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 36)
42 PagesFirst 34 35 36 37 38  Last
on Jan 07, 2009

Government must not provide prayer houses, not via the backdoor of providing other houses to be used by the public which are then used for prayer either.

The logic doesn't hold up, Leauki.  Schools are part of the 'public square' and permitting prayer doesn't 'establish' anything.

on Jan 08, 2009

The logic doesn't hold up, Leauki.  Schools are part of the 'public square' and permitting prayer doesn't 'establish' anything.

Schools are _not_ part of the public square. They are privately owned property, even if owned by the state.

And that's exactly the logic courts are using all over the western world.

 

on Jan 08, 2009

That doesn't make them right, or you right by extension.  Even if schools are not part of the public square, the government is limited in many ways that the average citizen is not.  The government cannnot violate the Constitution under any circumstances, regardless.

The Constitution was made to restrain the government, not people.  Our government was based on this Constitution, and if we ignore it, our government will not work properly.

The Constitution says that freedom of speech and free practice of religion are rights.  That means the government cannot take that right away, including on "their" property.  That means schools.

I therefore conclude that by prohibiting prayer in schools, the government is directly violating the first amendment.

You can throw as many excuses and explainations as you want Leauki, but you can't make the Constitution say the opposite of what it says.  Freedom to practice religion is a right, and you and the court system are wrong.

And this is all assuming that by allowing prayer, the government endorses it, which is not necessarily true as I have stated before - even if schools are not part of the public square.  The argument of tacit consent doesn't hold up here.

on Jan 08, 2009

That doesn't make them right, or you right by extension.  Even if schools are not part of the public square, the government is limited in many ways that the average citizen is not.  The government cannnot violate the Constitution under any circumstances, regardless.

Again, that is WHY the government must enact such prohibitions in institutions it pays for.

It's not an excuse. It's a duty government has.

 

And this is all assuming that by allowing prayer, the government endorses it, which is not necessarily true as I have stated before

The government doesn't have to endorse it, just to support it, to "establish" it.

 

on Jan 08, 2009

The Constitution says that freedom of speech and free practice of religion are rights.  That means the government cannot take that right away, including on "their" property.  That means schools.

Where exactly did you read that freedom of speech etc. cannot be taken away on private property?

Have you tried standing in the board room of some company insisting on your right of free speech on their property recently? If you were right any old geezer could insist on standing in somebody else's house talking away about the miracles of socialism, after all, it's free speech. But it is clearly not true.

Any school owner, like any owner of any building, can certainly PROHIBIT you from enjoying your right of free speech on his grounds. And while I agree that that can become a problem when all the land is privately owned (and land ownership rights outway the right of free speech), it is certainly not a problem if your right to pray cannot be realised by you in a school building.

And the establishment clause forces government to prohibit religious activity in its buildings that are open to the public.

 

 

on Jan 08, 2009

lulapilgrim
I am an athiest and I belive that religion is causing harm to some of the world's population.Welcome to the discussion....What's your definition of "religion"?   

The worhipping of one or more deities, often some religions mock others and sometimes claim science to be false.

on Jan 08, 2009

Also, sometime religion can be balmed for some bad things, IE: The Crusades.

on Jan 08, 2009

Leauki, once again you're not listening to anything I have said.  This is why I stopped arguing before.

on Jan 08, 2009

Leauki, once again you're not listening to anything I have said.

In fact I have addressed every single on of your points. The fact that you simply repeat your points rather than address my replies doesn't mean that _I_ am not listening.

I still disagree with you, as do American courts.

 

on Jan 08, 2009

The worhipping of one or more deities,

Religion is just a set of rituals. A deity is not required. Buddhism is a religion, but it doesn't have a deity. I'm not sure if you can call spirits deities, but there are religions that believe in spirits rather than gods.

 

often some religions mock others and

That is true. And some religions mock themselves.

 

sometimes claim science to be false.

Yes, that is especially common in Islam and Christianity.

 

on Jan 08, 2009

Leauki


That is true. And some religions mock themselves.
 

Exapmle the Catholic Church is mocked by most other types of Christianity.

on Jan 08, 2009

Yes Leauki, you have addressed my points.  You simply keep repeating something I already argued against before - replies #529 and #530 prove that much - and I for one am tired of quoting myself over and over just because you don't remember what I said earlier.

on Jan 08, 2009

Exapmle the Catholic Church is mocked by most other types of Christianity.

so what's your point?  Mocking is a bad thing, some religions mock each other so therefore all religions are bad? 

Atheists mock Christians.  Scientists mock Christians as well.  So does that make Atheists and Scientists bad as well? 

In fact Seth isn't that what you're doing as an Atheist? 

 

 

on Jan 08, 2009

sometimes claim science to be false.

Yes, that is especially common in Islam and Christianity.

Well I can only speak for Christianity.  We, as Christians, do not claim Science as false.  We claim pseudo-Science as false and there is a difference. 

The theory of Evolution as taught in the schools is NOT science, only cloaked in Science. 

 

 

on Jan 08, 2009

The theory of Evolution as taught in the schools is NOT science, only cloaked in Science.

 

exactly the sorta comment i personally believe (thus making anything i say from this point forward irrefutably true) could and would only be uttered by a psuedo-christian not merely blasphemously cloaked in christianity but also very likely to be washed in a red koolaid substitute for the blood of the lamb.

42 PagesFirst 34 35 36 37 38  Last