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

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

[eclectic]

Wonder what other religions think, the Jews for example?

The Jews have enough really important issues to worry about... Seriously, they seem to take the Bible less literally than the Christians, partially due to the long tradition of reinterpretation that sometimes strips words of their literal meaning. There is no history of serious inter-faith splits based on a particular interpretation, so there is less fervor about this in general

The Muslims do not pay attention. Their Koran starts from Moses already

Hinduists and others have so many contradictory (or complimentary) myths of creation, that evolution is not a problem at all

[Oztrich Boy]

Evolution happened. Therefore, if your postulates are true ... .

[Smartaleck]

"The Earth is firmly fixed; it shall not be moved."
-Psalms 104:5

Is this accurate or do we know the world to be different?

Galileo was persecuted for challenging this.

[WildHorseCrash]

You have just insulted a lot of people.

Let me ask you:

• Have you ever called one of these creationists to the carpet when they insult the beliefs of those of us who recognize that evolution is science?
• When they call us tools of Satan, democrats, communists, evil, stupid, fools, liberals, leftists, etc., etc., etc.??
• Have you ever objected to the fact that people's scientific work is being insulted by posters with no demonstrable knowledge of the subject matter?
• Have you ever expressed outrage over the fact that some people in this country are trying to the force their religious tenets on school children under the disingenuous and the misguided notion that there is a "dispute" as to the science of evolution?
• Have you ever taken any creationists to task when they ignorantly equate evolution and atheism (as can be seen even on this very thread)?

If not, then this "insult" is simply one more in the long history of insults on these evolution/creationist threads. And if you haven't previously objected to the offensive posts of the creationists, then you've shown by your inaction that it is acceptable to simply ignore the fact that insulting comments are posted. Thus, I will follow your example and not concern myself with the fact that you find my opinion objectionable.

Why do you think you have all the answers?

I never claimed to have all the answers. That is, in my experience, the province of a subset of the extremely religious. Some even go so far as to say that since I believe in the science and facts about evolution, that they know what's going to happen to me after I die.

I wonder, have you ever asked them why they think they have all the answers?

[mlc9852]

"I believe in the science and facts about evolution"

And, briefly, what are your facts as opposed to God being the creator of the universe?

[Sam Cree]

Well, there are plenty of Bush voters, probably even within the so called "religious right," who accept evolution as a valid theory, but still believe in God, and even in intelligent design.

OTOH, the black population, to a great extent, is religiously identical to the religious right, but mirrors them in voting patterns.

I think most "liberals" believe Bush lost primarily because of moral values. It played a part, but, IMO, was not the greatest factor.

[eclectic]

Galileo was persecuted for challenging this

They burned Giordano Bruno, those bastards... He was somewhat of an Art Bell of the day, though...

[Doctor Stochastic]

Religious right fights science...

Exactly correct. The Creationists and their soul-mates, the PostModernDeconstructionists and NewAgers, have been anti-science for decades (at least.)

[Sam Cree]

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

Well, the theory of evolution is definitely science, although perhaps not the scientific method, since it can't be verified through experiment. Same goes for creationism, though, although for some, creation is more a matter of faith than of reason.

Some creationists attempt to make evolution into a religion, which it's not, and creationism into a science, which it usually is not, but could be. I don't actually see the need for moral equivalency in the debate.

I agree with the creationists that man cannot rely on reason alone, still, no way can we ignore it either, it's on of God's greatest gifts to us.

[ViLaLuz]

God and science are not at odds at all. He and his believers are only painted as anti-science by those who can't accept God or his power. This article is an example of that. Notice the skewed writing, even in the title, framing believers as ignorant?

[Doctor Stochastic]

The Muslims do not pay attention. Their Koran starts from Moses already...

The Islamic view is identical to that of the Creationists

[eclectic]

And, briefly, what are your facts as opposed to God being the creator of the universe?

None. Even the evolution does not qualify.

[WildHorseCrash]

>>"I believe in the science and facts about evolution" <<

And, briefly, what are your facts as opposed to God being the creator of the universe?

What are you talking about? I talked about evolution, and you react with talk of creating the universe. If you don't instinctively see that these are two totally different things, then what good would it do for me to lay out the scientific support for evolution? Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe.

Moreover, I never said whether I believe or disbelieve in God. Is it simply a knee-jerk reaction that led you to the conclusion that I had some "disproof" that God created the universe? Are you one of those people who think that disbelief in the literal truth of Genesis is somehow the same as atheism?

If you want to learn something about evolution, see the great Freeper PatrickHenry's about page. It says it all better and more comprehensively than I could here. I'm not, however, going to take seriously your apparent knee-jerk beliefs about evolution and atheism.

[doc30]

Some even go so far as to say that since I believe in the science and facts about evolution, that they know what's going to happen to me after I die.

I was marreid to a woman who held such beliefs. Her and her friends wanted to "save" me because I am a scientist. I was told that ALL science was the work of Satan because science attempts to disprove the Bible. Therefore, anyone who followed science, let alone earned a living from it, was automatically condemned to Hell as if being a scientist was equivalent to carrying the Mark of the Beast. I was also told that science is spiritually corrupt because scientists are never satisfied with the way things are (i.e. the way God made them to be). We waste energy and money on questions about nature and not enough on our salvation. Making life healthier, easier and better was making people more lazy and distracting them from Jesus.

This type of thinking is what gives Christianity a bad name and is used by the left as an example of what the faithful in American desire. The bottom line is that there are Fundamentalist Christians that do want the U.S. to be a Christian Theocracy, analagous to the Taliban, but, hoepfully, without the violence. Fortunately, most Christians are not like that.

[WildHorseCrash]

Nice post, doc. I agree. I always cringe when I see, on FR, a confirmation of the liberal sterotype of conservatives. This is one big area where the charge that conservatives are "anti-science" and "anti-intellectual" and even "anti-learning" has, unfortunately, some traction.

[PatrickHenry]

Well, the theory of evolution is definitely science, although perhaps not the scientific method, since it can't be verified through experiment.

So what? Astronomy can't "be verified through experiment" either. Yet it too is science. The key to determining if an idea is scientific is whether it is, in principle, falsifiable. That is, does the "theory" lead to predictions which, either through experiment or observation would either support or contradict the theory. By that standard, which is universally accepted by the science community, evolution is most definitely a scientific theory. For example:
All present and fossilized animals found should conform to the standard evolutionary tree. And they do.
Fossilized intermediates should appear in the "correct" chronological order on the standard tree.
Many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions.
Species that are more closely related should share a greater portion of their DNA.. Excerpt:

[A]n hypothesis of evolutionary relationships is provided by the fossil record, which indicates when particular types of organisms evolved. In addition, by examining the anatomical structures of fossils and of modern species, we can infer how closely species are related to each other. When degree of genetic similarity is compared with our ideas of evolutionary relationships based on fossils, a close match is evident.

Also: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. Yes, macro-evolution.

[mlc9852]

I never implied you were an atheist. I would never presume to know someone's spiritual beliefs. I, however, believe that the Bible is literal and that talk of evolution often is about adaptation, which is observable.

[Smartaleck]

"partially due to the long tradition of reinterpretation that sometimes strips words of their literal meaning."

There was a show on the History channel last night examining the origins of the Bible. My take is that Jews tend to have a more objective eye.

Interpretation is subject to just that, interpretation.
The Hebrew of today is different just as English is different from Middle English.

As the show pointed out, some passages use different words to describe the same story. Which is the literal translation? How does one chose which is correct?

I would further submit that the reinterpretation or willingness to do so is a good thing.

Words can only be correctly understood if put into the context of the time in which they are written. The more we learn about the history, the context, the more accurate the interpretation of the words. IMO

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

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

I doubt it. Even if it did, it wouldn't be because of the "Creationists."

You may be interested in this latest article from Science. Looks like the BIG BUCKS are in Darwinism. It *does* have the ACLU and the evolutionists on it's side, after all.

‘Darwinian’ Funding and the Demise of Physics and Chemistry,” Science, Vol 307, Issue 5710, 668-669, 4 February 2005, [DOI: 10.1126/science.307.5710.668

[orionblamblam]

> Evolution says that there was NO God there.

That is entirely incorrect. Did you know you are spouting lies?