Religion vs. Science

[Darunia]

It's no longer just the dirty South that takes fantasy over fact, but now Pennsylvania too.


http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/27/evolut...index.html

[Weltall]

Such is the expected response to militant atheism and the efforts to force it upon everyone.

You reap what you sow.

[Great Rumbler]

I think in all but an few extreme cases, science and religion can actually go together. Or at least not conflict with each other.

Evolution is a theory [that's why it's called the THEORY of Evolution] and, for all intents and purposes, intelligent design is also a theory. Yet many on the Left have a stroke everytime someone even MENTIONS teaching intelligent design taught along with evolution.

[Geno]

Goddammit, not this again.

[A Black Falcon]

Evolution is a theory [that's why it's called the THEORY of Evolution]

People who say this don't understand what "science" is and don't want to, because it'd prove how wrong they are.

Schools are there to teach fact. Evolution is a fact. Religion/intelligent design/whatever is not.

"Intelligent Design"? It's the old idea that God created the world in seven days with a new name attached, and a concession that maybe it took more than 7 days and wasn't five thousand years ago. A reaction to the fact that as science improves it proves more and more of what they believed to be right wrong... and all too many people react to this by backing up and saying "no, I know I am right, so let's invent something that they can't disprove now!" Because yes, that's teh problem with intelligent design... while you'll find no sane scientist to support it, it's impossible to disprove because of how wholly it relies on "this is true because my faith says it must be." All you can say at that point is "well, it's extremely unlikely, but, like the classic example of 'the world was created as it is five seconds ago and no one knows it', is completely impossible to disprove..." But does that mean that we should be teaching that example in school? No, of course not. Schools are there to teach children what is, not make up comforting theories about what people wish was (or what "may be" if you wish). It is utterly disgusting that people keep trying to restrict the teaching of the only possible explanation for events that follows any of the laws of nature that we know and replace it with something that is based completely on belief and not one bit on science, scientific laws, or what we know about how the universe operates.

That's what church is for, if you believe. School has no place in it... and it's very depressing that we're still having to deal with this in this country, so long after it should have been a settled issue. Another unfortunate side effect of the extreme religious forces that are so sadly popular in this country...


Really, I should just have said nothing... this is a settled issue. There is nothing to debate (why do you think that any time an evolutionary scientist is in some kind of "debate" with the defenders of intelligent design that they get so roundly criticized? Because debating with such people implies that their "theory" has some kind of credibility, which it does not...). Either you believe in what reality says, or you believe that reality was invented by some all-powerful deity which makes the rules of nature irrelevant... and there is no way for the two to see eye to eye, unless someone decides that the side they are on is wrong. Which on issues like this is ... extremely rare... to say the least.

[Geno]

Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Personally, I have no problem with evolution being taught in schools. Other theories are taught too, many of which conflict with certain aspects of religion. As long as they're taught as theories and not proven facts, then I'm fine with it.

There's no rule saying that what schools teach has to be proven fact. In literature classes, we read fictional stories. They're not taught to us as fact though, and you don't see me boycotting any of it.

[A Black Falcon]

But "intelligent design" is not science. It is religious theory. Fiction, on the other hand, can be literature just as much as nonfiction can.

[Geno]

In my opinion, the public should be informed on what intelligent design is, though once again, it should not be taught as if it is proven fact. We're already told of the teachings of several other religions, as ancient as the gods that the Greeks and Romans worshipped as well as religions that are still practiced today: Hinduism, Buddhism, and of course, the Judeo-Christian religions.

[A Black Falcon]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,...44,00.html interesting...

[Laser Link]

Yes, ABF is correct that the word "theory" means something different in science than it does in, say, a police investigation. Theory in science does mean that it cannot be proved, but is generally accepted by those in authority. Even though we all talk about Einstein and e=mc^2 and pretend we know what it means (I have a basic knowledge of what it means but don't really understand the math myself), it is still the "Theory of Relativity". Not often do people question this.

That said, it is foolish to call evolution a fact. You cannot prove it. There is a lot of "evidence" that was fabricated by "scientists" who wanted to make a discovery that proved a pet theory so they could be famous. No matter how hard you want to believe it, most scientists are emotionless, detatched people who simply seek the truth. They are human beings and therefore see things through their own lenses, and sometimes those lenses are tainted.

Science uses what is called the scientifric method in order to validate hypothesis:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiment

Now you will notice that evolution has the first 2 step scovered, but completely missed the next 2. Those are actually more important, because they involve proving your ideas, rather than simply observing (which can be tainted) and guessing (which is, obviosuly, a guess). I have yet to hear about anyone using their knowledge of evolution to predict new changes to species or to perform experiements in order to gain actual evidence that backs evolution. However there is tons and tons of evidence, such as "We found such and such a fossil in such and such a place, and we know the rock there is this many years old, therefore..." or "This human skeleton has a bigger skull therefore it is evidence of the missing link..." That is all observation and speculation. But nobody ever mentions that, do they?

I have seen profs in my CS classes argue over things like whether one algorithm is better than another simply because they prefer it. They both have the performance runs and mathematical formulas to "prove" their point, and all that stuff is accurate. But they are biased about such meaningles things like this, and refuse to see sense because they mixed their pride up in this. Any of you who have been to a university know how arrogant most of those professors are. It doesn't matter if later someone can convincingly prove one way is better, they will ignore it or hide it or make up stuff to fool the masses who don't know better. The one thing academia will NEVER do is admit they were wrong. It is impossible. So what do you think happens when a subject mixes the pride of the intellectuals with religion and politics? They won't budge and will fight anyone who even suggests they are wrong.

Notice that it only happens to pro-Christian ideas? They are all about teaching diversity of sexual preferences, comparing other religions to Christianity, and more - they'll even experiement with new way to teach things like math. Haven't you seen through it yet? Diversity is simply a buzzword that is used to push what certain people want. They don't really care about treating all people equally or anything like that? It's just a convenient way to sneak an agenda. If they truly cared about presenting all ideas equally, than they would be all over teaching intelligent design so students could compare and decide the truth for themselves. But now that they have their way, they will do whatever it takes to fight opposing ideas because it's easier to force an idea down someone throat when they are clueless to alternatives than actually debating the merits of your ideas.

[Darunia]

Well said, Abf.

Intelligent Design asks more questions that it provides answers for. It attempts to take all of the questions about nature, throw science out the window, broadly answer them all with "GOD DONE IT." It's not science. There is no logical backing whatsoever for intelligent design. Period.

[Laser Link]

Let's read a story written by a "religion correspondent" who is anti-religion where the proof is a single study that's very starting point is blatantly incorrect and ignorant. Good find.

Many Americans agree that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world.

As one of those churchgoing Americans being represented here, I'd like to mention that I know not a single Christian who feels that way. We are actually all pretty disgusted with the country because of it's social depravity. Now admittedly, it's better than, say, Thailand, wehre there tens of thousands of prostitues in a single city because their families sold them as children, but the US is hardly a pure country. How many Bible believing Christians did they interview before creating their very core reason for making the study?

Find me a study that compares the health, general well-being, and happiness of Bible believing evangelicals and non-Christians. You'll be surprised.

[Laser Link]

Ahh, here's a page with results of many studies, not just one:

Health: Recent epidemiological studies comparing health and longevity in secular and religious Israeli kibbutzim, and among religiously active and inactive Americans, find consistent correlations between religion and health. One recent national health study following 21,000 lives through time revealed that life expectancy among those never attending church is 75 years, but 83 years among those attending church more than weekly. For several reasons, an active faith is nearly as strongly associated with longevity as is nonsmoking.

Happiness: Many studies have also found correlations between faith and "subjective well-being" (happiness and satisfaction with life). For example, in National Opinion Research Center surveys of 40,167 Americans since 1972, 26% of those never attending religious services reported being "very happy," as did 47% of those participating in services more than weekly. Faith, it seems, connects us with others, engenders meaning and purpose beyond self, provides a grace-filled basis for self-acceptance, and sustains our hope that, in the end, the very end, all shall indeed be well.

Coping: One national survey found that people who had recently suffered divorce, unemployment, bereavement, or serious illness or disability retained greater joy if they also had a strong faith. Compared with religiously inactive widows, recently widowed women who worship at their church or synagogue report greater well-being. Compared with irreligious mothers of children with developmental disabilities, those with a deep religious faith are less vulnerable to depression. "Religious faith buffers the negative effects of trauma on well-being," concluded University of Texas sociologist Christopher Ellison.

Goodness: Does faith feed morality and compassion, as Senator Lieberman argued during the 2000 presidential campaign? No way, said New York Times columnist Natalie Angier: "No evidence supports . . . the canard that godliness and goodliness are linked in any way but typographically." But Angier is demonstrably wrong: The 24% of Americans who attend church weekly give 48% of all charitable contributions to all causes in the United States and are twice as likely as the irreligious to volunteer among the poor, infirm, and elderly. Moreover, in areas where churchgoing is high, crime rates are low. Even the unbelieving skeptic Voltaire recognized the faith-morality connection: "I want my attorney, my tailor, my servants, even my wife to believe in God," he said. "Then I shall be robbed and cuckolded less often." And consider: Who is most likely to sponsor food pantries and soup kitchens? Who took medicine into the Third World and opened hospitals? Who sheltered orphans? Who spread literacy and established schools and universities? Who led movements to abolish the slave trade, end apartheid, and establish civil rights? Who most often adopts children? The answer to all these questions is the same.

You can find the references used in gathering this information at the bottom of the page I linked to.

[Great Rumbler]

I think the moral corruption described in the article has less to do with religion and more to do with a "breaking free" of religion. Many in the US will profess a belief in God, but sometimes it's hard to believe that that's truly the case. Less to do with God and more to do with pushing the envelope beyond what the constraints of religion allow. You see it in political revolutions sometimes, the people break free and go to far an anarchy follows. It's the desire for rebellion. Kids do it all the time. But that's just my own personal observations.

It attempts to take all of the questions about nature, throw science out the window, broadly answer them all with "GOD DONE IT." It's not science.

Just because I believe in God doesn't mean I don't care about how the universe works. A computer was built by someone who knew how to make it work and I accept that on face value, but I still like to get inside it and see how the part interact with each other and what processes cause them to work.

[The Former DMiller]

I don't want to totally discount those statistics you found LL, but they should be definitely be taken with some NACl.

Health: Recent epidemiological studies comparing health and longevity in secular and religious Israeli kibbutzim, and among religiously active and inactive Americans, find consistent correlations between religion and health. One recent national health study following 21,000 lives through time revealed that life expectancy among those never attending church is 75 years, but 83 years among those attending church more than weekly. For several reasons, an active faith is nearly as strongly associated with longevity as is nonsmoking.

There could be many reasons people who attend church more than weekly live longer. Generally people like that are going to live a healthier life as they may avoid smoking, drugs, alcohol, etc. Do people avoid those things because of their faith, or would they be things they would do anyway if they didn't go to church that often. It's a very difficult thing to prove causation for, although I would be interested in seeing the actual results of the correlation between going to church more than twice a week and longevity.

Happiness: Many studies have also found correlations between faith and "subjective well-being" (happiness and satisfaction with life). For example, in National Opinion Research Center surveys of 40,167 Americans since 1972, 26% of those never attending religious services reported being "very happy," as did 47% of those participating in services more than weekly. Faith, it seems, connects us with others, engenders meaning and purpose beyond self, provides a grace-filled basis for self-acceptance, and sustains our hope that, in the end, the very end, all shall indeed be well.

This study seems to be fairly narrow. It is surveying 40,000 people, but that is since 1972. That is not a lot of people given how many people have lived in the US since 1972. Also, these types of surveys can be faulty if the people selected for the survey aren't properly selected. I'm sure that part of the research was fine, though, but it's impossible to tell without knowing their selection method.

Coping: One national survey found that people who had recently suffered divorce, unemployment, bereavement, or serious illness or disability retained greater joy if they also had a strong faith. Compared with religiously inactive widows, recently widowed women who worship at their church or synagogue report greater well-being. Compared with irreligious mothers of children with developmental disabilities, those with a deep religious faith are less vulnerable to depression. "Religious faith buffers the negative effects of trauma on well-being," concluded University of Texas sociologist Christopher Ellison.

I definitely need to see some more info on this survey, since as it stands there is absolutely no statistical evidence behind it. At this point there is very little fact to back it up, but it is just a synopsis so there is more than likely more to it than that.

Goodness: Does faith feed morality and compassion, as Senator Lieberman argued during the 2000 presidential campaign? No way, said New York Times columnist Natalie Angier: "No evidence supports . . . the canard that godliness and goodliness are linked in any way but typographically." But Angier is demonstrably wrong: The 24% of Americans who attend church weekly give 48% of all charitable contributions to all causes in the United States and are twice as likely as the irreligious to volunteer among the poor, infirm, and elderly. Moreover, in areas where churchgoing is high, crime rates are low. Even the unbelieving skeptic Voltaire recognized the faith-morality connection: "I want my attorney, my tailor, my servants, even my wife to believe in God," he said. "Then I shall be robbed and cuckolded less often." And consider: Who is most likely to sponsor food pantries and soup kitchens? Who took medicine into the Third World and opened hospitals? Who sheltered orphans? Who spread literacy and established schools and universities? Who led movements to abolish the slave trade, end apartheid, and establish civil rights? Who most often adopts children? The answer to all these questions is the same.

This correlation makes a lot of sense, but, again, do the people attend church because they are good people, or are they good people because they attend church.


I'm sure all of those studies are fine, but it just goes to show that statistics could be misleading, and those synopsis posted on the site you linked could have easily misread the studies or manipulated them to fit the argument. Again, I don't disagree with what those suppositions, but the statistics major in me will jump over things like that. :)

[Great Rumbler]

I'm sure all of those studies are fine, but it just goes to show that statistics could be misleading, and those synopsis posted on the site you linked could have easily misread the studies or manipulated them to fit the argument.

The same can be said about the content of the link ABF posted. The first rule of statistics is that statistics always lie. Or at least the people who interpret them sometimes do.

[Laser Link]

You are right Derek, and I agree. I really just wanted to show that for any studies saying that religion is bad for society, I could find ones that show it is good. I should have said that. I am not a big fan of stats myself because they are usually too subjective, but I was frustrated with ABF pulling one study from an obviously biased source and using this as fact of the world.

And this study talks about people who go to church. I honestly don't think that is an accurate measurement of Christians, because there are many (or most) people who go to church but live completely different lives.

[A Black Falcon]

I saw the link on another forum, and thought it appropriate for this thread...

[CoconutCommander]

Religion vs. Science. If it were a spontaneous battle, religion would win. But if you gave each side a few weeks to prepare, I think science would have the edge.

Personally I believe in Magic. It falls neatly in between both categories.

[Laser Link]

What is magic? Do you mean the occult? Spirits? New age?

[CoconutCommander]

Magic is energy from our planet's Leylines.

[Geno]

Just because I believe in God doesn't mean I don't care about how the universe works. A computer was built by someone who knew how to make it work and I accept that on face value, but I still like to get inside it and see how the part interact with each other and what processes cause them to work.

Well said. I believe science and religion can work together in many ways. Science is just a more technical way of explaining how God made something the way it is. It's not like you have to abandon the concepts of science altogether just to believe in something supernatural.

[The Former DMiller]

Ha, I didn't even look at ABF's link or I would have said the same thing about that. There wasn't a single stats class I took in college in which the professor didn't bring up the quote, "There are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics."

Sorry if it seemed like I was just picking on you LL, I'm really just picking on statistics. :)

[Laser Link]

Nah, you weren't picking on me at all. It looked like I was fully endorsing those stats as 100% proof of my point, and you were right to call me out.

I think it is true that Christians as a whole do give more, serve more, and are more content than people who don't believe in God. I'm not saying that only Christians do good things or anything like that- I know that is not the case. But either way, stats don't prove it and I have other reasons why I think that. If anyone is curious, I'll explain.


CoconutCommander, will you tell me more about what you believe. I did a little research on that just now, but I'm curious how they form these leylines. I saw something about Seattle having a map made that shows the leylines in the city. How did they pick these sepcial spots to draw lines through? What can you do with this energy? What are the practical uses of this?

[A Black Falcon]

I think it is true that Christians as a whole do give more, serve more, and are more content than people who don't believe in God. I'm not saying that only Christians do good things or anything like that- I know that is not the case. But either way, stats don't prove it and I have other reasons why I think that. If anyone is curious, I'll explain.

Your whole response to that article was one of emotion much more than any facts... that's why it would be hard to argue with, because it's not really about the facts.

And, of course, there's the fact that this all ties into politics... like how I would say that conservatism is part of the problem -- that article blames religion for why the US is behind Europe, but we could look at gun laws (banning handguns goes a long way to reducing murders), healthcare (health care for all reduces death and increases the overall life expectancy of a country. Health care for some (the richer ones), like we have, has a major negative impact on the overall health of a country. And as a result, despite the best healthcare in the world for the most privilidged, we're behind a lot of European countries on average. Taxes? They don't matter on their own, they just allow you to do those other programes that make such a big difference... (schools are another problem, American schools are by and large seriously underfunded... yes, you shouldn't just throw money at them, but you gain nothing by forcing schools to do with not enough.)... and from my perspective, religious people, usually conservative, are on the wrong (that is, worse for the public at large) side on all those issues.

Of course, it's not like everything is fine in Europe... they have many problems. But in some ways they are better off than we are.

CoconutCommander, will you tell me more about what you believe. I did a little research on that just now, but I'm curious how they form these leylines. I saw something about Seattle having a map made that shows the leylines in the city. How did they pick these sepcial spots to draw lines through? What can you do with this energy? What are the practical uses of this?

Don't listen to him, I don't think he's ever serious...

[Laser Link]

Yes, I was quite emotional. At points I was boiling over in anger, at other points broken in tears... Which article did I respond emotionally to? The evolution one or the anti-religion one? I'll go through and edit it with the proper smilies in order to depict the emotions you believe I was feeling.

And that last emotion was dry sarcasm. And now we've had enough sarcasm for one post, so I'll go back to being serious.

Actually CoconutCommander, I am interested in learning about other people beliefs. I know, being a Christian and/or Conservative, I am supposed to be closed minded, foolish, and afraid of other ideas, but it's not really true. So if you are willing to discuss it, I would be interested in finding out more. I am always interested in talking to people who are searching for something real, something bigger than themselves, even if they are looking in what I would consider the wrong places.

[CoconutCommander]

To be honest I was joking about believing in magic as opposed to religion or science. That's not to say magic isn't interesting. If I'm not mistaken the Leylines of our planet are based on magnetic fields. I am not an authority on this topic so I couldn't tell you much more than what I've picked up here and there.

[Darunia]

Take THIS!

[Great Rumbler]

Christians don't believe in physics?

[Geno]

According to Darunia, a belief in God means a disbelief in anything else.

[Darunia]

You can't be sane if you're insane,
You can't be right if you're wrong,
You can't be right-side-up if you're upside-down,
And you can't be right if you believe in deities.

This is the twenty-first century people. Time to move on.

[Great Rumbler]

I'm glad you're so open-minded, Darunia.

[A Black Falcon]

Yes, I was quite emotional. At points I was boiling over in anger, at other points broken in tears... Which article did I respond emotionally to? The evolution one or the anti-religion one? I'll go through and edit it with the proper smilies in order to depict the emotions you believe I was feeling.

And that last emotion was dry sarcasm. And now we've had enough sarcasm for one post, so I'll go back to being serious.

You were clearly not happy in either, but in the first one (about 'intelligent design') you just wrote a long (completely inaccurate, unscientific, and flawed) tract on how evolutionary science isn't backed up by evidence -- this is not true of course (the evidence is, all scientists I have ever heard of agree, about as convincing as it gets in science...), but you can't admit that to yourself or you'd have to back up another step on the 'what role did science have in the universe' ladder... but the other? Well, that seemed even more impassioned... probably it was the bolding. You didn't bold things for emphasis in the first part, but you did in the second... made you look more angry ("I really want to prove that article wrong so I will").

Anyway...

Notice that it only happens to pro-Christian ideas? They are all about teaching diversity of sexual preferences, comparing other religions to Christianity, and more - they'll even experiement with new way to teach things like math. Haven't you seen through it yet? Diversity is simply a buzzword that is used to push what certain people want. They don't really care about treating all people equally or anything like that? It's just a convenient way to sneak an agenda. If they truly cared about presenting all ideas equally, than they would be all over teaching intelligent design so students could compare and decide the truth for themselves. But now that they have their way, they will do whatever it takes to fight opposing ideas because it's easier to force an idea down someone throat when they are clueless to alternatives than actually debating the merits of your ideas.

Absurd right wing paranoia. "Compare"? But what is there to compare? "Here on one hand, we have scientific theory. Here on the other, the idea that God invented humanity and nature and controlled its path." How much "science" is there in the latter one? None! How do you teach this in a modern science class? You can't... not while maintaining it as a science class and not a religion class, anyway. As for diversity, notice how no other religions are brought into science classes either? :) Science is, and should be, about showing the world as we know it to be. It isn't, and shouldn't be, about promoting an unprovable and undefendable position that completely undermines the entire basis of the field being taught... (if you can't teach how things came to be in biology, what are you left with? Yeah, not much.)

[Geno]

I'm glad you're so open-minded, Darunia.

The next time an atheist says that "atheists never start holy crusades" I'm going to point them in the direction of Darunia. :D

[A Black Falcon]

Darunia... it's nice he's on my side I guess, but he's not the best help on the 'logical arguments front'... not that in this case he isn't mostly right, but that it doesn't help win the argument. :)

[alien space marine]

Such is the expected response to militant atheism and the efforts to force it upon everyone.

You reap what you sow.

This isnt about "atheism" , This about bad junk pseudo shit bring brought into the class because of "peoples" insecurities afraid the kids might start actually thinking and questioning become skeptics doubters, Is the belief in god so unsolid and fragail that these fundiementalist must shelter their kids in homeschooling or private schools to teach them "dinosaurs" were on Noahs arch the world is only 6,000 years
:weird:

I dont know about you but its not the "atheist" forcing belief on anyone here,The fact you associate "evolution" with atheism proves my point as many do believe in god and evolution infact the "catholic church" still has the position and view even after a recent review that evolution is a little more then just a theory, "Abiogenesis" is more hypothesis then theory,The reason they use "theory" not law well a big fuck up happend a while ago with newtonian psysics when Enstein showed up , "Theory" by the scientific community is used in the sense of saying there is gonna be further break throughs updates to the current data collected and it would presumptious and foolish to say you know everything going on " saying this does this case closed end of story"just to not have a repeat of the "newtonian psysics debacle".

If its a fact like a oblate spherical earth the scientist have a solid case for their claims its the "fundies" that are the ignorant fucks trying force things on people thinking science or truth can be decided in a up or down vote as history has shown "popular opinion" doesnt mean much to what is actually there and is the case, As everybody including all the christians for centuries believed the world was flat despite the great Socrates and many "sailors stellar observations" ancient thinkers and scientist as far back as before christianity argued there was evidence the world was a globe even before other astronomers got burnt on stakes in later years as heretics for it.

The scientific community is nervous , Because now they fear the hole 'education" system and process is in jeopardy, Soon enough they will be arguing that geologist and paleontologist are wrong all the carbon daters are wrong the world to their narrow mindedness is only 6,000 years old, Yet I know of other religous groups that dont have such "restrictive timelimits" to the earth and universe birthday that dont deny or wage war on scientific fact.

Evolution is such solid science that biologist and researchers are already using it to find cures for deseases and treatments for genetic desorders "yet hold outs" still deny it as just imaginary "magic or mysticism" picturing little cartoon images of apes turning into humans in their minds .

Most of these militant fundies dont know squat about evolution or basic biology to have a credible say on it, Much the same as most folks dont know much about quantum physics or Astronomy and chemistry to have a say on it either.

"Inteligent design" doesnt work , Because unlike evolution it cant reproduce a shread of evidence or demostrate its "hypothesis" to be reviewed all it is "maybe's and total speculation",Concern is if kids just say "god did it" they may lose the curiousity and lure instead of continuing the search for knowledge and truth they just give up as soon as it gets to "tough".

There is gaps in what we know about how gravity works, Thats why its still a "theory" but we know it exist due to the obvious.

Thats why it is junk creationism in a fancy inteligent looking tuxedo, More progress looking at things naturalistily.

The founding fathers of the U.S where not all christians some where deist and free mansons agnostics, I know Madison was agnostic and Thomas Jefferson was far from being christian he compared the virginal birth to how people once honnestly believed that Minerva(Athena) emerged from Jupiters head he even said some day he suspects people will view the gospels stories the same way people view the greek pagan ones, I think General washingston is the only "christian" chap I can name but he was a freemanson for sure.

Once people really look at their bibles really dig into the texts it would make a doubter and disbeliever out of them as it has for me, Obviously people in the past before even "darwin".

If proof shows that some of founding fathers of the U.S were not staunch "born again types" but doubting Thomases and heathens never was "america a christian republic", Then can atleast non religous americans like many I know not be treated like bat shit stimatised marginalised the same as the south did to Blacks, Its a myth that "atheist" control the U.S I am sorry who controls every seat in office even the liberal ones?

[Darunia]

Sorry, guys. I'm just kinda bummed that no one liked my political cartoon. :(

[alien space marine]

Sorry, guys. I'm just kinda bummed that no one liked my political cartoon. :(

The infidelguy show had this song about "Newdons" answering machine , The guy who was sueing over the "pledge thing" , The fuck you's and go to hell faggots he gets.

The dailyshow with john stewart has done a paraody of this issue.

[Geno]

Dag.

[A Black Falcon]

ASM ('s long post) is correct...

[Weltall]

But missing my angle.

I believe in evolution. I also believe in whatever they call Intelligent Design. I don't believe they are exclusive theories. I am also not really in favor of people waging war over what to indoctrinate kids with.

What I am stating is that this is an expected backlash from fundamentalists. Atheists and secularists are just as bad in practically every respect as the bible-thumpers.

[Geno]

It's true, there are atheists out there who want just as badly to push their beliefs on children as the Christians that they complain about. Darunia's one of the most notorious I've seen thusfar.

[A Black Falcon]

All those people ruled by belief and illusions... it's sad... should school be saying 'Christianity is wrong' though? Probably not, but teaching evolution is most definitely not that. It is simply teaching the truth instead of an unprovable and completely unscientific religious concept invented to try to pretend like the truth (evolution) isn't true. (oh, and it's not like teaching evolution is saying 'God doesn't exist', it's just explaining how things came to be... they are completely unrelated issues.)

[Geno]

Yes, like I said, I'm not against the teaching of evolution. I believe in it to some degree. (Not so sure of this whole monkeys-to-humans thing, but I do believe that animals adjust to change over time.) You can believe in evolution and still believe in God. Religion is more flexible than some people allow it to be. You can give a scientific explanation for something and still be able to say "God made it that way." Saying "God made it that way" shouldn't be an excuse to not do scientific research though.

[A Black Falcon]

(Not so sure of this whole monkeys-to-humans thing, but I do believe that animals adjust to change over time.)

We didn't evolve from monkeys. However, if you go far enough back, us and current-day monkeys have a common ancestor... there's a difference.

[Geno]

As far back as hominids and Neanderthals and such, yes, the first human-like creatures were very similar to apes.

[Darunia]

They recently discovered feral apes in Africa implementing tools... a female ape used a stick to test how deep a stream was before crossing it. Given they're comparable intelligence and physical similarity, how anyone can deny our relation is... *scoff*... beyond me.

[Great Rumbler]

[Geno]

Well, hamsters are similar to gerbils, and rabbits to hares, and alligators to crocodiles. I see no reason to deny humans' similarity to apes.

[Great Rumbler]

Humans are made up of tiny single cell quasi-organisms so I guess you could say we have a lot in common with amoebas too...