Religion
Related: About this forumStatement of the Obvious OTD: Teaching evolution hasn't changed creationists' minds
Katha Politt from The Nation
Click here for link.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Blanks
(4,835 posts)that not believing it exists; short-circuits future careers for young people. How does someone go on to study the next energy created from yeast, bacteria or even viruses; if their parents fight to prevent them from learning biology in junior high?
Why would we bother cloning if evolution didn't exist. The selective breeding that gave us all of these different kind of dogs is only possible because of evolution.
How can people be so blind to what is right in front of them?
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...that says anything that disagrees with whatever their pastor/reverend tells them is true, and that the supposed word of god (or at least their interpretation of it) supersedes the words of man. And they are being told this by somebody they trust a great deal. This is only one aspect of the entire situation of course, but I think it is a major one.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)that when we learn about Gallileo; in the very early grades. We could somehow pass along the dangers of allowing the church to dictate scientific principles.
However, you would also think that when we teach about the pilgrims landing at Plymouth rock; we could pass along how important it is to keep a separation of church and state.
Instead, in the earlier story they learn the dangers of defying the church. In the latter story they learn that if you travel unprepared in the ways of agriculture. God will provide farming savages to feed you.
Or something...
daaron
(763 posts)It was "only house arrest" is one I've encountered. Let's see how these apologists liked it if the U.S. placed the Pope under house arrest (say in Noriega's former mansion/personal-prison in Florida).
Grr... I don't know what can be done about it. Education isn't working. "Right Wing Brain" sort of explains why: give a Fundie an education and he becomes a know-it-all blowhard, his beliefs even more set in stone than before he got learned up.
And the media doesn't help. They want to frame this in the usual political 'fair and balanced' way, but it's not balanced. Evolution is warm squishy biological fact, whereas creationism is utter balderdash. We don't ask astrophysicists to debate astrologers. Why would we ask biologists to give creationist's credence? Well, biologists won't, so they never get on the talking head shows to debate the 'other side'. What self-respecting scientist would do that?
Ezlivin
(8,153 posts)They don't live in a fact-based world, but rather one of medieval fantasy.
edhopper
(33,584 posts)against all evidence, or with a complete lack of any evidence (choose the phrase you prefer) denying evolution is not a stretch.
daaron
(763 posts)That since 1982, evolution has only gained 6 points of popularity, and these were all drawn away from the deity-assisted evolution category - not the strictly creationist category. We've made NO headway AT ALL with about 45% of the population. Considering that deity-assisted evolution tends to be a liberal or even liberation theology interpretation, pretty much all of this progress can be attributed to liberals coming to their senses about evolution - whatever their religious affiliation. Just accepting evolution as science, without religious coloration, seems to be less of a problem for those who adhere to a more liberal interpretation of their religion, rather than fundamentalist.
I think we can infer this because who is this solid 45%? The article says 58% of Republicans fall into the far-right creationist category. It doesn't mention how many fall into the deity-assisted evolution category, but surely we may assume it's a bigger chunk of the remainder than evolution-only.
That makes me think it's the unholy marriage of conservative corporate-owned politics and fundamentalist/evangelical religion that is the modern Republican Party - "The Republican Brain" - that's at the heart of the problem.
Appeasement and education haven't worked. What do we try, next?
ETA: Oh yeah! And what about the remaining 42% of creationists? Surely they aren't all "Independents"! Who are these Democratic Creationists and how the hell do we PURGE them from the party?!?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)While I find it hard to fathom how people can cling to creationism, I would also assume a rather laissez faire attitude as long as it were just a personal belief and not a legislation driving belief.
daaron
(763 posts)
(Or WAS I?!?)
I was.
...
Or WAS I?!?!
...
No, really, I was.
rug
(82,333 posts)daaron
(763 posts)Blanks
(4,835 posts)If someone's belief in the origins of the universe doesn't interfere with the facts of evolution; I wouldn't interfere.
In other words if someone wants to believe that their all powerful God set the creation of man into motion using the laws of evolution; I have no problem with that.
What frustrates me the most is that the sketch of the ape evolving into man is the only 'knowledge' of evolution that a lot of creationists have been exposed to. If I'm not mistaken; the theory does not claim that man evolved from ape. That's usually the argument that I run across folks say "you believe man evolved from apes?" then they don't hear your response. Because they have their stupid setting on high.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I don't know about you, but I didn't really learn what I needed to about evolution until college. The cursory overview one receives in lower grades is much easier to dismiss (including the poster you talk about).
Blanks
(4,835 posts)I didn't learn how important a concept evolution was to biology until college either.
They made it quite clear then. I didn't have a high school biology class, and none of my grade school education or junior high classes hammered home the importance of evolution. Is college the first place educators don't have to fear the wrath of stupid parents?
I think we should be taught how selective breeding is a man-made practice that takes advantage of the 'theory' of evolution in the first grade. Or some other fundamental example that we see every day, but it should be established early on that this is something that occurs daily (actually constantly).
As badly as i want to believe it; God did not put dinosaur bones in the earth to test our faith.
Sadly, even college educators have to fear the wrath of stupid parents. I took Bio 101 at the University of New Mexico in Taos - old-school Catholic community - and the prof brought in a priest-turned-scientist one day to prepare believers in the class for the upcoming section evolution. It was voluntary: I could've stayed home that day. But what does it say that my tuition paid this guy for 2 hours - not to mention lost class-time - just to hold the hands of GROWN PEOPLE as they entered that Devil's Playground otherwise known as "natural selection".
Most of the worries of my classmates revolved around - sure enough - their parents. This was a branch campus, so mostly non-trads like me in their 30s and 40s with kids and jobs. These weren't fresh-faced freshmen. These were weathered, leathery freshmen - for instance a woman in her mid-30s wringing her hands and saying she could never tell her father what she'd learned. "It would kill him," she said. Exact quote.
Kill him? Really?!
Maybe they needs new parents.
Thanks for sharing that; when I was talking about stupid parents. I had no idea that it extended so far into our lives.
The old saying 'the truth will set you free'; should maybe be changed to 'the truth may kill your parents'.
It's interesting that the church's influence can extend so far into our lives that a person could go their entire life without any exposure to a fundamental scientific principle.
They've done such a good job convincing people of creationism. I wonder if they'll revisit those pesky little 'theories' that Gallileo and Copernicus was spouting off about.
daaron
(763 posts)Blanks
(4,835 posts)When it comes to how far back they'll try to step.
daaron
(763 posts)but not so much deity-assisted evolution (even though I think it's flat-out wrong). At least deity-assisted doesn't deny the science. That's the part that bothers me - that scientists would be expected to refute the laughable I.D. hypothesis. Fuck that. There's no refuting crazy - but ignoring them hasn't worked, either.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)most people who listen say "okay that makes sense I believe that", dogmatic YEC'ers mostly do stick fingers in their ears and hum loudly.
Jim__
(14,077 posts)daaron
(763 posts)See... I was trying to be... first there were two guys who walked into heave... no wait it was a bar. Two goats and a priest walked into a bar - no wait...
Like that.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)daaron
(763 posts)"Statement of the Obvious: Teaching evolution ..."
laconicsax
(14,860 posts) struggle4progress
(118,290 posts)The basic idea behind the natural sciences is to give naturalistic explanations for naturalistic phenomena: that is, one tries to describe our observations of the world without introducing extraneous or unobservable phenomena
We abandon the whole game from the start if we insist on teaching young students our current provisional conclusions, rather than trying to teach them the various methods by which we try to observe and try to reach conclusions from our observations -- and this is a tragic mistake
It is, I think, true that many opponents of evolution do not understand science very well. Unfortunately, I think, it is also true that many people, who are excoriating various opponents of evolution, do not themselves understand science very well either, with the result that they make bad arguments, which are naturally unconvincing to the opponents
spin
(17,493 posts)and why do they differ.
In the first Biblical story both man and woman were created at the same time on the sixth day.
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.
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.
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.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. ... emphasis added
King James Version: Genesis 1:24-27
However in the second creation story man is created first before the animals and Eve is created last from one of Adam's ribs.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
***snip***
19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
From King James Version Genesis 2
When I first read the Bible as a teenager I realized that obviously it was not a science text book. I decided that the creation stories in Genesis were an attempt to explain how things came to be to group of people who lived at the end of the Bronze Age and had little knowledge of science. All people ask, "Where did we come from, why are we here and where are we going." Religion has attempted to answer these questions through the centuries.
Recently the development of scientific knowledge has enabled our civilization to gain a more technical idea of how the universe came to be but in 100 years we may learn far more and our current theories may be replaced. While science addresses the question of, "Where did we come from? it doesn't deal with the questions, "Why are we here and where are we going?"
I feel that religion can serve a valuable purpose in our society but I also understand that religion can, and has, been used to cause hatred and warfare. Religion is a extremely powerful tool that can be misused by those in power so it is very important that religion and government are separated if we are ever to live in a peaceful world. On the other hand it is vital that our elected leaders act in a moral manner for the good of the people who put them in office rather than for their own benefit.
I personally believe that there is a supreme being or a supreme intelligence. Such an entity or "Force" is far beyond our comprehension. Can a colony of ants in an ant farm understand the human child who watches, waters and feeds them? Can your pet cat or dog ever learn why when you flip a switch on the wall a light comes on?
I feel that the universe and the supreme being (if he/she/it/ energy or force) exists is far beyond any human understanding at this time in our stage of development.
The Bible, at the best, is a group of stories dealing with man's encounter with a supreme being who had some interest in guiding us. Of course it could merely be mythology used as an attempt to explain actual events that happened in our past as mythology is often the smoke of history.
I believe that both religion and science can aid an individual person and our civilization. I personally view the Bible as an interesting book that contains important lessons on how to live a moral life and a valuable crutch for the difficult times we all face during our lives. I read and study it to gain wisdom and guidance. I feel science is a valuable tool that we can use to enable the advancement of our civilization and to overcome the technological issue that we face. Both have been misused to enable warfare and to consequently kill millions of people.
While it may be impossible at this time considering the animosity that exists between most scientists and those who believe in the literal truth of the Bible, it would benefit our society if some scientists would use more religious morality in their research that could lead to better weapons of mass destruction and if some conservative Christians would see value in scientific advancement and realize that the Bible is not science.
daaron
(763 posts)though I don't believe there is a supreme being, the problem of morals and ethics touches everyone, whatever their faith (or lack thereof). That's why I have to disagree with the idea that scientists should "use more religious morality," as if that would help them to avoid building WMDs. It didn't stop them before, because the idea that the Bible contains only important and valuable moral lessons is erroneous. It also contains terrible terrible immorality and genocide, and predicts the end of the world and deaths of everyone.
In fact, what I wish, and I wish that more liberal believers like yourself wished, is that scientists and believers who want to contribute to society would adhere to humanistic ethics - not religious morality. Religious morality is oppressive, as it requires indoctrination to inculcate moral values. Moral values may also develop in secular society, without imposing a religious ethic, and while leaving plenty of room for those who still choose to adhere to religious ethics.
spin
(17,493 posts)I have known atheists who have far more morals than many or most of the Christians that I often encounter.
After I retired I decided to reread the Bible and study it as it is the local religion and has a great effect on not only our history but our future course. The Old Testament is indeed a brutal book by modern standards.
For example in the story of Jericho most Christians would feel that that fact the walls of the city fell was a miracle
.
30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days..
King James Version Hebrews/11-30
Would many Christians agree with what happened after?
20 So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city.
21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.
22 But Joshua had said unto the two men that had spied out the country, Go into the harlot's house, and bring out thence the woman, and all that she hath, as ye sware unto her.
23 And the young men that were spies went in, and brought out Rahab, and her father, and her mother, and her brethren, and all that she had; and they brought out all her kindred, and left them without the camp of Israel.
Joshua 6 (King James Version)
Obviously it could be argued that this event, if it actually happened, occurred in a far different time and place and the carnage was necessary.
Since the Old Testament is basically an introduction to the New Testament, Christians should follow the teaching of Jesus and Saint Paul the apostle who was the most influential early Christian missionary.
Prior to the end of the Civil War slavery was, while controversial, legal in the United States and the Bible was often used as a justification for the practice.
What does the New Testament have to say about slavery?
The Christian Scriptures and Slavery
Neither Jesus nor St. Paul, nor any other Biblical figure is recorded as saying anything in opposition to the institution of slavery. Slavery was very much a part of life in Judea, Galilee, and in the rest of the Roman Empire during New Testament times. The practice continued in England, Canada and the rest of the English Empire until the early 19th century; it continued in the U.S. until later in the 19th century.
Quoting Rabbi M.J. Raphall, circa 1861:
"Receiving slavery as one of the conditions of society, the New Testament nowhere interferes with or contradicts the slave code of Moses; it even preserves a letter [to Philemon] written by one of the most eminent Christian teachers [Paul] to a slave owner on sending back to him his runaway slave."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm
It seems that Christianity has evolved over the centuries. Today many Christians are far more concerned about human rights, animal rights and the environment than they were 100 or even 50 years ago. We also attempt to avoid collateral damage in warfare. In the times the Bible was written we might have been merely infants in our development while today we are approaching a teenage existence.
To answer your comment:
In fact, what I wish, and I wish that more liberal believers like yourself wished, is that scientists and believers who want to contribute to society would adhere to humanistic ethics - not religious morality. Religious morality is oppressive, as it requires indoctrination to inculcate moral values. Moral values may also develop in secular society, without imposing a religious ethic, and while leaving plenty of room for those who still choose to adhere to religious ethics.
Religious morality appears to be moving in the direction of humanistic ethics. Perhaps that is part of the grand scheme by the Supreme Being if he/she/it does exist. As we improve and mature as a species we learn and change our views.
Today the majority of extremely conservative Christians would agree the slavery is wrong while 100 years ago many Christians, primarily in the South, used the Bible to defend slavery. Christianity can and is evolving. It's a difficult process and it takes time.
I personally feel that it might be possible that far in the future both science and religion will find a common ground.
In order for that to happen we have to gain far more knowledge about subjects such as quantum mechanics in order to better understand our universe and how it works.
daaron
(763 posts)You said it. Maybe so. I'm guessing around the 24th century Earth and much of the alpha quadrant will begin to experience harmony between science and religion, just like our Vulcan friends.
