Creation vs. Evolution

[Thalassamania]

We are at war for civilization. As Rick says, they will not rest until the new caliphate rules the world.

What is being missed here is that NO religious group or organization, from the Papacy to the Caliphate to the Dali Lama to the King/Queen of England has ever really and willingly separated itself (themselves) from power in other than word (e.g. "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." - even though this was about taxes and not power). Separation of Church and State is a uniquely American concept that other cultures (and it appears a fair number of our own citizens) just don’t get.

It’s not in the Constitution, but rather, in a letter penned by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. The Danbury Baptists were a religious community that complained that in the State of Connecticut religious freedom was not seen a right, but rather a privilege permitted by the state legislature (e.g., "favors granted," kind of like a driver's license). Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion - only that on the national level. His letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

If I were confident that those of religious persuasions in this country and around the work understood (and agreed with) what Jefferson was saying I’d be a lot less worried about our future. I really don’t care if someone needs, for what ever reason, to believe in creationism, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or anything else, but when they try to turn creationism into Intelligent Design and ram that down the throat of the public schools as though it were science, they are in my view, not trying in good faith to advance an alternative view of science, but are clearly and deliberately attempting to breach Jefferson’s "wall of separation between church and state," and appear to believe that they are morally justified and divinely inspired to do so. As far as I can tell the difference between that and those advocating the establishment of a world-wide Caliphate is just a matter of degree, not of substance.

It’s folks like “the DivingPreacher” that scare the crap out of me.

 

[Rick Murchison]

As far as I can tell the difference between that and those advocating the establishment of a world-wide Caliphate is just a matter of degree, not of substance.
It’s folks like “the DivingPreacher” that scare the crap out of me.

It is a matter of Love and Freedom vs Power and Control. If you truly cannot see the difference as more than a "matter of degree" I say you ain't payin' much attention! What I and my fellow religious zealots want is the freedom to teach intelligent design (as "philosophy" if you choose, rather than "science" - but there's a reason it's a PhD and not a DS) in state funded schools, not a desire to "ram it down your throats." You, however, you want to use the power of the state to deny that to me, and to ram "evolution sans design" down my children's throats using my own tax dollars.
I know who's advocating "establishment" here, and it ain't me!
Rick

 

[Soggy]

What I and my fellow religious zealots want is the freedom to teach intelligent design (as "philosophy" if you choose, rather than "science" - but there's a reason it's a PhD and not a DS) in state funded schools, not a desire to "ram it down your throats." You, however, you want to use the power of the state to deny that to me, and to ram "evolution sans design" down my children's throats using my own tax dollars.
I know who's advocating "establishment" here, and it ain't me!
Rick

...then you sure as heck better teach Buddhist, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Muslim, Native American, all the African religions, and every other theory of creation out there, also. And keep it out of the science classes because there is no scientific foundation for it.

 

[Thalassamania]

It is a matter of Love and Freedom vs Power and Control. If you truly cannot see the difference as more than a "matter of degree" I say you ain't payin' much attention! What I and my fellow religious zealots want is the freedom to teach intelligent design (as "philosophy" if you choose, rather than "science" - but there's a reason it's a PhD and not a DS) in state funded schools, not a desire to "ram it down your throats." You, however, you want to use the power of the state to deny that to me, and to ram "evolution sans design" down my children's throats using my own tax dollars.
I know who's advocating "establishment" here, and it ain't me!
Rick

History will bear me out that what is at first disguised, often innocently, as “Love and Freedom” always turns, in time, into “Power and Control.” Remember, Jefferson also said: “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” I pay a lot of attention and from where I stand, it is, just a matter of degree.

I have no problem with teaching creationism or any other belief, clearly labeled as belief, in a comparative religion or philosophy class. In fact, I’d favor that.

 

[Thalassamania]

...then you sure as heck better teach Buddhist, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Muslim, Native American, all the African religions, and every other theory of creation out there, also. And keep it out of the science classes because there is no scientific foundation for it.

And let's not forget the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Open Letter To Kansas School Board


I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Sincerely Yours,

Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.

P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.

RAmen

 

[H2Andy]

As Rick says, they will not rest until the new caliphate rules the world.

you don't understand your enemy. and you are wrong about their aims.


i would recommend Beyond Shock and Awe, by Eric L. Haney, founding member of Delta Force and Command Sergeant Major with the U.S. Army.

the press don't get it, and President Bush don't get it either

find out for yoruself

 

[redacted]

Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

Belief in God?
Is belief in the existence of God irrational? These days, many famous scientists are also strong proponents of atheism. However, in the past, and even today, many scientists believe that God exists and is responsible for what we see in nature. This is a small sampling of scientists who contributed to the development of modern science while believing in God.
Rich Deem
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Sir Fancis Bacon (1561-1627)
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
....
http://www.clearriver.org/Deeper/Scientists Quotes.htm

Damn that new data and all those influenced by it. I guess we should habve stopped learning years ago. If only the earth were still flat!:shakehead

 

[Warthaug]

The number of atheists in the world is very small,

Not as small as you may want to believe - based on this page (which is pretty representative of the pages I found), atheism/secularism/agnosticism is the worlds third largest "religion", with 1.1 billion "adherents".

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Far from "very small", that's about 1/6^th the world population.

but some of them are
increasingly vocal in their crusade against religion in general and
the God of the Bible in particular.

Not too surprising, given that they've been persecuted for all but the most resent century of recorded history. You cannot be surprised that these people, now that they are free to, are lashing out against those who used to oppress them.

Atheists such as Dawkins believe that religion is
hindering the evolutionary advancement of humanity

That is far from true for most atheists. Calling Dawkins "representative" of atheists is like calling Hitler "representative" of Germans. Dawkins is an extremist, pure and simple. Not all (in my experience, nearly none) atheists think that way. You can respect a religion, and its achievements, without believing in that faiths beliefs.

and that an
individual can be an atheist "who is happy, balanced, moral and
intellectually fulfilled" ("The New Atheists," Spiegel Online, Oct.
26, 2006).

And you think that is false? Religion has been used to justify the most horrid of acts, as has atheism. Being religious is about as much of a guaranteer of being happy, balanced, moral and intellectually fulfilled, as is any other world view (including atheism). One does not necessarily lead to another.

Over the years I've lost most of my faith, and I am much happier and fulfilled now then I was before.

In fact, if evolution is true, nothing matters. If
evolution is true there is no intelligent design,

Seems to me you're putting constraints on gods powers - certainly god would have the power to direct the route of evolution, would he not? I would argue to creationists that science provides a window into the world god has made. To ignore these results is to ignore the amazing thing which he has made.

In fact, many Christian faiths have taken the above view - the Catholic church being the largest example, but far from the only example. To quote Pope John Paul II:

"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points

. . .

Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

. . .

he sciences of observation describe and measure, with ever greater precision, the many manifestations of life, and write them down along the time-line. The moment of passage into the spiritual realm is not something that can be observed in this way—although we can nevertheless discern, through experimental research, a series of very valuable signs of what is specifically human life. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-consciousness and self-awareness, of moral conscience, of liberty, or of aesthetic and religious experience—these must be analyzed through philosophical reflection, while theology seeks to clarify the ultimate meaning of the Creator's designs."

The whole document can be read here:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM

As someone who is both a scientist, and who still believes in god (although not the god described in the bible), I find statements like this very refressing - we need not be enemy's, and instead can learn from each other.

no meaning to life,

And why does a lack of faith imply no meaning to life? Family, children, friends and happiness have great meaning for all - be it the atheist or the religious person. The assumption by many creationists that atheists lives are devoid of meaning is both insulting and degrading. It smacks of the very same sentiments by which we used to deny women and blacks their rights - because they are different then me they are not as good as me.

no supreme definition of morality

And religion provides this how? Christianity has been used to justify some of history's more horrendous events - the crusades, Spanish inquisition, slavery, colonization of "primitive people", murder of heretics, and so forth. Based on history, the claim that religion brings morality is obviously false.

I'd point out again, that the bible was used as an excuse for slavery in the pre-civil war US. And as I pointed out previously, slavery is both described, and approved in both the new and old testament.

I don't know about you, but I consider slavery to be a thing of evil.

So if evolution is true it simply
does not matter what a man does or does not do, whether he is
religious or non-religious, violent or non-violent, intellectual or
stupid;

And how do you figure that? Evolution in no way, shape or form disproves Christianity. You can no more use evolution as disproof of god, then you can use the bible to disprove the existence of atoms.

At absolute worst, evolution simply shows that the account of creation in genesis is allegorical (in fact, Genesis I follows how the universe was formed rather closely, in many aspects other than time). Considering how many parts of the bible even fundamentalists take as being allegorical (i.e. the parts which approve of slavery, genocide, and so forth), it's not that big of a stretch.

Maybe, just maybe God had a little bit of trouble explaining the big bang to those Sheppard's. And after a few nights trying to explain singularities, expansion of the universe, evolution, and all that jazz, he got frustrated and simplified things a little.

"Now children - listen to me. Once upon a time there was nothing but darkness . . ."


Bryan

 

[Soggy]

TheDivingPreacher's fallacious post is insulting at best and full of bigotry at worst.

 

[Warthaug]

What I and my fellow religious zealots want is the freedom to teach intelligent design (as "philosophy" if you choose, rather than "science"

Which would be fine with scientists. The problem is the continual attempts in some states to include ID in the science curriculum. Science class should be about science - not religious philosophy. I have no problems with religious philosophy being thought in schools, it just shouldn't be taught in science class.

- but there's a reason it's a PhD and not a DS)

Because historically speaking "philosophy" encompassed a lot more then it does today - including mathematics and the natural science. When science finally moved away from philosophy we kept the term.

It really doesn't matter how you label it - its just a name. PhD, ScD, doctorate, whatever, means the same thing in the end (i.e. I've spent wayyyyy too much of my life in school). It's like me, you can call me Bryan, a person, "hey you", Homo sapiens, or whatever. Doesn't matter though - they're just labels. I am who I am.

Looking for meaning in there above and beyond that is pointless.

You, however, you want to use the power of the state to deny that to me, and to ram "evolution sans design" down my children's throats using my own tax dollars.
I know who's advocating "establishment" here, and it ain't me!
Rick

No I don't. Nor do any of the evolutionists I know. But religion should not be taught in science class. That is about as logical as me wanting quantum theory taught in Sunday school. You want religious philosophy taught in school - fine. Just don't put it in science class.

Bryan