Creationism's Legacy: Anti-intellectualism, page 11

reply to post by JaxonRoberts

---

Obviously, the discussion is lost on you, because youre as much a zealot as any pastor. I have tossed a few bones to pick, but youre not interested. So go ahead and take your ball and go home.

reply to post by lifeform

---

You get a star!! Find me one person that actually understands evolutionary theory that claims it explains the meaning of life. Evolution is a mechnaism for bio-diversity through adaptation. It does NOT disprove creationism or the existance of god . . . AND never claimed to.

The argument arises, when those that think this challenges their faith, have to "invent" new hypothesis to account for a creator . . . then want that hypothosis given equality with a time tested theory. Believe in a god or don't . . . just don't try to bring god to science.

I'm still waiting for a definition of ID that doesn't include the supernatural, which would put it into the realm of science, or any experiments that have given credence to a creator. Philosophy is a wonderous thing, but it doesn't belong in science class.

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
reply to post by Horza

---

It is the theory that the facts of science regarding origins of life suggest that there had to have been intelligence in the design of life. Good examples of why lie largely in the ignored flaws of the evolutionary theory concerning genetics and mutation, abiogenesis, information theory, etc. Good enough?

Hey thanks!

So how does that explain why I.D. is against evolution?

Why not an intelligent designer that designed life to evolve?

I can't see why a designer contradicts evolution.

Can you explain this please?

reply to post by optimus primal

---

from the OP:
"This is only one reason why we cannot let creationism or ID to be taught in schools, especially in science class, or let anti-intellectualist fundamentals rise to power. It would be the beginning of the end for western society."

Outstanding arrogance aside in this post, ID is equated with creationism right off the bat. But its easier to deflect than answer the tough questions. Don't all of you zealot naturalists ever get tired of that game?

BTW...Im no christian. Facts are facts, and ID easily has more merit than evolution, by the facts alone.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts

---

This is off topic but I do not have enough posts to send a U2U.

I agree with your statement assuming we both agree the New Testament is laden with errors.

If you have read it you must be aware how much the Old Testament is quoted...beginning with Jesus genealogy. If the Old Testament didn't exist, neither could the New Testament, at least as it is written. Christians are dependent on the validity of the Old Testament

Understand I am an ex Christian and was well indoctrinated at one time.

reply to post by Horza

---

There are many who support ID who accept that it can go hand in hand with evolutionary biology, though i personally disagree. The issues is that the scientific establishment, and those, like AAAS, are religious zealots for the religion of naturalism and are not any more willing to accept "false doctrine" than a christian zealot.

reply to post by saturnine_sweet

---

No, this discussion is not lost on me. In fact, those opposed to the OP are proving it correct with every post. Also, ID has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The topic concerns creationism, and creationism alone.

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
reply to post by optimus primal

---

from the OP:
"This is only one reason why we cannot let creationism or ID to be taught in schools, especially in science class, or let anti-intellectualist fundamentals rise to power. It would be the beginning of the end for western society."

Outstanding arrogance aside in this post, ID is equated with creationism right off the bat. But its easier to deflect than answer the tough questions. Don't all of you zealot naturalists ever get tired of that game?

BTW...Im no christian. Facts are facts, and ID easily has more merit than evolution, by the facts alone.

zealot naturalist? i'd thank you kindly to leave the namecalling in kindergarten where it belongs

well then shouldn't you be trying to differentiate between id and creationism instead of consistently equating evolutionary theory with abiogenesis/genesis? ID may include theorems on such, but evolutionary theorem does not.

i on the otherhand never equated id with creationism, i dont know much about ID to be perfectly honest with you. i will say however that i personally do not believe an intelligence is required for the complexity and wondrous nature of our universe and diversity of life on this planet.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts

---

Just addressed the last person who said that a minute ago...read above. This whole thread is nothing more than hating on opposing viewpoints...nice show of tolerance there....so surprising from a group that is usually far to the left...or is it?

reply to post by saturnine_sweet

---

Again . . . show me how any research done has pointed to a designer. That's varifiable data . . . not lack of knowledge/assumption, not based on upbringing/beliefs. I'm going to bet that I'm waiting for a while. While you may view ID as "scientific" because it speaks in the language of biology, chemistry, and physics . . . the fact that it suppositions a god/supernatural force/higher intelligence, when there is no data to support, shows it to be a philosophical/scientific hybrid . . . once again not suitable for science class. It's the ol lipstick on a pig . . . creationism can't be right due to what we know of geology/cosmology timelines, so we make up the gaps in science by injecting the supernatural and now we have a scientific theory that supports creation/design. Unfortunately, design has NO experimental backing . . . nor can it. So . . . it's not science.

While I totally agree about your feelings on the Republican party . . . I just can't agree that there is any more scientific merit to design than to creationism. Not with out providing data to support.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts

---

Specifically creationism from a political standpoint and it's threat on free thinking, etc.

However, people are getting hung up on the theory, and that's not what we are here to talk about.



Also, OldThinker: No.

Originally posted by optimus primal
reply to post by lifeform

---

well if you had read the thread, especially the first page, you'd know that it's not about if some deity/deities created the universe. it's about creationism being put forth as a scientific theory to be taught to our youth, and how they (literal creationists) are anti-intellectual and dont really understand evolutionary theory in the first place. this thread isn't about genesis, or abiogenesis. evolutionary theory describes the mechanism/s for the diversification of life, not how it got here.

if you had read my post, you would know i was pointing out evolution dos'nt answer how life got here. and that a creation theory although not the same as what the bible preaches is a possibility.

you'd also know i never mentioned how the universe started but how life started, which nobody knows the answer to.

any creation theory, even the bible one is about how life got here. how can you say you were not talking about that?

evolution in reality has nothing to do with creationism. so why are the two even being compared? how does one threaten the other?

[edit on 30-10-2008 by lifeform]

reply to post by lifeform

---

you're assuming that evolutionary theory is supposed to do this, when in fact it is not. evolutionary theory, as i've said in probably six posts now, tries to explain the mechanism/s for the DIVERSITY of life, not how it got here. i think your confusion comes from the "abiogenesis/genesis" part of my post. in that i am referring to the creation of life, not the universe.

reply to post by liveandlearn

---

Don't feel like the Lone Ranger, Tonto! I went to a private Christian school for 9 years. It was the inaccuracies in both the Old and New Testaments that lead me on a spiritual journey that took over two decades for me to find my own way.

The problem with all organized religions is that they want sheep, not seekers of truth. And sheep are not intellectual, so actually you are right on topic. In my opinion, none of the western religions have correctly defined what 'God' is, and Divinity's real relation to us. Science is merely a tool to help us discover our true origins and our place in the universe, and thus our relation to our Creator.

reply to post by solomons path

---

Ugh. I gave you one REALLY BASIC ONE. Information theory. Oops, sorry, biologists only believe in biology...MY BAD. I don't believe in hell, but sometimes i wish there was one, just for all the arrogant pricks who think anyone who dissents from their opinion doesn't know their science. I could write you a damn book from genetics and cellular biology to quantum physics, but it doesn't do a damn bit of good if you can't drop your arrogance and zealotry long enough to even examine THE ONE, SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND, piece of science I threw out there, instead of parroting the fecal spewing made so famous by Richard Dawkins. Want to see a legacy of pseudo-intellectualism? Look in the damn mirror.

reply to post by Good Wolf

---

Excellent post.

History has shown us and Gosh doesn't humanity ever learn from past mistakes or are we doomed to keep repeating the same blunder of combining church and state over and over again - once you combine church and state / religion with the politics of law, you end up with witch hunts, Spanish Inquisitions, Crusades, Wars, Torture and a whole host of nasty mean stuff. A religious dictatorship is what made the dark ages, well dark.

You are right and many Americans, particularly the American Moral Majority / far right wingers are exactly like the fundamental Muslims they oppose. They want to dictate now how we all are to think, taking away our freedom of thought by indoctrinating everyone's child the way they see fit.

To me and on a personal level all the "holy books" were created fairytales to control, manipulate and "civilize" humanity.

Darwinism is the current scientific explanation of evolution. Creationism is a religious fairytale that is best left to Sunday Schools and Churches.

Religious fanatics are not trying to "convert", "save souls" in as much as they are trying to pull a power play, trying to dictate what they believe everyone should believe and again, history has shown us (Do we ever learn) by combining church and state you end up negating true religious / spiritual freedom for all individuals that do not subscribe to the current popular system of belief.

The people who want to combine church and state do not realize that today Christianity is the major and currently popular religion in America. In 200 years that may change (with the number of foreigners making America their home the possibility of America becoming a Muslim or Hindu country is possible).

Why can't people just live and let live? Why do some folks have to try and push their religious ideology on everyone around them?

We need to teach our children to think for themselves.




[edit on 30-10-2008 by ofhumandescent]

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by liveandlearn

---

Don't feel like the Lone Ranger, Tonto! I went to a private Christian school for 9 years. It was the inaccuracies in both the Old and New Testaments that lead me on a spiritual journey that took over two decades for me to find my own way.

The problem with all organized religions is that they want sheep, not seekers of truth. And sheep are not intellectual, so actually you are right on topic. In my opinion, none of the western religions have correctly defined what 'God' is, and Divinity's real relation to us. Science is merely a tool to help us discover our true origins and our place in the universe, and thus our relation to our Creator.

wow i love how you put that. i'm a polytheist, but it's basically the same way for me. i think it's possible the gods set the impetus for the big bang and our physical laws(as we currently understand them) but that they let it go after that and have used their influence sparingly if at all. although i dont 100% believe that's exactly how it happened since there is no evidence to back that up.

reply to post by ofhumandescent

---

But when we are force-feeding the religion of naturalism in our schools already, are you not alarmed? Just because we give it a name of science, that makes it ok? Sure reminds me of Homeland Security...Its not a rights violation if its about national security!

How Are Plants Aware of the World Around Them?
  Posted 2 days ago with 5 member flags

The Genesis Code
  Posted 9 days ago with 4 member flags

Explain Diversity Reloaded
  Posted 9 days ago with 3 member flags

Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge
  Posted 4 days ago with 3 member flags

The carrot (chicken or egg , vegetable version)
  Posted 3 days ago with 3 member flags

A theory of proof of a God
  Posted 10 days ago with 2 member flags

Eden: The Double Sided Coin
  Posted 4 days ago with 2 member flags

We are all connected with nature and The Universe IMO
  Posted 3 days ago with 2 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: