Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Misunderstood Biologist Quits Over Creationism Teaching Row.

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [On Another Note...] >> News and Hot Topics >> RE: Misunderstood Biologist Quits Over Creationism Teaching Row. Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Misunderstood Biologist Quits Over Creationism Teac... - 21/9/2008 5:08:47 PM   
Tech_Noir

 

Posts: 20199
Joined: 12/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tech_Noir

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wilbert


Religion is dying out very, very slowly.



I think it's changing.

Very, very slowly.


No, actually, I think it's dying, and Wilbert gave the points why.


Old religions dying, yes (although statistically die hard atheists are still a minority).

But religion is not like scientific facts and it can change, as much as some believers don't want it to.

< Message edited by Tech_Noir -- 21/9/2008 5:09:12 PM >

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 61
RE: Misunderstood Biologist Quits Over Creationism Teac... - 21/9/2008 11:27:40 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tech_Noir

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tech_Noir

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wilbert


Religion is dying out very, very slowly.



I think it's changing.

Very, very slowly.


No, actually, I think it's dying, and Wilbert gave the points why.


Old religions dying, yes (although statistically die hard atheists are still a minority).

But religion is not like scientific facts and it can change, as much as some believers don't want it to.


But what would it's use in the future be?

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Tech_Noir)
Post #: 62
RE: Misunderstood Biologist Quits Over Creationism Teac... - 22/9/2008 8:36:53 AM   
Tech_Noir

 

Posts: 20199
Joined: 12/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

But what would it's use in the future be?


How else will I control my minions.

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 63
RE: Misunderstood Biologist Quits Over Creationism Teac... - 22/9/2008 6:37:57 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tech_Noir

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

But what would it's use in the future be?


How else will I control my minions.


Hmmmmmmmmmmm..........self-control, you don't need religion for that. You don't have to be religous to have that. Again, it's useless. Unless it is not used as a weapon. It is a powerful weapon.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Tech_Noir)
Post #: 64
RE: Misunderstood Biologist Quits Over Creationism Teac... - 23/9/2008 5:16:51 AM   
Incanus


Posts: 16000
Joined: 23/7/2008
From: Winterfell
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cruisecontroller

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wilbert
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tech_Noir
I say we teach music in maths lessons.

Music and maths have a lot in common. Evolution and creationism do not.

Sorry Wilbert but I have to disagree with you there. Evoloution and creationism are about the same thing how the universe and everything in it started they have a lot in common evolution from a scientific therotical point of view and creationism from a religous Christian/Judiasm point of view. Music and maths I suppose both involve formula`s, maths with numbers and music with musical notes so I suppose they have connections too as well.


Science is based on hard undeniable evidence tested by experimentation and supported by observatioin. A scientific theory is not theoretical meaning imaginary, it is a proven hypothesis, or at least one that the scientific community holds to be true, until disproven or complemented by new evidence.

Creationism or Intelligent Design or Christian Science is a pseudo-science, based on a fundamentalist approach of the Judaeo-Christian Bible that only came into discussion merely because there has been in the past ten years or so a growing demand by Neo-Christian lobbyists whose vote the Republican Party wished to snatch.

It blatantly ignores:
A) the fact that the Bible reflects only the Judaeo-Christian idea of primitive and allegorical cosmology (why not teach the presocratic philosophers for that matter?)
B) the fact that other denominations and religions would have to be presented as well in a comparative study class
C) the fact that it accepts the ideas featured in the Bible as true (a wild preconception) while science rejects any preconceptions and seeks the truth by establishing methodology and reasoning based on facts and clear definiton of terms.
D) the fact that mixing pseudo-logical reasoning to make a case on faith is a violation of the basic principles of philosophy and epistemology

Furthermore, to those saying that people should have a right to choice:

There is no choice in questioning the Sun as being the centre of the Solar system! 33% of Americans actually think that the Earth still stands in the middle and the planets revolve around it based on the assertions of their church. Can't you people see the Dark Ages return? Sarah Palin, would-be PRESIDENT in case McCain doesn't make the term, believes that dinosaurs lived 4000 years ago, and that the climate crisis is the will of God!

Science and Creationism do not share an equal position in the education system. One is Science the other is Religion. Period. There are not two sides to every story. Each of them has a different field of study to work with, the first has to work with the scientific method, the second has to deal with Man's fear of the unknown beyond. One does not exclude the other.

The following is an article by Steve Mirsky, Scientific American, December 2005.

THE TRIALS OF LIFE: because vigilance is the price of liberty, we have to talk about intelligent design again. Sorry.

"Let's review. First there was the oxymoronic, and just plain moronic, creation science, which says that biblical creation, not evolution, accounts for all life on earth. creation science begat the more subtle intelligent design (ID), which holds that life is too complex to have evolved naturally - an intelligent designer (identity a secret, but it rhymes with Todd) must have done it, producing wonders of nature like the flagellum, that whippy tail some bacteria have, and both Angelina Jolie and Jennifer Aniston.

On September13, the New York Times ran an article that discussed how the documentary March of the Penguins was a big hit among some groups because of the lessons it imparted. A reviewer in World Magazine thought that the fact that the fragile penguin egg survived the Antarctic climate made a "strong case for intelligent design." Conservative commentator Michael Medved thought the movie "passionately affirms traditional norms like monogamy, sacrifice ad child rearing."

Coincidentally, I had seen the movie just a few days before. On a blisteringly hot day in south Florida, I intelligently designed my afternoon to be in an air-conditioned theatre watching penguins. So, perhaps I can be of some help.

Penguins are not people, despite their natty appearance and upright ambulation. Their traditional norms include waddling around naked and regurgitating the kids' lunch. But it would be as absurd to castigate them for those activities as it is to congratulate them for their monogamy. Besides, the movie clearly notes that the penguins ase seasonally monogamous -- like other movie stars usually reviled by moralists, the penguins take a different mate each year. And there are problems with them as evidence of intelliget design. While caring for the egg, the penguinsbalance it one their feet against their warm bodies; if the egg slips to the ground for even a few seconds, it freezes and cracks open. A truly intelligent design might have included internal development, or thicker eggshells, or Miami. Finally, penguing parents take turns walking 70 miles to the sea for takeout meals. The Birds have to walk.

From tribulations to trials. On September 26, I sat in a federal courtroom in Harrisburg, Pa., where a lawyer said for almost certainly the first time ever, "Can we have the bacterial flagellum, please?" This groundbreaking moment in legal history came on day one of the trial that will determine if the Dover, Pa., school board violated the First Amendment by introducing religion in a public school when it require the inclusionof an antievolution, pro-ID advisory in ninth-grade biology classes.

Dubbed "Scopes II" by some, the case is really "Scopes III." The 1987 U.S. Supreme Court case Edwards vs. Aguillard, whihc barred creation science from public school science classrooms, was often dubbed "Scopes II." and you can't have two Scope II's, at least not until the forces of irrationality begin futzing with the math curriculum, too.

Members of the Dover school boardwho want ID taught are free to consult the opening paragraph for an explanation of ID. The curriculum chair, ID proponent William Buckingham, could have used some crib notes when he was asked in a deposition last January, "Do you have an understanding in very simple terms of what intelligent desing stands for? What does it teach?" Buckingham responded, "Other than what I expressed, that's -- scientists, a lot of scientists -- don't ask me the names. I can't tell you where it came from. A lot of scientists believe that back through time, something, molecules, amoeba, whatever evolved into the compexities of life we have now."

Is our children learning?

Anyway, the trial was only about half over when this issue of ScientificAmerican went to press, so we'll have to revisit it at a later date. Hey, nobody said eternal viglance was going to be easy."





_____________________________

WINTER IS COMING

T h e 2 4 t h F r a m e . c o . u k

Cuiva Olorin
Narendur.
Tira nottolya
Tulta tuolya.
An mauya mahtie
Ter oiomornie
Ter ondicilyar
Mettanna.
Nurunna!

(in reply to Cruisecontroller)
Post #: 65
RE: Misunderstood Biologist Quits Over Creationism Teac... - 23/9/2008 5:47:23 AM   
Incanus


Posts: 16000
Joined: 23/7/2008
From: Winterfell
I hate to be the spoilsport here and ruin all the fun and games, but the matter is rather serious. Anything that has to do with the ability to think and the liberty of science is very important and should not be taken lightly.

In America we are on the verge of a disaster. The nation has been run by an administration only posing as pious and religious to take advantage of the naive and the fundamentalists, while spilling blood of innocents and making sure their personal coffers got stuffed to the brim with bucks.

To add insult to injury, a profoundly ideological battle has been raging on this topic, which might undermine the future and prestige and credibility and validity of the education of generations to come. With every word that dies a thought dies too, and with every fact being replaced by falsehood and preconceptions / misconceptions a way of logical reasoning is replaced with blind faith, not faith that unites Man to God, but faith that makes a person dogmatic and resentful.

Mark Twain said "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble; it's what you know for sure that just ain't so." Science always leaves a window open to modification and alteration, dogma never.

Science, the edifice of free thinking and universal collaboration, the epitome of philosophical method combined with practical approach stands before the menace of dogma disguised as a crooked cousin thereof with many defects and no wish to share space with other of its own kind, namely religions. Replacing hard and pure science with monolithic dogma of only one sort, the Christian sort, not only is against the Constitution but also against reason. It is not freedom of speech that is being obstructed if Intelligent Design is not taught in science class, for it can be taught in religion. What these people are after is exclusivity to knowledge, that is to say they want their misconceptions and fanaticism to not be opposed by other religions but by elementary science which is unfortunately harder to grasp than the stories of the Good Book, since they don't even go into those tough subjects either, meaning doctrine and religious metaphysics.

Having said that, I should also say that I am a Christian myself, having degrees in both Theology and Philosophy, Arts and History. But one should remember, science explains the world around us, theology and religion are there to answer the metaphysical questions.

On a final note, you know how medieval chroniclers reckoned that the world was created some 7500 years ago (the Anno Mundi reckoning)? By adding the years of each person in the book of Genesis, those who allegedly lived one 400 years, the other 500, the next 280, etc. Is that where scientific progress has led us to? The Middle Ages again?

< Message edited by Incanus -- 23/9/2008 5:49:05 AM >


_____________________________

WINTER IS COMING

T h e 2 4 t h F r a m e . c o . u k

Cuiva Olorin
Narendur.
Tira nottolya
Tulta tuolya.
An mauya mahtie
Ter oiomornie
Ter ondicilyar
Mettanna.
Nurunna!

(in reply to Incanus)
Post #: 66
RE: Misunderstood Biologist Quits Over Creationism Teac... - 23/9/2008 9:15:41 AM   
samthemanc


Posts: 1547
Joined: 20/11/2007
From: here to eternity
quote:

ORIGINAL: Incanus
Having said that, I should also say that I am a Christian myself, having degrees in both Theology and Philosophy, Arts and History. But one should remember, science explains the world around us, theology and religion are there to answer the metaphysical questions.


I think the problem with that is that often Religious people feel none religious people have metaphysical questions that they want answering. For me there is so much in the universe that there's no point wondering why any of it happens.
I'm always intrigued as to how things happen but i personally don't feel anything needs a reason for being.

Theology and religion isn't the answer to metaphysical questions anyway, it's an answer, different religions have different perspectives on things. Whenever religion is involved the argument gets given more importance but to me it's just the different ways people view things.

I had an ongoing argument with someone that turquoise was more blue than green whereas she saw it as more green than blue. Neither of us are right and neither are wrong it's just a perspective. I know that's a pretty trivial example but it's a good one, what is the point in theists and atheists arguing their view of 'fact'? Neither will ever agree with the other. Don't get me wrong i enjoy the debate and i'm always intrigued as to why people believe but there's no point trying to convince me that they're right and i'm wrong

quote:

ORIGINAL: Incanus
On a final note, you know how medieval chroniclers reckoned that the world was created some 7500 years ago (the Anno Mundi reckoning)? By adding the years of each person in the book of Genesis, those who allegedly lived one 400 years, the other 500, the next 280, etc. Is that where scientific progress has led us to? The Middle Ages again?


I'm sorry, I don't get your point here, why is that scientific progress?



_____________________________

Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months. - Oscar Wilde

From now on, ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put. - Winston Churchill

Dying's a day worth living for - Captain Barbossa

(in reply to Incanus)
Post #: 67
RE: Misunderstood Biologist Quits Over Creationism Teac... - 23/9/2008 5:18:38 PM   
TheManWithNoShame


Posts: 6767
Joined: 1/8/2006
quote:

I had an ongoing argument with someone that turquoise was more blue than green whereas she saw it as more green than blue. Neither of us are right and neither are wrong it's just a perspective


Well actually: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turquoise_(color)

Turquoise is slightly more green than blue.


_____________________________

sorry jbg :( i promise to stop being such a silly boy.

(in reply to samthemanc)
Post #: 68
RE: Misunderstood Biologist Quits Over Creationism Teac... - 23/9/2008 6:14:30 PM   
Olaf


Posts: 23695
Joined: 26/2/2007
From: 41N 93W
...

quote:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.


_____________________________

I tried to groan, Help! Help! But the tone that came out was that of polite conversation.

Empire Top 100 Albums Poll 2013: CLICK HERE

(in reply to TheManWithNoShame)
Post #: 69
RE: Misunderstood Biologist Quits Over Creationism Teac... - 23/9/2008 7:28:56 PM   
Incanus


Posts: 16000
Joined: 23/7/2008
From: Winterfell
quote:

ORIGINAL: samthemanc

quote:

ORIGINAL: Incanus
Having said that, I should also say that I am a Christian myself, having degrees in both Theology and Philosophy, Arts and History. But one should remember, science explains the world around us, theology and religion are there to answer the metaphysical questions.


I think the problem with that is that often Religious people feel none religious people have metaphysical questions that they want answering. For me there is so much in the universe that there's no point wondering why any of it happens.
I'm always intrigued as to how things happen but i personally don't feel anything needs a reason for being.

Theology and religion isn't the answer to metaphysical questions anyway, it's an answer, different religions have different perspectives on things. Whenever religion is involved the argument gets given more importance but to me it's just the different ways people view things.

I had an ongoing argument with someone that turquoise was more blue than green whereas she saw it as more green than blue. Neither of us are right and neither are wrong it's just a perspective. I know that's a pretty trivial example but it's a good one, what is the point in theists and atheists arguing their view of 'fact'? Neither will ever agree with the other. Don't get me wrong i enjoy the debate and i'm always intrigued as to why people believe but there's no point trying to convince me that they're right and i'm wrong

quote:

ORIGINAL: Incanus
On a final note, you know how medieval chroniclers reckoned that the world was created some 7500 years ago (the Anno Mundi reckoning)? By adding the years of each person in the book of Genesis, those who allegedly lived one 400 years, the other 500, the next 280, etc. Is that where scientific progress has led us to? The Middle Ages again?


I'm sorry, I don't get your point here, why is that scientific progress?


You are right Sam, I meant to say "Theology and religions are there to provide some replies (not answers) to people's metaphysical (not in the exact philosophical meaning of the word) questions, if these people choose this or that religion."

I do not assume that an non-theist person should seek their answers there or anywhere, nor that they in fact should have any questions to pose in the first place.

Religions are like supermarkets, you visit them when and if you need to get something, and there are many of them around. If you don't need to, then why go to the supermarket? Same goes with Philosophy.

As to the "Is that where scientific progress has led us to? The Middle Ages again?" question, it was meant to point out that people who embrace Intelligent Design believe that the world is much younger than science has established it to be. These people are very much akin to the (unscientific) way medieval chroniclers used to think and reckon the age of the world, and they seem to disregard all that scientific progress has achieved the last five centuries or so, which I find to be a regression to a dark age (that's the purpose of "again").

It is clear I did not mean to say that medieval chroniclers were scientists. It would be a blatant contradiction to the rest of my text if I suddenly, after praising science and its merits, were to say that we should reckon the age of the world like they did back in the Middle Ages, taking for fact the absurd notion that Mathusala, for example, had lived for hundreds of years, etc.


_____________________________

WINTER IS COMING

T h e 2 4 t h F r a m e . c o . u k

Cuiva Olorin
Narendur.
Tira nottolya
Tulta tuolya.
An mauya mahtie
Ter oiomornie
Ter ondicilyar
Mettanna.
Nurunna!

(in reply to samthemanc)
Post #: 70
Creationism vs Evolution - 28/6/2011 6:08:52 PM   
DJ Satan


Posts: 9024
Joined: 26/10/2005
From: White Vaart Lane
The smartest minds in America have got together to argue whether Evolution should be taught in school.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkBmhM0R2A0&feature=share

As it turns out the smartest minds come from California, New Mexico and Vermont.

Afterwards they tackle Maths.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QBv2CFTSWU&feature=share

_____________________________

Don't try to tell me that some power can corrupt a person
You hadn't had enough to know what it's like
You're only angry cause you wish you were in my position
Now nod your head cause you know that I'm right..alright!

(in reply to Incanus)
Post #: 71
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 28/6/2011 6:26:46 PM   
elab49


Posts: 54574
Joined: 1/10/2005
Can we vote for Miss Connecticut? A look at the interviewer and a simple 'yes' was really the only response to that.

As for most of the dim others - I'm guessing a heck of a lot of them actually don't know what it is and were bluffing - quite apart from the constant mentions of belief and apparently not realising it was taught. Apart from that - really quite scary.


_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to DJ Satan)
Post #: 72
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 28/6/2011 7:22:26 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
I'm pretty sure the Washington one was dissing creationism and that the Minnesota one must be great in bed. 

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 73
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 28/6/2011 10:34:05 PM   
DJ Satan


Posts: 9024
Joined: 26/10/2005
From: White Vaart Lane

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

I'm pretty sure the Washington one was dissing creationism and that the Minnesota one must be great in bed.


"Facts not theoreys should be taught in school." She loses out on that quote.

As for Minnesota she may have the whole catholic schoolgirl thing going on but she also takes the Popes teachings as fact.

_____________________________

Don't try to tell me that some power can corrupt a person
You hadn't had enough to know what it's like
You're only angry cause you wish you were in my position
Now nod your head cause you know that I'm right..alright!

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 74
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 28/6/2011 10:53:00 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
I'm not sure if she was referring to evolution as a theory and at least Catholicism accepts it. Could be much worse....


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to DJ Satan)
Post #: 75
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 29/6/2011 11:38:03 AM   
superdan


Posts: 8220
Joined: 31/7/2008
How is there still a debate about evolution? It has been empirically observed, demonstrated and documented many times. I don't understand why or how some deny it even if it makes them uncomfortable

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 76
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 5/7/2012 11:34:35 PM   
Rebenectomy


Posts: 5629
Joined: 20/1/2008
From: 10-0-11-0-0 by 0-2
Oh for fucks sake http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2012/07/national-trust-promotes-creationism-at-new-visitor-centre

_____________________________

Body Hair Beautiful: An Armpits for August Special
http://www.lipstogetherandblow.com/2013/07/body-beautiful.html

(in reply to superdan)
Post #: 77
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 5/7/2012 11:44:35 PM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan

How is there still a debate about evolution? It has been empirically observed, demonstrated and documented many times. I don't understand why or how some deny it even if it makes them uncomfortable



Faith innit. My father-in-law is a doctor of science, yet he's also a Christian, so in-spite of knowing that he's probably wrong his faith dictates that he still holds a candle for creationism. I know a bunch of reasonable, intelligent people that hold the same beliefs.

In a way I kind of admire their ability to stick to their laurels in spite of evidence proving otherwise.

(in reply to superdan)
Post #: 78
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 5/7/2012 11:47:29 PM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rebenectomy

Oh for fucks sake http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2012/07/national-trust-promotes-creationism-at-new-visitor-centre


It's not what I believe, but I don't think its that big of a deal to include a couple of sentences worth of alternative opinion. I'm sure the actual, science ground explanation is given the greater prominence.

(in reply to Rebenectomy)
Post #: 79
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 5/7/2012 11:55:36 PM   
DancingClown


Posts: 4204
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Lot

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rebenectomy

Oh for fucks sake http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2012/07/national-trust-promotes-creationism-at-new-visitor-centre


It's not what I believe, but I don't think its that big of a deal to include a couple of sentences worth of alternative opinion. I'm sure the actual, science ground explanation is given the greater prominence.


I agree with Adam. While I have no time for creationists this isn't that big a deal. If they were presenting it as the sole perspective then there would be cause for concern.

_____________________________

Astronomic Tune Boy

'The town knew darkness, and darkness was enough.'

"Storm just bleeewwww me away..."

(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 80
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 6/7/2012 12:06:17 AM   
Lazarus munkey


Posts: 1650
Joined: 20/3/2006
From: out of nowhere

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan

How is there still a debate about evolution? It has been empirically observed, demonstrated and documented many times. I don't understand why or how some deny it even if it makes them uncomfortable



Faith innit. My father-in-law is a doctor of science, yet he's also a Christian, so in-spite of knowing that he's probably wrong his faith dictates that he still holds a candle for creationism. I know a bunch of reasonable, intelligent people that hold the same beliefs.

In a way I kind of admire their ability to stick to their laurels in spite of evidence proving otherwise.

I admire people in institutions who believe they are Napoleon in spite of evidence proving otherwise.

_____________________________

"Because I got the answers"

Last 5 seen
Chronicle 4/5
The Amazing Spider-Man 3/5
Young Adult 4/5
21 Jump Street 4/5
The Apartment 5/5

(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 81
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 6/7/2012 12:09:50 AM   
Lazarus munkey


Posts: 1650
Joined: 20/3/2006
From: out of nowhere

quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown


quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rebenectomy

Oh for fucks sake http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2012/07/national-trust-promotes-creationism-at-new-visitor-centre


It's not what I believe, but I don't think its that big of a deal to include a couple of sentences worth of alternative opinion. I'm sure the actual, science ground explanation is given the greater prominence.


I agree with Adam. While I have no time for creationists this isn't that big a deal. If they were presenting it as the sole perspective then there would be cause for concern.

I agree that it's not a problem, although it seems to be missing a sentence along the lines of, "The overwhelming body of evidence suggest that the YECs are wrong. Or insane."

_____________________________

"Because I got the answers"

Last 5 seen
Chronicle 4/5
The Amazing Spider-Man 3/5
Young Adult 4/5
21 Jump Street 4/5
The Apartment 5/5

(in reply to DancingClown)
Post #: 82
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 6/7/2012 12:47:35 AM   
Rebenectomy


Posts: 5629
Joined: 20/1/2008
From: 10-0-11-0-0 by 0-2
You don't think it's a problem that fundamentalist christian groups (many based in the US) have put pressure on the National Trust to include this as part of the exhibit? We've already had to put up with campaigns over here to get the Ulster Museum to run creationist exhibitions along side evolution and other natural history and science features. I have serious issues with this, especially as the Causeway centre will be used for educational school trips.

_____________________________

Body Hair Beautiful: An Armpits for August Special
http://www.lipstogetherandblow.com/2013/07/body-beautiful.html

(in reply to Lazarus munkey)
Post #: 83
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 6/7/2012 1:02:19 AM   
Lazarus munkey


Posts: 1650
Joined: 20/3/2006
From: out of nowhere
I think it should be told in the same way the legend of the causeway is told. The way it's worded is a problem for me, as is any credence whatsoever being given to creationism. Tell the story, by all means, but to make out it's anything else is lunacy.
People are free to believe whatever they want to. But try to teach that shit to my kids and we'll have words.

_____________________________

"Because I got the answers"

Last 5 seen
Chronicle 4/5
The Amazing Spider-Man 3/5
Young Adult 4/5
21 Jump Street 4/5
The Apartment 5/5

(in reply to Rebenectomy)
Post #: 84
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 6/7/2012 1:09:32 AM   
Spaldron


Posts: 10485
Joined: 6/10/2006
From: Chair

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lazarus munkey

I admire people in institutions who believe they are Napoleon in spite of evidence proving otherwise.


Quote of the thread.

_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him.

(in reply to Lazarus munkey)
Post #: 85
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 6/7/2012 1:12:15 AM   
boaby

 

Posts: 2808
Joined: 29/12/2006
From: Aberdeenshire
Some twonks in the good ole US of A teaching creationism drivel used... wait for it... Nessie - yes, Nessie! - as evidence that evolution is garbage.

No really. They did. Apparently still do.

The Herald reported it a couple of weeks ago. Yankdom, via Richard Dawkins, picked it up. Hilarity ensues:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/the-monster-madness.18023155

_____________________________

"Aberdonians, and with some degree of purpose and right on their side, have absolute contempt for Glasgow. There is a side of Aberdonians who, let's be absolutely honest about this, feel so superior to Glasgow that you can measure it by the yard."

(in reply to Lazarus munkey)
Post #: 86
RE: Creationism vs Evolution - 6/7/2012 10:03:23 AM   
sharkboy


Posts: 6285
Joined: 26/9/2005
From: Belfast

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rebenectomy

You don't think it's a problem that fundamentalist christian groups (many based in the US) have put pressure on the National Trust to include this as part of the exhibit? We've already had to put up with campaigns over here to get the Ulster Museum to run creationist exhibitions along side evolution and other natural history and science features. I have serious issues with this, especially as the Causeway centre will be used for educational school trips.


Exactly. As a venue created largely by public money with education very firmly at it's core, it is despicable that creationism has given this level of prominence. If they have to include it at all for a so-called balanced view (and if it's so balanced where are the non-Abrahimic creation tales?) then at least have "However science has proved how the rocks were formed by volcanic action in the Paleogene era, some 50-60 million years ago" immediately after it. But really, this deserves to share space with the legend of Finn Macool, not the scientific origin of the formations. To think that schools are being exposed to this as part of the debate into the origin of the causeway and that it is my tax that is paying for their privilege is a disgrace.

_____________________________

WWLD?

Every time we think we have measured our capacity to meet a challenge, we look up and we're reminded that that capacity may well be limitless

I left in love, in laughter, and in truth and wherever truth, love and laughter abide, I am there in spirit.

(in reply to Rebenectomy)
Post #: 87
RE: Misunderstood Biologist Quits Over Creationism Teac... - 6/7/2012 11:22:09 AM   
Flatulent_Bob


Posts: 8038
Joined: 30/9/2005
quote:

huge influence for good in history


Its inspired man to build these buildings for the appreciation of all.








I could go on all day, but if nothing else the church inspired men to build such amazing buildings hundreds of years ago which can amaze and inturn inspire men today as to what we can achieve. We are lucky enough that you can see these feats in nearly every town and city in this country which shows the strength of inspiration that church has given throughout our history.
I'm not religious but that alone is an amazing testament to what religion has given to all of us. You don't need to believe in what inspired it to appreciate and get something from these feats of engineering brilliance.

Anyway back to creationism, and that nasty snake.

< Message edited by Flatulent_Bob -- 6/7/2012 11:23:20 AM >


_____________________________

I'm your huckleberry...

All the world will be your enemy, Prince of a Thousand enemies. And when they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you; digger, listener, runner, Prince with the swift warning. Be cunning, and full of tricks, and your people will never be destroyed.


Oh my God! They banned Kenny!


(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 88
RE: Misunderstood Biologist Quits Over Creationism Teac... - 6/7/2012 11:33:14 AM   
elab49


Posts: 54574
Joined: 1/10/2005
You're making an assumption about whether the creators actually believed of what inspired them - people going with the flow can build nice buildings too. I understand why this is often used as an easy argument but I'm don't really see the QEDness of it.

Back then, if you voiced anything other than what the church told you you probably died. Many if not most probably did believe. But we'll never actually know beyond that because you simply did not ever question the status quo. And my favourite period of art remains the Dutch golden age when they banned the religious idolatry - lots of lovely art has bog all to do with any religion.

Isn't it time we gave more credit to the genius of the creator of the work themselves just for being themselves?

Beyond that, I'm with Sharky and Reb. This is more than just a couple of sentences - it's the fact that a UK institution has felt pressured by faith groups to add something that is part of their faith to a publicly funded presentation. Would the NT have added that off their own back? No. So we should worry that these people were able to use this pressure to do this. If we keep writing things off as minor and just a little thing eventually we will lose the argument on the principle of the thing when these people start using the bulk of these precedents to make their arguments.


_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to Flatulent_Bob)
Post #: 89
RE: Misunderstood Biologist Quits Over Creationism Teac... - 6/7/2012 11:40:22 AM   
Flatulent_Bob


Posts: 8038
Joined: 30/9/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

You're making an assumption about whether the creators actually believed of what inspired them - people going with the flow can build nice buildings too. I understand why this is often used as an easy argument but I'm don't really see the QEDness of it.

Back then, if you voiced anything other than what the church told you you probably died. Many if not most probably did believe. But we'll never actually know beyond that because you simply did not ever question the status quo. And my favourite period of art remains the Dutch golden age when they banned the religious idolatry - lots of lovely art has bog all to do with any religion.

Isn't it time we gave more credit to the genius of the creator of the work themselves just for being themselves?


Individualism is all well and good, but it was religion that was a catalyst for getting them built. They might not have believed, who knows but it was religion that got them built and the reason they are still here today.
Lots of lovely art has bog all to do with religion but a hell of a lot does. Art needs inspiration, and religion certainly has inspired people, I don't think that can be argued against, even if it simply inspired them to paint for the church.


quote:


You're making an assumption


quote:


you probably died
Many if not most probably did believe



< Message edited by Flatulent_Bob -- 6/7/2012 11:47:37 AM >


_____________________________

I'm your huckleberry...

All the world will be your enemy, Prince of a Thousand enemies. And when they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you; digger, listener, runner, Prince with the swift warning. Be cunning, and full of tricks, and your people will never be destroyed.


Oh my God! They banned Kenny!


(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [On Another Note...] >> News and Hot Topics >> RE: Misunderstood Biologist Quits Over Creationism Teaching Row. Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Movie News|Empire Blog|Movie Reviews|Future Films|Features|Video Interviews|Image Gallery|Competitions|Forum|Magazine|Resources
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.188