posted
When I was heading home yesterday, after listening to the Ken Miller lecture, I wondered why fundamental Christians would support ID.
After all, if IDers are able to prove evolution wrong and ID right, aren't they damning everyone? If they really are able to prove ID, then everyone will know for sure that God exists. If they know, then they don't need faith, and without faith there's no salvation. I must be misunderstanding something about their beliefs I guess, because what they seem to be trying to do doesn't mesh with my understanding of their beliefs. So if I'm not understanding, can someone please correct me?
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So the evolution believers think it is righteous to prevent people with an opposing belief system to advocate and give publicity to their views. Of course, if evolutionists are stupid enough to believe their own propaganda to the point where they believe evolution is proven fact and creation is proven false, then they might as well impose criminal penalties on those who refuse to submit to their regime. That is where they are headed. Unless at the last minute they evolve into something better, and eschew tyranny in all its guises.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, neither side of the debate, atheists or fundamentalists, have a monopoly on pointless mayhem. For every Stalinist purge, you can find a Spanish Inquisition or a Salem Witch trials.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: BlackBlade, I think that our ideas of how people work and how God works are sufficiently different that, as long as you make clear that you are viewing history from a specifically LDS point of view, we should let it rest.
So long as you make it clear that you are viewing things from a specifically Catholic point of view, or else your own POV.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You can tell a kid all you want that the boogie man isn't in the closet, you can show him the empty closet, you can shine a light under the bed, but as soon as you're out of the room and the lights are off, he's still scared of the boogie man. He's passionate about his beliefs, and any argument, no matter how reasonable, isn't going to get through.
That's a pretty defeatist way of looking at things. IDers are not children, they are adults with adult capabilities. Sure some ideas die hard, but they do die. Look how long it is taking to kill racism and sexism. Centuries? Millenia? Will it ever be completely accomplished? Perhaps never, but the victories that HAVE been obtained in those regards make all the effort worth it IMO.
Miller's lecture was ENORMOUSLY useful to me and I already believe in evolution, but I still held on to those mistaken beliefs that there were things science could not explain in regards to evolution, like eyeballs. Miller calmly explaining how protein groups can function independantly and combine as blocks rather then seperate pieces was completely new to me.
I KNOW I have friends that have the same mistaken beliefs but they would gladly give them up if they watched that lecture, you can be sure I will share it with them and I am confident some will watch it. Some of them could easily pass as favoring ID, but they may also be those who erronously think you can combine the ID movement with evolution. This thread itself helped me understand that the ID movement is not Theistic Evolution, another thing I mistakenly thought could be true.
posted
I have to admit, I didn't really glean much new evolution info out of the Ken Miller lecture (except for the bit about humans' fused chromosome containing the chimps 'extra' one, I didn't know that and thought it was really cool), but I learned quite about about ID as a movement. He was also very entertaining and positive.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: BlackBlade, I think that our ideas of how people work and how God works are sufficiently different that, as long as you make clear that you are viewing history from a specifically LDS point of view, we should let it rest.
So long as you make it clear that you are viewing things from a specifically Catholic point of view, or else your own POV.
When I am viewing history from a religious point of view, I try to do that. Or can give you more generally accepted historical facts. If you have evidence that Constantine actually changed people's brains other than LDS doctrine, I would be interested.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"So the evolution believers think it is righteous to prevent people with an opposing belief system to advocate and give publicity to their views."
We aren't saying that. If you were listening, you wuold see that we do not wish to prevent them from advocating their views.
"Of course, if evolutionists are stupid enough to believe their own propaganda to the point where they believe evolution is proven fact and creation is proven false, then they might as well impose criminal penalties on those who refuse to submit to their regime."
First, you say it's propaganda? Do you even know what scientists do with their time? Do you even understand the evidence? Clearly not, if you call it all propaganda.
Our genetic codes, and the similarities to other species are not propaganda.
The fossil record is not propaganda.
The many ways to date the age of the earth (for there are multiple ones you can cross-check) are not propaganda.
The predictions evolutionary theory has made, which turned out to be accurate, are not propaganda.
For you to issue a blanket statement that it's all just propaganda, how? Have you even looked? I've read the best creationist arguements, and found that each and every one of them fails to account for the data. Have you actually read what the [i[scientists[/i] have done, their data, their information?
Furthermore, your claims that evolutionists wish to ban all opposing views are the propaganda. Yes, a few people wish it, but a few people think Hitler is still alive, too, but nobody cares what they think.
Criminal penalties? No. Nothing of the sort. The only thing scientists are after is the truth. That's why none of them are here, discussing it with us. Because they're too busy learning the truth of the world, and doing experiments based on it. Your fears are unjustified, as long as this nation and free speech exist. Your fears are simple paranoia.
And, I believe the only ones in danger of making free thought criminal is your side. The elimination of any thought, the annihilation of any evidence of the truth of the world, because it disagrees with your beliefs.
Is that not the creationist agenda? Get everyone to agree with your falsehoods?
"That is where they are headed. Unless at the last minute they evolve into something better, and eschew tyranny in all its guises. "
You really don't understand what the hell evolution even entails do you Ron?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: BlackBlade, I think that our ideas of how people work and how God works are sufficiently different that, as long as you make clear that you are viewing history from a specifically LDS point of view, we should let it rest.
So long as you make it clear that you are viewing things from a specifically Catholic point of view, or else your own POV.
When I am viewing history from a religious point of view, I try to do that. Or can give you more generally accepted historical facts. If you have evidence that Constantine actually changed people's brains other than LDS doctrine, I would be interested.
I might just take you up on that.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Umm... I've just been sitting back and watching the discussions so far since I last posted. This thread has been all over the place!
It's like watching two alleycats fight -- They don't stay in one place. It's difficult to keep track of them, and eventually the only way you know that they are still out there is by hearing the hisses and growls.
Righteous talk for somebody who was actually involved in the discussion, but I stand by it.
I mean, I think that creationism is ridiculous, but that's mostly because Biblically, plants were created on the third day, and the sun wasn't created until the fourth. The plants would've died and become extinct the second they were placed on an Earth with sub-zero temperatures. I have some other qualms, but that one sums it up pretty well.
Of course, it can always come down to 'The light of God's glory kept them alive'. I've heard that one. And it could be true. With God, all things are possible.
So it does no good to argue from a religious standpoint. My God can easily correct any problem with my particular viewpoint.
And besides, for doctrine, I could go to a religious chatroom. They're better at arguing about it.
They're also meaner about it too, but that's why I just stand back and watch.
Get too close to the cats and you'll get scratched. No use reasoning with them. That's true regardless of what you're discussing.
*Edited for poor word choice. I don't want another 'droll' incident*
Posts: 438 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm unsure if that is a sarcastic comment or not, but I think I'll answer as though it isn't. Benefit of the doubt. (Hatrack has made me paranoid.)
The kitten is Good. Actually, my mom's therapist took it in and took it to a vet. It's leg had to be amputated, due to severed muscle tissue above the flesh wound. That's why the leg was so limp.
<Sigh>
I wish I could've posted on that thread explaining myself, but it got locked. Yikes, people got so nasty. I came back about to post a finally cheerful update, and there the thread was. Locked, and three pages long. I'll quote Shaggy -- "Yikes, Scooby!"
But, anyway.
The last post here I just posted kind of out of frustration... I mean, everything gets so personal here. I understand that things can get heated when discussing a topic you care about, but good gravy! Some of this is just hurtful. Cordiality is not a weakness. It shows consideration.
That's why I usually steer clear of discussions like this... But not this time. <Shakes head> I'm stupid sometimes.
At least I learned some new things about evolution. That was nice... Wow. This post is really self-absorbed. I must quit, immediately, before it gets worse.
posted
I wouldn't bother with Ron; he's a troll who refuses to read other people's posts. Besides, he's an old man and won't be a problem for very long.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that's unfortunate about him. I've met others like him, and they're all unfortunate. How humans live with being so confounds me often.
I won't say anything about the second statement.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Oooooouuuuchhhhh.... Owwwww.... Ouuuuch... Touche! Burned! Zing! Wow I am in awe of that statement. I am so going to use it on another forum.
IP: Logged |
posted
Will you pay royalties? Anyway, I thought you were pissed at me for maneuvering Poland back into the Axis.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Still pissed as thats pretty much cheating, we ended that session TO EDIT IN YOUR SURRENDER not to give you time to maneuver.
IP: Logged |
posted
If Carb had been there, we'd still have ended to edit in the peace treaty. Then events would have occurred as they did. When the military situation changes during negotiations, peace treaties change too.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
not really, thats why we have this notion of a "cease fire" to draw out the new borders, which us ending until the next week qualifies as.
IP: Logged |
posted
Do you remember what happened during the cease fires in the Balkan wars? This is pretty similar, actually, if on a larger scale.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow…. I still can’t believe you all are talking about this. Unreal. Here is my one big question for you all that are so against this museum. Why do you care so much? This is the one and only museum in the world that is creation based. What does it matter so much if there is a place that is different that what you believe? I find it puzzling yet intriguing. The fear of this not only here but in the media as a whole is just amazing. But it is some great publicity!
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, Jay, we haven't been talking about the museum for a while now and you were the last person to specifically address it.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having not ever been in such an extensive thread, I have to ask -- Do all threads change topics like this?
I mean, I like it. Go with the flow, and all that. I mean, I recoil internally when it gets personal, but as long as it remains neutral, it's pretty neat that we're all so flexible.
Another question... How often do people on hatrack get called 'flexible'?
Posts: 438 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty new to Hatrack, but yeah threads tend to drift. This one has at least stayed somewhat in the vicinity of the original topic.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
That's the first time I've ever been able to say that. I'm no longer a newbie. YAY!!! Even if I don't know how to use the quotie things properly... And I call them the 'quotie things'.
Posts: 438 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Matt, you've come over to the Yellow side finally too? Cool. Fellow Ornerians unite, and all that rot.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Here's a question. What would your view of a museum that was created in the United States, which was about how the United States never had a Civil War?
What would your view of this place be? Would you think well on such a museum? Or would you deride it as absurd, as it would be?
After all, it would be the one and only museum in the world that is anti Civil War based. What does it matter so much if there is a place that is different that what you believe?
Edit: I forgot to eliminate the last reference to "anti-Holocaust" from my post, as I had decided to change it to claiming the U.S. Civil War never happened. I did so realizing that it would have been unwise and unproductive, and I'm sorry I forgot to get rid of the last reference in the first paragraph.
posted
Ehh... I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that comparison, 0Megabyte. Even excusing the fact that it threatens to Godwinize what has been, more or less, a pretty productive discussion, there's a difference between our distaste for the Creationism museum's dishonesty and intellectual failures and the outright repulsion that a Holocaust Denial museum would likely elicit.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although the anti-Semitism that accompanies Holocaust denial is arguably more icky than fundie-ism, the methods are the same. But if you don't like that comparison, how about a Flat-Earth museum?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
I pointed that out to my physical therapist the other day. He had never noticed it.
----
I would have absolutely no problems with a flat-earth museum, and I'd think it a pretty silly thing for anybody to get worked up about.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, there you go. You don't get excited about the flat earth because there is no powerful lobby of flat-earthers trying to get their version taught in schools. That's why Holocaust denial is a much better example: It's actually a real issue today.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seriously -- what harm could a flat earth museum cause? Nobody with an inkling of knowledge on the subject (which is practically everybody) is going to be fooled into thinking that what they're teaching is scientific, no matter how many polysyllabic Latinate words they couch their descriptions in.
edit: that was written before your latest post.
quote:Well, there you go. You don't get excited about the flat earth because there is no powerful lobby of flat-earthers trying to get their version taught in schools.
That is a very good point.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm currently reading The Black Swan, which is a very interesting book, and there's a footnote about the Evolution - Creationism debate.
The author points out that sometimes Creationists make the argument that some things which function so well must be created for that purpose specifically, and cannot logically happen from randomness. He makes the point then that important developments are often the result of unforeseen and unplanned circumstances being put to good use.
The example he gives is the Laser, which is now finding so many important uses from surgery to use in computers, but was developed by a man who had no use in mind, and simply wanted to split light.
Some soft drinks were intended to be health tonics. Penicillin as an antibiotic was an accidental discovery. Post-It notes were the result of a failed glue experiment.
There are countless examples of serendipity where the right thing happens to be around and someone finds a use for it. I found this an interesting take on things.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of my favorite books, which I first bought for a college seminar some 15 (!) years ago.
While I think serendipity in science is a very important subject (not to mention fascinating), I don't agree that it has much bearing on the subject. After all, I believe that a necessary ingredient in such discoveries (in ALL discoveries, actually) is God. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, the "God is in the Post-It Note" theory. That's one that always stumps me when trying to explain evolution. Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Didn't Lisa from Girl Interrupted make that observation about 'The Rapist'?
One thing I think we're forgetting with our hypothetical museums is whether or not the beliefs in the museums would influence the everyday life of a person who visited the musuem. If I believed the Earth was flat, would my life be that much different? I'm not planning on sailing the seven seas. Perhaps this explains my indifference to creationism/evolution. My life wouldn't change at all, should I change my views. (<sigh> "Musicians!")
So, if life for a person would not be significantly different, would it matter if somebody else propegated a falsehood, believing said falsehood to be true? If a person buys into it, his or her life hasn't changed for the better, or worse.
Anybody whose life it would affect profoundly would probably have the sense to have studied up on the subject, and refused the falsehood as being false. Is this too idealistic?
Although, If there were a museum that taught about the wonderful nutritional value of pork rinds and cheesecake, this would definently influence the everyday life of visitors. But I think that creationism/evolution is different.
***Edited for grammatical errors***
Posts: 438 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you buy into the creationist museum, you also buy into the idea that either most scientists are wrong, that the scientific method doesn't work, or that there's a vast conspiracy to spread the lie of evolution for some unknown reason. You choose to ignore the facts, or at least ignore the most logical conclusions based on the facts.
You accept the idea that you should believe things to be true, not because evidence shows them to be true, not because you can logically deduce them from what you see around you, not because unbiased thinkers viewing the same information can come to the same conclusion, but because someone in authority tells you that it's true - even when it contradicts evidence. Further, you accept the idea that invalid arguments based on misunderstanding or misinformation are viable if they're presented with enough conviction.
To me, that's a dangerous mindset to have.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belief in creationism has a very strong correlation with the most dangerous kinds of fundie-ism, the ones that cause people to vote for politicians who want to re-impose laws against adultery and swearing on Sundays.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: One thing I think we're forgetting with our hypothetical museums is whether or not the beliefs in the museums would influence the everyday life of a person who visited the musuem.
That's not the only worry. My concern is with all the students who would be perfectly accepting of good science if they were taught it, but who won't be, because this museum is ammo for people who want to keep accurate science out of classrooms.
The fact is, the existance of this museum is going to make it harder for teachers to teach good, accurate science. Yes, it's a necessary effect of the first amendment that people will say things we don't like, that people will say things that we know will do harm. It's better than the alternative of not having freedom of speech.
But that same free speech gives us the right to say that teaching falsehood as fact is harmful, and a bad idea.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Going back to the beginning of this topic (which actually ocurred only six hours ago and not the 7 seven days that science tells us has passed )... I stumbled on a link to ARS Technica where they've posted some pictures from their visit to the "museum"...definitely strange to me.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
