(School) Board votes down evolution analysis

cnn/ap ^ | 3-10-06

[js1138]

placemarker

[LouAvul]

Muslims are to "arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush everywhere" (Sura 9:5) for them. They are to "seize them and put them to death wherever you find them, kill them wherever you find them, seek out the enemies of Islam relentlessly" (Sura 4:90). "Fight them until Islam reigns supreme" (Sura 2:193). "Cut off their heads, and cut off the tips of their fingers" (Sura 8:12). - If a Muslim does not go to war, Allah will kill him (Sura 9:39). He is to be told, "the heat of war is fierce, but more fierce is the heat of Hell-fire" (Sura 9:81). - A Muslim must "fight for the cause of Allah with the devotion due to him" (Sura 22:78) - Muslims must make war on the infidels (unbelievers) who live around them (Sura 9:123). - Muslims are to be "ruthless to unbelievers" (Sura 48:29). - A Muslim should "enjoy the good things" he has gained by fighting (Sura 8:69). - A Muslim can kill any person he wishes if it be a "just cause" (Sura 6:152). - Allah loves those who "fight for his cause" (Sura 61:3). Anyone who fights against Allah or renounces Islam in favor of another religion shall be "put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off alternative sides" (Sura 5:34). - Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him. Sahih Al-Bukhari (9:57) - Slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. (Koran 9:5) - Take him and fetter him and expose him to hell fire. (Koran 69:30-37) - I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them. (Koran 8:12) - They should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides. (Koran 5:33)

Sorry, there is no context in which the above can be rationalized.

BTW, what Bible passages are you talking about? Specifics, please. Book, chapter and verse.

[whattajoke]

Those who have food fights over Creationism, ID and evolution are missing a big point, which is: How little anyone really knows. We are smaller than a speck of dust in the universe, and profoundly ignorant.

Science (in this case, biology always admits where it "doesnt" know. Religion, OTOH, knows all.

[pleikumud]

As I said, it seems the public schools are designed to limit the imagination.
For example, the phrase "intelligent design" is ridiculed by some, because they just assume it means Creationism and a personal God who visited Earth, saved us, and watches over our football games and wars.
Minds are so closed that they fail to see that math, physics, chemistry...etc. are probably evidence of intelligent design. Where did this scientific intelligent design come from? From nowhere and from nothing? Maybe.

Maybe evolution on earth was altered by an advanced civilization from another planet. Beings who are ahead of us by a few million light years.

Many great discoveries were imagined first, proven later. Great discoveries are seldom made by counting beans or limiting what students are allowed to think about.

[Coyoteman]

As I said, it seems the public schools are designed to limit the imagination.

For example, the phrase "intelligent design" is ridiculed by some, because they just assume it means Creationism and a personal God who visited Earth, saved us, and watches over our football games and wars.

Minds are so closed that they fail to see that math, physics, chemistry...etc. are probably evidence of intelligent design. Where did this scientific intelligent design come from? From nowhere and from nothing? Maybe.

Maybe evolution on earth was altered by an advanced civilization from another planet. Beings who are ahead of us by a few million light years.

Many great discoveries were imagined first, proven later. Great discoveries are seldom made by counting beans or limiting what students are allowed to think about.

Well, since you provided a detailed response, I will try to respond in kind.

I believe the "intelligent design" we are seeing currently in the US is a direct outgrowth of the Supreme Court decision in the late 1980s (Edwards) which banned the teaching of "creation science" in schools. I believe they just came up with a new tactic. The Wedge Document seems to support this.

The folks who are promoting the "advanced civilization from another planet" are not the creationists, or even the IDers, but rather the SETI folks.

I see many of the CS/ID folks as saying, "We know the answers, science is just wasting its time and our money."

This is not where the scientific discoveries come from. You write that "Great discoveries are seldom made by counting beans or limiting what students are allowed to think about" but they are not made by saying "We already know all the important answers" either.

Look at what happened in the Muslim world since their heyday: They went from Ibn Khaldun to Bin Laden.

[Zeroisanumber]

Ibn Khaldun, now there was a great scholar.

[JamesP81]

LouAvul disparages *Creationists*.

No, he didn't. I defy you to prove it.

You accuse him of bashing *Christians*.

No, I didn't. I once again defy you to prove it.

Your post equates Creationism with Christianity. Creationists reject evolution. Ergo, in your mind, Christians reject evolution. Catholics don't. So, again in your mind, Catholics can't be Christians.

You are really reaching for straws here. The only thing I did was post a link to a study of the hebrew language that strongly suggested that Genesis was to be taken in literal form. I am aware that Catholics accept evolution; that's perfectly fine. I'm not speaking for them.

I find it amusing that you can somehow interpret everything I've said as a catholic bash without even using the word 'catholic' up until now. I honestly don't mean to be rude, but the fact is that I didn't bash catholics and if you can't see that, I can't help you. I've read your posts in other threads; you seem to be a pretty good guy. But I am flabbergasted that you somehow got catholic bashing from anything I've said.

[edsheppa]

edsheppa: LouAvul disparages *Creationists*.

JamesP81: No, he didn't. I defy you to prove it.

OK. Lou, in post 16 you said

Let the people who don't want to learn science learn babble instead (flat earth, 5000 year old earth, fossils are tools of satan, quantum mechanics is secular-speak for Jesus, etc). ... They'll have company in a few sandy countries.

Were you referring to Creationists or Christians?

[LouAvul]

That would be M203M4. He was directing that statement to me.

[edsheppa]

That would be M203M4. He was directing that statement to me.

Oh, for crying out loud. Sorry Lou.

Well, let me direct my question the right poster then.

M203M4, in post 16 you said

Let the people who don't want to learn science learn babble instead (flat earth, 5000 year old earth, fossils are tools of satan, quantum mechanics is secular-speak for Jesus, etc). ... They'll have company in a few sandy countries.

To whom were you referring, Creationists or Christians?

[M203M4]

To whom were you referring, Creationists or Christians?

Neither. I disagree strongly with most creationists about how God created. I agree with Saint Augustine's stance on science, and in particular with the Catholic church on the subject of creation. I refer to those who are proud to willingly remain scientifically ignorant - those who refuse to accept reality and new information unless it agrees with their preconceptions (this would also include environuts, socialists, communists, Islamic fundamentalists, racists, and on and on).

Reconciling science and faith is difficult. I refuse to reject the reality of God's creation as His tools have allowed me to experience it. There are other ways.

[edsheppa]

So you weren't referring to so-called biblical literalists? Hmmm, it sounded so apt.

But be that as it may, from your post, I take it you consider yourself Christian. Am I right in my interpretation that your post was not comparing "Christians to Mooselimbs" as JamesP81 would have? It seems unlikely as you'd then be comparing yourself to the "Islamic fundamentalists" which you disdain.

[grey_whiskers]

What are the facts? Again and again and again - what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what 'the stars foretell,' avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable 'verdict of history' - what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your only clue. Get the facts!

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

Somehow I think John Milton has more literary merit than Heinlein:

"Alas! what can they teach, and not mislead, Ignorant of themselves, of God much more, And how the World began, and how Man fell"--Paradise Regained, Ch. 4

And if you don't enjoy Milton, than howzabout Einstein:

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”--some website or other ;-)

The problem with concentrating solely on facts is that they remain stubbornly in the present indicative tense. Without any imaginative or moral grounding, what are to to make of, or to do *about*, the facts?

--Full Disclosure: if your 'facts' are wrong, your conclusions (and consequent actions) stand a fair chance of screwing you over...

Yep, just stirring the pot... Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

I believe they just came up with a new tactic. The Wedge Document seems to support this.

Sorry, everytime I see that I can't help but think of the phrase "Wedgie document".

...and then the mental image of Bob the Dinosaur from Dilbert arrives. (YANK!)

(Sorry, couldn't find the one I wanted, so I had to settle for this):

Cheers!

[M203M4]

Yes, biblical literalists. Like I also said earlier, I am comparing apples to firetrucks - both are red, and the discussion at hand is about redness.

One can be a biblical literalist and take everything on faith, not even attempting to search for material justifications for those beliefs. Not very "useful" of an approach, but it does not suffer from one significant problem I will address.

On the other hand, one can claim to be a biblical literalist and still search for material justifications, viewing the world through a prism, permitting lies and falsifications where they fit, and ignoring or hand-waving away opposing observations.

Both approaches involve an outright rejection of the some of the most beautiful and powerful components of God's creation of man - a subverting of our God given ability to experience all of creation, and gain understanding of it through our ability to reason.

In addition, the latter leads to believers resting their faith on the material (whether they admit it or not). They are trying to "bolster" or justify faith using the tools of science (reason and observation). It is as if their literal interpretation of the bible is not enough, that they have to prove the bible (is it that they think their stance is seen by others as ignorance, and would like to justify, in the eyes of non-literalists, articles of faith?). How would they react if their physical justification was later, in their own eyes, proven wrong? Would they even accept the outcomes of the same methodology they used if it resulted in an opposing observation?

There is NO material observation which could dislodge my faith in God, nor is there any need to justify my faith using the material. I use the bible to understand my relationship with God, and I use God's physical gifts to man to understand my relationship with his creation. I do not mix science and religion, though both ultimately have the same source.

[edsheppa]

Yes, biblical literalists.

OK, but when I said "Creationists" before you said no. Here is what the dictionaries say that word is generally accepted to mean

the literal belief in the account of creation given in the Book of Genesis

a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis

a person who believes that the world was made by God exactly as described in the Bible

Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

So it seems to me that, with that definition of "Creationist" (and it is what I meant), you were talking about them. Did you have some more expansive meaning in mind?

[M203M4]

I would like to think that Catholics are "creationists" as well. Atheistic evolution and evolutionary creationism are not the same thing. Like I said, I disagree strongly with most creationists about how God created (Young Earth Creationists *do not* represent the only brand of creationism). I also disagree with the atheists who claim that evolution disproves God.

[M203M4]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationist#Types_of_creationism

[edsheppa]

Gotcha, when I said Creationist, I meant it in the narrow "biblical literalist" way, and you interpreted it a much broader way. In fact, I'd say that with that broad definition there may be no non-Creationist Christians. Are there any who don't think that, at minimum, God created the universe in some way?

James, is that the issue with you too? I can see how my argument would make no sense if you took Creationism so broadly that it encompassed Christianity.

[gomaaa]

You are right. There are a LOT of very warlike passages in the Koran. This is a huge problem for more moderate muslims, who would like to to emphasize the peaceful parts at a time when so many people are angry and keep reading the more violent passages like those that you quoted. Of course, the Bible has its share of rather war-like passages itself, as well as the well-known, and in my opionion MUCH more important, exhortations of peace and fellowship.

Some classic examples of very warlike passages in the bible...

Deuteronomy 7:1-2: "... the seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them."

Joshua 6:21: "And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

Joshua 10:40-41: "So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon."

And a few of the more commonly quoted (and in my mind, very beautiful) peaceful passages:

Lu 6:27 But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 29 If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also;

Lu 6:35 But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.

Mt 5:39 But I say to you, Do not make use of force against an evil man; but to him who gives you a blow on the right side of your face let the left be turned. -Bible in Basic English

Lu 6:37 "Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven;

Religion is what you choose to make of it.