POLL: your take on creationism

Submitted by Eugene on August 30, 2008 - 11:09am
I'm a firm believer
9% (8 votes)
ID is a legitimate area of research
2% (2 votes)
I could vote for a presidential candidate despite his or her creationist beliefs
20% (19 votes)
Creationist candidate is a no go for me
69% (64 votes)
Total votes: 93
Submitted by gandalf on August 30, 2008 - 11:25am.

Religious people: please get out of politics. Go back to church. Worship as you please. I don't care what you believe. Whatever you do, stop attempting to impose your beliefs on others. There's something very mentally ill about that.

Submitted by jficquette on August 30, 2008 - 11:35am.

gandalf wrote:
Religious people: please get out of politics. Go back to church. Worship as you please. I don't care what you believe. Whatever you do, stop attempting to impose your beliefs on others. There's something very mentally ill about that.

I have much more respect for those who worship their God then I do for those who worship government as the Socialists, Commies do.

I wish the Socialist would quit trying to push their ridiculous views on others. After all, no where in human history has Socialism worked yet so many people keep trying to push it on others.

John

Submitted by gandalf on August 30, 2008 - 11:53am.

So you're suggesting that Americans who believe in separation of church and state are socialist or communist? That's pretty much bullshit.

That's the most anti-American thing I've ever heard. We've got 232 years of tradition in this country respecting separation of church and state.

None of us worship the government. We just want you mentally-ill bible-thumping trailer-park retards to keep your religion out of politics.

Submitted by jficquette on August 30, 2008 - 11:58am.

gandalf wrote:
So you're suggesting that Americans who believe in separation of church and state are socialists or communists?

That's the most anti-American thing I've ever heard.

We've got 232 years of tradition in this country respecting separation of church and state and you're out there suggesting we're communists.

None of us worship the government. We just want you mentally-ill bible-thumping trailer-park retards to get the hell out of politics. That's all.

Of course not. Separation of Church/State is in the constitution. Your saying that religious people are pushing their beliefs on others and I am saying I have more respect for those beliefs then I do for the belief that the government is the answer to all as the socialist and commies do.

John

Submitted by tc on August 30, 2008 - 12:04pm.

Religious freedom is what this country was founded on. When we start to blur that line we start to lose focus on this beautiful idea. When schools start teaching creationism we have no leg to stand on. As a country we cannot say we stand for freedom yet impose the beliefs of others on our children. How can that be any different from communism? We as a free people should be allowed to make up our own minds and not be forced to accept the ideals of others, even if they are the majority. People can be good without believing in any one religion. I myself believe fully in this idea of freedom. I wish more people would. But instead of freedom they are blinded by their beliefs. They must feel like they are smarter, know something others don’t, or are superior in their knowledge. And it seems to me that those are the same type of people that drove the pilgrims to jump on a ship and set sail for some unknown land. Not knowing if they would survive. Wanting true freedom.

Submitted by gandalf on August 30, 2008 - 12:09pm.

I don't believe in creationism. Allegorically, yes, I believe there is metaphysical 'truth' in the creation stories. But not literally. The earth is billions of years old. God didn't bury dinosaur bones there as a ruse. And I won't stand for a public school science teacher teaching my kids 'voodoo science' to justify their religious beliefs.

My Dad is a scientist. Many scientists are religious. Most of them see no contradiction between science and religion whatsoever. The current conflict between science and religion is a political phenomenon of the 'Culture War' and it's used to divide, group and label voters.

You may agree with many of the positions of the culture warriors, abortion, gay marriage, family values, etc. That's fine by me. But don't preach politics from the pulpit. And keep your religion out of our government.

Submitted by gandalf on August 30, 2008 - 12:23pm.

John, I appreciate the clarification. Sorry I misunderstood.

Actually, it seems I agree with you. In many countries, China for example, loyalty to belief systems are used as a means of political control. Whether it's communist China, the Taliban in Afghanistan or these republican evangelical social conservatives, the larger socio-political patterns are exactly the same. It's anathema to me.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on August 30, 2008 - 12:26pm.

gandalf: One of the things I notice in some of the posts is the mention that this nation was founded "Under God".

If you read the writings of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Edmund Burke, or James Madison, what you find is that they were either Deists or firmly agnostic, with a strong distrust of "state" religions. Deism was primarily defined as a belief in God (or higher power) who was NOT meddling in the affairs of Man. These men were products of the Age of Reason and recognized the danger of autocratic, state sponsored religions and hence the call for separation of Church and State.

As of late, evangelical Christians have tried to foist the idea that the Founding Fathers were all deeply religious and propounded beliefs that intertwined God with politics. They did nothing of the sort and actually warned strongly against it.

The communism practiced by the Russians and Chinese is really no different from a state sponsored "religion" in my belief, and with all of the attendant woes.

Submitted by gandalf on August 30, 2008 - 12:51pm.

Yeah. I'm there, man.

Had enough of queer pastor Bob and the American Taliban groping us with their ultra-conservative, anti-dinosaur religious beliefs.

Right on about the founders. Actually, I think I'm a deist. Haven't really considered it lately. Maybe I should.

Do Deists believe in the housing bubble?

Submitted by luchabee on August 30, 2008 - 2:29pm.

Ah, yes, evolution, the adult fairy tale mostly for man-boys in their 30s and 40s (most of whom were rejected by girls in high school and college, for some reason) who need a nice story to make them feel safe and secure about their rejection of God.

Blinded by pride and super impressed with evolutionary jargon and non-sensical observations, these man-boys cling on to the purported teachings of similar man-boys in the academy who they have never studied or read, but was confirmed to them in a freshman class in college.

As a core foundation of their religion or because of it, they instantly revolt at the suggestion that there might be an intelligent source behind the creation of the world's most complex and amazing machines. Women, for some reason, rarely take on this zealous defense of the faith (perhaps because they realize how amazing their bodies are, i.e. God inspired)?

Once they completed their class in school (and perhaps confirmed with an occasional update on a wikipedia article or an article in Yahoo's science section), as evolutionary automatons, they violently lash out at anyone daring to question their religious beliefs with charges about the need to preserve the "separation of church and state" and accusations that the others are Bible thumping.

They, themselves, though are too intellectually stunted to read countervailing theories, and instead place their religous faith in the most dismal of all "sciences," seizing on every example of "commonalities" between species as evidence of a COMMON ancestry . . . and not ever considering that these commonalities are evidence of a COMMON designer. (Some of the others call this designer "God.")

They are content to live with this tale, happy with their question begging theory, and rarely go so far as to inquire into cosmology and how, impossibly (with no God), matter was created out of nothing, a materialistic impossibility.

Again, they never question that their house of cards must also have a logical and supra-physical foundation, namely a Holy God that created all we see, the air we breathe, the ground that we stand on--not to mention the hundreds, if not thousands, of dependent systems and structures that could not have independently formed at the same exact mili-second in a spontaneous "miracle" of evolution that keep us alive every day.

As they grow older, though, sometimes these man-boys do evolve themselves--even the most dogmatic of the species--likely confronting the realization of their pending mortality--and decide to throw off their fairy tales and stop begging the questions about the origin of the universe and their rebellion against God.

See below.

Submitted by luchabee on August 30, 2008 - 2:29pm.

Though a rare event, one of the most prominent man-boys recently saw the light:

---------------------------------------------------
In early December of 2004 the world renowned atheist author Dr. Antony Flew at age 81 astounded other atheists with his candid admission. Flew, who is an emeritus professor of philosophy at Britain's Reading University has said that the scientific evidence available to us today is overwhelmingly in favor of the existence of a creator God. Flew, who was raised Methodist became an atheist at age 15, has been an influential champion of atheism for more than fifty years. He has argued repeatedly that there was not enough evidence to support the notion of a creator. But Flew has changed his mind and now believes in God based on the scientific evidence. Flew concluded that a super-intelligence is the only plausible explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of the universe. Flew now describes himself as a deist. A deist is someone who believes in a God who is not actively involved in people’s lives. He has stated that he is not a Christian and does not believe in an afterlife. However, Flew has admitted that his God could be a person from the perspective of a being that has intelligence and purpose.

Teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reading universities in Britain, and in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses, and in books, articles, lectures and debates, Flew has presented the view that there is a lack of evidence for God. But during this time Flew underwent a gradual conversion from atheism to deism. In a letter he wrote in the August-September issue of Britain’s Philosophy Now magazine, "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism." Flew said he had "been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinarily complicated creature". Flew correctly specifies that the scientific establishment has simply failed to answer this question. By taking issue with the naturalistic chemical origin of life, Flew is attacking the intellectual foundation of modern atheistic materialism and purely naturalistic evolution. Flew conceded that his current thoughts on the origin of life are similar to those of the intelligent design community.

Flew stated that his "whole life has been guided by the principle of ... Follow the evidence, wherever it leads." By doing this he has come to the conclusion from "biologists’ investigation of DNA ... the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved." Flew went on to say that "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.” Yet somehow we are still unable to present this very evidence to students at all levels of the American academic system. A newspaper in Texas recently made the obvious connection between Flew’s admission and academics: "If the scientific data are compelling enough to cause an atheist academic of Antony Flew's reputation to recant much of his life's work, why shouldn't Texas schoolchildren be taught the controversy?" Flew has been an atheist for nearly 70 years and has now come to believe that naturalism is inadequate to explain the origin of the universe and life. He has come to this conclusion based solely on scientific evidence. This event should now make it untenable for evolutionists in the United States to continue to argue that Intelligent Design is just Biblical creationism under a different guise.

It is my opinion that the evidence for intelligent design of life and our universe literally leaps out at you from our current body of scientific knowledge. Over the next couple of decades intelligent design will roll in along side of evolution in school curriculums. It should be taught in schools as the science it is, and under the Supreme Court's current separation of church and State rulings, it is perfectly legal. We are on the brink of a revolution here. It has only been since the middle part of the 19th century that naturalism has dominated science. Virtually all scientists before this era were creationists. In the last fifty years amazing research tools have been invented. The electron microscope, the particle supercollider, the Hubble space telescope, and many other advanced scientific instruments have revealed a creation infinitely more complex than the simplistic ideas born out of the ignorance of the late 19th and early 20th century. We now know cells are not just chemical soup as Darwin imagined, but are indeed nanotechnological systems like nothing we could have ever imagined. A hundred years from now, if the Lord tarries, the age of Darwinian evolution and the rule of naturalism in science may be viewed as the dark ages of science.

Submitted by urbanrealtor on August 30, 2008 - 2:33pm.

bored now.

Can we get back to communism and how we won Vietnam?

Maybe add in something about a good Pho recipe?

Allan, you're killing me here.

We need you.

Please.

Dan-Boy
(rejected by girls, Grrls!, and lady-boys)

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on August 30, 2008 - 2:45pm.

Dan: Sorry, but that Michigan - Utah game is a good one.

You know, as a Catholic, I believe in God as an animating force in the universe. Where it breaks down for me is with the "God made the world in seven days" tale. I believe that the bible is meant to be interpreted contextually and not literally and I believe that science and religion can co-exist (albeit uneasily). I also believe that neither science nor religion has ALL the answers.

I don't subscribe to Intelligent Design, but I also don't know enough about it to argue my reasons persuasively. I found luchabees posts and the article about Flew interesting, but I would want to read up on this before jumping into the fray.

Why are we man-boys again?

Pho! Dude, I love that stuff! There's a couple of really good Pho joints off of El Cajon Blvd in San Diego.

Submitted by urbanrealtor on August 30, 2008 - 2:49pm.

That one over by the Beauty Bar is one of my favorite places. Not too far from my house either.

Did you see that new Elaine Pagels book about the Gospel of Judas?

I am reading it right now and its pretty damn good.

Submitted by stansd on August 30, 2008 - 3:31pm.

Gandalf,

Unless you are a strict libertarian, is not the whole purpose of a career in politics to impose your beliefs on others?

I'm a bible believer, who would probably term my view on the origin of the world as theistic evolution. That said, I'm continually intrigued by the venom spewed by folks like yourself towards people of faith?

Are religious believers often guilty of attempting to legislate their beliefs onto others? Absolutely? Has faith of many stripes been used as an excuse for some of the most heinous crimes in human history? Without question. Do I condone this? Absolutely not? Why is it, though that the level of passion (hatred) exhibited by folks like yourself manifests itself much more frequently when religious motives are behind this legislative imposition of beliefs? Why is that relevant?

If it's using the strong arm of the state to coerce others into doing things that you hate, level against that, but leave religion out of it. Doing otherwise is religious discrimination at best, outright hatred at worst.

There's enough of that out there as it is...there's no need for true believers of liberty to pile on.

Stan

Submitted by stansd on August 30, 2008 - 3:31pm.

Duplicate

Submitted by jficquette on August 30, 2008 - 3:52pm.

Stan,

Good post. Plus, it was buses full of believers not atheists that I saw rushing to New Orleans to give aid in the aftermath of Katrina.

Who creates more value in our society? Believers or Atheists? Believers in God do in my opinion because good works is part of the belief system.

John

Submitted by afx114 on August 30, 2008 - 4:11pm.

jficquette wrote:
Plus, it was buses full of believers not atheists that I saw rushing to New Orleans to give aid in the aftermath of Katrina.

That may be true, but it was also believers and not atheists who said that New Orleans deserved it because the city had caught The Ghey. It was also the believers and not the atheists who wished a similar fate upon Denver last week.

Submitted by MisterMark123 on August 30, 2008 - 4:21pm.

Yep. And those same believers will be celebrating when a catastrophic earthquake hits California. Just watch.

Submitted by urbanrealtor on August 30, 2008 - 4:29pm.

afx114 wrote:
jficquette wrote:
Plus, it was buses full of believers not atheists that I saw rushing to New Orleans to give aid in the aftermath of Katrina.

That may be true, but it was also believers and not atheists who said that New Orleans deserved it because the city had caught The Ghey. It was also the believers and not the atheists who wished a similar fate upon Denver last week.

afx is framing it a bit harsh.

However, he has a point.

John, you cant say that followers of faith necessarily add so much just because of their faith.

I think you end up with good people and assholes on both sides.

The quakers were instrumental in the underground railroad. The president they put in the white house resigned as he was being impeached for criminal acts.

I don't recall the last time a suicide bomber left a note espousing atheism and I don't know the last time I saw a worthwhile charity without some religious affiliation.

Submitted by gandalf on August 30, 2008 - 4:41pm.

LUCHABEE:

It's okay for you to believe in God as an animating force in the universe or whatever else you would like to believe. Such beliefs do not need to be supported by science. There is metaphysical truth in creation myths that help us to understand the nature of human existence. Religion is a vehicle for understanding the nature of our existence and is not in conflict with science or an understanding of the physical universe gained through scientific observation.

Science, on the other hand, an objective understanding of our physical world, including its origins, and is based on research, observation -- empirical, measurable and verifiable evidence. Evolution theory is well-supported by science. Every scientist understands that Evolution Theory is incomplete around the margins. Science and our understanding of the physical world is by definition incomplete. It is EVOLVING. What an interesting WORD? Many of us suspect there may yet be, as you suggest, some over-arching principles and forces common to both worlds.

SO THAT WE'RE CLEAR HERE:

"Intelligent Design" in the REAL-WORLD is not a trendy new religio-scientific unification theory. Intelligent Design is right-wing POLITICAL CODE for CREATIONISM, instituting a LITERAL INTERPRETATION of the Bible supported by CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS in our schools and public square. The overwhelming majority of 'Intelligent Design' voters have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to science. So take your condescending comments and shove them up your man-boy ass.

NO CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISM IN PUBLIC SCHOOL.

Submitted by NotCranky on August 30, 2008 - 4:53pm.

Intelligent design is an attempt at compromise gandalf. The literal interpretations are history and even the "religion is power group" knows it. It is the power they won't give up not the story. Religion evolves too. It always has.

I personally like religion for individuals and abhor it when it is mixed with politics. There seems to me, such and obvious disconnect between religion as a spirtiual tool and politics of religion that it cast a huge shadow of doubt on both, when they are mixed.

Submitted by Arraya on August 30, 2008 - 5:02pm.

Creationism was manufactured to prepare us to go back to Theocracy. The signs of that theocracy are springing up all around us in America and abroad. 14th Century minds armed with 21st Century nukes.

The Creationists exist for only one mission - secular power.

To Hell with a Creator who restricts inalienable rights to those required by a bunch of slave-raping plantation owners to give them overwhelming advantages over someone like me.

To Hell with a boss who claims he has overwhelming advantages over me because he is better at obeying his Creator than I am.

I am not responsible because millenia of our bosses have used our labor to build a maddening maze that controls every aspect of our life, our thoughts, and our faith. That is the Creation, our own work. The need to keep expanding that labyrinth has exhausted us of our resources, required that we be dumbed down so we don't question the project, and weakened its own foundations to the point of crumbling. If we don't keep expanding it, we reach a dead end.

Some pursuit of happiness.

Our cultures and values are competing evolutionary strategies, and all of them eventually will fail. If we refuse to use our evolved intellects to critically dissect those values then we will follow our indoctrinated path blindly to that failure. That's how faith blinds us. The competition itself is insane because faith allows no alternative to absolute victory - fine when you're just stealing one continent from its natives, but suicide when imposed on an entire planet of people of many faiths just as strong as ours. To stick our head out of the maze we must admit there is an outside; that we can tear down the walls of the maze; that we can build something else instead.

Submitted by gandalf on August 30, 2008 - 5:07pm.

stansd, yeah I do lean libertarian. Most of us in GenX do. This religion in schools thing is just crap. We're not turning our schools into madrassas.

Tell me, if the religious right gets past creationism in school, how long before they start in with school prayer? This isn't some sideshow. This is today's GOP, and Kansas is actually a state.

Look, we live in a pluralistic society. You have to accomodate people of different belief systems. Frankly, I don't see secular schools as being in conflict with religion. I don't see religion as being in conflict with science.

The ID movement is absolutely about instituting religion in our government and schools. The GOP of the 21st century wants to take America in the direction of a theocracy. I completely disagree.

The Middle East is full of fundamentalist theocracies. From where I sit, the Taliban suck ass and Afghanistan is a shitty country. I don't think we should go there with America.

Submitted by Arraya on August 30, 2008 - 5:07pm.

More importantly, the entire point of the Far Right's machinations since 1968 is to convince Americans that the government can't make things any better, which leaves everything in the hands of the corporate empire.

The corporate empire needed to burn an infinite amount of fossil fuels to enrich its barons quickly while throwing enough goodies at ordinary citizens so they wouldn't notice their government was being bought out and their brains were being washed out. Thus government could not be used to stop ecological suicide.

Now we are living in the consequences of this plan. War for oil, energy crises, a quadrillion-dollar speculative bubble, a fantastic increase in economic inequality everywhere, a Christian crusade to subjugate the world at gunpoint, an America that tolerates torture and surveillance and government-partnered media.

Submitted by larrylujack on August 30, 2008 - 5:09pm.

"Intelligent design is an attempt at compromise gandalf. The literal interpretations are history and even the "religion is power group" knows it. It is the power they won't give up not the story. Religion evolves too. It always has."

Actually this is a common misconception. ID requires a designer at the end of the day, i.e, it requires someone or something to do the design which in itself means there is or was a supreme entity. So, whatever you want to call it god, karma, buddah, or jerry lewis, ID is plainly the belief in a supreme entity or designer, i.e., a faith based belief which is commonly known as religion, whether you recognize it or not.

Significantly, ID has always failed to pass muster in court in terms of schools trying to teach ID as a part of the science curriculum, because judges, even those appointed by repubs see ID for what it is: RELIGION.

Submitted by gandalf on August 30, 2008 - 5:16pm.

Intelligent Design means alot of things, but it is primarily used to spin religious views in a way that advances religious fundamentalism in our schools and public square.

The nation and its traditions are damaged by this effort.

Submitted by afx114 on August 30, 2008 - 5:22pm.

Does anyone know the term for a "religion" that believes that all other "religions" are just a manifestation of the laws of the universe - physics, chemistry, mathematics, electromagnetism, spacetime, etc? I've always wondered if there was a term to describe the belief in such things as a "religion," though not in the traditional sense of the word.

eg: someone who says, "My God is the Fibonacci Sequence"

Submitted by barnaby33 on August 30, 2008 - 5:22pm.

Wow arraya, I didn't understand what you said, but I could tell it was passionate.

I never realized my atheism was the reason girls ignored me in high school! Thank you dis-interested religious stranger!

Josh

Submitted by meadandale on August 30, 2008 - 5:30pm.

I find it funny that none of the evolutionists can explain what was before the big bang, nor do they try. There was nothing, then BOOM. Yeah, seems to be some metaphysical questions there that you are just hand waving away.

I'll concede that evolutionary theory explains alot about the fossil record and our knowledge of flora and fauna and I find the creation myth to be an allegory, not an actual depiction of the history of the universe. So a week was actually 14 billion years....

Submitted by Arraya on August 30, 2008 - 5:46pm.

afx1114-If you want to go spiritual with science look to quantum physics.

"All matter originates and exists by a virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds the most minute solar system of the atom together.

We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscience an intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter"

Max Planck-Founder of quantum physics.

Submitted by gandalf on August 30, 2008 - 6:07pm.

>> I find it funny that none of the evolutionists
>> can explain what was before the big bang

manda, Evolution is principally a biological science. Astrophysicists have and continue to examine this question. To my mind, on intuition alone, I suspect it is periodic. Cycles or vibrations. I have no evidence upon which to base this and lack the knowledge to know if I'm going in the right direction.

Scientists often explore new ground or formulate hypothises based on instinct. Metaphysics does a better job of explaining our experience as humans than empirical deduction, or even induction.

Science and Religion are not incompatible. They rest alongside each other in relative harmony, if we would only allow it. The one plumbs the unexplainable depths of human consciousness, intuition and experience; the other attempts to describe with predictable accuracy the tangible, external, observable phenomena of the physical world.

I used a semicolon in that last paragraph. ;-)

Submitted by afx114 on August 30, 2008 - 6:07pm.

arraya wrote:
afx1114-If you want to go spiritual with science look to quantum physics.

I'm not looking to go spiritual with science. I want to know if there's a term for the worship of numbers, and the numbers themselves, not some unknown creator of said numbers.

Submitted by gandalf on August 30, 2008 - 7:09pm.

afx, let me know what you think of this...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jh...

The dude's from UCSD, theoretical physics...

Submitted by sdrents on August 30, 2008 - 9:01pm.

Pretty sad that all these claims of keeping religion out of politics means that 67% of people who voted in this mini-poll will not even consider a candidate who happens to have bible based beliefs. Thus, as polled, solely because a person has a religious belief - they cannot earn your vote. I look at candidates based on what they bring to the table. Based on these votes, it is pretty clear that the atheists, etc. are the ones that let their beliefs, or lack thereof, get involved in politics. i.e, anyone with bible based beliefs can't get their vote regardless of their political policy.

Oddly of course, even all the liberal candidates find their relationship with God prior to vote time!

Submitted by urbanrealtor on August 30, 2008 - 9:29pm.

So if they don't agree with you then they are irrational?

Sounds kind of like you're saying all rational people agree with you.

Submitted by jficquette on August 30, 2008 - 9:52pm.

urbanrealtor wrote:
afx114 wrote:
jficquette wrote:
Plus, it was buses full of believers not atheists that I saw rushing to New Orleans to give aid in the aftermath of Katrina.

That may be true, but it was also believers and not atheists who said that New Orleans deserved it because the city had caught The Ghey. It was also the believers and not the atheists who wished a similar fate upon Denver last week.

afx is framing it a bit harsh.

However, he has a point.

John, you cant say that followers of faith necessarily add so much just because of their faith.

I think you end up with good people and assholes on both sides.

The quakers were instrumental in the underground railroad. The president they put in the white house resigned as he was being impeached for criminal acts.

I don't recall the last time a suicide bomber left a note espousing atheism and I don't know the last time I saw a worthwhile charity without some religious affiliation.

Christians who really try to include Christ's teachings of love do create value in our society. Its also not part of Christianity to take joy in any one's suffering. True believers don't think God punishes anyone. Just the weirdo's and there are a lot of weirdo's (g).

So what bugs me is that Christians take so much grief from the MSM without any recognition of the value our Church's create in the community.

John

Submitted by gandalf on August 30, 2008 - 10:01pm.

Not sad, sdrents. Perfectly rational, and appropriate. It's a natural consequence of christian fundamentalists trying to institute their interpretation of religion in public schools and government.

If the Creationists would leave the rest of the country alone with their religious beliefs, the public at large would probably be more open to people of such backgrounds serving in government.

Submitted by sdrents on August 30, 2008 - 10:11pm.

That would be pompous, clearly not what I'm saying. Many rational people have differing views. What I said is that I find it disturbing that 67% of the people who voted said that would not even consider a person with a creationist point of view - regardless of the candidate's political platform as a whole. I for one have crossed party lines and listen to what the candidates have to say on all issues before I vote. I'd like to believe that people listen to a candidates perspective on important issues before they rule them out.

Submitted by gandalf on August 30, 2008 - 10:15pm.

John, I don't think the issue is whether Christians make good citizens or not. They generally do. The issue is whether we honor the principles upon which this country was founded and respect separation of church and state.

- Christians of all people ought to recognize the sanctity of freedom from religious oppression.

- Christians of all people ought to recognize that one's relationship with God is a deeply personal matter.

- What kind of Christian would suggest their understanding of God is more perfect than their neighbor's?

- It is sickness to insist you somehow have an obligation to legislate your neighbor's religious beliefs.

As Americans, we are free to come to God on our own terms. Evangelicals, get your goddamn religious beliefs out of our public schools and out of our government.

Submitted by gandalf on August 30, 2008 - 10:31pm.

sdrents, I think I understand what you are saying.

Perhaps the public's general distrust of right-wing evangelicals is a result of their political activism this past decade, social behavior which may have encroached on the belief systems of others? IOW, maybe people have become biased against the religious right for good reason. In my view, the backlash is a rational and completely acceptable response.

Submitted by urbanrealtor on August 30, 2008 - 10:46pm.

gandalf wrote:
sdrents, I think I understand what you are saying.

Perhaps the public's general distrust of right-wing evangelicals is a result of their political activism this past decade, social behavior which may have encroached on the belief systems of others? IOW, maybe people have become biased against the religious right for good reason. In my view, the backlash is a rational and completely acceptable response.

My ass gandalf.
We don't have anything to apologize for or to explain.

It is not unreasonable or bigoted to say that acceptance of a basic scientific premise is a requirement for my vote.

Further, I don't think projecting religious text onto science is particularly pious or Christian. That sounds more reminiscent of extremism or wahabist Islam.

Aside from evolution, I require that the person I vote for believe in quantum physics and in modern economics.

There is nothing unreasonable in that.

Submitted by robson on August 30, 2008 - 10:49pm.

gandalf wrote:
>> I find it funny that none of the evolutionists
>> can explain what was before the big bang

manda, Evolution is principally a biological science. Astrophysicists have and continue to examine this question. To my mind, on intuition alone, I suspect it is periodic. Cycles or vibrations. I have no evidence upon which to base this and lack the knowledge to know if I'm going in the right direction.

A very large number of astrophysicists pursue their field in search of answering the question of why it is any of this exists. The big bang represents a singularity at which point all known physics breaks down (same as within a black hole) and it is completely valid to say we don't know what happened before it. However, astrophysicists do not simply brush this off, in fact, the ability to explain this is the goal of many. Gandalf-there are theories along these lines such as that the universe will end in a big crunch and then re-expand in a new big bang. Or even that each black hole is the beginning of a new universe.
Quantum physics presents many troubling aspects from a strictly rational viewpoint. Many scientists believe in God and search the universe to better understand how He works or how he put into motion that which exists today.
All that said, evolution is a theory that works within the context of all of this uncertainty. However in this uncertain universe the day to day and even eon to eon processes on Earth are known to very high certainty. If you "believe" the sun will rise tomorrow than it is advisable to believe the world is more than a few thousand years old.
Creationism has many variants. I am very open to the idea that God "created" a universe governed by a set of laws in which we have evolved.
Strict creationism states that no species of life has ever gone extinct, as God would not permit this in His design. I am not open to this idea because I believe in fossils and I do not believe dinosaurs exist today.
Creationism itself has evolved quite a bit over the years.

Submitted by djkimd on August 30, 2008 - 10:53pm.

namaste,
"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."
many scientists think that creation is more credibly explained by the FSM than by a christian god.
the above quote is taken from the site, which is easily googled.

Submitted by robson on August 30, 2008 - 11:06pm.

luchabee wrote:
Blinded by pride and super impressed with evolutionary jargon and non-sensical observations

Darwin devoted decades to categorizing thousands of observations in order to provide sense and order to them, ultimately culminating in profound evidence for the theory. He was in fact, one of the most devoted empiricists that ever lived. Darwin began his original trip relatively ignorant of evolution and was recommended by his own mentor to treat the theory with an eye of precaution. Under these pretenses he was drawn to the idea as the only explanation of countless observations from around the world.
If you had ever read Origin of Species you would understand how ignorant your statement is.
I recommend you go to the effort of understanding something before passing judgement on it. At least then you could point out accurate faults, which do exist.

Submitted by urbanrealtor on August 30, 2008 - 11:23pm.

@ Robson:

As someone raised in a deeply catholic household (I am agnostic) I have never understood this emphasis on projecting religion onto science. I have never thought them mutually exclusive or antithetical.

I just don't understand why denying a basic scientific tenet makes one a better Christian.

Is it not reasonable to locate divine creation at the point of origin for our natural world (without saying that origin is 6000 years ago)?

Further, does not the concept of faith make the need for evidence in the natural world irrelevant?

Dan

Submitted by cabal on August 30, 2008 - 11:33pm.

ID and evolution are simply theories. The main difference is that reliable and repeatable data support the evolution model. On the other hand, there is no unbiased, verifiable evidence that supports nor refutes the generic ID model either. The two theories do not contradict each other. Perhaps one day, it may be proven that evolution is merely the mechanism that executes ID. The real problem is connecting the dots from ID to a carpenter that lived 2000 years ago in the middle east. Anyone who blindly equates ID to Christianity simply lacks critical thinking skills and is not qualfied to hold the most powerful job on earth. This is probably the reason why 2/3 of the people who voted in this poll reject a presidential candidate who believes in creation via christianity.

Submitted by CostaMesa on August 30, 2008 - 11:45pm.

Quote:
Intelligent design is an attempt at compromise gandalf.

Um, no. ID is another in a long list of attempts by America's religious leaders to force their agenda upon the nation.

A compromise? Hardly. Trojan Horse is more like it.

I have no problem with religion or anyone's beliefs. I have a problem with anyone trying to force any of their beliefs upon me. America was founded on the right of freedom to think whatever you want, so let me.

Submitted by urbanrealtor on August 30, 2008 - 11:49pm.

robson wrote:

If you had ever read Origin of Species you would understand how ignorant your statement is.
I recommend you go to the effort of understanding something before passing judgement on it. At least then you could point out accurate faults, which do exist.

I think you are criticizing too obvious and obstinate an opponent.

Also, turning a blog into a book club is a bad idea.

You have good points but you would be better served to summarize them as opposed to reference reading material that is beyond the skill level of others.

Cynical perhaps but I am a Realtor. I am used to being cynical about my peers.

Submitted by robson on August 31, 2008 - 12:10am.

Dan-What makes one a better Christian has evolved over the years as the church has denounced certain ideas only to repeal those earlier decisions as further evidence was uncovered. It was once heresy to believe the world is not flat.
The question of faith is interesting considering the historical context that Popes have been persuaded against their own "faith" (or previous judgement) by evidence in the natural world.
The general masses seek guidance in what makes them a good Christian. Unfortunately this guidance is often misdirected to focus on details rather than simply maintaining faith in core values.
If someone agrees that any part of the Bible is allegorical, I see no reason why they would say this part is allegorical but this part can't be.
Historically speaking, religion does not have a very good track record when getting involved in details, but works great when sticking to the big picture.