It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ID: The Fundamentalist Conspiracy to Replace Science with Religion (from General)

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   
This thread was originally posted in General, but I see that it was in the wrong section.

WARNING: THIS IS A VERY LONG OP. In fact, it’s more like an essay than a normal forum post. But please bear with me.

First of all, a bit of background may be necessary. I’m an undergraduate student at a large university in the U.S., studying Biology. This debate/controversy/conspiracy has the potential to affect me more than most others, which is why I’ve taken such notice of it. Please note, I am not anti-christian or anti-religious. I believe every person should have the right to practice whatever religion they want. I simply oppose the destruction of science by religion.

I also would like to stress that the majority of Christians are reasonable people, and that the people behind this movement represent a fundamentalist minority.

For over a century, ever since Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution by natural selection in the book “The Origin of Species,” there has been strong opposition to his ideas. The Church was the strongest of these opposing forces, believing in a literal interpretation of Genesis in which the Earth and all creatures were created separately in six days. The proposal that man was just another descendant species, sharing the same common ancestor as apes flew in the face of everything they believed- man was no longer “special,” nor was our creation.

Let’s fast-forward a bit to the 1920’s in the United States. Though evolution had become widely accepted among scientists (based on the mountains of supporting evidence that I’ll reference later), conservative Christian values were foremost in culture at that point. School boards and local legislators, ignoring the separation of Church and State, passed laws banning the teaching of evolution in schools. In 1925, a Tennessee biology teacher named John Scopes became the first teacher prosecuted for the violation of this law. Though the state won and fined him for his teachings, it was a PR loss. The media portrayed the prosecutors as crazy fundamentalists. Eventually logic prevailed, and such laws were struck down across the country.

The fundamentalists, however, were not content to let such a defeat become permanent. Enter “Creation Science.” Creation Science was the movement gaining strength in the 1970’s that attempted to push creationism back into science class. They claimed that there was scientific evidence backing the claims of a literal interpretation of Genesis- that is, that God created the Earth and all organisms less than 10,000 years ago. Though this assertion is not scientific (for a hypothesis to be scientific, it must be testable and falsifiable), anti-evolutionists were claiming that it must be presented to students as a scientific theory equal to evolution. School boards started creating policies mandating the teaching of creation science alongside evolution until, in 1982, a landmark court case (McLean v. Arkansas) ruled that creation science “simply is not science,” and deserves no time in science classrooms.

This marks the transition of political creationism from the activism of a few dedicated religious people to an organized, conspiratorial movement attempting to affect much more than school curricula. The Discovery Institute, formed in 1994, is the conservative think-tank championing “Intelligent Design,” the successor to the Creation Science movement. Following the ruling of McLean v. Arkansas that determined teaching “Creation Science” was illegal, authors of creationist textbooks (specifically one called “Of Pandas and People”) systematically replaced the words “creation science” with “Intelligent Design.” This was noted by in a court hearing (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District) in 2005, in the judge’s 139 page decision to ban the teaching of Intelligent Design in Schools. (continued in next post)

[edit on 22-9-2008 by SamuraiDrifter]




posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   

By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of [Of Pandas and People], three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of Intelligent Design; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase Intelligent Design; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes…”


The main point here? After the creationists knew that “creation science” could no longer be taught in school, they systematically replaced the words “creation” and “creationism” with “Intelligent Design” in an effort to get it back into schools, and accepted as a legitimate theory!

The truth of this was further brought to light when an internal document of the Discovery Institute called “The Wedge Document” was discovered online. It describes in detail how the purpose of the “Intelligent Design” movement is to slowly introduce the scientific community to the idea of an intelligent creator, with the ultimate goal of making creationism and theism the dominating force in science:

Goals of the Intelligent Design Movement, as stated in the Discovery Institute’s Wedge Document:

“-To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies"
-To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"


Furthermore, the Wedge Document States:


"Alongside a focus on the influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith, as well as "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture.

"Five Year Objective: Spiritual & cultural renewal: Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism; Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s); Darwinism Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions; Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God"


Their stated goal is to replace scientific naturalism; that is, the basic tenet of science that everything can be explained logically, without the addition of supernatural agents, with a theistic explanations of natural phenomena.

This would be absolutely disastrous to science. If the Discovery Institute was ever successful, all important scientific research would come to a halt. Researchers would no longer need to search for natural explanations for observations- the response would simply be “god created it- why try to explain it?” Science as we know it would be replaced with another form of religion whereby, instead of seeking evidence to determine the truth, scientists determine the truth and then search for evidence to support it.

Science cannot survive like this, and without science, there will be no technological advancement, no medicine, no discovery.

On top of the damage they are trying to do to science, they also are actively working to influence public opinion on other, political topics. ("Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God")

The bottom line is this: If the Discovery Institute and other Creationist organizations achieve their stated goals, science as we know it will be destroyed, and fundamentalist Christianity, a tool the Bush administration uses to influence the population, will be strengthened as the dominant mainline world view.

(continued below)

[edit on 23-9-2008 by SamuraiDrifter]



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Now that Intelligent Design has been ruled unconstitutional, creationists are trying to attack evolution again by demanding that schools “teach the controversy.” Again, they are employing deceitful tactics- there is no controversy in the scientific community. Even among scientists who identify as religious, the scientific truth of evolution is not disputed (A perfect example is cell biologist Ken Miller, a devout Christian who’s been one of the most outspoken critics of Intelligent Design).

What action you take based on this information is totally up to you. All I’ve done is bring the organized attempt to attack science to light.

Following this post is something of an index- links to all sorts of useful information regarding the issue, including court decisions, scientist testimony, evidence supporting evolution, and further reading for the interested. This section is merely meant as a reference, so that those participating in the resulting discussion can be well-informed.

Thank you very much for your time and patience.


References and Further Information

Court Decision Terming Intelligent Design as “religious,” in which the Judge notes the systematic changing of terms to circumvent previous rulings.
en.wikisource.org...

Court Decision ruling the teaching of “Creation Science” as unconstitutional
en.wikipedia.org...

The Original Wedge Document, describing the movement's plan to fundamentally change science and culture in detail.
www.antievolution.org...

Discovery Institute Official Website
www.discovery.org...

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent
Theobald, D (2006). 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. talkorigins, from www.talkorigins.org...

Scientists Confront Creationism (Essays by scientists on the topic)
Petto, Andrew. Scientists Confront Creationism. New York: W.W. Norton, 2007

[edit on 22-9-2008 by SamuraiDrifter]



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by SamuraiDrifter

trying to attack evolution again by demanding that schools “teach the controversy.”


i agree we should teach the controversey as my sig states lets teach Darwinism in church


well if you want religeon taught in scicence establishments then i want science taught in religeous establishments




posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Science has always been suppressed by religion.
Science has always been suppressed by politics.

Only recently has science been suppressed by political correctness.
Even the most educated and enlightened kow-tow to this one.

Will science ever be free?



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Ooo. This is gonna be a good thread. Starred.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   
That is a very good essay and well sourced.

As a Catholic, I am allowed to believe what I will about evolution as long as the primal source is the creator God. Catholics are not forced to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis because literal interpretation tends to be relative to the individual. Figurative is how to go about it.

My view on evolution is that of evolutionary creationism. I see evolution as an infinitely more intricate and beautiful work of God than a literal interpretation of Genesis that He poofed it all into being in six risings and settings of the sun. That sort of belief puts God as subservient to our natural laws and makes Him a humanlike slave to his own creation. God humbled Himself in the form of Jesus Christ but He showed his splendor at creation. He Himself said that His ways were beyond our imagination.

I think God created such an amazing universe so that humankind could learn about and explore it, growing closer to an understanding of the immensity of His creative properties.

Fundamentalism can be dangerous because people are not required to really think and mob mentality sets in. Fundamentalists resist change.

When it comes to conspiracies and plots, however, I do not think that those are the correct terms. What Intelligent Design Theorists believe and try to promote is not ill-willed. It may be an agenda that is being pushed and there may be negative consequences from a reasoned perspective; but there is no conspiracy.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by newagent89
 
Hi, newagent89. Blessed be the peacemakers.

Nevertherless,


What Intelligent Design Theorists believe and try to promote... may be an agenda that is being pushed and there may be negative consequences from a reasoned perspective; but there is no conspiracy.

If a group of people are working together to destroy a working social institution and set up in its place one that serves their own agenda better, if they discuss ways and means of doing this, arriving at common strategies in private and executing them in public, how is this not a conspiracy?



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 02:44 AM
link   
The worst part of this conspiracy is that it's warped the minds of so many. They then go on to suggest the most stupid things ever.

Just look at people like venomfang-I censor the comments-x on youtube. There is not a snowballs chance in hell that he'll stop believing that genesis actually happened. And people won't stop subscribing. Not to mention all the indoctrination from people like Ken Ham and co in there presentations for kids.

At least Hovind, the fraudster, is in the slammer.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Hmm. I'm a little disappointed some of the fundamentalists I've noticed in this forum aren't contributing to this thread.

The OP was probably a little too long for their attention spans.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by SamuraiDrifter
The OP was probably a little too long for their attention spans.

Undoubtedly.

More likely, however, is that my own hypothesis - that the chances of a thread being responded to decrease as the strength of the OP's discussion point increases - is being supported once again by the fundamentalists on this forum.

Good post, by the way.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlyCM
my own hypothesis - that the chances of a thread being responded to decrease as the strength of the OP's discussion point increases


I guess that's why when creationists create threads like 'evolution can't be proven' or 'transitional fossils don't exists', they go on and on, because it's so easy to counter the OP. Whereas when we theorists make threads like 'ID: The Fundamentalist Conspiracy to Replace Science with Religion' and 'dispelling the misconceptions about evolution' that only we really contribute. [sorry for the plug
].

Good thread.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   
OMG the sky is falling. Researching into supernormal phenomena and undertanding things from a higher perspective than modern science currently can will CAUSE ALL PROGRESS TO STOP. ONLY THE REAL CHURCH, THE CHURCH OF PROGRES, THE CHURCH OF SCIENCE, IS THE ONE TRUE WAY.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hollywood11
OMG the sky is falling. Researching into supernormal phenomena and undertanding things from a higher perspective than modern science currently can will CAUSE ALL PROGRESS TO STOP. ONLY THE REAL CHURCH, THE CHURCH OF PROGRES, THE CHURCH OF SCIENCE, IS THE ONE TRUE WAY.

Science is not a religion. It is a method of understanding that actually requires testing ideas, and supporting them with evidence, something which the faithful seem incapable of doing.

If supernatural phenomena, which cannot be tested, become commonly acceptable explanations for hypotheses, science will have been replaced by religion. Ideas will not have to be tested, observations will not have to be repeatable, hypotheses will not have to be falsifiable.

[edit on 28-9-2008 by SamuraiDrifter]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hollywood11
OMG the sky is falling. Researching into supernormal phenomena and undertanding things from a higher perspective than modern science currently can will CAUSE ALL PROGRESS TO STOP. ONLY THE REAL CHURCH, THE CHURCH OF PROGRES, THE CHURCH OF SCIENCE, IS THE ONE TRUE WAY.


Don't be childish.

This is exactly the kind of response that gives ID'ers a bad name ... you do youreslf no favours.

Yes there may be some superficial paralells, with which the malicious few will use for misleading and manipulative propaganda, but any rational investigation shows that there is a CLEAR difference between science and religion.

Don't be scared of science ... science and faith are not mutually exclusive.

Many scientist realise this ... why can't you?


Owen Gingerich: "One can believe that some of the evolutionary pathways are so intricate and so complex as to be hopelessly improbable by the rules of random chance, But if you do not believe in divine action, then you will simply have to say that random chance was extremely lucky, because the outcome is there to see. Either way, the scientist with theistic metaphysics will approach laboratory problems in much the same way as his atheistic colleague across the hall."


edit - Oh Yes ... I personally am not worried about the ability of IDer's to convince the education system to change from a scientific based cirriculum to a thiestic based cirriculum.

ID'ers are a small, powerless group of radicals that are not even taken seriously amoungst fellow thiests.

The ID/Creationisty agenda is fundamentally flawed, therefore they have no chance of success.

[edit on 28/9/08 by Horza]



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 12:39 AM
link   


ID'ers are a small, powerless group of radicals that are not even taken seriously amoungst fellow thiests.

Oh, if only...

www.religioustolerance.org...



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by SlyCM
 


My God!

From that site you just linked:


Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.


That is not evolution! I find it appalling that this is how they represent evolution yet the site is called religious tolerance.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 01:58 AM
link   
You probably will also not get many responses 'cause it's hard to debate logically about a belief you hold strongly.
As for HollyWood, that wasn't a debate, that was a attack.
It's a mild difference, but you didn't add anything by your statement, just made your side of the arguement look worse.
However, thank you for the excellent example.
For some reason, on some level, some religiouse feel that science is cutting into God's territory, and therefore they need to defend him. Or, that science is promoting man to heights we are not supposed to reach.
Wether by creation or ID, according to them, God GAVE us this big honking brain, pushing us towards learning. He gave us the capability to understand, not using it, I believe, is a sin.
Not to say we shouldn't be guided by morals, or restrained by ethics. For from it, good has come from such, but it's worth is cheapened.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by SlyCM


ID'ers are a small, powerless group of radicals that are not even taken seriously amoungst fellow thiests.

Oh, if only...

www.religioustolerance.org...


Great link ... great site huh?! ... I love this site.

I should have specified that I meant within the scientific circles ... as these polls show that only 5% of scientists believe in Biblical Creation ... and you can also see how many scientists are theists and yet still understand that the evidence to show that evolution is a fact is overwhelming.

As far as what their fellow theists believe:


Beliefs elsewhere in the world:

Belief in creation science seems to be largely a U.S. phenomenon among countries the West. A British survey of 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant ministers/pastors showed that:

97% do not believe the world was created in six days.
80% do not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve. 4


What is very interesting is that these polls show the power of the evangelical churches in American society ... and shows how these churches prey on the ignorant.

Is it indicative of what the truth is, that as one has a greater understanding of what goes on in the world less one is incline to believe in fundamentalism?

I think it is.

edit addition of info

[edit on 30/9/08 by Horza]



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Horza
What is very interesting is that these polls show the power of the evangelical churches in American society ... and shows how these churches prey on the ignorant.


Well they can't really prey on any other class, can they. No one else will swallow creationism.




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join