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.

 

Creationism's Legacy: Anti-intellectualism

page: 17
31
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by amazed
 


I had those very lessons in my publicly-funded school (not in the US, obviously). They taught the main world religions from an objective standpoint. They didn't say that things people in the different faiths were right or wrong, just that they were believed. It was a most beneficial subject, as though I don't believe in any of it, I know what motivates those that do. That's where I learned about creationism, not in my science lessons. I learned evolution there - where it belongs.




posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by noobfun
 


LOL, yes I feel better, my experience with the christian community is exactly as I explained it. And I did say MOST, at least I think I did, if not my bad and I ask for forgiveness.
In my life, I have run into ONE christian who upheld what I think of as the christian way of life.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


I see you are from Germany...

This is a testament to how poor the U.S. public school system is... its horrible. The fact that we still see school boards voting to include ID in biology textbooks is yet another ode to that fact.

Some states require that if the biology book contains information on evolution, they are required to put a disclaimer sticker on the cover of the book... see here : www.law.com...

Its sad...



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Homosexuality is forbidden in God's eyes.
Just like adultery, or pre-marriage sex.

I had to get rid of boyfriends before I got married, just because they were too worldly.
I was willing to be celibate, if God so wanted. Then He sent my husband to me and we've been married almost 14 years.


Oh well good for you, that must make you better than I am cause I had a lot of fun before I got married, 23 years ago to the same man I am married to now. So nah nah nah.


Sorry folks, can you tell that judgmental christians get my evil goat up?

Ok, back to page 7 as I did sleep last night, and seem to now be way behind in what has been discussed.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:37 PM
link   
An excellent thread. In my youth I resolved the the problem of Evolution vs Creationism without even knowing it.

God created evolution.

To me that implies a much more "Divine" source. That in the very stuff of the Universe there is the spark to grow and look upon creation with wonder. Much cooler to me then a God who creates people out of Ribs and hands down laws that sound to much like the word of man for my taste...

However in my years I have met many many people who do not believe the same. Some views fill me with great "Concern", like the fellow who said this...

"Dinosaurs were not real, Satan placed those bones in the ground to try and make us believe in Evolution."

It was then that I realized there was no logic I could ever use to sway this person. The same goes for those who believe in ID, there will -never-be enough evidence, never an argument strong enough to get them to change. Its just not possible. All I can do is remain vigilant and try and curb their influence where I can.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   
I'm going to ignore the previous 16+ pages of comments for now, because... well... I'm lazy and short of time. However, I would like to state that I am fully in favor of "teaching the controversy" over evolution. Evolution actually has quite a history of controversy... for example...



However, creationism doesn't play a part in the controversy I have in mind when I think of evolution. How relevant current, and past controversies in evolution are to a high-school level education outside of a short digest of history of the theory as well as new theories proposed is debatable.

I would also like to point out that Creationism did not in any way cause Anti-Intellectualism - although the two do go very well with each other and can feed off of each other in a sort of negative feedback loop. Indeed, although subjective, I can probably name far more anti-intellectuals I know who don't subscribe to creationism - than anti-intellectual creationists. Usually this is manifest in the form of trying to catch up to the images they see on TV and other media. Science isn't "cool", and the few shows that try to hipsterize science tend to focus on rather lowbrow means of doing so - like blowing stuff up. Another large anti-intellectual but non-religious faction of people I know are supportive of holistic medicine.

As for creationism itself, I tend to see it as nothing more than a modern form of Geocentracism - wherein people may not actually believe that Earth is the center of the universe to which everything revolves - but we are the center of "GODS" universe.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Helmkat
 


So god created evolution? if you acknowledge Evolution as valid, then why does a god need to be present to kick it off?

Maybe you're re-defining, or coming up with your own definition of what "god" is... which is commendable! Perhaps we wouldn't dis-agree as much as you might think.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 


I can agree with the teaching of weaknesses of evolution in a classroom setting... this is science!

But discussing the "controversy" is NOT science, its sociology. There's no need to discuss the controversy, especially since that controversy is impossible to discuss without the other side of the controversy, i.e. creationism/intelligent design...

there's no room for non-science in our science textbooks or classrooms...



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 



sorry i dont see any controversy to teach here

that video (rather good one thanks for that
) illustrates how we have gone from Darwins 'Origin theory' to modern evolutionary theory

the detials have changed or new ones added but the overview remains the same

so we teach what we know

to teach the bits that didnt make the cut would be pointless, if we taught how a light bulb works should we also teach all the ways people* tried to make light bulbs that didnt work also? (*before thomas edison stole the pattent and claimed it as his own)


[edit on 30/10/08 by noobfun]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by nj2day
reply to post by Helmkat
 


So god created evolution? if you acknowledge Evolution as valid, then why does a god need to be present to kick it off?

Maybe you're re-defining, or coming up with your own definition of what "god" is... which is commendable! Perhaps we wouldn't dis-agree as much as you might think.




My parents were not very religious and I was always very imaginative, so yes you could say I did "re-define" God. Infinite and finite. A Paradox I could never hope to understand. So I carry on and live my life as best I can, do the right thing when possible. Believe in God and Evolution. Some would say they can't be put togther, yet it is all a matter of perspective and from where I stand I have no conflict.

Enough pontificating on my part.

I thought I would share a little news snippet I keep under my desk pad. It always makes me smile.

"In a parallel universe even crazier than our own, Ben Stein, former Nixon speechwriter turned ironic symbol of the anti-hip, may be making a documentary about how the Nazis used the "Controversial" theory of gravity to make bombs fall to earth-so, of course, the theory of gravity must be wrong."



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helmkat

"In a parallel universe even crazier than our own, Ben Stein, former Nixon speechwriter turned ironic symbol of the anti-hip, may be making a documentary about how the Nazis used the "Controversial" theory of gravity to make bombs fall to earth-so, of course, the theory of gravity must be wrong."


i so have to save that somewhere for later use

good work that man/woman/thing of none descript identity


[edit on 30/10/08 by noobfun]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Wow. This thread reminds me of the big bang. I've now learned the key to creating a successful thread on ATS. Just strike up some controversy
.

reply to post by nj2day
 


Exactly.
And I'd like to add that science is a very precise study just as math is.
To cram creationism into science would be like teaching abstract art in math.
Just because math has some ties with art does not warrant abstract art to be a part of the study.
Likewise, just because science has a (very) loose connection with creationism (the existence of the universe) does not warrant creationism to be a part of science.

If a creationist is so sure of his/her claims, then let's wait and see what future discoveries in science have to say. Though for the last century, that hasn't gone very well for creationists, has it?

Also, if you want your kid to learn creationism, then simply teach him/her. Parents still have plenty of power to indoctrinate their kids regardless of what schools are teaching - trust me, I know.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


honestly, from a strategic viewpoint, the Christians would be well served by denouncing ID and Creationism...

They could come out and say they reviewed the facts, and their dogma no longer includes the creation myth... it would accomplish these things:

Show that they are open to further study, and perhaps stop the attacks on their religion

They could say that the book of Genesis, being part of the jewish religious book, is now invalid... further proof that the Jews are wrong and they are right...

It would also distance them further from Islam, which has a similar creation myth... thus Islam would be wrong too...

seems like a strategic move if I were them...



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Theres some interesting videos here to watch:
thegreenatheist.com...



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   
How non-creationists explain the ability of some men to be creative?

Without creativeness of certain scientists, science would be deeply stuck in statistical wells and ideological defensive.

Yet those scientists who come up with new theories first have to fight a heavy battle against the dogmatic, encrusted scientific establishment.

Without creativeness, just following given protocols (including genomes, which are mostly viewed as such "programs") there would be no evolution or any kind of breach into the sphere of knowledge.

For people who believe in established order (and that is nothing but a result of their cowardice) creativeness is a sign of malfunction.

Creativeness is not a religious idea and it is about time to stop misinterpreting this term in the most shallow manner, which only proves that those who are opposed to creativeness are totally non creative themselves.

Science gives us following evidence:
For a couple of million years there was Homo Erectus, whose brain was growing for all that time, but he was using same primitive tools without being able to use the apparent advantage of enlarged brain. Do you see here a proof that evolution actually brings about creativeness in men?

The last variant of Homo Erectus was a so called Heilderberg Man, about 300 000 years ago, practically a closest relative to modern humans (both Neanderthals or Homo Sapiens Sapiens). His skull capacity was only slightly smaller than today's average (cca 1280 compared to 1360 cm3).

So, what is this thing about evolution? Where is the intelligence coming from, the size of a brain?

I don't see thescientific evidence there...

Perhaps, most people today on Earth are Homo Erecti? Unable to be creative and very angry with those who show signs of non-protocolar, i.e. creative behavior.

Creativeness is intelligence, and it is not a byproduct of superior physiology, no one can prove that.

What does Theory of Evolution has to say about man's spirituality?
Nothing so far...

Science is only trying to prove that genes are responsible for our behavior, that there is no such thing as ethics because we are just another kind of machine, programed to do what we do.

And if we start to do something creative, it is likely to be interpreted as disorderly behavior.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
Good morning you two. Have you seen the movie EXPELLED with Ben Stein?

There is more to this story...

OT


Well yea, um read I believe Oct 08 issue of Scientific American or maybe Sept 08 issue of it. One of the editors has a comment on it simply because He's in the film. He has a bad review of it.

Also I could be wrong about the date of it, but his review comes in around the time when the Movie comes out.

Daniel



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by DangerDeath
 


What does your post do to move this discussion along?

We are not discussing "Creativity" or "Creativeness" . . . the fact the homo sapiens have the ability for abstract thought/problem solving has nothing to due with this issue. If I'm wrong . . . please explain.

This "controversy" can just be cleared up by showing ONE shread of evidence that points to design. When you can provide something of merit . . . then you can argue from a philosophical perspective on meaning. However, without any physical evidence . . . you are simply supporting the OP and what it poses.

Moreover . . . we're talking about SCIENCE, so spirituality has NOTHING to do with this debate. Evolution says nothing about spirituality, nor should it. Creative Intelligence isn't a direct result of brain size . . . that's why there isn't a "correlation" between the two. Don't claim something doesn't provide for whatever thus proves it's wrong . . . when they never were meant to in the first place.


[edit on 10/30/08 by solomons path]

[edit on 10/30/08 by solomons path]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Great videos!

I remember when that guy was constantly putting his stuff out there... Him and the guy from www.coffeeghost.net got into a spitting contest a while back (Al is an atheist.. and has some decent videos on his website)



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Because I'm sick of this false dilemma and false discussion between "creationists" and "non-creationists" who, none of them, know what they are talking about.

The fact that some dogmatic people claim that everything is in the Bible is used to promote this kind of charade by those who naively (or mischievously) believe that science has already said its last.

So, when I ask some really creative questions, I get goggled...

Just as I thought so...

dd



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   
ID(creationism) vs. Evolution is a pointless argument. Just like the current presidential election. DEBATING is not likely to change the average person's mind. A lot of this world is very *VERY* closed minded. I am not. I always have an open mind. I'm always up for a debate. I'm voting for Obama but that could change prior to election day. The same goes for my belief in evolution. More important then my personal bias towards "Creationism" is how I feel about it being taught in school.

Creationism taught in school? Absoultely not. Ben Stein, Sarah Palin, the Christians in Dover:

"Why not teach both sides of the argument so the children will have a both sides of the picture?"

Here in lies the problem. Teaching alternative theories doesn't seem like a big deal, or even a bad idea. Creationism however is not a THEORY. Creationism isn't a science. Beleive in creationism all you want, it still isn't a science. Science is supported by facts. Lots and lots and lots of facts. I almost want to say Creationism is Mccain.

I'm still voting for Obama at this point. A huge reason is due to Mccain's lack of a plan. If Mccain has a plan for Iraq, the economy, etc...etc... I don't know. OKAY I'm an educated voter so I do know Mccain's plan but the point I'm trying to make is that your average voter doesn't know Mccain's policy's. Alll we see on TV is Mccain attacking Obama. The same thing has happened with Creationism. Rather then Creationism being promoted on scientific merit, all I see is a bunch of nut jobs attacking Evolution, poking all the holes they can find and then saying "THEREFORE GOD DID IT!"................."THEREFORE VOTE MCCAIN PALIN 08!!!!"

Think of it this way. The evidence for Evolution lead to the Theory of Evolution. Darwin was studying finiches and the evidence he collected lead him to Theory of Evolution. Creationism on the other hand starts with the premise of an Intelligent designer, a Creator. Then we go back and peace meal evidence that supports our claim, while ignoring evidence that does not. Lets just take irreducible complexity for example. No one part of an organ serves a purpose unless the organ is complete. Therefore for the organ to function it most be complete, thus it needed to be designed in whole....GUESS WHO DESIGNED IT? AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER, YAY!!!!!!

The bacterial flagellum is most often spoke of when irreducible complexity is brought up. Sure it looks like a little machine, makes scence that is was designed by someone. This could not happen by chance because the bacterial flagellum has too many unique parts, parts that would serve no function if the bacterial flagellum was not whole. Well first this is not true as it was prooved that the bacterial flagellum could have evolved from a some sort of poison injector, but hell lets just say the bacterial flagellum did not randomly form. What then? As a scientist, one would look for a natural reason as to how the bacterial flagellum came to be. This would mean researching, experienments, etc.....however Creationists go straight for the super natural "Intelligent designer". It is like a freakin I win button, anything can be explained by "Intelligent designer". Now if someone found a messege encoded in our DNA that said "hello world", then I'd change my mind.

In closing it might appear like I am very closed minded, but I'm really not. Infact I was raised as a god fearing Catholic. Eventually I decided to open my freakin eyes. There is no place for God in science. The two cannot co-exsist unless we find actual evidence of God. Finding something we cannot currently explain is NOT evidence of God. That kind of thinking has been present through out our history and it leads to nothing. I'm not Athiest, I'm Agnostic. I hate religion, I don't hate spirituality, as long at it doesn't get in the way of more people taking their freakin religion bliders off.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join