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 38)
42 PagesFirst 36 37 38 39 40  Last
on Jan 12, 2009

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

Been away for a few days, so indulge me.  This is exactly where the rub is - to me (no legal scholar, I admit, but I can read), the language in Article I does not 'force' the government to do anything.  It prohibits Congress from making any law respecting the establishment of religion (for example, creating the equivalent of the Church of England or an official, mandatory religion) or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  Nothing there about preventing religious activity of any sort - if anything, it prohibits 'prohibiting religious activity.'  Whether you construe 'establishment' in the sense of 'institution' or 'creation,' it doesn't (in plain language, anyway) force the government to do anything.

es·tab·lish·ment (-mÉ™nt)

noun

  1. an establishing or being established
  2. a thing established, as a business, military organization, household, etc.
There is also this from Answers.com concerning the establishment clause:

There is general agreement that the establishment clause prohibits an official religion endorsed by the government or preferential support by the government of some religions over others. There have been continuous arguments, however, about whether the establishment clause strictly prohibits all involvement by the government in support of religious activity as long as the involvement is conducted nonpreferentially.

So, it remains to be sorted out how the 'establishment' and 'free exercise' clauses of Article I should be reconciled.

In addition, Leuki, you argue on the one hand that schools are not 'the public square' but on the other argue that prayer must be prohibited in schools because they are 'open to the public.'
on Jan 12, 2009

the language in Article I does not 'force' the government to do anything.  It prohibits Congress from making any law respecting the establishment of religion (for example, creating the equivalent of the Church of England or an official, mandatory religion) or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Exactly. And making a law that gives money to a government institution in which prayers are allowed (or even encouraged) would violate that article. Parents have a right to send their children to a school that is completely neutral when it comes to religion IF that school is funded by the federal government. And tax payers (to the federal government) have a right that their money isn't being used to establish a religion in any way or form.

The free exercise of religion has nothing to do with doing so in a school building, just like the free exercise of a right to play baseball does not extend to doing so in a school building either.

 

In addition, Leauki, you argue on the one hand that schools are not 'the public square' but on the other argue that prayer must be prohibited in schools because they are 'open to the public.'

Yes. And the two are not the same thing.

One is accessible to everyone at any time (barring special events). The other is accesible to a customer, although the customer could be everyone.

Bars are "open to the public" (hence "public houses"), but that doesn't mean that anyone can enter them whenever they want and do whatever they want inside them.

 

 

on Jan 12, 2009

as long as the involvement is conducted nonpreferentially

I don't even see how school prayers could be conducted nonpreferentially. Even if you cover all possible prayers for all existing religious denominations, you would still force the entire thing on those who didn't want any religion in the first place.

 

on Jan 12, 2009

I don't even see how school prayers could be conducted nonpreferentially. Even if you cover all possible prayers for all existing religious denominations, you would still force the entire thing on those who didn't want any religion in the first place.

They aren't 'conducted' - which is the point.  I agree that requiring children to be 'abused by' reciting a prayer at the insistence or direction of a teacher is out of bounds.  I just don't believe allowing time for anyone to pray voluntarily violates the letter, intent or spirit of Article I.

And making a law that gives money to a government institution in which prayers are allowed (or even encouraged) would violate that article.

Here's where we fundamentally disagree - the language of Article I does not say that and to infer such a meaning from that language requires some logical contortions that make no sense to me (not that logical contortions haven't been made by our courts, mind you).

on Jan 12, 2009

There is a very large difference between languages and life.

Never claimed there wasn't. But I had to choose somthing simple enough to explain that one detail.

But in this case, even your simple explanation of that one detail fails...evidently you are still not getting that life through DNA is irreducibly complex.

on Jan 12, 2009

There are 3 Jewish intellectuals (I won't call them Creationists) who severely challenged (I won't say attack) the academic tyranny of Darwinism in the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Required".

Yes, I have heard about that movie.

Seriously, Leauki....for someone who is so interested in this topic, you should see this documentary movie. It's available now on rental.  

 

on Jan 12, 2009

the language in Article I does not 'force' the government to do anything. It prohibits Congress from making any law respecting the establishment of religion (for example, creating the equivalent of the Church of England or an official, mandatory religion) or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Exactly. And making a law that gives money to a government institution in which prayers are allowed (or even encouraged) would violate that article. Parents have a right to send their children to a school that is completely neutral when it comes to religion IF that school is funded by the federal government. And tax payers (to the federal government) have a right that their money isn't being used to establish a religion in any way or form.

I don't even see how school prayers could be conducted nonpreferentially. Even if you cover all possible prayers for all existing religious denominations, you would still force the entire thing on those who didn't want any religion in the first place.

Here's the rub for Christian folk like me.....while non-denominational Christian prayer is repressed or altogether banned, I've already shown how the practice of Islam is being taught in public schools...and here in my town, every morning fourth graders are told by their teacher to bow are their head and recite the prayer to mother earth that she has posted on the wall above her head.  

So, right now, taxpayers are paying for the teaching and pracitice of the religion of Secular and Atheistic Humanism.

 

 

 

on Jan 12, 2009

I agree that requiring children to be 'abused by' reciting a prayer at the insistence or direction of a teacher is out of bounds.

and here in my town, every morning fourth graders are told by their teacher to bow are their head and recite the prayer to mother earth that she has posted on the wall above her head.

See what I mean?  It seems completely irrational to say voluntary silent prayer is unconstitutional while 'non-denominational' prayers 'conducted' by teachers get a pass (never mind the issue of what Article I actually means or requires/prohibits).  lula & I disagree on many things, but not on this.

on Jan 13, 2009

Seriously, Leauki....for someone who is so interested in this topic, you should see this documentary movie. It's available now on rental. 

It's not a documentary movie.

I prefer reading the Bible directly.

 

on Jan 13, 2009

Here's the rub for Christian folk like me.....while non-denominational Christian prayer is repressed or altogether banned, I've already shown how the practice of Islam is being taught in public schools...

Yes, and I have already told you that I am against Islam in schools just as I am against Christianity in schools. (The same applies to any religion.)

 

and here in my town, every morning fourth graders are told by their teacher to bow are their head and recite the prayer to mother earth that she has posted on the wall above her head.

And I wouldn't want my children to be indoctrinated with silly pagan rituals either. And they wouldn't even be allowed to pray to "mother earth" (or anyone but G-d for that matter). That's exactly why I don't want religion in state schools.

The pagans can set up their own private schools.

 

So, right now, taxpayers are paying for the teaching and pracitice of the religion of Secular and Atheistic Humanism.

Islam and mother earth are secular humanism?

 

on Jan 13, 2009

See what I mean?  It seems completely irrational to say voluntary silent prayer is unconstitutional while 'non-denominational' prayers 'conducted' by teachers get a pass

No, I don't see what you mean.

I see that Lula is as upset about non-Christian religion in schools as I am by any religion in schools.

Lula's examples are great examples for why government must stop prayers in schools.

I wouldn't want my children to be forced (even if just by trying to be like the others) to pray to "mother earth" or some other pagan goddess.

 

on Jan 13, 2009

But in this case, even your simple explanation of that one detail fails...evidently you are still not getting that life through DNA is irreducibly complex.

No, I just happen to know that it isn't.

The "irreducible complexity" argument has already been addressed and proven by wrong. It will take a few years for Creationists to catch up, of course.

Neither language nor life are irreducibly complex. And you can demonstrate that by using the same methods. Remove one component and show how the rest is still useful for something (or at least not very harmful).

 

 

on Jan 13, 2009

Lula's examples are great examples for why government must stop prayers in schools.

I wouldn't want my children to be forced (even if just by trying to be like the others) to pray to "mother earth" or some other pagan goddess.

That may be your opinion, but we're debating the constitutional basis for doing so.  And you repeatedly sidestep the main issue by simply assuming Article I requires the Federal government to ban voluntary prayer in public schools, when the language simply doesn't support that assumption without some very contorted, and rather dubious, logic.  I wouldn't want my children to be 'forced' to pray under any circumstances, but I would want them to be allowed to pray if they wished (I happen to be more of an agnostic than anything else, so I don't really have a dog in this hunt, FWIW).

on Jan 14, 2009

That may be your opinion, but we're debating the constitutional basis for doing so.

And therefore we must assume that your reading of the article is fact whereas mine is "opinion", despite the fact that courts usually read it my way too?

I don't think it works that way.

Both our readings are "opinions", and pointing out that they are is not an argument in favour of the other opinion.

 

42 PagesFirst 36 37 38 39 40  Last