A Leauki's Writings
The Word is "Lie"
Published on June 16, 2008 By Leauki In Religion

What opponents of evolution (and other theories) don't understand is that science is not about finding the truth (that is best left to philosophy professors) but about finding out something useful about this world.

The predictions of theories can be used in engineering and other fields. Applications of the theory of evolution have been used successfully in such diverse fields as medicine and (yes) computer science. Evolution is solid, a tool that we can use to advance.


For a good article about the difference between a scientific theory and Creationism and the utter stupidity (and, I want to add, sacrilege) of believing in "Intelligent Design", see Steven Den Beste's essay about the human eye.

http://denbeste.nu/essays/humaneye.shtml

The vertebrate retina is a terrible design. The optic nerve comes into the eyeball at a certain point, and the nerve fibers spread out across the surface of the retina. Each individual nerve fiber reaches its assigned point, burrows down into the retina through several layers of epithelial cells, and ends with the light receptor itself pointing away from the lens of the eye, which is the direction from which the light must come. As a result, incoming light strikes the surface of the retina and must penetrate through multiple layers of inactive cells and then through the body of the nerve itself before it reaches the active point where it might be detected. This both diffuses and attenuates the light, decreasing the efficiency of the retina in accomplishing its function.

For a rationalist and atheist like Steven Den Beste, extrapolating from the existence of the human eye to a "designer" is illogical, because there is no evidence for design but plenty evidence for evolution.

For me, personally, saying that the human eye has been "designed" is blasphemy. I do not think it is all right to claim that G-d would intentionally create a faulty design or was incapable of doing better. (Plus I agree with Steven's thinking as well. There is evidence for evolution in the human eye, but no evidence for design.)


But the problem here is not the fact that some people are not capable of understanding complicated science and are thus forced to make up fairy tales that make them believe that they are as clever as scientists (and even cleverer since scientists don't "know" the truth), but the fact that those some people sometimes have the power to take away knowledge from the rest of us.

There are MANY countries in the world where Creationism is taught instead of evolution. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the majority of the world teaches Creationism to some extent, replacing biology or "adding to" biology in schools.

But what does that do for those societies?

Are they leaders in science based on learning something that is a "theory" just like evolution and a "better "explanation?

It's not enough to change the rules to allow Creationism (or "Intelligent Design") to become science, because what is science is not a decision made by man. It's ultimately a desicion made by nature (or G-d, if you will). Because science is something we can use to create.

When we look at the world and compare societies, we see that countries that teach evolution create technologies, whereas countries that teach Creationism, do not have the workforce to be leading in any field of technology.

Teaching Creationism causes stupidity. That's the problem.

And it doesn't help if "Christian" fundamentalists in the west blame Islam for it and pretend that teaching "Christian" Creationism will give better results, because the Creationism of Islam IS the Creationism of Christianity. It's word for word, letter for letter the same legend.

And it's phony. It's phony and stupid and a big lie.

    * Why does the birth canal run through the middle of the pelvis?
    * Why does the backbone run down one side of the trunk instead of through the middle where it would be more balanced?
    * Why does the ankle attach at one end of the foot instead of in the middle?
    * Why are there toes?
    * Why is it that nearly every part of the brain is as far as possible from the piece of the body with which it is associated?
          o Why is the motor control center for the right side of the body on the left side of the brain, and vice versa?
          o Why is the vision center at the rear of the brain, as far from the eyes as possible -- and on the opposite sides?
    * Why is it that fully 90% of the genetic material we carry around is useless?
    * Why do we share a single canal through the neck through which we both breath and swallow?

Biology has explanations for these oddities. Creationism does not. "It was G-d's will" is not an explanation, it's an excuse for incompetence.

(Why are some people born with a mechanism that destroys the beta cells in the pancreas, causing Type 1 Diabetes that is ALWAYS deadly within a few months without treatment? Would an "intelligent designer" design his subjects like that?)

Richard Dawkins called evolution the "blind watchmaker" because evolution does not "see" what it produces, it merely tries out what happens with the stuff it finds. I find the term "incompetent designer" appropriate for a god who designs things like us. And I cannot pray to an incompetent designer. How could I?

Teaching Creationism has never helped a society and is bringing down many.

 

Dear Creationists,

I do not want the western world to become a second "Islamic" world.

Do you not understand that?

 


Comments (Page 32)
42 PagesFirst 30 31 32 33 34  Last
on Jan 02, 2009

If you are referring  to the blank quote box in 462, I began my post by initially quoting your #458 by highlighting the part that begins "I have read...." down through your quote from the CC.

Then I decided I wanted to limit my resply just to your first sentence and so deleted the CC quote you provided and that might explain why the blank quote box came up!!!   

 

on Jan 02, 2009

Lula posts:

All you have to do is read Genesis 1 & 2, Isaias 45:5, also provides some vital clues about the events of Creation.


Leauki posts:

I have read and studied Genesis to a much greater degree than you, but I have been unable to reproduce the claimed results.

So I went to the experts and saw how far they came. This is what the Catholic Church came up with:

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution

I don't know or care who or when these so-called Catholic "experts" made these unsubstantiated presuppositions and views concerning Origins. The important thing to understand is that the Church recognizes that Genesis 1-11 is not a detailed science textbook and never intended to teach it as such. So, yes, while her theologians and scholars are free to voice their opinions, some have gone so far off track that Popes have written against materialists promotion of Evolution. For example, Pope Pius XII wrote in his encyclical letter, Humani Generis, 1950, that "Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that Evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously supoor tthe monistic and pantheistic opinion taht the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectial materialism." (5). In the next paragraph, he explains that such fictitious tenets of Evolution pave the way for Existentialism, an erroneous philosophy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on Jan 02, 2009

As far as I'm concerned institutionalized religion is a vestigial social structure. Humanity would be far better off without it - of any flavor.

Do you really believe humanity is far better off without institutionalized religion (Christianity)? Have you thought this through?  Gee, Communist North Korea, Cuba and China are under athiestic regimes (no freedom of religion)....can you explain how far better off they are?

 

 

on Jan 02, 2009

lulapilgrim
As far as I'm concerned institutionalized religion is a vestigial social structure. Humanity would be far better off without it - of any flavor.
Do you really believe humanity is far better off without institutionalized religion (Christianity)? Have you thought this through?  Gee, Communist North Korea, Cuba and China are under athiestic regimes (no freedom of religion)....can you explain how far better off they are?

I sure have and argued it many times with people to my utter aggravation. Anyway, I do not believe that one needs religion to be taught a value system nor that one needs to know there is a god behind everything to validate the universe and life or to be upstanding productively contributing members of a society. I know this empirically because I have nothing but utter disdain for religion and I have a well developed and cogent value system and I deeply appreciate life, existence and more importantly sentience.

Furthermore equating a form of government that is despotically controlled, much like religious institutions, to a "godless society" as an example is not very reasonable in my opinion. If fact they both represent what is wrong with each other. To me they are opposite sides of the same coin. They are both focused social control systems that seek to minimize individual liberty and capacity for and in the name of some higher purpose or more important demands. Moreover the leaders in such systems are often institutionally venerated by design and practically warship as demigods themselves. Prima fascia evidence of this is the Vatican. It is its own country for all intents and purposes. Simply put, one cant serve two master. Consequently I see no difference between institutionalized religion and authoritarian regimes regardless of what political name you give them.

A free, pluralistic and open, democratically oriented society and an atheistic (I hate that word) one are not mutually exclusive as many people fallaciously try to argue. In fact they complement each other very well functionally and systemically. I think such a system will ultimately be achieved by humanity in the next couple hundred years or so.

on Jan 02, 2009

A free, pluralistic and open, democratically oriented society and an atheistic (I hate that word) one are not mutually exclusive as many people fallaciously try to argue.

I disagree.....take out the word "free" and this could be true.

A free society, by virtue of being free would allow expression of belief in God through religion, is the exact opposite of an Atheistic Communistic one...so they are mutually exclusive. Freedom of belief and expression of that belief means there is a vast difference between spirit and matter, necessity and liberty, truth and falsehood,  good and evil, right and wrong.  

In truth, nothing can be imagined more insane, impious, and irrational than being forced to live under an Atheistic system such as Communism.

 

on Jan 02, 2009

A free society, by virtue of being free would allow expression of belief in God through religion, is the exact opposite of an Atheistic Communistic one

False again.  The words are right in front of you - how the heck can a 'free, pluralistic and open, democratically oriented' society be Communist?  Where did that come from?  He's only saying that atheists and theists can live together peacefully in a free, democratic, pluralistic society.

on Jan 03, 2009

Judas.  The bold is killing me.

on Jan 03, 2009

Do you really believe humanity is far better off without institutionalized religion (Christianity)? 

Can you explain in detail how the victims of the inquisition directly profited from the benefits of institutionalised religion?

 

on Jan 03, 2009

SPARTAN POSTS:

A free, pluralistic and open, democratically oriented society and an atheistic (I hate that word) one are not mutually exclusive as many people fallaciously try to argue. In fact they complement each other very well functionally and systemically. I think such a system will ultimately be achieved by humanity in the next couple hundred years or so.

Daiwa posts:

The words are right in front of you - how the heck can a 'free, pluralistic and open, democratically oriented' society be Communist?

It can't and that's my point and exactly what I wrote #470 : "A free society, by virtue of being free would allow expression of belief in God through religion, is the exact opposite of an Atheistic Communistic one...so they are mutually exclusive."

If you will carefully re-read Spartan's post, you'll see he/she is contrasting two different societies..a free, pluralistic and open, democratically one and an atheistic one...and trying to make the point they are not mutally exclusive........

When indeed they are and the difference is freedom of worship...the right to believe in God is the real core of human freedom..and where this right is lacking (such as in totalitarian states) the loss of all further freedoms follows.

SPARTAN POSTS:

Consequently I see no difference between institutionalized religion and authoritarian regimes regardless of what political name you give them.

The difference is conscience at its deepest level and freedom to express it in believe and worship of Almighty God.  

 

on Jan 03, 2009

Do you really believe humanity is far better off without institutionalized religion (Christianity)?

Can you explain in detail how the victims of the inquisition directly profited from the benefits of institutionalised religion?

Ah, again comes up the Inquisition, the handy stick non Catholics use against Catholics in an attempt to bash the Catholic Church and Catholicism. It seems for many Jews, second only to the claim that Jesus is the predicted Messias, the Inquisition is a mental obstacle that blacks out the fact that Jesus and His Catholic Chruch are the fulfillment of all that is great of OLd Testament principles and prophecies.

Do you realize that inquisitions though not so designated were common in Jewry during the pre-Christian centuries?  Yes sir, Mr. Leuki, "Inquisitions" are penal sanctions first used by ancient Jews of the Old Testament and later by Jews in the New. Inquisitions are forerunners of the modern day court and penal system.

Do you know that the Old Testament records instances where God commanded that formal, legal inquiries, in other words inquisitions, be carried out to expose secret believers (heretics)?

Deuteronomy 13:6-11 makes clear that there were some Isrealites who posed as believers in and keepers of the covenant with Yahweh, while in reality they didn' t believe and secretly practiced and tried to spread other religions. We learn that to protect the people from such heresy, those secret practioners had to be rooted out and expelled from the community and furthermore, the Lord God's directive applied even to whole cities that turned away from the true religion.

From Deuteronomy 17:2-5, we learn that controversies are to be decided by the high priest and council, whose sentince must be obeyed. God said, "When there shall be found among you within any of thy gates (towns) which the Lord thy God shall give thee, man or woman that do evil in the sight of the Lord your God and transgress His covenant, so as to go and serve strange gods and adore them, the sun and the moon, and all the host of heaven, which I have not commanded: and this is told thee hearing it; thou shall inquire diligently, and found it to be true and certain that the abominable thing has been committed in Isreal: then thou shall bring forth the man or woman  who has committed that most wicked thing, to the gates of thy city, and they shall be stoned."

The most famous (or infamous), Inquisition in history is the one that was conducted by the Sanhedrin under the headship of the high priest, Caiphas, before which Jesus was tried and convicted for blashphemy for claiming to be the Messias, and then turned over to Pilate, the civil authority, who ordered the Roman soldiers to crucify Him. If Jesus had been a Messianic pretender, as He was charged with being, the action of the Inquisitors would have been justifiable. This is said becasue Jesus being a Jew was subject to the Mosaic Law, which declared, "He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die; All the multitude shall stone him." Lev. 24:16.

During the Christian era, Spinoza was tried for heresy at the Inquisition of the Rabbinical COllege in Amsterdam, Holland. The rabbis pronounced the severest ban as he was guilty of horrible heresies.....application was made by the rabbis to the civil authorities for his perpetual banishment from Holland the land of Spinoza's birth. Back in the days, Spinoza would have been stoned to death for his pantheistic anti God doctrines.

Same thing in medieval Europe. Like Isreal, was a society of Christian kingdoms that were formally consecrated to Jesus Christ, the Catholic Chruch. Just like the Isrealites before them, Catholics concluded for the greater good of Christian society they "must take away the evil from out of the midst of thee" Deut. 13:5. St.Paul repeats this principle in 1Cor. 5:13.

Within Catholicism, the first medieval Inquisition was established in 1184 in France as a response to the Catharist heresy. The Spanish Inquisition in 1478 was a state institutiion used to identify conversos, Jews and Moors (Muslims) who pretended to convert ot Cathoilicism for purposes of political or social advantage and secretly practiced their former religions. Separate from this was the Roman Inquisition in 1542, the one by which Galileo for wanting to change Scripture to meet his scientific discoveries, was disciplined.

The thing to understand about the Medieval Inquisition is that only Catholics who were accused of heresy were tried.

 

 

 

 

 

 

on Jan 03, 2009

Ah, again comes up the Inquisition, the handy stick non Catholics use against Catholics in an attempt to bash the Catholic Church and Catholicism. It seems for many Jews, second only to the claim that Jesus is the predicted Messias, the Inquisition is a mental obstacle that blacks out the fact that Jesus and His Catholic Chruch are the fulfillment of all that is great of OLd Testament principles and prophecies.

Do you realize that inquisitions though not so designated were common in Jewry during the pre-Christian centuries? Yes sir, Mr. Leuki, "Inquisitions" are penal sanctions first used by ancient Jews of the Old Testament and later by Jews in the New. Inquisitions are forerunners of the modern day court and penal system.

Do you know that the Old Testament records instances where God commanded that formal, legal inquiries, in other words inquisitions, be carried out to expose secret believers (heretics)?

Deuteronomy 13:6-11 makes clear that there were some Isrealites who posed as believers in and keepers of the covenant with Yahweh, while in reality they didn' t believe and secretly practiced and tried to spread other religions. We learn that to protect the people from such heresy, those secret practioners had to be rooted out and expelled from the community and furthermore, the Lord God's directive applied even to whole cities that turned away from the true religion.

From Deuteronomy 17:2-5, we learn that controversies are to be decided by the high priest and council, whose sentince must be obeyed. God said, "When there shall be found among you within any of thy gates (towns) which the Lord thy God shall give thee, man or woman that do evil in the sight of the Lord your God and transgress His covenant, so as to go and serve strange gods and adore them, the sun and the moon, and all the host of heaven, which I have not commanded: and this is told thee hearing it; thou shall inquire diligently, and found it to be true and certain that the abominable thing has been committed in Isreal: then thou shall bring forth the man or woman who has committed that most wicked thing, to the gates of thy city, and they shall be stoned."

The most famous (or infamous), Inquisition in history is the one that was conducted by the Sanhedrin under the headship of the high priest, Caiphas, before which Jesus was tried and convicted for blashphemy for claiming to be the Messias, and then turned over to Pilate, the civil authority, who ordered the Roman soldiers to crucify Him. If Jesus had been a Messianic pretender, as He was charged with being, the action of the Inquisitors would have been justifiable. This is said becasue Jesus being a Jew was subject to the Mosaic Law, which declared, "He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die; All the multitude shall stone him." Lev. 24:16.

During the Christian era, Spinoza was tried for heresy at the Inquisition of the Rabbinical COllege in Amsterdam, Holland. The rabbis pronounced the severest ban as he was guilty of horrible heresies.....application was made by the rabbis to the civil authorities for his perpetual banishment from Holland the land of Spinoza's birth. Back in the days, Spinoza would have been stoned to death for his pantheistic anti God doctrines.

Same thing in medieval Europe. Like Isreal, was a society of Christian kingdoms that were formally consecrated to Jesus Christ, the Catholic Chruch. Just like the Isrealites before them, Catholics concluded for the greater good of Christian society they "must take away the evil from out of the midst of thee" Deut. 13:5. St.Paul repeats this principle in 1Cor. 5:13.

Within Catholicism, the first medieval Inquisition was established in 1184 in France as a response to the Catharist heresy. The Spanish Inquisition in 1478 was a state institutiion used to identify conversos, Jews and Moors (Muslims) who pretended to convert ot Cathoilicism for purposes of political or social advantage and secretly practiced their former religions. Separate from this was the Roman Inquisition in 1542, the one by which Galileo for wanting to change Scripture to meet his scientific discoveries, was disciplined.

The thing to understand about the Medieval Inquisition is that only Catholics who were accused of heresy were tried.

So, I take it from your non-answer that you believe the victims of the inquisition directly profited from the benefits of institutionalised religion.

on Jan 03, 2009

When Christians are fired and/or otherwise oppressed for their beliefs, such as not being allowed to so much as pray in a school, that is definitely leaning more toward communism than our 'free' country.

I'm sorry, but by telling people that they are not allowed to pray just because you have to keep church and state 'separate' is a direct violation of our right to freedom of speech.  The last I checked, freedom from hearing others speak wasn't a right.

Not only that, but people have little enough problem with teaching other religions in class.  The public school I went to had a thing for teaching all us wee impressionable kids all about the native Indian's dreamcatchers and their katchina dolls, along with whatever rituals went along with them.  My mother called the school to complain, and they told her they had never had a complaint like that before from anyone.

So it isn't freedom for anyone, really, it's just a nationwide attempt to silence Christians.  It sure sounds like freedom to me, and there is no way we're a communist country in the least.  I must just be a stupid, crazy Christian, right Daiwa?

on Jan 03, 2009

I must just be a stupid, crazy Christian, right Daiwa?

Well... those are your words.


This thread isn't about prayer in schools, but I happen to agree with you on that point.  I don't believe we have a right to freedom 'from' religion.

on Jan 03, 2009

When Christians are fired and/or otherwise oppressed for their beliefs, such as not being allowed to so much as pray in a school, that is definitely leaning more toward communism than our 'free' country.

No Christian is being fired or "oppressed" for their beliefs. Praying at school is an action, not an opinion. Government can demand that teachers paid by the government do their job and part of the job is that the school be kept secular.

 

I'm sorry, but by telling people that they are not allowed to pray just because you have to keep church and state 'separate' is a direct violation of our right to freedom of speech.  The last I checked, freedom from hearing others speak wasn't a right.

Check again. The government does not have a duty to pay for a forum for Christians to speak or to pray, not a state school, not a public television station, not anything. Freedom from hearing others speak IS a right in a school. Parents do indeed have the RIGHT to know that their children will NOT be exposed to a specific religion at state schools. That's a right. You want to violate it.

If you GET a job as a teacher FOR a state school IN a secular country, DO your fecking job and DON'T bring your religion into the school.

How is that difficult?

If you want to pray, join a church.

 

on Jan 03, 2009

This thread isn't about prayer in schools, but I happen to agree with you on that point.  I don't believe we have a right to freedom 'from' religion.

I disagree. I believe that we do have a right to freedom from religion.

If you want to pray, do it in your home, in your church/synagogue/temple/dungeon/whatever or outside. But government-owned buildings are out of bounds for religion if the government says so.

 

42 PagesFirst 30 31 32 33 34  Last