theory of evolution as read and moving from there is based on our moral fortitude and intellectual honesty. We have a right to claim it as close enough to truth to make no nevermind. Whether we label it as truth or not is less important than what we choose to do with it. This is where the fundies come in to steal evolutionary geneticists and biologists away from the job they were really supposed to be doing, namely go further in their pursuits. Instead they are locked in endless debates over whether evolution is fact.
It's madness, plain and simple. Absolute truth or not is less important. What can be proven and what can be falsified matter a whole lot. Calling evolution truth means we reject its being falsifiable.
Edited by MawhrinSkel (03/11/10 05:18 AM)
Edit Reason: More on my mind...
_________________________
"I'd rather be right than consistent" - Winston Churchill
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#36215 - 03/11/10 05:18 AM
Re: Christian oppression and back lash . . .
[Re: MawhrinSkel]
|
Jake999
veteran member
Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 1277
Loc: Tennessee
|
I briefly considered going back and editing my own post for veracity, but what the hell: I'd better come clean and state the original trial took place in 1925 and not 1929. My memory is sketchy at times. Not that anyone would begrudge me those four years, but we'd better get our facts straight.
Yes, it was 1925, but here in the south, you also have to deduct 25 years from the rest of society. because we're usually about that far behind.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#36227 - 03/11/10 11:48 AM
Re: Christian oppression and back lash . . .
[Re: XiaoGui17]
|
Dimitri
active member
Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 961
Loc: Belgium
|
A theory explains a set of known facts in terms of what causes them. Evolution is a theory that explains the diversity between organisms and the complexity of individual organisms.
A theory actually indicates or hypotheses a connection between different facts/measurments/actions/...
The theory explaining diversity and complexity is not evolution alone. Evolution is a theorized mechanism, it is part of a bigger machine in nature.
And indeed, evolution is but a theory with overwhelming evidence, yet vital pieces to let it pass off as a fact are missing. These vital pieces in paleontology are called the "missing links".
If we wanted to talk theories there, the theory to explain the fact of evolution would be natural selection.
It is the theorized mechanism of evolution and the theorized mechanism of natural selection.
The mechanism of evolution plays a part in natural selection, and it also works the other way round.
Edited by Dimitri (03/11/10 11:48 AM)
_________________________
You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#36230 - 03/11/10 12:23 PM
Re: Christian oppression and back lash . . .
[Re: XiaoGui17]
|
6Satan6Archist6
veteran member
Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 1295
Loc: Oregon
|
While Intelligent (Intellectual?) Design doesn't necessarily entail Creationism, that's certainly the motivation behind it.
ID does, in fact, necessarily entail Creationism. For it to be "Intelligent Design" it needs two things: An intelligence behind the design and a designer. This implies God even though it is not explicitly stated. How you think you can separate the two is beyond me.
_________________________
Man will never truly be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Woland, Mercury_Templar, fakepropht, Nemesis, MawhrinSkel, Bacchae
|
|
