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 40)
42 PagesFirst 38 39 40 41 42 
on Jan 19, 2009

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

Jesse Helms was indeed one of the greatest Senators the US will ever have. True to conservatism and pro-life and pro-family principles, he left the Democrat Party when they became an arm of the "Culture of Death".

He helped Reagan by simply being a true conservative and promoting conservatism as reflected in the Republican platform. He proved himself a good guy by his leadership at home and abroad. A pro-famiily movement began.

Helms stood up for the Boy Scouts who have always had a policy against homosexuality and for good reason....namely, homosexuals are known to bugger young boys.  Back in 2000 or 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts may exclude homosexual members and leaders. This angered some homosexual sympathzing educrats and they took it upon themselves to deny Boy Scouts equal access to meeting facilities...Helms had the good sense and principles to pass measures that stopped that.

During the Reagan years, Helms was the Senate leader in supporting our anti-Communist allies in other countries. And it paid off, the wall did come a tumbling down, didn't it? That's when the phrase, of having military superiority "second to none," became popular. Instead of a foreign policy of appeasement, retreat and detente, he promised "a realistic assessment of the Communist challenge" and criticised unilateral concessions to the Soviet Union.

on Jan 19, 2009

Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.

I understand it as Kingbee does. In other words, the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religions...Favoritism of non-religion over religion constitutes a violation of the First Amendment establishment clause.  Cases have shown that courts require the state to be neutral in its relations with religions and believers and non-believers.

Unfortunately, (and unConstitutionally) that's exactly what is happening.....The prevailing forces are favoring Secular and Atheistic Humanism over Christianity in public schools. Take for example, the fact that some states are mandating, teaching  and encouraging  a sexually permissive sex instruction ideology in grades K through 12 over Christian views of human sexuality.

I argued before school boards and districts that seminars, subjecting children to watching videos and engaging in activities (of giving out condoms and artifical birth control contraceptives and devices demonstrate hostility to Christian principles of chastity.

It's very clear in this case there was no neutrality nor even a pretense of it.....non-religion was being endorsed and encouraged over Christianity.   

on Jan 19, 2009

I disagree, lula - Article I says nothing about 'non-religion.'  'Everything not Christian' does not constitute a 'religion' in any conceivable sense of the word.  As long as Christians perceive 'everything not Christian' about secular life as being 'forced' on them, a totally artificial construct, there can be no resolution on this issue.

on Jan 19, 2009

he left the Democrat Party when they became an arm of the "Culture of Death".

let's be honest.  helms left the democratic party when it became clear it was the party advocating racial equality.

there are times i wish i could believe there was a hell because helms would surely be there right now.

apparently you're choosing to overlook helms' efforts on behalf of the culture of death by lung cancer.

on Jan 19, 2009

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.

Helms came from North Carolina, a tobacco producing state....so he lobbied for the tobacco industry...and during this time in Congress, smoking was legal wasn't it?   Sorry I don't fault him for that. Smoking is a free choice and he didn't force anyone to smoke that I know of.

apparently you're choosing to overlook helms' efforts on behalf of the culture of death by lung cancer.

Yes, let's compare encouraging smoking to encouraging homosexuality or promiscuous sex.

 According to medical warnings, a single sex act can expose a person to a deadly virus that will dismantle the body's immune system and cause death. Smoking a single cigarette won't kill a person....so in this regard, I think Helms was on to something when he railed against the sexual deviance of homosexuality.

Funny when it comes to protecting children from harmful things, how some Congressmen and society has changed...smoking is fiercely opposed, while oh my goodness, sexual activity of any kind is encouraged in sex ed classrooms across America. So while some Congressmen pass law against smoking and adults teach our youth that smoking is bad, they teach them that sexual deviance is good. "Don't knock it till you've tried it" is the mantra.

At taxpayer's expense, SIECUS sex educators encourage sexual experimentation at an age that would cause tobacco execs to faint. And remember the filter tipped cigarettes that we know now gave a false sense of security....well, the same thing with condoms...they have a failure rate of 15% and pregnancy occur and a rate of 30% failure rate where viruses like AIDS, herpes, etc. can pass right through.  

Meanwhile check it out, boatloads of condoms are being shipped out to third world countries.

I liked Jesse Helms. I didn't say he was perfect, just a great Congressman.

on Jan 20, 2009

Smoking is a free choice and he didn't force anyone to smoke that I know of.

 

helms forced japan to permit american cigarette manufacturers to distibute their deadly merchandise in that country.  he attempted to do the same thing in thailand and where he partially succeeded by paving the way for american tobacco companies to distribute masses of promotional products intended for use by children in order to create another generation of addicts.

 

 

"Don't knock it till you've tried it"

you can provide evidence of any american senator having said that to anyone--even unofficially? 

so in this regard, I think Helms was on to something when he railed against the sexual deviance of homosexuality.

how about when he railed against integration or about the supposed inferiority of 30% of the population of the state he was supposed to be representing rather than repressing?  he shoulda been impeached.

 

on Jan 20, 2009

True to conservatism and pro-life and pro-family principles, he left the Democrat Party when they became an arm of the "Culture of Death".

No. He left the Democratic party when the party of slavery reformed and abandoned (at least some of) the positions it had helt for too long.

He is scum.

 

on Jan 20, 2009

helms forced japan to permit american cigarette manufacturers to distibute their deadly merchandise in that country.

Really? One Congressman had that much power? Shame on Japan.

american tobacco companies to distribute masses of promotional products intended for use by children in order to create another generation of addicts.

Interesting....you are so concerned about children's bodily health concerning tobacco, are you just as outraged over encouragement of sexual expression? I note that those trying to stamp out smoking cigarettes usually disapporve of sexual abstinence. How about all the sex trafficing of children?

Helms may have promoted tobacco compamies abroad, but how morally depraved is it for us to ship boatloads of condoms and birth control overseas to places like Thailand probably the #1 place of the sex trafficing of children?

Helms may have promoted tobacco companies at home, but he sure never promoted sexologists pushing the sexual revolution in schools  to our youth....the point to grasp is that children are viewed as prey. In schools across our land children are recruited into homosexuality.  

 

  

on Jan 20, 2009

Interesting....you are so concerned about children's bodily health concerning tobacco, are you just as outraged over encouragement of sexual expression? I note that those trying to stamp out smoking cigarettes usually disapporve of sexual abstinence. How about all the sex trafficing of children?

Good point. He could be a supporter of sex crimes! That should shut him up.

 

Helms may have promoted tobacco companies at home, but he sure never promoted sexologists pushing the sexual revolution in schools  to our youth....the point to grasp is that children are viewed as prey. In schools across our land children are recruited into homosexuality. 

Three unrelated subjects: sex education, homosexuality, sex crimes. What the heck is your point? Are you trying to connect the three so that your opposition to the first two looks rational?

In Ireland Catholic priests were the top sex criminals, not closely followed by homosexuals and sex educators.

 

 

on Jan 20, 2009

Three unrelated subjects: sex education, homosexuality, sex crimes. What the heck is your point? Are you trying to connect the three so that your opposition to the first two looks rational?

Helms may have promoted tobacco companies at home, but he sure never promoted sexologists pushing the sexual revolution in schools to our youth....the point to grasp is that children are viewed as prey. In schools across our land children are recruited into homosexuality.

One of Kingbee's beefs with Jesse Helms is that he supposedly pushed tobacco on kids.....I related smoking to the evil of sex ed and homosexuality in #590.

Helms has gone to his final rest, hopefully in peace,  and the politically correct crowd has seen to it that smoking is now viewed with moral disapproval....so that is really all a moot point, but where is the moral indignation over the sexual abuse that the union of sex ed and Planned Parenthood are doing to our youth in schools?  

In Ireland Catholic priests were the top sex criminals, not closely followed by homosexuals and sex educators.

I knew before this was over someone would bring up the clerical sex abuse scandals that were publically exposed in 2000. The reports, the studies, the facts are in and they all reveal that a very, very high percentage of priests who sexually abused boys are indeed homosexuals. Across the board, homosexuality is the root problem.

 

 

on Jan 20, 2009

The reports, the studies, the facts are in and they all reveal that a very, very high percentage of priests who sexually abused boys are indeed homosexuals.

'Magine that.  Who knew? 

on Jan 20, 2009

Helms has gone to his final rest, hopefully in peace,

if such a hateful bigot is accorded a single moment of relief from an eternity of being forced to contemplate the  consequences of using his power to oppress and ruin the lives of those he considered subhuman, the sermon on the mount is nothing but empty words.

on Jan 20, 2009

KINGBEE POSTS:

Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.

LULA POSTS:

I understand it as Kingbee does. In other words, the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religions...Favoritism of non-religion over religion constitutes a violation of the First Amendment establishment clause. Cases have shown that courts require the state to be neutral in its relations with religions and believers and non-believers.

DAIWA POSTS #588

I disagree, lula - Article I says nothing about 'non-religion.' 'Everything not Christian' does not constitute a 'religion' in any conceivable sense of the word. As long as Christians perceive 'everything not Christian' about secular life as being 'forced' on them, a totally artificial construct, there can be no resolution on this issue.

True, Article 1 doesn't specifically say non-religion, but nonetheless it does guarantee that the state may not favor or establish one religion over another or non-religion over religion.

The religious rights section of my state constitution says a number of important things about not preferring or subordinating a sect or denomination which I was told also includes the policies and practices of local governments and school boards. As an aggrieved parent, this is exactly what I was up against when my school board voted to exclude (subordinate)abstinence until marriage education and preferred only teaching the sex ed curriculum.

The school board favored teaching non-religious (encouraging a secular, sexually permissive views) over religious views (Christian views of sexuality).
 

 

 

on Jan 20, 2009

it does guarantee that the state may not favor or establish one religion over another or non-religion over religion

No, your latter claim is simply false.  There is no such 'thing' as 'non-religion' and Article I says absolutely nothing about 'it.'

on Jan 20, 2009

aid all religions

the inevitable result of aiding all religions would be establishment of religion to the disadvantage and at the expense of those who claim no religion.  exactly the same as requiring belief--of any type--as a condition of holding office.

42 PagesFirst 38 39 40 41 42