Creation vs. Evolution

[vladimir]

From today's NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/us/04evolution.html?hp

Starting this summer, the state education board will determine the curriculum for the next decade and decide whether the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution should be taught. The benign-sounding phrase, some argue, is a reasonable effort at balance. But critics say it is a new strategy taking shape across the nation to undermine the teaching of evolution, a way for students to hear religious objections under the heading of scientific discourse.

 

[Sas]

From today's NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/us/04evolution.html?hp

Uh oh. :11:

 

[MikeFerrara]

For or all guys debating self defense and rape I find your debate very misinformed and some what offensive.

For one, studies have shown a woman who fights back is more likely to be killed or severely attacked when they do.

Which studies and how are you defining fighting back?

Second, Rape is about power, nothing more. It is not about sex.

ok.

Three, tell me this, how does an elderly woman fight off a rapist and succeed? How does a child?

Your first line of defense is judgment...brains rather than brawn.

 

[MikeFerrara]

It depends on how you look at it. You seem to be compartmentalising things to do with family planning. I see it as all one interrelated issue. Whether it's about contraception or abortion, it's about empowering women to gain some control over their own destiny - which in many places is still very sadly lacking. There's other issues involved too....aids is a huge one.

It's very sad when the so called religious and pious can only operate within their own cultural paradigm, and consequently hang conditions on their charity and supposed help. While I'm no ecclesiastical scholar, I somehow doubt very much if that was the intention of the man himself. I thought it was about unconditional love.

Conditions are easy.....and a true cop out.

I think you lost me Kim. We were talking about federally provided family planning programs? What does that have to do with charity?

 

[MikeFerrara]

And this is all supposed to make up for the Crusades, the Papal Inquisition, and the Spanish Inquisition, the church's passivity in the face of the Holocaust? And that's just a small part of the Catholic church's transgressions. Sure the Pope "apologized" for a raft of things back in 2000 ..., but what's really been done? Just more BS. And we haven't even started on the other Christian sects' transgressions, the Muslims' and the Hindus', etc.

What are you talking about and why? You make it sound as if no secular entity has ever commited a "transgression". You don't believe that, do you?

 

[MikeFerrara]

and actively struggle against their co-religionists.

I guess you missed:

Again, to quote Harris:

"While liberals should be the ones pointing the way beyond this Iron Age madness, they are rendering themselves increasingly irrelevant. Being generally reasonable and tolerant of diversity, liberals should be especially sensitive to the dangers of religious literalism. But they aren’t."
​

More Sam Harris...I'm not sure why you hold this Sam Harris in such high regard.

LOL, but to quote someone who is at least as much an authority as Sam Harris...Michael Savage "Liberalism is a mental disorder."

 

[Theunis]

From today's NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/us/04evolution.html?hp

Wow, maybe the state educational board is actually seeing God's hand in creation.

 

[Sas]

Wow, maybe the state educational board is actually seeing God's hand in creation.

Of course they are, seeing as nearly half of them are creationists. It is a pity seven people are allowed to have that much say over the education of an entire state.

The article talks about a Dr. McLeroy, the chairman of the board. He believes in Young Earth creationism and rejects evolution claiming that his rejection has nothing to do with his religious beliefs. It got me thinking, can anybody provide the name of someone who disagrees with evolution who is not religious? I couldn't off the top of my head... I think it would be very telling if their numbers are small.

To be honest, I am quietly confident that these changes will not be made as it would make the US educational system the laughing stock of the Western world. I know most of the West cannot believe that the US educational system still has people challenging the teaching of evolution in school!!!

I think Dawkins summed up my feelings best on people disagreeing with evolution "It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."I really doubt any doubter of evolution here has actually read much to do with the theory given what people have been posting in creationism's defense. :11:

 

[MikeFerrara]

I'm definitely pro-abortion and a woman's right to choose. In the UK the laws are based on viability of the embryo.

US law isn't, at least not uniformly. But...if everyone agreed with UK law, there wouldn't be a US. LOL

It's not taking life if a life can't survive on it's own.

How so? If something is living and you make it dead, it would seem as though you "took life".

If you could remove embryos from an unwilling womb and they can survive themselves, then abortion becomes virtually unnecessary. Who is anyone to dictate that a woman MUST supply her womb even if she dosn't want to?

How are you defining "surviving on it's own". About 20 years lapsed between the birth of my children and the time when they were really "surviving on their own".

In regards to law, the are plenty of laws that dictate how a parent must allocate resources and the level of care due a child by the parent. If our other resources are subject to dictates of law, what is so sacred about the womb?

Which takes precedence...a woman’s right to use her womb how she chooses or the child’s right to continue living. Legally, the question seems to have been answered...an answer that would seem to be inconsistent with much of our previously existing law. Much law, especially law regarding children, is aimed at protecting those who can't protect themselves.

 

[Hank49]

You can call it evangelism if you like, but I see it as an indication that he must be an awfully good person.

I believe you hit the nail on the head. I reckon I'd be happy if Mike jumped in my foxhole under heavy fire.