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 34)
42 PagesFirst 32 33 34 35 36  Last
on Jan 06, 2009

If the feds gave money to a state school that establishes a religion (in any way or form), the feds would be in violation of the establishment clause.

I know this has been hashed/rehashed but the literal language of the 1st amendment refers to Congress passing no law 'respecting an establishment of religion' - the perplexing things to me are the reach of the word 'respecting' and the meaning of the word 'establishment'.  I think it takes some seriously stretched & twisted logic to get from those 5 words to prohibiting prayer in public schools, whether they receive 'federal' funds or not.

on Jan 06, 2009

what's the creationist explanation for those creatures eking outta living in the sulpherous environment around oceanic hydrothermal vents?  maybe all those worms, crustaceans, microbes & such are devil's spawn?

on Jan 06, 2009

I know this has been hashed/rehashed but the literal language of the 1st amendment refers to Congress passing no law 'respecting an establishment of religion' - the perplexing things to me are the reach of the word 'respecting' and the meaning of the word 'establishment'. I think it takes some seriously stretched & twisted logic to get from those 5 words to prohibiting prayer in public schools, whether they receive 'federal' funds or not.

I tend to agree.

First, the First Amendment does not apply to states.....the federal government has no business being in anything to do with education...including funding education! The First Amendment does not grant power to the federal government to interfere in the chruch state relations decided upon by the states.  It also doesn't allow federal interference in state questions involving speech and press.

Aren't prayers "speech"? The people of the states and their right to self government must be respected...but in 1962, the Supreme Court in Engel v. Vitale declared that local school boards were prohibited from approving prayers for use in schools. IMO, this decision besides unconstitutional, is an intolerable encroachment on municipal communities' rights to self government.

When our counrtry was first being formed, states like Massachusetts, Gerogia, and Pennsylvania authorized use of public funds to support various Protestant churches and no one considered it a violation of the First Amendment!

Now, fast forward to 1962, and ask what the Framers would have thought of that....it certainly wasn't their "intent"....becasue if they considered it legitimate for states to use tax money to support churches, it would be difficult to argue that it was meant to prohibit school prayer  or having the Ten Commandments in public buildings, etc.

 

 

on Jan 06, 2009

We can agree on something, lula.

on Jan 06, 2009

ask what the Framers would have thought of that....it certainly wasn't their "intent"....becasue if they considered it legitimate for states to use tax money to support churches

no need to speculate as to the founders' thinking regarding one aspect of religious thought.  one need only look to samuel adams' claim that papists were more threatening than the stamp act.  several former colonies denied catholics full citizenship well after 1789.

the best thing to happen to american catholicism has come from those who've fought to keep religion out of politics and vice-versa.

no good deed ever goes unpunished.

on Jan 06, 2009

The First Amendment does not grant power to the federal government to interfere in the chruch state relations decided upon by the states.

tell that to the people of utah.

on Jan 06, 2009

The First Amendment does not ...allow federal interference in state questions involving speech and press.

 

it certainly does permit interference when states infringe upon rights granted by the us consitution.

on Jan 06, 2009

it certainly does permit interference when states infringe upon rights granted by the us consitution.

There would seem to be a substantial difference between a specific prohibition ('Congress shall make no law...') and a 'granted right' ('the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed').

on Jan 06, 2009

no need to speculate as to the founders' thinking regarding one aspect of religious thought. one need only look to samuel adams' claim that papists were more threatening than the stamp act. several former colonies denied catholics full citizenship well after 1789.

I know. In Maryland, Catholics were prohibited from voting, holding public office, practicing law, and educating their children.  I've always understood the nation's founding as a Protestant experiment and anti-Catholicism was the first and is the last acceptable prejudice. It's fact that America's fundamental law makes no mention of God which has been both celebrated and lamented ever since.

 

 

on Jan 07, 2009

rights granted

'granted right'

oops, i mistyped (due in some part to ju discarding my initial attempt to post #502 after deciding i wasn't logged in despite my having been logged in moments before when posting #501).  neither the federal constitution nor any of the various states "grants" rights. rights are inherent.  our constitutions merely express and enumerate a subset.

on Jan 07, 2009

no good deed ever goes unpunished.

Don't equate Lula with Catholicism. I live in a 90% Catholic country and most of my friends are Catholics. Lula is NOT a typical Catholic. In fact she doesn't seem Catholic at all to me.

 

on Jan 07, 2009

'Congress shall make no law...'

If congress makes a law about giving money to institutions that establish a religion in ANY WAY, congress made a law respecting the establishment of a religion.

 

on Jan 07, 2009

IQofSpam
I have a perfect right to profess my religion to anyone, anywhere, and that includes public schools.

Where does the constition say that? 

IQofSpam
Amendment #1 to the US Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

By prohibiting me to pray in a public school, the government is directly violating a right I have as stated in the Constitution - freedom of speech.  It also means that Congress has established a law concerning the free exercise of religion, which is also prohibited.

i'm hoping to discover you're equally supportive of  "the free exercise thereof" of ALL religious beliefs including those permitting, requiring, or imposing polygamy, stoning, witch-burning, suicide attacks on non-believers or loading up one's pockets with quarters before joining fellow believers gulping down phenobarbital in order to shed one's earthly shell and pass through heaven's gate.

No.  Whether or not suicide is a legal action is still debated, however murder is not.  As for polygamy, I am not certain that there is any real reason for the law against it.  Perhaps another case of a law being established which is contrary to the Constitution?  One could argue whether or not Congress has established a law against the free exercise of religion in not allowing people to kill others.  However, laws against murder were not established to infringe upon one person's right to freedom of religion, but to protect the right to life as stated in the Declaration of Independence.  It is perfectly legal to exercise freedom of religion until it infringes upon the rights of others.  There is no right to freedom from religion.  I hope that there will never be.

This thread has gone hopelessly off-topic, I notice.

on Jan 07, 2009

By prohibiting me to pray in a public school, the government is directly violating a right I have as stated in the Constitution - freedom of speech.

For the last time, your freedom of speech is NOT affected by the house rules of an institution not owned by you alone.

The constitution does NOT say that you can practice your freedom of religion wherever you want, in other people's houses, in school buldings, or in government buildings.

 

It also means that Congress has established a law concerning the free exercise of religion, which is also prohibited.

You are free to exercise your religion outside school.

Do you also think that a school's prohibition against playing baseball in class rooms is a violation of your right to choose your sport of choice freely?

 

on Jan 07, 2009

There is no right to demonstrate your sport of choice.

I am not arguing that people can't limit others with rules on their own property.  However, Congress did pass a law against professing religions in the classroom.  That is what I'm arguing against.

And I am allowed to profess my religion anywhere.  If that offends someone on their property, it is also their privilege to kick me off.

42 PagesFirst 32 33 34 35 36  Last