This Week in God

May 26, 2007

First up from The God Machine this week is religion-related news for this Memorial Day weekend. The Creation Museum, a $27-million tourist attraction for those who don’t care for modern science, will open its doors on Monday near Cincinnati. The LA Times had an interesting editorial on the facility.

[B]efore the first visitor risks succumbing to the museum’s animatronic balderdash — dinosaurs and humans actually coexisted! the Grand Canyon was carved by the great flood described in Genesis! — we’d like to clear up a few things: “The Flintstones” is a cartoon, not a documentary. Fred and Wilma? Those woolly mammoth vacuum cleaners? All make-believe.

Science is under assault, and that calls for bold truths. Here’s another: The Earth is round.

The museum, a 60,000-square-foot menace to 21st century scientific advancement, is the handiwork of Answers in Genesis, a leader in the “young Earth” movement. Young Earthers believe the world is about 6,000 years old, as opposed to the 4.5 billion years estimated by the world’s credible scientific community. This would be risible if anti-evolution forces were confined to a lunatic fringe, but they are not. Witness the recent revelation that three of the Republican candidates for president do not believe in evolution. Three men seeking to lead the last superpower on Earth reject the scientific consensus on cosmology, thermonuclear dynamics, geology and biology, believing instead that Bamm-Bamm and Dino played together.

And that’s a genuine shame. What’s worse, I have no doubt that religious right groups and their members will flock to this attraction, so that facts they already reject will be reinforced by nonsense they already embrace.

There need not be a hostile conflict between science and faith — there are plenty of religious scientists out there — but there is absolutely a conflict between the Creation Museum and reality.

Adults have to pay $19.95 to enter the museum and hear pseudo-science. Those same adults can stop by a public library and check out books about real science for free.

Also this week, remember the flap earlier this year when Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) used a Koran for a ceremonial swearing-in photo-op? Far-right activists thought anything less than swearing on the Bible would rattle the foundations of our society.

With this in mind, I suspect these same conservatives won’t like this at all.

Witnesses and jurors being sworn in at [North Carolina] courthouses can take their oath using any religious text, not just the Bible, a Wake County judge ruled yesterday.

“As of today all people can use the holy text of their choice,” said Seth Cohen, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who argued the case. “We think it’s a great victory.”

The ruling from Superior Court Judge Paul Ridgeway came after the ACLU argued that limiting the text to the Bible was unconstitutional because it favored Christianity over other religions. Citing common law and precedent of the state Supreme Court, he said those taking a court oath can use a text “most sacred and obligatory upon their conscience.”

The issue surfaced after Muslims from Greensboro tried to donate copies of the Quran to Guilford County’s two courthouses. Two judges declined to accept the texts, saying that taking an oath on the Quran was illegal under state law.

Judge Ridgeway didn’t declare the law unconstitutional, but simply ruled that any religious text will suffice for an oath.

“We welcome this ruling as an expression of our nation’s constitutional commitment to religious diversity and tolerance,” said Arsalan Iftikhar, legal director for Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Let’s not tell Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Va.) about this; he probably wouldn’t take it well.

“any religious text will suffice for an oath.”
Like a Flintstones comic book?

  • “Adults have to pay $19.95 to enter the museum and hear pseudo-science. Those same adults can stop by a public library and check out books about real science for free.”

    Uh, no, not here in Southern Oregon, where our libraries closed down over a month ago due to lack of funding. A conspiracy therorist might say that the Powers that Be are trying to make knowledge a commodity, but that can’t be right.

    Can it?

  • “As of today all people can use the holy text of their choice,”

    I wonder what atheists are left with?

    Let’s not tell Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Va.) about this; he probably wouldn’t take it well.

    Fortunately, this happened in Wake County, NC, where I live; we’re represented by Bob Etheridge (D).

  • “Science is under assault, and that calls for bold truths. Here’s another: The Earth is round.”
    .
    “…the scientific consensus on cosmology, thermonuclear dynamics, geology and biology…”
    .
    It is interesting how you have used these statements.
    .
    Yes the earth is a sphere. This FACT is observable, and mathematical provable.
    .
    Evolution, on the other hand is not either of these.
    .
    It would be interesting to get some real numbers on this scientific consensus. On what they actually believe: Evolution, Theistic Evolution, or Creationism. Also, how many can defend what they believe, or are simply depending on the reputation of someone else. I am not a scientist, but I believe that I know and understand the Theory of Evolution better than most “evolutionists”. And, the same goes for the Theory of Creationism, and creationist.
    .
    Most people simply accept what they have been told. Whether it be from school, secular or religious. PBS, Discovery Channel, or number Christian Scientific sources.
    .
    The question I have is can you defend your beliefs with facts.
    .

  • The Disneyland of Christianity.

    If you believe that dinosaurs roamed with humans, then you probably also believe that Donald Duck and Goofy are real. And Disneyland proves it – they walk around all day there.

    This is why Gore’s book promoting reason is so essential. You can believe anything – unicorns, faeries, aliens, gods exist. But it ain’t necessarily so.

  • OK, here is:
    .
    The Disneyland of Humanism.
    .
    A world where man can make his world look like whatever he wants, as long as it does not include God.
    .

  • “As of today all people can use the holy text of their choice,”

    I wonder what atheists are left with?

    On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life?

    No, never mind. No need reinforcing the creationists’ assertion that we worship evolution as a religion.

    The God Delusion?

    No, that;s not holy. That’s antiholy.

    Hummm…

    Beyond Freedom and Dignity?

    Getting warmer…

  • It is a lot easier to eliminate what can’t possibly be true than what must be absolutely right. You don’t even have to be an expert to hear the “sound” of truth.

  • Let me rephrase that.

    It’s a lot easier to eliminate what can’t possibly be true than to prove what must be absolutely right.

    Yeah, that’s the ticket

  • “As of today all people can use the holy text of their choice,”

    I wonder what atheists are left with?
    .
    The Communist Manifesto – An outline for the transition to a perfect Atheistic society.
    .
    Clear Enough?

  • I may go to this museum because I think they can solve two Biblical mysteries:

    1. Where did Cain’s wife come from?
    2. What happened to the giants?

    Or at least I can ask. A lot.

    However, such “attacks” are good for science and people in general because it reminds everyone what raving loons are among us and allows scientists to give everyone a refresher course on things like the emperical method.

    As a side note, The WaPo editor must be on drugs to think this museum merits the FPAF coverage it received. It’s like doing a FP story on tarot card/palm readers.

  • I think you will see and hear the answers to your questions, but will you be open-minded enough to consider them.
    .
    Ask as many questions as you want, after all it is “Answers in Genesis”.
    .

    As a side note, The WaPo editor must be on drugs to think this museum merits the FPAF coverage it received. It’s like doing a FP story on tarot card/palm readers.

    I would agree with statement, if Creationists were simply “raving loons are among us”. As we are not, there must be some reasonable explanation for all this interest.

  • Yes the earth is a sphere. This FACT is observable, and mathematical provable.

    Provable given various assumptions, and directly observable by astronauts as of, say, the 1960s. Was this fact in question before then? Science is all about inference.

    And from smiley: No need reinforcing the creationists’ assertion that we worship evolution as a religion.

    Exactly my thought. Here’s what I’d like to say: “I promise to tell the truth because it’s my civic duty. If you don’t believe me, what makes you think I wouldn’t lie with my hand on a particular book? It’s not as if some bearded guy is going to smite me some time in the indefinite future.”

  • Provable given various assumptions
    Which assumptions.
    .
    The fact the earth is round has been proven since the time of Copernicus and Galileo. They proved it with mathematics and science. The Theories of Evolution and the Big Bang are based on so many assumptions, I doubt they could be listed on a single typewritten page. The first and most obvious being the Big Bang itself.
    .
    And from smiley: No need reinforcing the creationists’ assertion that we worship evolution as a religion.
    .
    A simple examination of the two theories shows that to believe in Evolution takes at least as faith, as it does to believe in Creationism. So, yes I do consider Evolution to be a Religion.
    .

  • I am reminded of an image macro on these here interweb-tubes…
    It’s a picture of a man with hands folded
    and the caption reads:
    “Prayer:
    How to do nothing and still think you’re helping!”.

    As a side note, I’d just like to add that I can’t count the times
    I’ve been asked, in online debates, by american christians why I “backslided”.
    It’s as if they think everyone is born not only christian, but american.
    I’m neither.
    I’m a dane and I’ve never ever believed in any gawds at all.
    Wasn’t raised to NOT believe in ze devine either.
    It just didn’t come up because my parents realized that ACTUALLY raising me was more important.
    And when it did, in school, I was entranced by the various mythologies…
    while at the same time staring increduosly at my teacher when she told me that most people on the planet actually BELIEVED this shit and held it to be true.
    I laughed my fifth-grade ass off..
    Now?
    I still laugh, but my mirth is tempered by fear.
    Because True Believers In Armageddon seem to be the ones
    in power.

    – Michael S. Olsen.

  • Regarding 17.
    .
    I can see why you feel this way about “american christians”. I do not think anyone appreciates it when someone else makes assumptions about their beliefs.
    .
    It appears to me that you were raised in a completely secular society. I mean no offense against you or your country, but it many ways that American Christians are trying to stop.
    .
    We do not want a society for our children and their children, that is intolerant of our religious beliefs. I believe my children should not have to endure the scene you described in your fifth-grade classroom.
    .
    It just didn’t come up because my parents realized that ACTUALLY raising me was more important.
    My parents passed on to me their moral, ethical, and religious beliefs. Everyday I am thankful that they did. Hopefully, one day my children will feel the same.
    .
    Because True Believers In Armageddon seem to be the ones in power.
    These “True Believers” have the same beliefs and moral standards that founders of this country had, and hoped would continue to have.

  • Regarding 19.
    .
    Science is hard.
    .
    No science is not hard. It is hard work, definitely not the venue for the lazy. But, science is a step-by-step, methodical, logical process. Does not sound all that hard to me.

  • Where do you start with this?
    #16A simple examination of the two theories shows that to believe in Evolution takes at least as faith, as it does to believe in Creationism. So, yes I do consider Evolution to be a Religion.
    What 2 theories? Creationism is, at best, a hypothesis. There simply is no evidence to support it. On the other hand, evolution is seen at the cellular and microbial level every day, as various viruses and fungi mutate and become resistant to the drugs and chemicals we use to fight them. They adapt. They evolve.
    At the same time, evolutionary theory makes no effort to explain life’s origins, only it’s history. It stays completely out of God’s domain – the creation of life itself.

    If only the religious extremists would return that courtesy.

  • We do not want a society for our children and their children, that is intolerant of our religious beliefs.

    Hey, knock yourself out. Many of us just get our backs up when you folks start claiming that our unbelief and unwillingness to indulge you in shared experiences such as public education somehow represents “intolerance.” We don’t want your worldview jammed down our throats anymore than you want ours.

    What the faith crowd doesn’t seem to understand–and I leave it to others to characterize this as ignorance or malice–is that in the common sphere, the common denominator must be the standard. Thus, it’s a no-go to “Christianize” the public schools, or the Law, or the military, or ANY civil institutions. Just as it’s wrong to spread Islam, Judiasm, Zorastrianism, or Communist dogma (*very* classy, by the way–though Red Scare-mongering is so ’20s, ’50s, and ’80s) in any of those institutions.

    If believers want to immerse themselves in their culture and have it dominate every minute of every day, they’re entirely free in this country to set up their own institutions. Home-school, faith colleges, community groups–go crazy with it. Museum of Creationism? Enjoy. It makes as much or as little sense as, say, Graceland or the Baseball Hall of Fame. (Okay, the Baseball Hall of Fame really *is* a holy site, to me at least. But that just makes the point.)

    But whenever you meet us on grounds where you insist on pushing your beliefs upon us, or making us lesser in any way because we don’t share those beliefs, I promise you unstinting resistance. Our Constitution–our shared heritage–almost insists upon that.

  • become resistant to the drugs and chemicals we use to fight them
    Another case of depending on the reputation of someone else
    If you would investigate this further, you would find that these “mutations” the loss of genetic material. In other words maybe “de-evolution”? Another example of how this universe and everything in it is breaking down, not evolving.
    .
    evolutionary theory makes no effort to explain life’s origins, only it’s history
    No, history is history. Evolution is another example of man’s ways to explain it. In fact, “explain life’s origins” is the whole point of the Theory of Evolution.
    .
    Creationism is, at best, a hypothesis. There simply is no evidence to support it
    This is the whole crux of the overall debate. Which theory has more evidence to support?
    .
    But in many I think there is a separate debate about why evolution is presented, every component, as fact.
    When different parts of the theory have less “supporting” evidence then others, how the entire theory be considered fact?

  • you insist on pushing your beliefs upon us
    Check your history. It has been Christians who had someone else beliefs pushed on them. Over the Twentieth Century, the Christian standards and beliefs of the country where attacked time and time again. It is only in the last thirty or forty years that we have come to our senses about what was happening.
    .
    or Communist dogma (*very* classy, by the way–though Red Scare-mongering is so ’20s, ’50s, and ’80s)
    Can you show me a more atheistic view of society?

  • Bill – Get thee to a Funk & Wagnall’s. Evolution is not presented as a fact – it is presented, factually, for what it it – A scientific theory. It is not presented as a scientific law – such as gravity, because it is an incomplete explanation. Once people start citing the Law of Evolution, you might have a legitimate complaint.

    Creationism is a religious dogma that often masquerades as science. It has zero supporting evidence, aside from an ancient religious text. It’s principle argument is an often deliberate confusion between the definition of scientific theory, and common use of the word ‘theory’. Are you deliberately conflating these 2 definitions, or do you really not understand the difference?

  • Bill #21: “No science is not hard. It is hard work, definitely not the venue for the lazy. But, science is a step-by-step, methodical, logical process. Does not sound all that hard to me.”

    Ignoring the illogic of Bill’s statements (science is not hard, it is hard work):

    If, as you say, science is a step-by-step methodical logical process, why do you choose to ignore those who have done that “hard work” and have given us explanations for the natural world as we see it?

    Do yourself a favor, Bill, quit being lazy, start using the brain God gave you, and go take some biology & genetics classes. Evolution does not require “faith”, it only requires that you look at all of the evidence. Then come to your own conclusion.

    Are there questions and unsolved mysteries? Sure. That’s why the “hard work” must continue.

    Do you go to a modern medical doctor? That’s science again. You can’t have it both ways – accept science on the one hand (medicine) and reject it on the other (evolution).

    Creationism is not science. It is the explanation given to/by earlier humans to explain the existence of the world, humans who didn’t have the scientific understanding that we do today. There is no excuse for educated people today to believe *literally* in any creation story.

  • I absolutely know the difference.
    .
    I also know the Evolution is presented as fact, because virtually of secular source of science available presents it as, to quote “JoeW”, evolutionary theory makes no effort to explain life’s origins, only it’s history.
    .
    Of course this is the intention, to indoctrinate everyone with this belief. So it might as well be called the “Law of Evolution”, by secular science.
    .
    Creationism is a religious dogma that often masquerades as science. It has zero supporting evidence
    Well, I must say that it is a rather large and overflowing “zero”.
    What do you think the “Intelligent Design” is based on. It is based observations of the universe, and life in it, that with such complexity it must have been designed. Even a ten-year old can see and understand the supporting evidence.

  • Ok, so those of us who do not believe in a religion should start using “Origin of the Species” when we take oaths. It is based on extensive observation and makes reasonable conclusions. It does not tell you that you will go to hell for all eternity if you do not believe it. It invites further investigation.

  • I know I’m not supposed to feed the troll, but screw that. Being a man of science (engineering to be exact), I would like our friend to cite facts and studies which is what real scientists do. Replies with links to actual scientific reports and actual citations would be nice besides quack speak and religious double talk.

    Bill writes:
    “Well, I must say that it is a rather large and overflowing “zero”.”

    Please cite all the studies that show this. No bible verses or PR crap from the Discover institute.

    “What do you think the “Intelligent Design” is based on. It is based observations of the universe, and life in it, that with such complexity it must have been designed. Even a ten-year old can see and understand the supporting evidence.”

    Ha. Please cite this evidence and post links to said studies from that show this. Explain why the bible hasn’t cited that everyone’s DNA is actually evolving at a GENETIC level and why a bunch of ten year old creationists can’t figure out the human genome and DNA sequence. Again, no bible verses or PR crap from the Discover institute.

    Finally, did you know that if creationism was true that you really couldn’t be on the internet as computers couldn’t exist? The semi conductors that are in your computer are based on physics (solid state physics) that can be only explained thru the scientific theory of the BIG Bang.

  • To continue my comment at #27:
    I will state that I am a Christian, and am not discrimated against (at least here in the USA). I have free will to express my faith, express any doubts and fears, question any part of my faith, do not believe that Christmas or Easter or any other religious celebration is being taken from me. I do not wish to beat anyone over the head with my beliefs or feel that I must convert anyone. But I am more than willing to share with those who ask.

    I can certainly understand those who think I am nuts for my belief since I find other religious faiths to be perplexing or strange. But I want all to have the freedom to practice their beliefs (as long as no living beings are hurt) or non beliefs, such as they are.

    I want a separation of church and state. I do not want others forcing their beliefs on me (this is the part the fundies don’t get). I do not want creationism taught in science class, for it is not science.

    Those who are fixated on the so-called rapture are ignoring the call to Christians to help a world in need. The rapturists seem hell-bent on the destruction of the world rather than saving it. If they would read parts of their Bible others than the Book of Revelation, they would hear the words of Jesus as to the end: no one but my Father in heaven knows the time or place.

    The end-of-the-worlders, and those in the current administration, are purely pushing fear. Fear to comply, not to question, or be punished. Just as done by the infamous dicatators of the 20th century.

    We have nothing to fear but fear itself, spoken by a different and wise person of the 20th century.

  • Hannah #27 If you take a closer look at what was said in message #21 you will see that responding to a previous message science is not hard, it is hard work is not illogical because science is not hard was a direct contradiction to the quote statement above it. it is hard work was a statement to the fact science is not for the lazy.
    .
    Do yourself a favor, Bill, quit being lazy, start using the brain God gave you, and go take some biology & genetics classes. Evolution does not require “faith”, it only requires that you look at all of the evidence. Then come to your own conclusion.
    FYI, I enjoy investigating the evidence, of either side. I pick it apart, breakdown, and put it back together again more than most “evolutionists”.
    .
    Do you go to a modern medical doctor? That’s science again. You can’t have it both ways – accept science on the one hand (medicine) and reject it on the other (evolution).
    Again FYI, I have no problem with science. I have worked as IT consultant for 12 years. I enjoy learning about biology, physics, astronomy, etc. You should see my library. I probably have as much “Evolutionary” Science material, as I have from the “Creationist” point of view. I will guarantee you that you will not find many people, other side of the debate that have read more and exposed themselves to more information on the topic than I have.
    .
    In fact, I have often found it interesting to play Devil’s Advocate and take the “Evolutionary” side.
    .
    So, let me ask a question. Do you believe the “Big Bang” to be fact?

  • Bill, first of all I dispute your statement that “science is not hard”. It is. It’s incredibly difficult. I struggled to get a B.S. in science and I’m a reasonably smart person.

    As for the big bang, there is evidence to support it.

    But science is never static; we learn new things every day.

    The hardest part for me is reconciling my Christian faith and my knowledge of science. But I can.

    What if God is the ultimate scientist? How do we know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn’t create everything?

  • For anyone interested in using the “Origin of the Species” to swear an oath on, I have would not have problem except. One, are we to allow everyone to bring their own “bible”. Two, the point of swearing on the Bible, was originally because it was regarded as the “Holy Bible”. It was assumed that even if you did not agree with it, your oath would mean something out respect for the “Holy Bible”
    .
    Based on the messages posted here, it would appear that we really can not trust any testimony given.

  • My biggest complaint against evangelicals is that they twice helped elect Bush in hopes he would bring their vision of theocracy into our government.
    They can believe in the tooth fairy for all I care, but not when they force me to follow along in their childish beliefs. In my town, I now actively picket whenever the true believers try to take away my freedoms.

  • Ok, so those of us who do not believe in a religion should start using “Origin of the Species” when we take oaths.

    Except that The Origin of Species is in no sense a holy book, and elevating it to that level is just silly. (Creationists are much more likely to do this than anyone else, I think–not as their religion, but attributing it to someone else’s faith. Crazy.)

    I do find the phrase “secular science”, used above, to be pretty funny. Someone should really pull out a dictionary.

  • Former Dan #30.
    Please cite all the studies that show this.
    It is interesting this the first mention of “studies”. I will have to come back with that information. Would be to much to ask for some studies supporting the “Evolutionary” arguments. And, please no rhetoric about there is abundance of studies, we are talking about citing supporting evidence. Besides, it is my belief that there are so many “mutually” supporting studies out there, it helps to identify the studies have some self-sustaining evidence to contribute to the debate.
    .
    Hannah #34.
    I am in no way attempting to put down your intelligence or the amount of education you have received. I guess what I attempting to say was while the concepts of the various disciplines of science can be difficult. The concept of science is not hard. To put it simply, science is the result of our curiosity to know and understanding the world around us.
    BTW, I am curious would you consider yourself a Theistic Evolutionist, or in other words someone who sees no reason the Bible and Evolution made to fit together?

  • Museum of Creationism? Enjoy. — dajafi, @23

    What odds that the Museum — as an “educational institution” — is, to a great extent, supported by state and federal taxes? Ie by me and you? As an atheist, I resent that.

    Also, to everyone who suggested texts for the atheists to swear on… Good try, but no cigar. It has to be a *holy* text (go back and re-read the statement) and, having no faith, atheists have no such texts.

  • Hannah #34.
    .
    On the topic of the “Big Bang”, I believe there is evidence that can be interpreted to support it. That is aftereffects, but what evidence is the to support its origins? The theories I have heard keep changing, and at times completely rewritten.

  • It was assumed that even if you did not agree with it, your oath would mean something out respect for the “Holy Bible” — Bill,@34

    Assume = (makes an) ass (of) u (and) me. Never assume. Why should I consider a collection of stories in the Bible any more valid than a collection of stories in a book on Greek mythology?

    Regarding trusting the testimony of non-religious people (or people of religions other than the Bible-followers): some of us value our honor. If I were to swear on my honor, such an oath ought to be trustworthy, with or without God’s help.

  • libra #40.
    .
    Exactly my point,
    but are you willing to trust someone believes the same as you?
    some of us value our honor. If I were to swear on my honor, such an oath ought to be trustworthy
    I also value honor, and believe that lying is wrong whether it is court or not. I am also not saying I have never lied, but it is something to work towards.

  • I do find the phrase “secular science”, used above, to be pretty funny. Someone should really pull out a dictionary.
    .
    And, what is so amusing about the phrase “secular science”. What do you thinks it means?

  • To Billy-Boy, with love..

    “I can see why you feel this way about “american christians”. I do not think anyone appreciates it when someone else makes assumptions about their beliefs.”

    Indeedy.

    “It appears to me that you were raised in a completely secular society. I mean no offense against you or your country, but it many ways that American Christians are trying to stop.”

    Are you drunk?
    Sorry, but I -AM- drunk and the only way to parse this leads to a bottle.

    “We do not want a society for our children and their children, that is intolerant of our religious beliefs. I believe my children should not have to endure the scene you described in your fifth-grade classroom.”

    Read it again.
    Don’t put words in my mouth.
    We were taught the basic tenets, beleifs and histories
    of all the major religions and many of the “lesser” ones.
    As for the “fifth-grade”-thing, I was only referring to myself
    and my own ability to sift through bullsheeet that early.

    Bill said:”
    My parents passed on to me their moral, ethical, and religious beliefs. Everyday I am thankful that they did. Hopefully, one day my children will feel the same.”

    Good.
    Good for you.
    Really.
    I just don’t see how belief in God (pick one!)
    helps.
    If anything it spawns more questions.

    —
    Because True Believers In Armageddon seem to be the ones in power.
    These “True Believers” have the same beliefs and moral standards that founders of this country had, and hoped would continue to have.

    —-

    Thanks for perpetuating THAT myth!
    If you equate Paine with Fall-Down-The-Well
    you deserve every beating coming your way….
    if only because you don’t READ.

  • HairlessMonkeyDK #43.
    .
    It appears that I misread your previous message, but if someone tells me that their religious education consisted of:

    We were taught the basic tenets, beleifs and histories
    of all the major religions and many of the “lesser” ones.

    I see that as a completely secular society.
    And, commend you on your ability to sift through bullsheeet that early. because it sounds like that was what they were teaching you. More like a “Contemporary Religions” college course than a relevant religious education.
    .
    Thanks for perpetuating THAT myth!
    FYI, I am studying copies of the documents, letters, etc. as the basis for what I believe about this period in our history. And, these show history to be quite different then the manufactured socialist myth being spread around today.

  • And, what is so amusing about the phrase “secular science”.

    It’s funny because science is inherently secular (i.e., “denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis”, according to my local dictionary).

  • RSA #45.
    .
    And, which dictionary are you using?
    .
    After a simple search, I these three, with no reference to religious or spiritual basis

    Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary
    the definition of science is “knowledge attained through study or practice,” or “knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world.”

    American Heritage Dictionary
    NOUN:
    1.
    …a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
    …b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
    …c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
    2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I’ve got packing a suitcase down to a science.
    3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
    4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
    5. Science Christian Science.

    dictionary.reference.com
    –noun
    1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
    2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
    3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
    4. systematized knowledge in general.
    5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
    6. a particular branch of knowledge.
    7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

    BTW, I am also not a fan of “Christian Science” either.

  • So when Jesus was preaching all about peace,love, and understanding,healing the sick, helping the poor, whacking the moneychangers……etc exactly when did he tell everyone to worry about all this?
    This monument to ignorance is astounding…..one could spend days blowing holes in the logic of the place.What’s really puzzling is that half of our fellow Americans think it might be accurate, and that 3 donors gave a million dollars each…guess intelligence and wealth don’t always run together.I’m starting to figure out how Bush got elected twice!

  • It has been Christians who had someone else beliefs pushed on them, Over the Twentieth Century, the Christian standards and beliefs of the country where attacked time and time again.

    When? By whom? What were the consequences?

    I suspect you’ll come back with something like “Prayer was banned in public schools.”

    To which I say, “That doesn’t count.”

    Why doesn’t it count, you ask? I will try to walk you through it.

    The reason why your not being able to force a roomful of children, some “Christian” and some not, is because of the Social Contract:

    The term social contract describes a broad class of philosophical theories whose subject is the implied agreements by which people form nations and maintain social order. In laymen’s terms this means that the people give up some rights to a government in order to receive social order. Social contract theory provides the rationale behind the historically important notion that legitimate state authority must be derived from the consent of the governed.

    The consent of the governed. As school systems are an extension of government authority, the rules by which they are structured have official power, and they in turn are subject to the rules of the United States.

    One of those rules is the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which reads in part:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    I’m not a lawyer, but I think the question of how this applies to school prayer comes down to whether mandatory prayer is in some sense an establishment of religion, or banning it constitutes prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

    I can see the argument that banning prayer altogether–punishing a student or group of students who prays between school periods or on the school grounds before or after the day begins–is prohibiting. Doing so also could be said to violate the right of free assembly, which is not absolute but is considerable.

    But making prayer mandatory–even if it’s not part of a Christian rite, but silent–is establishment.

    Why? Because it violates the rules we have all, as a society, agreed to play by. It transgresses the social contract; it is coercive action without the consent, active or passive, of the governed.

    You are, as I wrote in my first post, entirely free to set up your own institutions, your Christian equivalents to madrassahs, just as Muslims are free to set up madrassahs.

    Think about the implication here for just a second: YOU HAVE THE SAME CORE RIGHTS, NO MORE AND NO LESS, AS THE MUSLIMS. Or the Scientologists, or the Church of John Coltrane.

    The fact that there are more of you, or that you claim the Founders of this country shared your weirdly militant and outer-directed form of Christianity and wished to impose it upon the new nation–a claim that virtually all mainstream historians have dismissed by the way–doesn’t matter.

    (If you think about this, by the way, it makes sense. America was conceived in no small part as an answer to and improvement upon the less free nations of western Europe, from which most of the early Americans had come. One of the reasons people came here was religious persecution. They were very sensitive to this–and they were positively committed to not perpetuating the abuses that ensue when state and church are intermixed.)

    Thus: no establishment, no prohibition. You are entirely free to spend all day, every day, praying. We even do you the IMO undeserved favor of tax exemption; we’re so determined not to prohibit your free and PRIVATE celebration of your faith, whatever it is, that we take away a big part of the financial obstacle.

    But it’s private. You cannot force it on our schools, on our justice system, or in any area of our shared national life.

    I might add that, as a person of Jewish extraction, your comment of Christian views “being attacked” is offensive in the extreme. But that’s the sort of shameless and ahistorical distortion I’d expect from a fanatic, of whatever religious flavor.

  • libra, #38:

    Museum of Creationism? Enjoy. — dajafi, @23
    What odds that the Museum — as an “educational institution” — is, to a great extent, supported by state and federal taxes? Ie by me and you? As an atheist, I resent that.

    That’s a valid argument, and I’m not sure I disagree with you. Honestly, it hadn’t occurred to me.

    Unfortunately, I believe that the principle you might be referencing–that a taxpayer should approve of everything his or her contribution is used for–is impossible to implement. For example, my tax dollars pay part of Karl Rove’s salary… and everyone else’s in the Bush administration. In that sense, I’ve been paying for the partisan polarization of my own government–which is sort of like paying someone to infest the foundation of your home with termites. I hate it, but it’s the consequence of a (presumably) democratic election.

    (Similarly, the fanatics hate paying school taxes when they aren’t allowed to enforce a prayer period in school. But presumably most of them do it. Elections have consequences, most of the time.)

    The other point I’d suggest is that even if the establishment partially funded with public money represents a viewpoint you disagree with, there might be an economic development incentive for it–maybe out of town visitors to The Creation Museum spend tourist money that supports local businesses and bolsters the tax base.

    It yields the occasional pisser–like when you’re helping to pay for an ideology and worldview you find repellent, down the block or in Washington, DC–but it really is a pretty good system on the whole. I just wish everyone would be okay playing by its rules, or going about changing them through the established means.

  • You guys’ll love those Brownback supporters: Heliocentrism is an Athesist Doctrine.

    If you ask me, that settles the question right there. I support the Bible, and I don’t want my children learning about Heliocentrism in school. I think this doctrine encourages atheism, Darwinism, and anti-Americanism. I don’t want my tax dollars going to finance this kind of false science. It’s complete rot, and I hope that those of us who come to realize this can ultimately prevail against its propogation amongst OUR children with the money from OUR salaries.

    I can’t wait to hear from the moonbats and the Darwinists and the other rubes on this one, though. Go on, witch doctors. Preach to me how the planet hurtles through the ether, Scriptural and physical evidence to the contrary! Your false doctrines will be cast down on the day when America rediscovers its Christian roots. That is a promise.

  • Bill,

    You never answered my question. An article from 1986 isn’t going to cut it as a response. In five years what I learned in university is obsolete. A science article 20 years ago is the human history equivalent of 200 years. Unlike the bible, our knowledge base has expanded in the past 20 years and the information cycle is getting faster thanks to DNA and improvements in computing.

    A minute on google yielded me CURRENT articles

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/310/5756/1878

    http://artsci.wustl.edu/~landc/html/cann/

    http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/evolution/mg19025504.600-how-chemicals-can-speed-up-evolution.html

    The problem is that just two YEARs, scientists have finally figured out how DNA makes the changes within our DNA to spark evolution. DNA and RNA are NOT static. For creation to exist, everyone’s DNA and RNA must remain static.

    Plus we can go back in time using DNA as it is also a historical record of how we changed over time.

    First of all, if our bodies were static, we must have at least 42000 genes. At last count we only have 20-27K. This means that they are used in combination. Secondly, when DNA makes RNA, the DNA markers will ACTIVATE certain genes and DEACTIVATE others which probably explains why certain diseases may skip several generations. The DNA makes these changes in response to environmental factors as well as caused by damage within the DNA structure (such as cancer) or error.

    These NEW advances in the LAST TWO years breaks the last crutch of creationism, molecular biology. Our DNA is driving it’s own evolution. There is no invisible hand. For creation to be real, DNA and RNA must remain static and our own understanding must remain static. We are seeing that they do not remain static (even if folks like you can’t or won’t.)

    BTW, you never replied back on my comment on Solid State Physics (the basis of semi conductors) which can only be explained via the big bang.

  • to # 16: Copernicus, my ass, try 2300 years ago by a student of geometry. While looking down a well to get water our student noticed that the high-noon sun lighted the water at the bottom and it lighted the sides of the well as it continued westward across the sky as Apollo was always driving his ‘sun chariot’ in a westelry direction.
    This was in summer, in the south of Greece. As our idiot preznit w. would say: those grecians sure were smart.
    In the winter he noticed the sunlight did not reach the bottom anymore and even at his friend’s well in the north of the country the light was different … welcome to simple geometry! Geometry: measuring the Earth! They knew they were dealing with a ‘ball’ as far back as that! They mothballed that knowledge when the religious shitheads started controlling information.

  • Former Dan,
    .
    Sorry about the short reply.
    Something came up at work. I have been a little distracted, lately.

  • I am not a scientist, but I believe that I know and understand the Theory of Evolution better than most “evolutionists”. And, the same goes for the Theory of Creationism, and creationist.

    You have shown no evidence of this in any of your comments. It sounds like you are saying that the Theory of Evolution is akin to the Theory of Why My Invisible Sky Fairy Exists And Is Always Right. One has empirical statistical evidence to back it up. One is the fevered ramblings of someone who listens to the voices in his head.

    You have, so far, presented zero evidence supporting the Theory of Creationism. Would you possibly consider responding to this before spouting more superstitious nonsense?

    It appears to me that you were raised in a completely secular society. I mean no offense against you or your country, but it many ways that American Christians are trying to stop.

    We do not want a society for our children and their children, that is intolerant of our religious beliefs. I believe my children should not have to endure the scene you described in your fifth-grade classroom.

    Why do christians feel they have the right to seduce america’s youth and brainwash their minds with christian pagan occultism?

    There’s no way I would ever let a chirstian teach my children. Pretty soon they’d be corrupted into the deviant christian lifestyle, and start molesting littel children in the name of their Gawd.

    It just didn’t come up because my parents realized that ACTUALLY raising me was more important.

    My parents passed on to me their moral, ethical, and religious beliefs. Everyday I am thankful that they did. Hopefully, one day my children will feel the same.

    It sounds to my ears here as though you are implying that no one can have moral or ethical beliefs unless one believes in the same set of religious beliefs as you. Is this truly your position on the subject, or do you think that morality and ethicality are independent of one’s faith (or lack thereof)?

    For anyone interested in using the “Origin of the Species” to swear an oath on, I have would not have problem except. One, are we to allow everyone to bring their own “bible”. Two, the point of swearing on the Bible, was originally because it was regarded as the “Holy Bible”. It was assumed that even if you did not agree with it, your oath would mean something out respect for the “Holy Bible”
    .
    Based on the messages posted here, it would appear that we really can not trust any testimony given.

    Can anyone trust the word of noted televangelist Ted Haggard? Would you believe his testimony if he swore to it on a bible? The way he used the bible to hide his lies and hyopcrisy?

    Why would anyone “respect” the set of life lessons and tales to incite fear and obedience into the masses currently known as the bible? Why should anyone?

    Once again, plese limit your responses to the fact and reality based sort. “Because the bible says it is so” is not a rational argument that can be proven one way or the other. Unless you have some repeatable, unambiguous scientific experiments set up that will support your wild flights of fancy…

    Sorry – religiously insane trolls who bring nothing to the discussion need to be slapped down hard. Otherwise they’ll keep on trying to peddle their bs…

  • I was going to post some evidence, but I have come to realization that I simply wasting my time!
    .
    You have not heard anything I have said.
    .
    —————————————————————————————-
    I am not a scientist, but I believe that I know and understand the Theory of Evolution better than most “evolutionists”. And, the same goes for the Theory of Creationism, and creationist.

    You have shown no evidence of this in any of your comments. It sounds like you are saying that the Theory of Evolution is akin to the Theory of Why My Invisible Sky Fairy Exists And Is Always Right. One has empirical statistical evidence to back it up. One is the fevered ramblings of someone who listens to the voices in his head.

    You have, so far, presented zero evidence supporting the Theory of Creationism. Would you possibly consider responding to this before spouting more superstitious nonsense?
    ————————————————————————————–
    *Sorry, I do have other responsibilities, like all of you. I had to spend time working. One the few disadvantages of working for yourself, you can work when you can get it. And, I come back to this?
    ————————————————————————————–
    It appears to me that you were raised in a completely secular society. I mean no offense against you or your country, but it many ways that American Christians are trying to stop.

    We do not want a society for our children and their children, that is intolerant of our religious beliefs. I believe my children should not have to endure the scene you described in your fifth-grade classroom.

    Why do christians feel they have the right to seduce america’s youth and brainwash their minds with christian pagan occultism?
    ————————————————————————————–
    *I do not know how else to explain to you. DO THE RESEARCH ! CHECK THE HISTORICALLY VERIFIABLE FACTS. Christian were here first, this country started as a Christian Country.
    ————————————————————————————–
    There’s no way I would ever let a chirstian teach my children. Pretty soon they’d be corrupted into the deviant christian lifestyle, and start molesting littel children in the name of their Gawd.
    ————————————————————————————–
    *I will be the first to admit that people have misused Christian teachings and beliefs to justify their OWN actions. This is no different then all the other hypocrites out there.
    ————————————————————————————–
    It just didn’t come up because my parents realized that ACTUALLY raising me was more important.

    My parents passed on to me their moral, ethical, and religious beliefs. Everyday I am thankful that they did. Hopefully, one day my children will feel the same.

    It sounds to my ears here as though you are implying that no one can have moral or ethical beliefs unless one believes in the same set of religious beliefs as you. Is this truly your position on the subject, or do you think that morality and ethicality are independent of one’s faith (or lack thereof)?
    ————————————————————————————–
    *Here is a perfect example of someone not reading what written.
    *THE ONLY THING I WAS SAYING HERE WAS THAT IT IS IMPORTANT TO TEACH CHILDREN TO BE MORAL, AND ETHICAL. AND, IF YOU DO BELIEVE IN GOD, OBVIOUSLY YOU TEACH THEM THAT AS WELL.
    *
    *NO, I AM NOT implying that no one can have moral or ethical beliefs unless one believes in the same set of religious beliefs as you. OBVIOUSLY, I THINK MORE OF MY OWN BELIEFS, OTHERWISE WHY WOULD I HAVE THEM!
    ————————————————————————————–

    For anyone interested in using the “Origin of the Species” to swear an oath on, I have would not have problem except. One, are we to allow everyone to bring their own “bible”. Two, the point of swearing on the Bible, was originally because it was regarded as the “Holy Bible”. It was assumed that even if you did not agree with it, your oath would mean something out respect for the “Holy Bible”
    .
    Based on the messages posted here, it would appear that we really can not trust any testimony given.

    Can anyone trust the word of noted televangelist Ted Haggard? Would you believe his testimony if he swore to it on a bible? The way he used the bible to hide his lies and hyopcrisy?

    Why would anyone “respect” the set of life lessons and tales to incite fear and obedience into the masses currently known as the bible? Why should anyone?
    ————————————————————————————–
    *Once again, learn to read what is there. Hypocrisy was the whole point of what I was saying.
    ————————————————————————————–
    Once again, plese limit your responses to the fact and reality based sort. “Because the bible says it is so” is not a rational argument that can be proven one way or the other. Unless you have some repeatable, unambiguous scientific experiments set up that will support your wild flights of fancy…

    Sorry – religiously insane trolls who bring nothing to the discussion need to be slapped down hard. Otherwise they’ll keep on trying to peddle their bs…
    ————————————————————————————–
    BTW: It would that they are as many secular insane trolls, as you appear there are religious ones. So, unless you want to actually read and discuss things, why should I waste my time talking to hard-headed closed-minded fools?

  • I’ve got a question for ya Bill.

    Adam and Eve gave birth to Cain and Able…how do you get past that? As a poster above put it succinctly, where did Cain’s wife come from?

  • Nice. You didn’t answer anything, either. Praise Koresh that I prevented you from spewing more of your superstitious beliefs. I have heard everything you said. I just don’t believe a word of it, and since you have offered no proof, I feel no need to re-examine my decision.

    BTW: That comment about not letting christians teach my kids? Substitute the word homosexual for the word christian, and you might have an idea where I got that from. Are you seriously saying that the heads of most of the major religions are wrong about this, when you say “I will be the first to admit that people have misused Christian teachings and beliefs to justify their OWN actions. This is no different then all the other hypocrites out there.”? Hallelujah!

    BTW: It would that they are as many secular insane trolls, as you appear there are religious ones. So, unless you want to actually read and discuss things, why should I waste my time talking to hard-headed closed-minded fools?

    Comment by Bill — 5/29/2007 @ 3:56 pm

    Actual reading and actual discussion (and actual questions) were being attempted, until some religiously insane idiot brought the Invisible Sky Fairy into the discussion. Hopefully we won’t have to deal with your hard-headed close-minded foolishness any longer.

    Plus: You’re going to stop your religiously insane rantings? Mission accomplished…

  • One last message posted.
    .
    CNR, yes I believe Adam and Eve gave birth to Cain & Able. And, I believe that Cain’s wife was his sister.
    .
    I guess what it comes down to is that many of the messages shown are further proof that any time a Christian attempts to exercise their rights, they are called a religiously insane idiot.
    .
    Oh, and Tom, I doubt you could have a simply logical conversation with someone of differing opinion, even if they standing right in front of you. When someone discusses something you do not believe, you call it names like “wild flights of fancy” or “Invisible Sky Fairy”. How can you expect to hold a legitimate conversation with a closed-minded attitude like that?

    • Comments are closed.