Religious right fights science for the heart of America [Evolution vs. Creationism]

The Guardian (UK) ^ | 07 February 2005 | Special Report (on USA)

[PatrickHenry]

The Brits are probably loving this stuff. (Yanks loosing it!) The dems are loving it too. Every chance the press gets, they link this anti-science stuff to conservatism.

[PatrickHenry]

EvolutionPing

A pro-evolution science list with over 230 names. See list's description at my homepage. FReepmail to be added/dropped.

[StonyBurk]

Darwinian Evolution is NOT Science,but Theory no more valid
nor invalid than Creationism. Perhaps the salad shooters
evolved by random happenstance from monkeys that came by way of happenstance from an amoeba that evolved by happenstance from some other form of matter-but by God someone had to Create th efreakin' Matter and anti-matter
But it doesn't matter to the salad shooters.

[Northern Alliance]

Once again the left is framing the debate, leaving conservatives with an uphill battle. They want you to think it is a debate between science and the Christian religious right. Now the right set itself up for this by putting the term "Intelligent Design" in the forefront, which happens to be the title of a book by a Christian.

In fact the concept of a creator and skepticism of many aspects of Darwinian evolution is not the exclusive domain of Christians. Anyone who is not completely convinced of the Darwinian theory has a stake in seeing the subject discussed and examined with a more open mind than it has been.

[Junior]

Mein Gott. The U.S. is going to lose its technological edge in the next generation or so.

Oh well, I guess it's all right. We'll be at the technological mercy of China and India, but By God, we'll have saved our souls!

[Salgak]

Intelligent design, at least as noted in the article, got ONE thing right. Evolution is a theory, albeit one with quite a bit of support.

But the issues are being skewed here: science is NOT supposed to provide TRUTH. Science catalogs facts in the observed universe, and uses those facts to create highly-detailed working models of reality, accurately matching the universe at large in sufficient detail to be reliably used for engineering or predictive purposes. It may be totally wrong (especially in causation), but it provides RELIABLE RESULTS. . .

You want Truth, hit the Religion or Philosophy Departments. . .you want reliable, empirical results, hit the Science Department and the Engineering School

[maestro]

Religious right fights British State-Religion of Darwinist-Evolution for the heart of America [Evolution vs. Creationism]

/another 'Tea' party?

[eclectic]

Darwinian Evolution is NOT Science,but Theory no more valid nor invalid than Creationism

Memo to you: the theory of evolution is a scientific theory, while Creationism is a religious belief. Don't you dare to confuse the two!

[WildHorseCrash]

Darwinian Evolution is NOT Science,but Theory no more valid nor invalid than Creationism.

Evolution is science. It is both fact and theory, in that evolution has happened, and the modern synthesis is the theory that explains how. It has shown by the millions of points of data that support it. Creationism is nothing more than a bronze-age, Middle Eastern myth that only children and the pathetically ignorant believe to be literally true.

[RaceBannon]

It is evolution that is anti-Science.

It is CHRISTIANS that developed every major science field to the greatness it is, and each of those Christians was a Creationist of some sort.

[RaceBannon]

Evolution is a religious belief, just as much as Creationism.

Evolution says that there was NO God there.

Creationism says it was ALL God there.

BOTH are religious views.

[eclectic]

If science is defined as the quest for knowledge

Actually, science is what they teach at the university

[crail]

If evolution is a religion, I'm curious how you differentiate it from say paleontology, geography or astronomy? Do you believe they are religious beliefs too? I mean, like evolution, they are all historical sciences, with plenty evidence to back them, but no means of rerunning the sequence to see if we get the same results. I want to know what makes evolution so different from the other historical sciences, which don't get as much of a beating in High school curricula, I would think a ID proponent would want alternatives to all four taught.

[mlc9852]

You're right. Savings souls is more important.

[thejokker]

WRONG...

wacko-nut jobs will split the conservative movement and allow the democrats an opportunity to regain power.

religous extremists need to be restrained by the majority...

[mlc9852]

You have just insulted a lot of people. Why do you think you have all the answers?

[mlc9852]

I would hardly call someone who believes in God a religious extremist.

[agere_contra]

The Brits are probably loving this stuff.

The ones who read the Guardian, certainly - bunch of elitist snobs.

Evolution is a fact: it is the way God has created our bodies. Not so our souls.

Of more pressing concern is this idea that Science and Religion somehow contradict each other. This cannot be. There is only one truth, not two or three parallel truths.

If a fact really is true, then by definition no other path of truth can contradict it. No observable fact in the universe can really deny the existence of God, if he exists. Aquinas was right on top of this. Those of us on this board who believe need not fear any scientific revelation.

[eclectic]

Evolution says that there was NO God there.

Nothing of the sort. It just does not specify where the God is (was). Usage of the concept of God qualifies something as a religious belief. As long as the theory of evolution does not use it - it is NOT a religious belief. You seem to confuse the theory of evolution with a blanket atheistic statement that there is no god. Atheism itself is a religious ideology, and a dangerous one, but let us leave the poor old evolution theory to the care of the egg-heads with Ph.D.