#4042 - 02/10/08 02:51 PM
Henry Rollins on God and Evolution
|
xear
Admin
member
Registered: 07/06/07
Posts: 225
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#4064 - 02/10/08 11:58 PM
Re: Henry Rollins on God and Evolution
[Re: ZephyrGirl]
|
rob_church
member
Registered: 11/02/07
Posts: 194
Loc: alberta , canada
|
indeed thank you rick for posting that ,i had no idea henry rollins even had a show im off to look up some more.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#4069 - 02/11/08 01:36 AM
Re: Henry Rollins on God and Evolution
[Re: xear]
|
rob_church
member
Registered: 11/02/07
Posts: 194
Loc: alberta , canada
|
man you are not kiding rick. this whole time i have been on you tube but i only get fragments and i want more:) if anyone knows of a good source for this material please post it. i shall keep hunting and if i find a good source i will post it here.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#4249 - 02/15/08 12:24 AM
Re: Henry Rollins on God and Evolution
[Re: xear]
|
Morgan
veteran member
Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 1463
Loc: New York City
|
Thanks for putting this up.
Rollins is so right that its fucking sad.
This country/world is entering a new dark ages. As much as the internet has made information available, it also limits it. Instead of doing research people accept the first thing they read on google if they even get that far. They are lazy, spoiled, self-indulgent, god-fearing, fear-mongering, and willfully stupid, with no desire to better themselves. (Yes, its a general statement, but hopefully doesn't apply to many people here.)
The christian fundies have managed to build a museaum in the middle of the country that pays tribute to the way they believe the past happened. Basically, that Fred Flintstone life was real. Man lived with dinosaurs, and I think god's flood killed the dinosaurs. It's a big museaum, it's new, and its all paid off.
Morg
http://www.dinosauradventureland.com/aboutDAL.php
http://www.creationmuseum.org/
Edited by Morgan (02/15/08 12:37 AM)
Edit Reason: added links
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#4519 - 02/25/08 01:30 AM
Re: Henry Rollins on God and Evolution
[Re: xear]
|
FaxMeBeer
lurker
Registered: 02/25/08
Posts: 2
|
First, I'd like to point out that Henry Rollins is just some guy who had a hit song 20 years ago, certainly not someone whose critiques of social-religious constructs should be taken seriously.
A couple of instances that illustrate Rollins's lack of deep understanding of the subject he's speaking on:
1) The only people who bother to talk about Darwin and God in the same diatribe are Christian fundamentalists (and I use the term loosely, because there is nothing fundamentally pure about their ideology) with 9th grade educations; and shrill liberals that thing the Origin of Species somehow describes the origin of anything except species. The question, that is beyond the grasp of both groups (both the "fundamentalists and the shrill libs like Rollins), isn't whether species evolved, but it's: from whence the basic building blocks of life? From whence the laws of physics? Similarly, science tells us that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, so where did it come from? Science believes that it can establish the chain of events that created the universe down to 10^-52 nanoseconds from their presumed big-bang, which means that they cannot answer the most basic question that their theory creates in the mind of a thinking wo/man: how did the materials that allowed for the big bang to occur come from?
What I'm saying is that Rollins is confused, as are many other non-Christians and Christians alike, in believing that Darwin was creating a theory that was contrary to the idea of creationism. All Darwin established in his very dry and boring book (that most people who talk about have never actually read) is that things change. The idea of evolving species is in no way contrary to the idea of God, nor is it an explanation of the origin of matter, energy, nor the laws of physics.
2) Awful people, in Rollins's opinion, want intelligent design taught in school. Rollins, and those like him, don't even recognize that they want a great disservice done to those stuck in our public education system, by confusing the realities of evolution, with the questions of the creation of the universe. Those who believe in intelligent design may in fact be awful -- though no more fundamentally evil than an egomaniac who films two minutes of himself talking (poorly) about a subject that he has no grasp of. If you put the average intelligent design proponent and Rollins in a room, you'd have two people who had no clue what they were talking about. Idiocracy at it's highest level.
3) "Science does not operate on faith." An obvious lie. Again, scientists have placed nearly unanimous faith in the idea of the "big bang", publicized that idea and used political pressure to have it taught to the exclusivity of any other theory in the public schools, without being able to answer the most basic questions that a thinking person has regarding the theory. It is no more intellectually noble, or proper, to believe in a magic particle that simply popped into existence in the absence (necessarily)of any precursor matter, heat, cold, or any basic necessity of fission, than to believe that God did it. It requires a similar level of faith to believe in either theory - and great men and women have believed both.
4) "The new dark ages are upon us." Mr. Rollins may be want to remember that it was Celtic Catholic Monks who preserved the wealth of Western Cultural heritage during the attacks on the Christian world by the Godless Germanic tribes which lead to the dark ages. Those monks maintained documents, art, science texts (both Christian and non; preserving, for instance, the mathematical writings from the Islamic world, and the classical texts on philosophy and math from pre-Christian Greece and Italy). Mr. Rollins may want to familiarize himself with groups such as the Jesuits, who are both healthily skeptical of the theory of evolution and also loath to sink to the level of Protestant fear mongering.
Don't take this post to heart, either. Don't listen to me, a priest, a pastor, or certainly not aging know-nothing ex-rock stars. Go buy a book, for God's sake. Read "A Brief History of Time", read Darwin, read Orwell's definitive history tome "The History of the World". If you find that people like Rollins influence you, then also check out "Influence: Science and Practice", which can reveal to you the tricks that know-nothings use to get the respect of onlookers and listeners.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#4541 - 02/25/08 09:36 PM
Re: Henry Rollins on God and Evolution
[Re: FaxMeBeer]
|
xear
Admin
member
Registered: 07/06/07
Posts: 225
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
|
"FaxMeBeer" aka Rockhurst Jesuit University Student,
I don't even know where to begin. Your post was as uncompelling as it was pointless. Really, what is one supposed to glean from your non-contribution? Henry Rollins was, and is, a musician, so he can't possibly form a valid thought? Come on now.
The core issue he was speaking to was faith in the classroom, and the power grab on part of the religious groups in this country in an attempt to remain relevant. "God magically created the world for an unknown reason" has no place in the public curriculum, where logic, fact and the body of collective knowledge known as science have propelled man from confused caveman to jet-propelled globe trotters with instantaneous access to nearly any and all information with the push of a button. Faith wasn't much help to us there.
Your argument that "science" uses faith regarding the big bang theory is simply dishonest. The scholars, physicists and intellectuals of the world merely attempt to answer the one great unsolved mystery. Many have varying opinions, and non-opinions. To lump it all up in this neat little package and say that "science relies on faith because of a (the big bang) THEORY" is absurd.
"Where did we come from" is an age old question without a clear answer in sight. I'm not opposed to the theories being discussed and introduced into the classroom, but I must draw the line at simply making things up that are comforting to rednecks in Alabama.
You seem to be slamming the messenger more than the message. You also try to make your case (which is really not much more than discrediting Henry Rollins) by slamming science, but making sure to distance yourself from the religious fanaticism by exalting the jesuits, and then praising (of all random things) the "Celtic Catholic Monks". Are you kidding me?
Get out of here with the 7th grade debate class crap, and come back when you have something more substantive to contribute than "Henry Rollins is a washed up musician" and "the Celtic Catholic Monks were swell guys."
- R
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#4598 - 02/27/08 10:03 PM
Re: Henry Rollins on God and Evolution
[Re: xear]
|
FaxMeBeer
lurker
Registered: 02/25/08
Posts: 2
|
Interesting that you criticize me for "attacking the messenger", as you proceed to mostly attack me and my "7th grade debate" tactics, and the State of Alabama.
The fact is, as you've conceded, that science cannot establish the most fundamental and basic facts of it's theories (regarding the source of the universe), and so any belief in those theories is purely faith by any definition. You choose to place your faith in the scientific explanation of the origins of the universe, and I don't criticize you for that, but you shouldn't kid yourself into believing that you've taken the more intellectual approach to the issue.
By the way: I brought up Celtic Monks because their actions directly reflected on the lack of historical perspective taken by the speaker (on a topic that he brought up) and showed his shallow knowledge of the topics on which he was speaking. That's the opposite of randomness.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#4600 - 02/28/08 12:55 AM
Re: Henry Rollins on God and Evolution
[Re: FaxMeBeer]
|
xear
Admin
member
Registered: 07/06/07
Posts: 225
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
|
The fact is, as you've conceded, that science cannot establish the most fundamental and basic facts of it's theories (regarding the source of the universe)...
Actually I was saying is that NO ONE can establish the facts regarding the source of the universe. "Faith" isn't required. I KNOW the universe was created. Proof that the universe was created is evident by this retarded discussion (more like a beating).
You choose to place your faith in the scientific explanation of the origins of the universe.
I do? Can you point to where in post I stated as such?
and I don't criticize you for that.
Well that's good, because you would look like a fool if tried.
I brought up Celtic Monks because their actions directly reflected on the lack of historical perspective taken by the speaker
Really? Because I had forgotten how crucial the issue of the Celtic Catholic Monks from the European dark ages were to the issue of Intelligent Design in 21st century American school curriculum.
Perhaps it's time to notify Margaret Spellings of this groundbreaking discovery?
Get serious.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#4626 - 02/28/08 04:24 PM
Re: Henry Rollins on God and Evolution
[Re: FaxMeBeer]
|
Meq
active member
Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
Loc: UK
|
What I'm saying is that Rollins is confused, as are many other non-Christians and Christians alike, in believing that Darwin was creating a theory that was contrary to the idea of creationism. All Darwin established in his very dry and boring book (that most people who talk about have never actually read) is that things change. The idea of evolving species is in no way contrary to the idea of God, nor is it an explanation of the origin of matter, energy, nor the laws of physics.
Of course, Darwinism is not inconsistent with every variety of theism, deism, or pantheism (which even Dawkins seem largely sympatheic towards).
Charles Darwin himself was agnostic about the notion of God (not a militant Atheist as is commonly believed).
Darwinism is, however, an attack on a literal reading of Genesis - that God created all creatures 'according to their kind' at the beginning of the world.
If Darwin was right, distinct species or 'kinds' emerge from previous species through a purely material (yet non-random) process of natural selection over millions of years - not through direct supernatural intervention by a creator God 6000 years ago.
The reality of evolution also suggests that millions of years of enormous pain, suffering and cruelty were needed to create today's variety of life (including human beings).
For a liberal Christian who accepts Darwinian natural selection, this is a problem - for the Christian conception of God must be of a morally good, just and loving being (leaving out the scholastic concepts of omnipotence and omniscience).
Why would a good and wise God choose such a cruel and sadistic process to create life? Come to think of it, why create suffering at all?
The 'problem of evil' may well be insoluble so long as the notion of a morally good God is held on to.
David Hume's 'Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion' contains a strong argument that the problem of evil effectively refutes the notion that a good and powerful God was responsible for creating this world.
It quotes Epicurus:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"
Epicurus continued: "Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?'
Rollins, and those like him, don't even recognize that they want a great disservice done to those stuck in our public education system, by confusing the realities of evolution, with the questions of the creation of the universe.
I can wholly sympathise with the notion of placing more emphasis in the public education system of discussing 'the questions of the creation of the universe'. Philosophical topics border with many science and humanities subjects, and perhsps a dose of rational philosophical discussion about the origins of life and the universe may provide a good basis for critical thinking and a deeper understanding of the world if discussed in schools. (But maybe - conspiracy nuts - your govermnent doesn't want people to think too much)?
However, there is no excuse for putting religious mythology or pseudoscience into a science lesson.
It may be a good idea for science students to be informed of the existence of 'intelligent design' theory - as well as a rational analysis of the reasons and evidence cited by mainstream scientists against taking it seriously. However, it makes more sense for good science to be taught - and perhaps the skills needed to recognise pseudoscientific sophistry.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#4682 - 03/01/08 02:18 PM
Re: Henry Rollins on God and Evolution
[Re: FaxMeBeer]
|
Morgan
veteran member
Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 1463
Loc: New York City
|
Therories, ideas, beliefs, and faith.
Each has its own meaning, interpretation, and mass amounts of idiots willing to die over it.
Just because a person believes in a god who created the life, universe, and everything doesn't mean he's right. Its just his opinion/personal view of his reality.
No one should force his religious beliefs wrapped up in pseudoscientific babble on another person especially a child.
Teach science in school.
Teach religion at home.
Should be Basic seperation of church and state, but everyone wants to force everyone else to kowtow to their own personal beliefs because they have the power in a given situation.
Rabid, rancid dogma pushing idiots are still idiots no matter what side of the fence they stand behind.
Doesn't matter if they are christians, muslims, jews, santa clauses, easter bunnies, and corporate bosses.
Morg
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Woland, Mercury_Templar, fakepropht, Nemesis, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Bacchae
|
|
