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 39)
42 PagesFirst 37 38 39 40 41  Last
on Jan 14, 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.

LULA POSTS:
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.

DAIWA POSTS:

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.

LEAUKI POSTS:

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

Leauki, you've got it backwards. The essence of freedom is the limitation of government, not the limitation of people's God given inalienable right to pray to Him wherever and whenever they want. The government can't be allowed to violate our God given rights any more than an individual can be allowed to violate the rights of others.

Our inalienable rights to life, freedom and property come from Almighty God and existed prior to the Founders establishing government. The government exists to protect these rights and cannot ever legislate them out of existence. Our Constititional Republic is based on this fundamental truth. Even though the Constitition clearly limits the powers of government, we've seen over the years all three branches, particularly the courts, abandon this basic truth, abuse their authority resulting in unConstititional decisions and law.   

While "We the people" should never allow government to abridge our basic freedoms, alas, because of lack of education or miseduction or plain apathy on part of the people, we've lost or forgotten the true meaning of the essence of freedom....what does the word "free" really mean in the First Amendment?

It seems to me that a case can be made that government is attempting to limit only free exercise of the Christian religion, Christian prayer, symbols, holidays, etc. The bottom line is basically, only Christian religious liberties are at risk.

 

on Jan 14, 2009

Leauki, you've got it backwards.

Ok.

Lula's examples are great examples for why government must encourage pagan rituals in schools.

 

on Jan 14, 2009

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?

Another sidestep.  I'm quoting the language and wondering how we get from point A to point X, not saying my 'reading' of Article I is fact.  I said in another reply that the courts have indeed engaged in the contorted logic necessary to agree with your opinion.

I don't believe the establishment clause requires the feds to 'do' anything - it plainly states that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nothing more.  I disagree with the way the clause has been construed.

on Jan 14, 2009

I don't believe the establishment clause requires the feds to 'do' anything - it plainly states that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nothing more.  I disagree with the way the clause has been construed.

According to Wikipedia quiet prayers are not forbidden. So what exactly is the problem?

 

on Jan 14, 2009

The problem is that there are numerous cases of teachers being fired for their "quiet prayers."

One teacher even got fired for merely bowing his head while one of his students prayed.

on Jan 14, 2009

Lula's examples are great examples for why government must encourage pagan rituals in schools.

I don't believe the establishment clause requires the feds to 'do' anything - it plainly states that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nothing more.

I agree.

Congress is prohibited from making law that establishes religion......and it seems from looking at the 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins case followed in 1962 by Engel v. Vitale which took prayer out of public school---- that would include atheism or secular humanism. Excluding theism, I would guess, is something the Founders didn't intend as a result.

While Protestantism was the prevailing religion at the time of the Founders, the Court makes plain that students today have to conform to the prevailing religion......as we have seen, in some classrooms, it's Islam, in others, it's the Green religion and in others, it's Secular or atheistic Humanism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on Jan 15, 2009

Congress is prohibited from making law that establishes religion......and it seems from looking at the 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins case followed in 1962 by Engel v. Vitale which took prayer out of public school---- that would include atheism or secular humanism.

a. congress is prohibited from making law establishing religion.  as determined by the us supreme court in everson v board of education 1947:

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.

b. this was the basis for torcaso v watkins (a very strange case for you to be citing since it has nothing whatsoever to do with prayer in school, but rather requiring a affirmation of belief in god as a requirement of public office--something expressly forbidden by the us consitution). 

c. citing engel v vitale in this argument makes even less sense--especially by characterizing it as "took prayer out of public school"--since the prayer at issue there was an actual official prayer established for the purpose of recitation in a public school.

d. you're right as far as scope in that the court ruled as unconstitutional law forcing one to profess "a belief or disbelief" in religion.

shoulda stopped there but...

it's the Green religion and in others, it's Secular or atheistic Humanism.

you reveal your own bias or naivete by your continual insistence upon forcing professions of disbelief on non-believers.  there is no green religion per se (other than in your imagination) nor is there any organization similar to any religion in existence today one could reasonably define as secular or atheistic humanism. 

your determination to force others to believe as you seemingly blinds you to comprehending the difference between science and religion as well as that between philosophy and religion.

if you have yet to discover dawkin's london bus campaign, you're in for a pleasant surprise.  the slogan used begins "there's probably no god" which is, i'm fairly sure, ambigous enough to satisfy most non-believers and more than it should take for any reasonable thinking objective person to agree, when it comes to a religion of non-belief, there's no there there.

on Jan 15, 2009

Excluding theism, I would guess, is something the Founders didn't intend as a result.

isn't guessing what the founders intended or didn't intend exactly what you accuse the court of doing?

 

on Jan 15, 2009

Excluding theism, I would guess, is something the Founders didn't intend as a result.

isn't guessing what the founders intended or didn't intend exactly what you accuse the court of doing?

Not really. In a nutshell, I accuse the Supreme Court of going from protecting religion (Christianity) to persecuting it to the point that it's destructive impact can be seen in the culture of American life. 

Lula posts:

Congress is prohibited from making law that establishes religion......and it seems from looking at the 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins case followed in 1962 by Engel v. Vitale which took prayer out of public school---- that would include atheism or secular humanism.

kingbee posts:

shoulda stopped there but...

it's the Green religion and in others, it's Secular or atheistic Humanism.

you reveal your own bias or naivete by your continual insistence upon forcing professions of disbelief on non-believers. there is no green religion per se (other than in your imagination) nor is there any organization similar to any religion in existence today one could reasonably define as secular or atheistic humanism.

Ideas become worldviews become ideologies become philosophical tenets of religions.

As for an organization, google the Humanist Manifestos and read about religious Humanism and religious Humanists who state Humanism as being a vital religion, a necessity. 

The Humanists themselves agree that the Torcaso v. Watkins decision made a religion out of Secular Humanism. There are many attorneys who agree with the late, great Senator Jesse Helms who said when the US Supreme Court prohibited children from participating in voluntatary prayer in public schools, the conclusion was inescapable, that the US Supreme Court had not only violated the right of free expression of religion for all AMericans, it also established a national religion, the religion of Secular Humanism. Secular and Atheistic Humanism dethrones God and enshrines man as the centerpiece of life...and through it, although most don't realize it, taxpayers are paying for their own destruction.

Radical environmentalism, believing plants and animals are of equal value to humans with equal rights, praying to and worshipping the earth, are part and parcel of the global Green religion propaganda that's been being put out by the UN and its various agencies for years.  

 

 

on Jan 16, 2009

As for an organization, google the Humanist Manifestos and read about religious Humanism and religious Humanists who state Humanism as being a vital religion, a necessity.

Then you will be glad to know that I am also opposed to schools teaching "religious humanism" to my kids.

 

 

on Jan 16, 2009

google the Humanist Manifestos

manifesto, shamwowifesto.  if i were to issue the kingbee roman catholic manifesto, would that in any way reflect upon you as a roman catholic?   non-belief requires no rituals, no authority, no organization, no meetingplaces or meetings nor any explanatory legend or mythology.  

 

was the 'he-men woman hater's club' a real organization because it existed onscreen and spanky called meetings to order?

on Jan 16, 2009

Humanists themselves agree that the Torcaso v. Watkins decision made a religion out of Secular Humanism.

 

really?  those justices on the court who heard and ruled on that case neither intended nor, in fact, did anything of the sort.

on Jan 16, 2009

the late, great Senator Jesse Helms

 

innaresting choice of heroes for someone claiming to be pro-life considering helm's unrelenting efforts to force american tobacco into the hands of kids throughout asia much less his decades-long insistence on devaluing the lives of those he considered racial inferiors.

on Jan 19, 2009

the late, great Senator Jesse Helms

From what I have read the man is a disgusting pig by any standards.

His politics managed to draw racist voters from the Democrats to the Republicans and he opposed civil rights legislation and other traditional Republican positions. He started his career as a Democrat, of course.

His sole redeeming feature is that he helped save Ronald Reagan's career so he could become President.

And the tobacco issue is, as Kingbee points out, quite interesting. Being pro-life officially and promoting death so openly must be the height of hypcrisy.

 

on Jan 19, 2009

From kingbee -

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.

I agree with your interpretation except for the highlighted part - I don't believe Article I prohibits 'aiding' all religions.  The courts may disagree with me, as they are wont to do, but the plain language simply doesn't say that.

42 PagesFirst 37 38 39 40 41  Last