Creation theory vs darwin .. who profits?

i think i made a mistake here .. i thought the snowball-earth theory was part of the creationism-compaign, after some more reading, i found it is not, since the creationists seem to think earth is just some thousand years old.

so let me rephase my original question, i was particulary interested in the creationism-compaign, who is behind that, who is running that compaign, who pays the money for it and what are their political goals?. please read the question without the snowball-earth-theory.

>> I think the more scientific theory is proven over creationism, it takes power away from religion, and that benefits any secular society.  Religion has it's place, but governing the progress and direction of science is not part of it <<

absolutely agreed, but it seems that more and more people think creationism is proved. there are a lot of pseudo-scientific books and tv-documentations out there. and i have a feeling we sort of fall back to middle-ages, it seems to appear in a lot of school-books, not in religion-classes but in biology-classses in the us and recently in europe as well , uk,  poland ... we had a case here in germany, thanks god the creationist were not powerful enough (yet?) and it was taken out of the biology-classes.

do you see similar effects of such a creationst-compaing?

thats a very interesting point you made, that both are in a way right and wrong and not covering all our desire of answers. i agree with you that scientists dont cover everything either, but at least they say so, religious fundamentalists dont say that, they seem to know the truth, despite scientific facts..

what came to my mind when i read your post was: wasnt philosophy sopposed to fill that lack? what happend to philosophy? why do they hide in their dusty ofiices and dont lead public discussions, like i.e. the creationists?

your thought lead me to another question:
are we (enlighted non-beleivers) just beleiving in a new religion, which is called science? i saw a documentation on bbc about cosmology. a professor from one of the big universities in us said, that the snadard-model of unverse appears to be like a religion as well, it is all about interpretation. nobody saw a black-hole yet, we are just analyzing data .. a lot of 0's and 1's and try to make sense of it .. and the art of sciense is, to let everything look consistent, all this 0's and 1's. isn't that a bit like reading in the bible, its all about interpretation, isnt it?
but thats just half of the story. yet we have applications, that came from quantum-theory, which seem to work quite well, like lasers, dvd-players etc. i guess one shouldnt generalise here. the pythagoras looks quite right to me as well .. ;)
i guess the thing is, those scientific theories are just models, which seem in a simplified way, to behave quite the same as reality (whatever that is, our machine's-reality;)
but personally, i'm quite happy with a model, which leads to those applications..
i'm not happy with people, which appear to use science (or what they call science) to gain political power with indoctrination. i'm quite afraid of them ..

hey bob,

>> This is completely wrong.
>> I WILL BE WRONG.
>> standing on the side of truth and standing on the side of their religion, they choose their religion.
>> Religious people have abandoned their faithfulness to the truth
>> Religious people are willing to pretend

there is a lot of truth-right-wrong-absolutism and generalisation in your words.
i know a lot of religious people. not everybody is as naive and manipulable as you suggested.
there are religious astrophysics, it does not exclude each other and i dont think its fair to imply that, although it might be an easy answer and lets us atheist standing there quite enlighted and wise. but the nature of things is much more compicated and not that black and white. and i dont think we can overcome that problems with that sort of prejudices.

i think what helps most, is to try to understand what makes the other person tick, what are we afraid of, how can we come to agreements.

we ALL have to open our minds for each other, that does not mean we have to agree 100 %.

maybe we should exclude words like truth/right/wrong from this thread (and from our minds)

what i'm afraid of is how religious fundamentalists get stronger and stronger in all societies and even gain the power to maipulate school-books. we might lose civil-rights, we were fighting for. i particulary include the pope here for not allowing condoms .. gay rights/marriage in the us .. in germany we had a discussion about motherhood and what a *good* mother is, of course the christian-church participated in this .. poland had a very strong christian-right-wing government ..
that is what i'm afraid of ..

id love to hear some religious people what they are afraid of, particulary fighters for the creationism .. why seems science to be a threat?

jason:
>> It's very important to realise that the familiar world we see and experience every day is mental absraction, and product
>> of perception, and has no local existence outside us. That is not to deny there is an absolute reality - of course there is.
>> But this absolute reality cannot be known. All that can be known is our interaction with it.

great point . i totally agree .. i think what we can learn from that is to be carefully with words like thuth .. even if everything looks so consistent through my perception ..


behenderson:
>> as it was once thought, and that what can be done with adult stem cells is just as useful and far more
>> ethical than just using embryonic stem cells

hmmm i remember to hear the opposite all the time. if everything can be done with adult stem cells, then why is there such a great demand for it? i mean every scientist would be happy, if he/she wouldnt have to buy those expensive embryonic stem cells and could avoid the ethical problems coming with them? so there should be no need for it anymore, no demand for it, right?

>> what i'm afraid of is how religious fundamentalists get
>> stronger and stronger in all societies and even gain the
>> power to maipulate school-books.
>
>  Do you have any evidence to support this?

here is documentation about a case in dover, which was put on trial:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

we had a case in germany, i'm gonna try to find english material about it ..

>> Those responsible for trying to introduce it should have been sacked, in my opinion.

i think so too .. actually the members of the schoolboard who voted for it are not there anymore. they voted 6 pro and 3 contra intelligent design in dover for science classes. i dont remeber if they were fired or quit themselves. but good news is: they are not in schoolboard anymore .. so their system works .. ;)

if you have the time i recommend you to see the documentation .. its like a science-thriller with very interesting insides into science.
actually my answer of the why and for what aims was answered in that documentation. they say that some people are/were trying to re-christianize the society. i cant completely recall, i'm gonna have a look at it once more and post it here.

thanks for asking for evidence, that made me find the documentation .. :)

>> Dover is in Pennsylvania, a state founded by Quakers - a very uncompromising and conservative religious sect.

might be, but good news is, i saw a lot of very brave people in dover in that documentation fighting it ..

have a look at the documentary ..

1) teaching religious stuff in science classes is against the constitution of the usa.

2)  it was proven by the court, that Intelligent Design (creationism) is not a theory in terms of science. its religious belief, which is ok, but it has nothing to do in science-classes..

keep in mind that the judge was placed by bush, so one can consider that he had a lot of sympathy for the ID proponents. but even he could not follow the argumentation of them ..

>> There is no practical and applied skill that is acquired by studying Darwinism

thats not true .. again look at the documentary, it shows practical applications of darwins theory, i.e. genetics and immunization ..

>>
   Now if I held the works of Harriet Beecher Stowe for the light that shows the way and Disney makes a film out of it, and  I'd complain loudly about that film - which almost out of necessity trivializes - as an affront and an insult, I'd get the rubber room at the funny farm.
   My husband and I have major differences in television tastes. He likes to watch what I find abhorrent, yet we're still together after twenty five years. He's not a catholic and makes jokes about the pope. Is that an insult to my beliefs?  Perhaps I should poison his meals, blow my self up in the bedroom, or take some other drastic action. You'd all think me mad. And quite rightly so.
<<

nice one BigRat .. :)

>> Gregor Mendel was a creationist

can you give evidence for that

>> You absolutely do not need Darwinism to teach genetics or Immunization

of course not, you dont need pythagoras either .. so we can drop pythagoras as well, right? what argument is that?? the point was that genetics greatly confirmed darwins theory and immunization is one application based on his theory

>> Creationism was Cultural Indoctrination and so is Darwinism

again.. Creationism is something you can beleive in .. Darwinism is a scientific theory ..

>> not the teaching of real important science.  Put Mendel in the Curriculum instead and you have better science

unless you are an expert in that matter, we should leave that one to the scientist ..

>> If you really really wanted scientists who understood genetics and Immunization you
>> need to teach them Genetics and Cellular Biology.

this one as well ..

the "freedom of speech"-argument was ridiculous anyway .. nobody tells them not to say what they think. how many religious radio-stations exist in the usa? just ridiculous .. particulary from people who act against their own constitution ..

>> The faith industry benefits
>> but these organizations seem to be pretty secretive

can you elobotate on this. can you name companies? who actually is this industrie? parts of the republicans?
i think money is just one part of it .. it must be about power as well, right? can anybody name networks behind it ..
where is the money going to? political compaigns?
what does mc cain think about the New Earth Creationists?

>> You did not descend from Neanderthals and any time spent teaching you that you did was wasted
>> Darwins work is just a theory by itself with no practical application

gosh .. deja vu .. i almost beleive it .. can you repeat it once more ..

>> Just go to google maps and look for 'church'.

what i mean is the connection to politics, parties, organisations, the cash-flow ..

If you spend your time reading Christian comic books, you probably won't be grasping that much of modern science relies on the understanding of evolution.

Take, for example, agriculture.  The wheat and the cows you eat are the byproduct of applied evolution.  Breeding is simply a form of Darwin's natural selection where being tasty is a one of the selection criteria.  

Now evolution tends to take time but you can speed up this process by speeding up the rate of mutation just like these folks do:
http://www.barc.ernet.in/rcaindia/4_1.html

Interbreeding is another major component of evolutionary theories.  Humans specifically 'evolve' creatures by combining parts together.

This combining, of course, happens in nature as demonstrated by this:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/gm-food/dn2565

So here we have two camps of people.  One group, the scientists, are famous for actually figuring things out and actually demonstrating them.  They are the group that actually figured out that the Earth goes around the Sun (despite the death threats).  They demonstrated their grasp of biology by actually doing things like modifying bacteria to produce insulin.

The other group, the religious establishment, tends to be more famous for raping children, starting wars and discriminating against people.

It sickens me that in America that the infantile desire to pretend that humans are super-ultra special has led to the organized ignorance we find reflected in this thread.

hey bob .. thanks for putting those facts and excellent examples. however i dont think its appropriate to offend people/groups/countries, even if you think they are totally wrong. that way you invalidated your excellent point ..
btw. creationism is not only popular in the usa, in europe as well .. poland, uk, germany .. we had a case in frankfurt .. it didnt make it to the textbooks, but teachers did it on their own, thanks god they got fired ..

I should clarify that I am not a Creationist and if there were one even remotely interested in this board (which tends to be 10 Atheists talking amongst themselves with occasional interruption by other opinions) they could probably state their case substantially better than I.  So I regret to say that there is really nothing on this topic you can say which would offend me in even the slightest way, although some of you are free to continue to endeavor to do so if you like.  

>>Perhaps YOU could benefit from some basic evolutionary education?
Creationists would agree that we descended from Cro Magnons.  Cro Magnons, as I am sure you recall from your invaluable primary school education, are basically modern humans.  If there is a significant difference that puts forward the argument of evolution that I have missed please expand on that.  Then while you are at it let me know how that is somehow supposed to be overarching to the degree that if you didn't have that concept down, you would be absolutely lost if you tried to get a good grasp of immunology, cellular biology or genetics, all of which benefit far more from the concepts of methodology and testing taught by the Catholic Monk Mendel than they do from the process of creating a theory from substantially less evidence like Darwin.

>>can you repeat it once more
You seem to be under the impression that you rebutted it.  

hey behenderson .. that puts an interesting light on your points and breaks in a way the boring cycle and the usual pattern here.
so you are basically saying, even though you are not a 'creationist' you want the intelligent design idea to be tought on school in science classes?
do you have this point of view as a somewhat advocat of them or because you are convinced it is the right thing to do?
can you explain that a bit ..

behenderson says:
<<< Cro Magnons, as I am sure you recall from your invaluable primary school education, are basically modern humans.  If there is a significant difference that puts forward the argument of evolution that I have missed please expand on that. >>>

You argued that it doesn't matter that we know if we descended from Neanderthals or not.  Cro Magnons existed at the same time as Neanderthals, and genetics has shown that no modern human is descended from Neanderthals, so I was pointing out your error.  

Earlier, I used the Theory of Gravity as an example of an overarching scientific principal.  behenderson, do you think that gravity should be removed from the science curriculum because time could be better spent on other ideas?  Could you study geography, geology, astronomy, physics or other sciences without any understanding of gravity?

Evolution is only controversial  in a religious context.  It is completely non-controversial in a scientific context.

<<<Then while you are at it let me know how that is somehow supposed to be overarching to the degree that if you didn't have that concept down, you would be absolutely lost if you tried to get a good grasp of immunology, cellular biology or genetics, all of which benefit far more from the concepts of methodology and testing taught by the Catholic Monk Mendel than they do from the process of creating a theory from substantially less evidence like Darwin.>>>

For some reason, you seem to think that it's important that Mendel was religious.  The only relevant aspect of that is that he had the good luck and/or good character to not let his superstitions sabotage his scientific nature.  

It's no huge surprise that studies of things often occurs in abbeys: it's a place where there people tend to have a lot of idle time.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/mendel/mendel_1.htm
[[[While Mendel's research was with plants, the basic underlying principles of heredity  click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced that he discovered also apply to people and other animals because the mechanisms of heredity are essentially the same for all complex life forms.]]]

This is why the FOUNDATION of biology is important.  It is the engine that drives the process.  

The issue isn't whether you'd be "absolutely lost" if you ignored this engine, it is that it is the framework that biology rests upon.  

It's also a little silly that you pick on Darwin who at one point in time wanted to be clergy.

Also, although you claim not to be a creationist, you seem to be one.  I think you would say that mankind is not the product of evolution (aka creationist).

>>You did not descend from Neanderthals and any time spent teaching you that you did was wasted.

I argued that what had been taught was not correct and at best it might be correct today (and it might be wrong), Cro Magnons did not descend from Neanderthals, and there is no evidence that either descended from Australopithecus.  If the theory surrounding Neanderthals was wrong there is a lot more that could be wrong in the curriculum.

While I don't subscribe to Creationism and I am not a strong Political Religious Conservative, I can understand what they are bitching about.  A significant enough percentage of parents were concerned enough about the attack on Religion enough to Vote in GWB for two terms.  I disagree with the 'Religious' right on multiple issues and do not like Religion and Politics combined, (because in the end it is not politics that will become corrupted).  I tend to favor legislation that will make the electorate happy because that is how democracy works.  So when I look at Darwinism, taking the large percentage of concerned parents into account, it is strikingly clear to me that it is not even an important enough Scientific concept in the grand scheme of things to justify its place in the curriculum.  What was taught is known to be wrong and what is being taught 'Could' be right.  More importantly it is not an applied science with any real benefit to the future doctors or Drug Company students (or lack thereof) in the schools.  I think it's main attraction is because people love to argue with one another more than they love to talk about Science.  The importance of teaching kids Darwinism isn't worth a Bucket of Piss when compared to the need that American students have for learning meatier subjects and the actual useful applied sciences and mathematics that are woefully lacking.

The level of horror and panty twisting that has gone on in this thread at the mere mention of Intelligent Design as an alternate theory to Darwinism is absolute proof of my belief that what it really boils down to is not that you are concerned about education, because believe me that two paragraph inclusion of an alternate hypothesis is not going to prevent any kids understanding of Molecular Biology, Imunology or Genetics, as has been suggested in this thread.  What it is going to do is Give the GWB religious right group a big woody while throwing the Atheist Army into an all out hissy fit, while the reverse will do the reverse.  You are not commenting here because you are big education supporters, you just like to argue.  Do you really think that it is going to have some 'Overarcing' impact on education?  How much of a drooling twit of a child do you have if you believe that the mere mention of intelligent design is somehow going to undermine his whole scientific education?  

I'm sorry but this whole big shock and horror concern that you have is just not justified by the facts.  What really happened is that Religous speech was censored (for now) and eventually the court will shift and it will go the other way and you will be whinning here again.  There is a completely different and compromising solution to the whole mess.. but that wouldn't be any fun would it?

<<< You are not commenting here because you are big education supporters, you just like to argue.  >>>

Ah, Mr. Pot, have you met Mr. Kettle?

ikework > why such big efforts are put in the us (and recently in europe) to establish that idea/opinion about evolution?

I dunno. I expect you are trying to hit on creationism the intelligent way. I do not understand linkage to the snowball thread. I like idea of intelligent creation. As for the links to find out what people are saying about it, about why it is such a good idea and good science, it has all looked like so much ridiculous hogwash as if opponents presented their case. As you are addressing popularity, I suggest it is more about marketing something thought to apply to large audience. Astrology has better bassis and logic.

The other can be addressed more strongly, the 'science' minded view on evolution is pushed more to enhance the male ego and to provide excuse for not going to church. It reduces need to figure out which tabernacle to go to when.

> what me concerns is the religious touch and those religious proponents of it .. can somebody explain that?

the religious prefer to self promote as much as any other one caring to market self, promote self beliefs, and seek favor among the anonymous

ikework > in the creationism-compaign, who is behind that, who is running that compaign, who pays the money for it and what are their political goals?.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute_intelligent_design_campaigns

Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns are a series of related public relations campaigns conducted by the Discovery Institute which seek to promote intelligent design while discrediting evolutionary biology, which the Institute terms "Darwinism."

The Templeton Foundation, who once provided grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design has since rejected the Discovery Institute's entreaties for more funding,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Templeton_Foundation

The "Intelligent Design" controversy
In addition to suggestions that the foundation has a conservative/libertarian bent, controversy exists over the foundation's support for intelligent design proponents. In 1999, it provided a grant to the Discovery Institute, and has also funded the production of "The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery", a 2004 book supporting intelligent design by Guillermo Gonzalez, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute

In 2005, the foundation disputed suggestions that they promote intelligent design, saying that they may support individual projects that support intelligent design, but that they do not support the "intelligent design movement". The foundation has also funded critics of the movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement

The Discovery Institute consistently denies allegations that its intelligent design agenda has religious foundations, and downplays the religious source of much of its funding. In an interview of Stephen C. Meyer when ABC News'asked about the Discovery Institute's many evangelical Christian donors the institute's public relations representative stopped the interview saying "I don't think we want to go down that path."

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/47366?&print=yes
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/dover.html

Q You recognize this as a letter that you wrote to raise funds for the Foundation?

A Yes, I do.

Q And at the bottom of the first page, what it says is, "Our commitment is to see the monopoly of naturalistic curriculum in the schools broken. Presently school curriculum reflects a deep hostility to traditional Christian views and values, and indoctrinates students to this mindset through subtle but persuasive arguments."

Do you see that?

A I see that.

thanks sunbow .. stuff like that is excactly what i'm looking for .. couldnt read everything yet .. its night here, need some sleep first .. ;)

good night guys ..

>>Ah, Mr. Pot, have you met Mr. Kettle?
Touché

I am frustrated because I am a fiscal conservative who believes in progressive taxation and because of the Political scene being completely taken over by overzealous Atheists, uncompromising homosexuals and an oversexed Hollywood they have caused the rise of the Religious right who are lead by bigoted intolerant zionist absolutist hard liners who have completely eliminated the moderate middle from the political landscape.  

The truth is that there is a far larger number of otherwise moderate Christians who are voting for people who's beliefs they are not in very much agreement with because the alternative is people who's ideas they agree with even less on religious grounds.  The effort to rid the Parks of the Boy Scouts of America because they dared to have a Christian element to their program and did not allow homosexual scout leaders, and the plethora of court cases that have been fought recently to completely eliminate any mention of Christ from anywhere in the public arena have caused a backlash.  And the unfortunate result of this backlash is 8 years of GWB Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld a couple of the biggest morons to ever hold such high political office.

While not completely agreeing with their agenda I can see that there are a whole host of things that would tend to make a fundamental Christian vote for Republican even if he does tax the ever loving shit out of the poor while removing almost all taxation from richest 1% of the nation.  I see value in slowing the bus down a little bit and looking for reasonable areas where accommodation can be made.  Because even though the Democrats might think they have a mandate, if it were not for the fact that GWB was one of the most inept and corrupt presidents in the last century the Religious right would still be ruling the political landscape in this country and they aren't gone they're just resting.

So even though, I don't subscribe to a strict creationists views on the Origins of Man I can see where it is worth it to respect the beliefs of others who do believe in a strict creationist view, because they are a substantial enough body of voters to make it worth trying to not be confrontational against their viewpoint unless it is really important to do so.  And not because I would cow tow to anything they wanted, but because I think what they are looking for is really fairly reasonable.  A mention that Intelligent Design 'MIGHT' play a role is not an outlandish goal.  And your hysterics are a bit repelling.

So who profits??  Haliburton.  Clearly the Religious Right and those who are using them as tools for their own motives are the people who have profited the most and will continue to profit the most based on the outcome of this case which was solidly in favor of the prevention of any speech that is even remotely suggestive that there is a supreme being who might play a role.  Celebrate now.  Because when it comes time to put more judges onto the bench the Religious Right will rise again along with all the baggage that comes with them.

I disagree with you softly but combined with the cost that the last 8 years have brought I find you're pet peaves to be too expensive to put up with.  I believe that the Democratic Atheists need to be right has had a catastrophic result for the nation, and I also believe that any 'Religious' person who can overlook torture is not a Religious person at all, but rather someone who is hiding under a veil of religious belief to do evil because that is what makes them tick.  

So your answer is to give the religious right have whatever they demand or they'll band together and ruin things for everyone?  There's a word for that: terrorism.

I'm sorry, but preventing the passing off of wishful speculation as scientific fact is a battle worth fighting, and if you're going to present alternative 'theories' in a science class, you'd better present ALL alternative theories.  I don't see the ID'ers pressing for teaching the Hindu ideas behind the cyclical nature of the universe, or the Buddhist ideas of reincarnation.

As for secularists being a big threat to Christianity and preventing the free practice of religious faith, sounds like a lot of whining to me...
oppressedkv6.gif

Terrorism?   Do you think or just type?   That's called Democracy,

I guess whatever you don't like is what ruining is.  Darwinism is wishful speculation being presented as fact, and very wrongly for several years and only possibly correctly now.. Much ado about nothing, one judge who failed to correctly interpret that the anti establishment clause was meant to prohibit the creation of a state religion not muzzle all speech that even hints at the possibility of a god to the preference of secular speech.  Whoever they are they will be replaced eventually.

>Darwinism is wishful speculation being presented as fact,

It's not wishful speculation. Darwinism is a theory or collection of theories concerning evolution and natural  selection, that is supported by the evidence of fossils.

Perhaps what you object to is the way science is taught in schools? I can agree that more emphasis should be given to explaining what science is, and what it's limitations are.

Beliefs in stories belong to another subject. Creationism can be taught in religious eductation.

If you reject natural selection, go an live a jungle somewhere. Don't be a hypocrite and use the appliances of science. After all, cars, aircraft, computers etc...it's all just wishful thinking. Go live a jungle and then you'll soon know what natural selection is.

>>That's called Democracy

To be precise it isn't. We don't have Greek Democracy but Representative Democracy, and that point you missed with my Dutch analogy. Yes, we DO have government censorship and often for very good reasons. We make things like race hatred illegal. If the Dutch film maker had made a film about how immigrants from Surinam were stupid negros he'd rapidly find himself in prison. We *could* make things like insulting religion illegal. To do so we'd need a good reason and we need to be able to define exactly what we want to make illegal. Hence my Beecher Stowe example.

>> The importance of teaching kids Darwinism isn't worth a Bucket of Piss when compared to the need that American students have for learning meatier subjects and the actual useful applied sciences and mathematics that are woefully lacking.

If this is anything actually like reality, it is a sorry state indeed. One of the problems Germany has is it's PISA rating. Depending on which region (Bundesland) you're PISA rating varies. This is because education is a regional matter and not a national matter. So far the regions jealously guard their rights to the detriment of a national curriculum. A problem Belgium had in the 1840s was that all schooling was in the hands of catholic priests. This ended up with the State nationalizing all churches - indeed churches are state property even today. The problem is that too much local control is bad since it does not respond to national trends. With increased mobility of workers this is important. Of course publically electing the dog catcher might have been a good idea in the 1790s, but is it today? Are local school boards really necessary in this day and age? Particularly if they have the power of changing the curriculum?

>>I am frustrated because I am a fiscal conservative who believes in progressive taxation and because of the Political scene being completely taken over by overzealous Atheists, uncompromising homosexuals and an oversexed Hollywood they have caused the rise of the Religious right who are lead by bigoted intolerant zionist absolutist hard liners who have completely eliminated the moderate middle from the political landscape.  

The real problem is the Democratic Party's total inability to define a reasonable political program which would appeal to the middle political ground. It is not the only one - the Social Democrats in France and Germany both have exactly the same problem, which is why a somewhat charismatic Segolene Royal lost out to a hard-liner like Sarkozy. It is also the reason why the SPD in Germany are loosing more and more votes to the newly formed "Linke". It is why Kerry lost the election. The only thing he could say when presenting himself nationally for the first time was "reporting for duty" and to salute. What duty? What's he going to do? You can see the same sort of thing with Obama and Clinton, although Clinton has been a little more specific than Obama. It seems to me that nobody has any clue where the country is heading - they all just want to sit in the White House and wait for something to happen. Political argument is not quo vadis but who raised or lowered taxation on what sector of the economny. Peopls fears of having a job, or getting one, raising their kids and paying the bills at the end of the month are completely IGNORED. Instead we are waging some war on non-descript Islamic Fundamentalists (who are only to be identifed as having long black beards and are evil) or we are worrying about whether homosexual "married" men are allowed to adopt children or not (not whether children need adoption but whether such men have such rights)
   Still I firmly believe that things can only get worse before they get better.

<<<I am frustrated because ... taken over by overzealous Atheists>>>
I, for one, am solely interested in a level playing field.  I have as much right to my beliefs as you do and I have a right to have a government that represents me.  The goverment has no business putting "In God We Trust" on money just like they have no business putting "In Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu We trust" or "Belief in Gods is Silly" on money.

<<<...uncompromising homosexuals...>>>
This is precisely the same as "uppity niggers".  When you are being unjustly discriminated against you shouldn't compromise.


<<<...and an oversexed Hollywood...>>>
People have always tried to police what other people think and say.  While I agree that there are cultural problems associated with letting people indulge their tastes, any approach needs to be RATIONAL.  

<<<...have caused the rise of the Religious right who are lead by bigoted intolerant zionist absolutist hard liners who have completely eliminated the moderate middle from the political landscape.  >>>
Thankfully, the last seven years has led America to see what happens when you put idiot ideologues in charge.  


<<<The effort to rid the Parks of the Boy Scouts of America because they dared to have a Christian element to their program and did not allow homosexual scout leaders>>>
You blame the wrong side of the equation.  

All rationalists want is to make decisions on a fair and rational basis.  It's terrible to discriminate against someone for something that they have no control over.  This covers both religious and gender preference.  It's idiotic to think it is a coincidence that both your parents are Christian and you happen to be Christian too.  It's idiotic to think that you didn't choose to be heterosexual but that gay people chose to be gay.

A group that isn't neutral with respect to religion should not enjoy the same government support as one that does.  It constitutes 'establishment'.

I have no big problem with the Boy Scouts.  Parents have an agenda of feeling that their children safe when they send them somewhere.  An advantage of having heterosexual scout leaders is that it rules out pedophiles that have a gender preference.  Is that a compelling reason to discriminate against gay scout leaders?  Maybe, but the argument is contaminated by bigotry.

If you are teaching a

<<<...and an oversexed Hollywood...>>>

well sex is an important part of people's life, and i dont want to miss it .. whereas violence is not .. i see more violence in hollywood-movies than sex .. i dont understand why christian fundamentalists like you behenderson are so focused on that ..

why dont you rather focus on that:

* You shall not make for yourself an idol
* You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God

that'd be honourable .. i think it worths it ..

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. "

- Thomas Jefferson

This was a good idea (aside from the snowball sidetrack).  In effect, you are saying:

      Follow the money.

...which is quite often a good approach when trying to ascertain motive.  

Just tally me with the folks who recognize the obvious in their posts above:  Religions lose power and funding when people stop believing in God.  It is in their best interests to argue against scientific principles that appear to make God unnecessary.

On the science side, there is no profit motive.  No particular organization stands to gain when people begin thinking clearly and removing "...then there was a miracle..." from their "logical" deductions.  Basically, "god skeptics" argue against religious dogmatism because it is important to battle illogic and generic stupidity.  The scientific method of building knowledge from observation and experimentation is fantastically effective.  It is responsible for health, long life, and every modern convenience from flush toilets to computers.

The "time of God" was hundreds of years ago when people had little education, died at age 25, and had to rely on myths and superstitions and words written in old books.  That time is passing, and is all but gone -- but the religious believers don't want to let it go.

Perhaps you need to look up oppression in the dictionary, or better yet talk to people who have really been oppressed.  A failure to remain mute by litigation does not qualify as oppression.

An attempt by the minority to force the majority to either accept Homosexual scoutmasters or be kicked out of the Public parks using legal means is short sighted.  The clear remedy for that is to change the courts.  That premise got GWB elected and if it were not for the fact that he supported torture he would still have enough Christian support to have appointed a successor.  He lost a lot of Christians with the Iraq war and even more with the poor leadership that resulted in the Torture of possible enemy combatants/possible unlucky wrong place wrong time bastards.  

Take a look at the campaigns of the people who won the mid-term elections and it becomes clear that there is not a single one who didn't at least give a good deal of lip service to their beloved Christian roots.  In a Democracy the majority will not continue to be muzzled for long.  The uncompromising militant homosexual strategy of continuing to count on your party to go down fighting so that you can have your marriage be legally refereed to as a marriage and not a civil union is both self centered and short sighted.  I am in favor of Homosexuals having the right to be married, but I am not in favor of a whole party being weakened in the uncompromising need to have the semantic that you would like be forced down the throat of an unwilling electorate.  Likewise the continued adversarial stance that the Atheists are taking towards the religious will also take a toll and before you know it the courts will be packed with Judges who will make decisions that are substantially worse than what could have been available through reasonable accommodation.  The problem is that these same judges will also be pro big business, anti environmentalism and anti social justice, so once again a whole party will suffer under the adversarial relationship that is set up by a handful of extremists who believe that the world should be litigated to suit their personal tastes and should not reflect the will of the majority as a democracy is going to always do.  Perk up your ears during the general election because Hillary or Barak are going to sound a lot like a Baptist Revival meeting out on the campaign trail.

If you are teaching a beginning class in fluid dynamics, the curriculum is fairly well set.  These are things that are well studied.  There is mountains of research that it is based upon.  

If there is an alternate explanation for aspects of fluid dynamics, when do you teach it?

Obviously there should be a point:
- It should be supportable by research
- It should be a useful theory for predicting phenomena
- It should be rational

Intelligent Design isn't actually a theory at all.  It is an objection to the main stream theories.  It's also a very reasonable objection.

Intelligent Design, in a nutshell, is:
  "To many it appears that the structure of many things is inconsistent with natural forces".
 
That's fine. It's sort of similar to:
  "If the Big Bang is correct, we be able to observe more mass than we do"
Similar, but basically subjective.

Christianity, for example, DOES provide a theory.  But if you use any generic evaluation criteria, it completely fails:
- It should be supportable by research
No, it is contradicted and fails every physical test
- It should be a useful theory for predicting phenomena
No, it consistently provides bad predictions
- It should be rational
No, it is religion

behenderson > Darwinism is wishful speculation being presented as fact, and very wrongly for several years

Agreed. It was initially half ok and half BS. I could do without the latter. The former is acceptable to majority of those adhering to modern religions.

Jason210 > Darwinism is a theory or collection of theories concerning evolution and natural  selection, that is supported by the evidence of fossils.

Disagreeing, that the natural selection part with human adaptability (from Darwin) is well enough, but the extensions (by Darwin also) to prove superiority is a bit out of whack like the problem with Adolphian blue eyed blonde males being the chosen ones of the gods

> you object to is the way science is taught in schools?

surely I object to it being irrelevant to kids and without the use of entertainment. Good teachers are thwarted.          :(

> emphasis should be given to explaining what science is, and what it's limitations are.

For sure, limitations are present and need to be known for perspective. It is not gods religion - at least as taught of texts

> If you reject natural selection, go an live a jungle somewhere.

Don't, but consider the advantages from our handicapped

BigRat > We *could* make things like insulting religion illegal.

Naw, best to have the jokes we can laugh at, levity helps and the tellers are often speaking first hand. Promoting hate though should be criminal. We can accept our own failures, right? At least in hindsight?

> Still I firmly believe that things can only get worse before they get better.

(surprised) I thought you had more optimism on things like Iran. I think they remain same, it is only better or worse for some particular part of the world we look at at the moment. it is also like we do not learn from mistakes, while the bible appears to document them pretty fair.

BobSiemens >  When you are being unjustly discriminated against you shouldn't compromise.

I would agree but I think those folks are just making noise to get what is undeserved.

ikework > an important part of people's life, and i dont want to miss it

:-))         :-))

> that'd be honourable .. i think it worths it ..

:-))         :-))

Graphixer > - Thomas Jefferson

Tom's kewl

A lot of this could be (unwarranted) hullaballoo in places like Kansas and Atlanta.

Christians consistently confuse fascism and morality.

Morality is what YOU do, it isn't what about you try to make others do.

This tends to be what "values voters" tend to actually be talking about.

They are never saying things like:
  I promise that if I am homosexual, I'll make sure not to act on it.

No, their perverted position is:
  I'm not gay so I will condemn anyone who is and discriminate against them.

Promising to say a little prayer every time you handle money is a fine thing to do.  
Insisting on pushing your beliefs onto others by making their money say something they don't believe in is fascism not morality.

Christians like to tell themselves that others discriminate against them.  
The obvious truth here is that it isn't true.  What Christians call discrimination is simply a rejection of fascism.  

It's perfectly reasonable to have a Hindu child.  If the park system is preferentially used by an organization, that Hindu child shouldn't be forced subjected to Christian fascism, bigotry, and immorality.

The government belongs to Caesar: F off.

> it isn't what about you try to make others do.

Yeah. Pray if you want, worship flag if you want, Believe earth was created a short century ago if you want, but that evangelizing to make me conform to all that is unnecessary brag rights to an all-seeing god. The world wasn't created that long ago, it happened last night.         ;-P

ikework > Creation theory vs darwin .. who profits?.

Profiteering is more by politicians who want to make hay on some obscure issue for own gain when they'll never be caught lifting a finger to help you in any manner at all. It is very profitable to sell the ten commandments in large print, for those who cannot read and won't open their own bible. This is at expense, cost, of those dammed scientists professing religion of darwin, who can be blamed for everything like pollution and unemployment, and never speak in terms relevant to the rest of the public.

BobSiemens > Christians like to tell themselves that others discriminate against them

Umm, how about "some christians"? I exaggerate at times myself.

>  Hindu child shouldn't be forced subjected

.... to anything, same for indians, aborigines, immigrants, slaves, women, children, indigents, handicapped, and especially those peaceful natives. We could do well to learn from others

I guess the real answer to the original question of who profits is the extreme right wing of the Republican party.  They have been extraordinarily adept at keeping the Atheistic crusade against religious expression alive in the court system and in the media.  Whenever religious expression is muzzled they get bucketloads of cash and I am certain that more than one controversy has been cooked up and implemented by Right Wing strategists.  As a result of this Big Business gets a W in their score column as well, and the Military Industrial Complex makes out like bandits.  

You also benefit because based on the tenor of this question you enjoy a good wailing and moaning and gnashing of the teeth over the horror of it all when you encounter a fairly benign issue and the controversy of it all is a bit of a thrill.  The overarching importance of confrontational curriculum gives you a bit of a boost even if it doesn't really provide much of a tool set for students who wish to pursue the sciences as a career.

The will of a Democracy will never be thwarted by a changeable court system.  So that which becomes law solely by the virtue of court decsions will be short lived unless it becomes popular or forgotten.

The Administrations fondness for torture lost them the Catholic vote during the mid-term elections and probably destroyed their fund raising opportunities with the formerly invigorated Christian base.  So there will be attempts to create all kinds of court cases where the Christian majority is muzzled and disenfranchised.  It will take a while but once the torture issue is handled and the country moves onto other issues like whether or not Foster parents can bring their children to Church or some equally ridiculous issue that tries to make faith illegal then the electorate will become re-invigorated and the march to change the Courts will move on.  Ceasless and Repeated confrontation favors the majority.

Whenever this subject comes up, Christians have two choices: admit their fascism or lie.

<<<They have been extraordinarily adept at keeping the Atheistic crusade against religious expression alive in the court system and in the media.>>>

Please provide an example of a reasonably large, non-fascist "crusade against religious expression" or just admit that in lieu of an actual argument you are lying.

Boy Scouts of America being kicked out of Public Lands..
The example here
Your own hatred towards your father that gets translated into non-stop full time job level vitriol directed towards all things religious.. (although the last one was just bad manners combined with freedom of speech)

<<<Your own hatred towards your father...>>>

I get along fine with my own father, thank you.  Nice try though.


<<<Boy Scouts of America being kicked out of Public Lands.>>>

You might actually have just said "Why yes, I am lying here".  Possibly you are just poorly informed because you listened to Christians (they have a tendency to lie).

This is the actual story:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20030731-1629-aclu-scouts.html
Judge says use violates separation of church and state

In a nutshell, it's unconstitutional for an organization that discriminates on the basis of religion to have a sweetheart deal with the government.

It's obvious that they religiously discriminate.  Anyone who who follows anything other than 1 god (0 or 2+) is not allowed full participation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall_v._Orange_County_Council
They were on their way to earning the Bear Badge which included, in one of its four advancement areas, a religious component that asserted the existence of God and required the practice of one's faith as "taught in your home, church, synagogue, mosque, or religious fellowship,"[1] as well as a pledge asserting their duty to God which was included in the opinion of the court:

--------------------

So again, you are on the side of evil and I am on the side of good.  
I am against religious discrimination, you are for it.

I must be thinking of another 'intellectually sincere' rambling incoherent son who has expressed his hatred towards his religious father while he was growing up and failing to be aprectiated.  That other guy posts a lot in here too.  You are a troll who apparently has enough free time to  spend hours upon hours in this TA doing little else but trying to get a rise out of people and being negative.  Your negativity brings out the worst in me and no interaction with you will ever be even slightly worhtwhile, so I really will make a point of ignoring you in the future.  

<<<I must be thinking of another 'intellectually sincere' rambling incoherent son who has expressed his hatred towards his religious father while he was growing up and failing to be aprectiated.  >>>

Obviously the word 'another' is inappropriate since I never said that.


<<<You are a troll who apparently has enough free time to  spend hours upon hours in this TA doing little else but trying to get a rise out of people and being negative.  Your negativity brings out the worst in me and no interaction with you will ever be even slightly worthwhile, so I really will make a point of ignoring you in the future.  >>>

I'm guessing that it never crossed your mind to actually be honest and admit you were wrong or lying?

wrong or lying? neither and the third grade approach from a full time troll just isn't worth the time..

Either everyone in the world lies to you or you just have a persecution complex, because you can't seem to stop yourself from repeating that statement with multiple people over and over and over again.  I just don't see that worthless commentary being used by anyone else and I see you use that exact commentary over and over and over again.  It is just annoyance over substance and using bad manners rather than using actual interesting content.  You are a hindrance to otherwise interesting conversations.

My point, if you weren't so obtuse that you were incapable of grasping it, was that when Christians are disenfranchised by the courts rather than Democracy, or popular support, they will change the courts.  And that is precisely what the future holds.  The judiciary has already been heavily influenced and it will continue to be heavily influenced.  To rebut that you show a link to a court case where the Courts have done just that combined with the startling revelation that you also agree with the courts.  Unfortunately for you the electorate does not agree with you and until judges like that are gone the electorate will continue to elect those people who will replace them.  The statement that I made 'The will of a Democracy will never be thwarted by a changeable court system.  So that which becomes law solely by the virtue of court decisions will be short lived unless it becomes popular or forgotten.' is still just as true.  And there might be interesting conversations to be had on that topic but you are not capable of interesting discourse

The problem is Bob is that you are a rude repetitive troll with way way too much free time (why is that??) and you are unpleasant to participate in a conversation with, and while it is possible that there are others who would be capable of an interesting dialog on that topic, you are not one of them.  That is my final word for you and for now, to quote B.S(coincidence?) F off.

Sunbow / Henderson

Now I'm confused. I'm not familiar with the term Darwinism.  I've always assumed it was just a synonym for natural selection. I don't remember leaning any stuff at school other than natural selection.

Sunbow
>but the extensions (by Darwin also) to prove superiority is a bit out of whack like the problem
>with Adolphian blue eyed blonde males being the chosen ones of the gods

I didn't know anything about these extensions. For me Darwin is important for his contribution regarding the theory of natural selection. If he had other weird theories, that doesn't diminish his basic theory, which is scientific. Like Edison's contibutions to applied science aren't diminished by his last work, which was to try and build a receiver that could pick up "ghosts"...

A lot of geniuses lose it like that...

>>It will take a while but once the torture issue is handled and the country moves onto other issues like whether or not Foster parents can bring their children to Church or some equally ridiculous issue that tries to make faith illegal then the electorate will become re-invigorated and the march to change the Courts will move on.

That is precisely what I meant by "things can only get worse before they get better."

>>You are a troll who apparently has enough free time to  spend hours upon hours in this TA doing little else but trying to get a rise out of people and being negative.

He may be negative and he may spend hours here, but the rest of that sentence borders on rudeness. Please desist.

Last night on German television at the announcement of Hilary Clinton's wins, ex-Chancellor Helmut Schmidt was invited to comment. He said that he had read all the speeches of McCain, Obama and Clinton (which I believe he really has!) and for the life of him he could not ascertain what any of them stood for. He went on to say that whoever becomes the next president will have a big job to do. Namely to remind Americans of their Christian heritage, their independance of the State from religion and to get them to respect Islam as a co-religion to Christianity. Tall order it seems.

>> Creation theory vs darwin .. who profits? <<

Well its the Age of Science/ Technology so Scientist Profits.
Also we profit too, in Knowledge.

Creation Theory is to keep those funds coming to Pseudo-Scientist and Religious Leaders.
Their Profits have been cut a bit Short.

-Muj ;-)

Our Story So Far

A much repeated lie was repeated once again:
"extraordinarily adept at keeping the Atheistic crusade against religious expression alive in the court system"

When asked for an instance, a vague charge was leveled.

When investigated via neutral sources, it turned out that the vague charge was 180° wrong.  The case was a court ruling that was specifically AGAINST religious discrimination.

So, what was our errant but heroic accuser's reaction?
[A] Valiant admission that he was wrong/lying
[B] Embarrassed silence at being caught
[C] Attack the person and family of the person that actually present the facts which disproved the claim.

Well, readers, I don't want to give it away.  Let's just say that the accuser re-demonstrated his character.


<<<My point, if you weren't so obtuse that you were incapable of grasping it, was that when Christians are disenfranchised by the courts rather than Democracy, or popular support, they will change the courts.>>>

You are right, of course.  In a war between justice and evil, sometimes evil wins.

===================

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

You are bothered and that is a good thing.  This is how overt discrimination against black people ended.  When someone publicly made a bigoted remark, they came to expect that they would be called on it.  Eventually they learned to keep their mouths shut and the bigotry was much less able to be spread.

Am I an anti-bigotry troll?  I can live with that.

<<<Creation Theory is to keep those funds coming to Pseudo-Scientist and Religious Leaders.
Their Profits have been cut a bit Short.>>>

I don't think that these people operate on a money motive.  Their view of God is very important to them and many simply place that importance above being intellectually honest.  There's also a large segment who don't question their circular logic.

The idea that humans are just another species really bothers some people.  It's not surprising that they would prefer to believe that they are immortal, have a special place in the universe, and have a God-like image.  I suppose I'd like to believe that too.  

You cannot distinguish between facts and opinions.  Your use of the word 'Lying' to describe anything which conflicts with your notion of what your preffered course of action is shows a disturbed individuals view of the world.  When you say things that does not make those things the truth and when others understandably disagree with your wapred vision of the world it does not mean that they are lying.  Your brain is not a source of goodness and so disagreement does not constitute evil.  That is pathological and the fact that you cannot distinguish between opinions and facts is not a good sign.

The commentary that you have recieved from me, which duplicates commentary that you have also recieved from person after person after person is directed at the fact that you are rude, rambling and not worth spending time discussing anything with.  In this thread there are several people who disagree with me, so disagreement is not my issue, it is your manners and your demeanor and your lack of anything interesting to say.  Glad that you are happy as a troll now find someone who is interested in having a dialog with you.

@Bob

>> I don't think that these people operate on a money motive.  Their view of God is very important to them and many simply place that importance above being intellectually honest.  There's also a large segment who don't question their circular logic. <<

Honestly would you believe that? Its has always been about Money / Power. If someone came with a new idea to put you out Business, wouldn't you fight back. That is what religious extremes do.
The way they get away is because these people are funded by People Who Believe in a God and think the money is for Gods Cause. The Solution, either kill the Product or Customer.. (Well not Literally ;-D )

-Muj ;-)

behenderson said to BobSiemens:
<<< That is my final word for you... >>>

Look out mate, I think your pants are on fire!

The behenderson vs BobSiemens flamewar has gotten so virulent, that I had to re-read the earlier parts of this thread to find its genesis.

One of behenderson's repeated points is summarized in this quote:

 >>How much of a drooling twit of a child do you have if you believe that the mere mention
     of intelligent design is somehow going to undermine his whole scientific education?

In effect, he says that it's no big deal to allow teachers to inject a god theory into the curriculum; that doing so would not detract from the learning of math, genetics, chemistry, and so forth.

I have to take strong issue with that sentiment.  You can't teach a child to use logic in the pursuit of knowledge if you allow such a glaring exception to be taught.  The fundamental premise of Creationism is "...then there was a miracle; God made it happen."  

What if we allowed the same type of thinking in math or chemistry or medicine?   There is no need to figure out why people die from disease; no need to learn about germs, sterilize operating rooms, discover anitibiotics... People die from the plague because God wills it.   Electricity breaks water into two gasses because of magic.  The best way to fix the bug in your computer program is to just pray harder and God will intervene.

I just finished a book by Michael Shermer "Why Darwin Matters."  He sums it up nicely:

     Darwin matters because evolution matters. Evolution matters because science
    matters. Science matters because it is the preeminent story of our age, an epic saga
    about who we are, where we came from and where we are going."

The kind of muddy thinking behind "Intelligent Design" is the very antitheses of science.  It should not be taught for the same reason that Mental Telepathy or Water Divination or bigotry or Santa Claus Theory or Holocaust Denial should not be taught.  It is mind pollution, plain and simple.

<<<Its has always been about Money / Power. If someone came with a new idea to put you out Business, wouldn't you fight back. That is what religious extremes do.>>>

People tend to believe what they'd like to believe.  

Yes, people like money and power, but if you asked, for example, Sadr "Are you causing trouble in Iraq because you like power or because it is the right thing to do?", I'd bet he'd say (and not lie) "Because it is the right thing to do".

If there were no money or power involved, I do agree that much of religion would dissipate.

Well Dan you have to expect that there are going to be points made that you disagree with.  If I weren't posting the thread would just be a choir of people who all agree with each other.  If a dissenting opinion being expressed justifies the childish Liar Liar you are evil responses then posting in this forum really has little value because it is not a conversation where opposing viewpoints will be discussed and explored but a masturbatory agreement fest where everyone basically espouses the same opinion.  If that is what you are into have a ball.  Bob's a rude troll and I pointed that out.  I have to say that I am surprised that someone who so frequently plays the Devils advocate and takes extreme positions would be opposed to hearing an alternate viewpoint.  You would ban the intelligent design passages, that's a viewpoint.  You think that dissenting viewpoints are lies or evil then that's a problem.  

I personally don't believe that Creationism is how it all got started, but I have an issue with the the idea that any opposing viewpoint should be made illegal when it is held by a large enough voting block to be primarily responsible for an almost a decade of significant legislative control of the country.  There seems to be a general feeling that the Religious right is old news.  But as long as the mere suggestion that their viewpoints might have merit is made illegal in the public arena, and as long as Boy Scouts are kicked out of public lands unless they agree not to have any religious aspect to their program then the Religious Right will continue to be a presence.

If a dissenting opinion is enough to justify rude behavior then feel free to talk amongst yourselves and live under the impression that everyone agrees with you because those who don't choose not to talk to you.  But read the paper because the courts will continue to be changed and an annoying alliance between big business, the Military industrial complex and disaffected Christians will continue to thrive.

Just to be clear, it's just the lying and bigotry that I object to.

I welcome the different points of view (as long as they are not bigoted and are based on truth).

>> People tend to believe what they'd like to believe.   <<
So I will ;-)

>> Sadr "Are you causing trouble in Iraq because you like power or because it is the right thing to do?", I'd bet he'd say (and not lie) "Because it is the right thing to do". <<

There is a difference between a person who ifights n his own country and a person who fight a thousands of miles aways. Beside that is the wrong question to ask him. The questions should be asked: "Where are you getting the money from?",  "Why do you have so much Support?" and "Why did you decide to have a cease-fire with the USA?"

If you get the answers out, I am sure you will see, where the money & power lies.

-Muj ;-|

Dan
>Darwin matters because evolution matters. Evolution matters because science
>matters. Science matters because ...

:-)

Whenever I speak of Darwin I'm referring to natural selection, evolution. Not any wild ideas he might have had just before he snuffed it.

behenderson,
It felt good to write my last post, and I'd not have enjoyed that pleasure without your dissenting opinion as a foil.  Thanks.

I agree that rudeness can only harm these discussions.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Rather than fight the right-vs-wrong of evolution (everyone here has already formed a fixed opinion), I'd like to hear more on the specific sub-issue of the question posed:  

    Who profits by the *existence* of this argument?

Perhaps the answer is "everybody."  
We all enjoy a rousing debate so both sides profit (in a non-monetary way) when there is a discussion.

From a political standpoint, again both sides profit from *this and other divisive issues.*  By polarizing the populous, each side gets a loyal following who will contribute time and send money to leaders who espouse a matching opinion.  Neither side casts down the gauntlet of "Resolved: Burger King Makes Better French Fries than McDonalds" because there is no political profit in that issue.

Nobody profits from name-calling debates like these.  We're all more solidly cemented in our opinions because of them, and having closed minds make us all a bit worse off.

>> Who profits by the *existence* of this argument? <<

No one ;-(

But in reality it is different. Are we actually moving forward or standing still.
Does evolution help us in the long run or do we fall short.
So many questions so little time..

-Muj ;-|

@dan

your post was beautifully pure and logical.. without hate and insults .. just pure logic .. beautiful

https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/23206297/Creation-theory-vs-darwin-who-profits.html?anchorAnswerId=21054934#a21054934

thanks :-)

>>fundamental premise of Creationism is "...then there was a miracle; God made it happen."  
and
>>The kind of muddy thinking behind "Intelligent Design" is the very antitheses of science.

I don't quite see how one necessarily leads to the other. My upbringing was in a catholic boarding school run by nuns. Naturally Creation is as in the bible, but, and that's a BIG BUT, our headmistress was a fan of Teilhard de Chardin, who, as a paleontologist and catholic philosopher had always agrued (with Rome's disapproval) that although God had created the universe he had given us free will and the curisoity to investigate it. This only precludes that you are examining God's work and you have to use the head God gave you.

Where "muddy" thinking comes in, and it does not just apply to this area but throughtout human experience, is to hold Scripture to be infallible and accurately interpretable. You only need to look into the detailed history of the Church of Rome to see how catholic philosophy has changed these last two thousand years. Nobody holds the philosophy of St.Augustine as completely valid - we have moved on.

<<<From a political standpoint, again both sides profit from *this and other divisive issues.*  By polarizing the populous, each side gets a loyal following who will contribute time and send money to leaders who espouse a matching opinion.>>>

I don't agree.

If the creationist injection into education stopped, who would get less money from the non-creationist side?  No one, I think.  The amount of money to scientists would INCREASE.

There's no reason why creationism should not be taught in schools - as part of the curriculum in the subject of religious education/philosophy. It is a concept and as such worthy of discussion in that subject.

>> There's no reason why creationism should not be taught in schools <<

I agree. Its a silly thing too & Non-Educational. I can't Imagine anyone teaching such things.

"You see that Bird out there kids. God made it. End of Story."

For creationism, every Answer Ends with God (also begins with it).

As I said before, Science Profits because we are in the Age of Science/Technology, but we profit too, in our knowledge of the Universe, World, Evolution etc..

We should not stop science because people can't agree on where they came from, Adam or Great Ape Ancestry. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if you believe in Evolution or not, Evolution Just Happens and will continue to Happen, even after we are all gone.

-Muj ;-)

Jason210,

> Now I'm confused. I'm not familiar with the term Darwinism.  I've always assumed it was just a synonym for natural selection.

My use is as label for some 'religion', that's me, not another. Representation of Darwin is too multifaceted, so it is hard for me to accept some Darwinism that is not so well defined by published dogma.

> I didn't know anything about these extensions. For me Darwin is important for his contribution regarding the theory of natural selection. If he had other weird theories, that doesn't diminish his basic theory,

Not about him this time, but about those who refer to him so religiously.  I could agree on the "doesn't dimish" if it was all held separately, but when it is all combined together without support of logic then it all goes down together. If you want natural selection, then start over with a new name and define it. Without extensions.

> A lot of geniuses lose it like that...

I'm OK with them going bonkers, so long as we keep the parts separate. He did a folding chair and a record player and movie camera and .... we can keep ghosts and other ideas separate. No need to think that since we like to sit in a chair watching a movie about ghosts with a pleasant soundtrack - can be entertaining but does not need prove existence of ghosts. Googling a sample...

/Only Extracts follow/

http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/social_weapon/social_weapon08.php
DARWINISM'S SOCIAL WEAPON
A THEORY THAT BELITTLES WOMEN

The alleged scientific support that Social Darwinism provided for racism, fascism and imperialism, as well as communism, is a familiar subject that has been much written about. But one lesser known fact is that a great many Darwinists, including Charles Darwin himself, have believed in the error that women are biologically and mentally inferior to men. The mental difference that Darwinists claim to exist between the genders is of such a dimension that some evolutionists even divided them into different physical species: men being Homo frontalis and women Homo parietalis.

Darwin described women as an "inferior" species, according to his own lights, because his world view was based on natural selection. According to this unscientific and irrational view, men are proportionately more fit than women to compete in war, find a mate, and obtain food and clothing; while women have remained at a distance from such activities. According to this scientifically baseless deduction, natural selection exerts a stronger influence on men, so they achieved a superior position in all spheres, and evolved further than women. As the following pages will show, Darwin proposed these illusory deductions not on any scientific findings, but merely on the basis of evolutionist preconceptions.

Darwin wrote that being married to a woman provided the man with a "constant companion, a friend in old age, ... an object to be beloved and played with, better than a dog anyhow." These words neatly summarizes Darwin's view of women.

Many researchers have revealed that Darwin's views on natural selection encouraged sexual discrimination. For instance, professor of history and philosophy of science Evelleen Richards concluded that Darwin's views of women's nature fed into his evolutionary theorizing, "thereby nourishing several generations of [so-called] scientific sexism." The evolutionist scientific writer Elaine Morgan states that using various branches of science such as biology and ethnology, Darwin encouraged men to think that women were "manifestly inferior and irreversibly subordinant."

As the evolutionist scientist John R. Durant has stated, the two main consequences of the theory of evolution are racism and sexual discrimination:

Darwin rested his case upon a judicious blend of zoomorphic and anthropomorphic arguments. Savages, who were said to possess smaller brains and more prehensile limbs than the higher races, and whose lives were said to be dominated more by instinct and less by reason ... were placed in an intermediate position between nature and man; and Darwin extended this placement by analogy to include not only children and congenital idiots but also women, some of whose powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation were "characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilization."

It is generally admitted that with women the powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation, are more strikingly marked than in man; but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilisation

Darwin regarded marriage desirable because "a woman's friendship is better than a dog's." His statements about marriage made no reference at all to features such as friendship, affection, love, devotion, loyalty, closeness, sincerity and trust between two people who spend their lives together. About marriage, Darwin also had this to say:& loss of timecannot read in the eveningsfatness and idlenessanxiety and responsibilityless money for books, etc.,if many children, forced to gain one's bread ... perhaps my wife won't like London; then the sentence is banishment and degradation with indolent idle fool.

Darwin's statements show once again that there is no room for human love, closeness and friendship in Darwinian morality. Darwin claimed that men were superior to women:

The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man's attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can womenwhether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music, ... history, science, and philosophy ... the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on "Hereditary Genius" that if men are capable of a decided pre-eminence over women in many subjects, the average of mental power in man must be above that of women.

a professor of natural history at the University of Geneva, accepted all the conclusions drawn by Darwin, without subjecting them to any scientific analysis, and claimed that "the child, the female, and the senile white" all had the intellectual features and personality of the "grown up Negro."

a woman was "a stunted man" whose development had been obstructed because her evolution had come to a premature halt

the gap between males and females increases with civilization's progress and is greatest in the advanced societies of Europe

Darwin was greatly influenced by Vogt's rantings, and felt honored to count him among his most important supporters.

To claim that men are superior, and to use this allegation to treat women as second-class citizens, is a primitive behavior practiced by societies that do not live by religious moral values. In our day, when equal opportunities are ensured, there are countless examples of women known to be just as successful, intelligent and capable as men.

In order to demonstrate that women were "inferior," some evolutionist scientists sought to prove that they had smaller brain capacities. Some resorted to such humiliating and illogical methods as measuring women's skulls. They imagined that the greater the size of the brain, the more advanced the level of intelligence (which is now known to be invalid), compared their skulls, and declared the women to be inferior. This was actually one of the unscientific methods referred to in Darwin's book:

As the various mental faculties gradually developed themselves the brain would almost certainly become larger. ...

According to the claim put forward by Darwin, studies on skull measurements and brain volumes (under the primitive scientific conditions of his time) would furnish data supporting the theory of evolution. Yet actually, the scientific results ran totally contrary to this claim.

In the most intelligent races ... are a large number of women whose brains are closer in size to those of gorillas than to the most developed male brains. This inferiority is so obvious that no one can contest it for a moment; only its degree is worth discussion. ... Women ... represent the most inferior forms of human evolution and ... are closer to children and savages than to an adult, civilized man. They excel in fickleness, inconsistency, absence of thought and logic, and incapacity to reason. Without a doubt there exist some distinguished women ... but they are as exceptional as the birth of any monstrosity, as, for example, of a gorilla with two heads; consequently, we may neglect them entirely

According to the laws of inheritance, a man passes on his genes to both his male and female offspring. If the man possesses biologically "superior" characteristics, as Darwin maintained, then his daughter will possess those same superior features. But Darwin and his contemporaries knew so little about genetics that Darwin was even able to suggest that "the characteristics of a species acquired by sexual selection are usually confined to one sex." Darwin also made ignorant suggestions to the effect that such superior qualities as genius, the higher powers of imagination and reason are "transmitted more fully to the male than the female offspring."

+++++++++= for more: @ http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/social_weapon/social_weapon08.php

Ahh the old harun yahya attack on Evolution.
Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Evolution, rather they simply take the Idea of Evolution and think they are superior and they can mess around with it. Evolution in that sense is not understood by Social Darwinist.

Harun Yahya so far has not presented a decent argument against Evolution.
He puts into the mind of the readers that Darwin ideas (or he himself was) were Facist/Racist so hence forth Evolution Must be wrong.

That is the type of irrational logic that is put into the Minds of the readers. So no wonder Muslims love him.

-Muj ;-|

Thanks - that may help explain to Jason210 what I thought I meant.

                        [back to asker, some web based extracts]
ikework > who is behind that, who is running that compaign, who pays the money for it and what are their political goals?.

Currently, a group call the AH Trust, concerned over the primacy the Theory of Evolution holds over religious beliefs about life's origins and history, are actively seeking land on which to build a gigantic theme park promoting a literal interpretation of the Bible and making a multi-media case that God created the world in seven days. The $7 million theme park will feature two movie theaters, shops, a cafeteria and plans to apply for government grants and European funding to help it turn its television studio into 'an international leader in promoting family-oriented Christian programmes'. The park's business plan predicts nearly $9 million/year in profits (No "prophet" estimate was available at the time of writing).

http://iarnuocon.newsvine.com/_news/2008/01/23/1248886-creationisms-eitheror-fallacy

You can divine the Discovery Institute's crooked fingers in the background of the Creationist movement in the UK.

http://iarnuocon.newsvine.com/_news/2007/01/24/535736-creationism-evolves-european-offshoot

A group called Truth in Science has formed for the purpose of promoting intelligent design in the UK school systems, creating media packs which included 2 DVDs and a manual, sent to all of the UK's secondary schools on September 18th, 2006. Fifty-nine schools in the UK are now using the packs, which promote the notion that life on Earth was created through intelligent design-- a notion that in the US was recently dealt a blow in Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District, a court case in which a judge found intelligent design to be synonymous with religious belief.

Not surprisingly, the hand of the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington can be divined in the background. The DVDs were produced in America, and feature prominent figures from the Discovery Institute, the lead thinktank attempting to insert creationist and intelligent design material into high school curricula in the United States.

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/

Welcome to Truth in Science, an organisation promoting good science education in the UK. Our initial focus is on the origin of life and its diversity.

Problem with evolution is that it is in constant need of funding in search of some theoretical link that is missing, a self-serving need to not succeed lest they lose out on funds for seeking more links throughout the world.

Unnecessary, when it can theoretically be thought of as complete. What goes around comes around, sircles are round - (next 'comment' /quote/)

     Many, many years ago
      When I was twenty three
      I got married to a widow
      Pretty as could be.
      
      This widow had a grown up daughter
      With flowing hair of red,
      My father fell in love with her
      And soon the two were wed.
      
      This made my dad my son-in-law
      And changed my very life.
      Now my daughter was my mother,
      For she was my father's wife.
      
      To complicate the matters worse
      Although it brought me joy,
      I soon became the father
      Of a bouncing baby boy.
      
      My little baby then became
      A brother-in-law to dad,
      And so became my uncle,
      Though it made me very sad.
      
      For if he was my uncle,
      Then that also made him brother
      To the widow's grown up daughter,
      Who of course was my step-mother.
      
      Father's wife then had a son
      Who kept them on the run,
      And he became my grandson
      For he was my daughter's son.
      
      My wife is now my mother's mother
      And it makes me blue.
      Because although she is my wife,
      She's now my grandma too.
      
      If my wife is my grandmother,
      Then I am her grandchild.
      And every time I think of it
      It simply drives me wild.
      
      For now I have become
      The strangest case you ever saw,
      As the husband of my grandmother,
      I am my own grandpa!
      
      I'm my own grandpa.
      I'm my own grandpa.
      It sounds funny, I know, but it really is so,
      Oh, I'm my own grandpa.

>> Problem with evolution is that it is in constant need of funding in search of some theoretical link that is missing, a self-serving need to not succeed lest they lose out on funds for seeking more links throughout the world.

"Evolution" has no such problem.

Funding is always needed for /any/ research. Research is always needed for /any/ advancement of knowledge. Knowledge is /never/ complete and never will be for at least as long as change happens in the universe.

The study of the past history of Earth is not a study of "evolution". It's almost always a side effect that study of the past provides additional clues to the paths that evolution has taken. It's an _extremely_ small fraction of research funding that's given explicitly for "evolution", and only a tiny fraction of researchers are actively seeking such funding.

The reason that the number of such researchers seems large is simply that anti-evolutionists are so vocal about them. Any simple expedition to uncover new fossils might be complained about as funding that supports evolution.

It's not true for most such research, of course; but that's irrelevant to anti-evolutionists. If a project results in more evidence for evolution, it's condemned as money being wasted on evolution.

The problem isn't a problem of "evolution". The problem is that a vocal group is loudly trying to convince us to stop looking for clues. The problem is that a vocal group is trying to convince us that the 'Answer' is already known. They want to convince us that the 'Answer' is what _they_ believe and that we should all simply take it as true on faith.

No matter how many facts indicate otherwise.

BigRat,
You were fortunate to have an open-minded headmistress.  One of the most interesting people I know was schooled as a Jesuit.   With a master's degree in mathematics, he's a hard-logic kind of guy, but nevertheless, a real party animal.   He likewise credits one particular priest that not only allowed but encouraged free thinking.  But he laughingly admits that as a Catholic,  he "sometimes had to believe three impossible things before breakfast."

Dan,
   perhaps. In my travels I've et many girls from similar backgrounds and most of them were level headed on this topic. I think one of the biggest advantages of co-ed schools is that girls soon drop all those silly romantic notions about men ;)Of course you are right. Believing impossible things is a necessity for a Catholic. My husband is Anglican, where belief in God is optional.

Believing in impossible things is also a prerequsite for Quantum Mechanics, as Bell's Inequality shows ;)

SunBow:
   I have not the slightest idea why you posted that tract on "Darwinism". For example :-

    "Many researchers have revealed that Darwin's views on natural selection encouraged sexual discrimination"

First TWO should be named. Second you only have to read the books of Jane Austin to know that silly ideas such as that. In fact if you go a bit further back to say Ann Radcliffe, you'll read that we females are much more suspecitable to the "sublime".

If you are not happy about various aspects of modern "evolution" theory (how I hate that word), you should be intellectually honest about it and say so.

<<<There's no reason why creationism should not be taught in schools - as part of the curriculum in the subject of religious education/philosophy. It is a concept and as such worthy of discussion in that subject.>>>

Creationism, and voodoo and witchcraft, and...

If you define objective rules for what constitutes 'knowledge', creationism would never come close to meeting them.

I disagree with Bob and agree with Jason.  There's no reason religious ideas can't be taught in schools, so long as it's in the appropriate place like a history or philosophy class, and those classes touch on a variety of religious beliefs.  But non-science does not belong in a science class, period.

>> There's no reason religious ideas can't be taught in schools, so long as it's in the appropriate place like a history or philosophy class, and those classes touch on a variety of religious beliefs.  But non-science does not belong in a science class, period. <<

People should be taught religion, mostly about Other peoples religion, Its is for a better Understanding.
Science is Science and religion is simply religion and they do not mix.

-Muj ;-|

Religious beliefs should be taught in science classes as soon as someone comes up with a mathematical formula for creation of reality that can be tested by experimentation and verified (or disproven.)

Tom

<<<People should be taught religion, mostly about Other peoples religion, Its is for a better Understanding.
Science is Science and religion is simply religion and they do not mix.>>>
     AND
<<<There's no reason religious ideas can't be taught in schools, so long as it's in the appropriate place like a history or philosophy class, and those classes touch on a variety of religious beliefs.  But non-science does not belong in a science class, period.>>>


The criteria needs to be that knowledge is taught.  

If we are talking history, the history of humans is intimately tied to religion; teaching it is good.

If we are talking philosophy, approaches to life are intimately tied to religion; teaching it is good.

If we are talking science, facts contradict religion and teaching religion and pretending it is science would be wrong.  

>> If we are talking science, facts contradict religion and teaching religion and pretending it is science would be wrong.   <<

As I said, Science is Science and Religion is Religion. We should not give Religion any Ground on the Science front. Nor should we use Science as a tool against Religion that is not the Purpose of Science, that would be the purpose of a Belief System.
Let the people decide what they personally want from religion.

-Muj ;-)

>> Let the people decide what they personally want from religion.

/IF/ someone someday does mathematically describe creation of reality and the formulation provides for experimental testing, would you oppose testing? There would be the risk of removing 'belief' from some of the fundamental questions of science. (Not to mention a possible risk of /reversing/ creation.)

Tom

Bigrat
>SunBow:
   >I have not the slightest idea why you posted that tract on "Darwinism". For example :-
  >well, the question was about

I think I have a lot to do with that. As I said earlier, when people speak of Darwinism, I have taken the word to be synomous with natural selection & evolution. I was not aware of Darwins other views, "extensions" and I am surprised that they are taken seriously today. Like all pioneers in science, they rareky get it completelyu right. Freud is a classic example. But it doesn't diminish their scientific achievements.

Since the question here specifically mentions "Darwin" instead of "evolution", and since I said earlier what I was unaware of his "exstensions" Sunbow went to thte trouble of posting this information - it's nice to learn something from time to time.

However, it's easy to seperate his main idea of natural selection from his other ideas. This central idea has survived as a workable theory, because it fulfills many scientific criteria. Occums razor, evidence & so on.  His other ideas have not gained any credibility - the were based on beliefs typical of Victorian attitudes of that time.

I think we should avoid the word Darwin if it leads to this kind of confusion.

As BigRat said, if we are not happy about various aspects of evolution theory then we should talk about evolution theory and not fall back on to the idiosyncysies of a Darwin as a basis for debunking his main contribution to science.

I do keep an open mind as to whether evolutionary theory is complete. That would make an interesting thread - what else may be at work in evolution?

And the "I'm my own grandpa" post was a subtle argument in favor of eugenics.

tliotta > Funding is always needed for /any/ research.

It is not the funding or the science, it is the 'scientist' getting funding for a goal having bias, which makes for 'bad science'. See also: "The scientist affects the experiment".

DanRollins > as a Catholic,  he "sometimes had to believe three impossible things before breakfast."

:-))             Thanx

I like that (old) joke, and that at least some can see both the humor and the practicality.

BigRat >  I have not the slightest idea

Kinda obvious. Join crowd.

Graphixer > There's no reason religious ideas can't be taught

I mostly agree. It needs be done without emotion, using emotional bias would be a good reason to not do it. We can have it reduced to acceptance of something being more fact or belief, but hiding too many things won't help a learning process. Religion and archaeology have worked well enough together, for example. Emotions can be documented, but the learning process should be mental.

Mujtaba_Alam_Khan > Its is for a better Understanding.

Exactly.

>  and they do not mix

They can - on mental level, not employing emotional side like evangelizing or flaming. All it takes is allowing a measure of respect.

tliotta > as soon as someone comes up with a mathematical formula for creation

Disagree, or have it as turnabout is fair play, concerning other such religions such as beliefs in singularities.

BobSiemens > The criteria needs to be that knowledge is taught.  

Exactly. I agree with all that (comment)

-Muj ;-) > Let the people decide what they personally want from religion.

I am not sure, but I think I agree. They should either work together or be kept separate.

tliotta >  mathematically describe creation of reality

I suspect I may agree, but math is also unreal, separate from reality. It is a tool we can use to help describe and understand things, but it is not the thing itself. As such it is more like language than like objects to experience.

Jason210 > I think I have a lot to do with that. ... Freud is a classic example

Agree on both counts, but as others are aware, while I was only replying to you, it would not take much for me to submit something like that anyway. Freud was a good example of something else, where other people go on about with 'proofs' citing Freud, where the original person may or may not agree with how their name is used or abused. While aware of more of that about Freud, I am not so sure how well some of that applies to Darwin on a personal level.

> the question here specifically mentions "Darwin" instead of "evolution",

Exactly. We can find it obvious that we each evolve physically (no longer a baby) and mentally (learning more), etc. but the reference is pointing out something that is more specific, with the built in notion of some major dispute, like the redneck saying "I am not a monkey's uncle" (while he can remain being his own grandfather).

>  His other ideas have not gained any credibility

Unfortunately many remain, and are visible here on this website.

> we should avoid the word Darwin

I agree, and recommend change in language. Same goes for 'scientist'.

> we should talk about evolution theory

but actually we are supposed to not be doing that in this thread
as such I reserve some other disagreements

DanRollins > subtle

Not intentionally, but yes, permitted anyway, with reservation(s) [confession]

Darwin and creation aren't necessarily opposites.  Darwin doesn't try to explain how life started.  

There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one (The Origin Of Species By Charles Darwin, 2nd and subsequent editions).

>> Darwin and creation aren't necessarily opposites.  <<

They are even in the same field, then how can they be opposites.

>> Darwin doesn't try to explain how life started.  <<

Either did God. No wonder we still have a dilemma over this and henceforth the Debate over Evolution Vs Creationism.

-Muj ;-|

> >> Darwin doesn't try to explain how life started.  <<

> Either did God.

Kinda makes me wonder if God wonders how he started.

Tom