The banning of Creationism

Post Reply New Topic

No, I was looking for factual evidence of things already harmed.

Lack of a decent science education is already a harm.

Okay, how about the minds of all those children being dumbed down? That is pretty harmful to them. And it's like syphilis (the gift that keeps on giving) because those brainwashed children if they don't ever wake up and learn to think for themselves are likely to brainwash their children, and those theirs on and on for generations of mindless stupidity dumbing down the human race.

Plus what about the idea of TRUTH being harmed? Things are what they are, and even if some idiots refuse to accept reality (for whatever crazy reason) that won't make evolution not happen. Wallow in your ignorance if you want. Even brainwash your own children to be stupider if you want. What I object to is all the brainwashed idiots trying to force their nonsense into public school science classrooms where it has no right to be because it is not science.

I maintain, and I believe the facts back me up here, that suppressing the teaching of genuine science and the scientific method is harmful to our country, our species and our planet (now and into the future) as well as being harmful to the individual children whose minds are being kept from fully developing by being told lies about what is real and what isn't.

One last thing, what about the credibility of Christianity? Imagine that Christianity still insisted (as it used to) that the sun goes around the earth instead of the earth going around the sun? Or that the earth is flat as the Bible clearly teaches when it is read with the same principles of interpretation used by those who deny the fact of evolution? How many people would turn to Christ if Christianity insisted on things that have been falsified? A literal reading of Genesis has been falsified by evidence, so if you insist on a literal interpretation then God is either lying to us in His Book or in His Creation. To deny evolution makes God into a liar one way or the other.

As a Christian you should be ashamed to spread falsehoods in the name of Christ, don't you think? Augustine of Hippo warned about this problem a long time ago (around 400 A.D.). Among other things, he said when Christians make ignorant statements about the natural world that nonbelievers can see are false, it will turn people AWAY from Christ. Think about that!

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 22 Jun 2014, 9:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfZFsXfCy6s[/youtube]

What do arguments 5 to 10 in that video have anything to do with creationism. They sound to me like they have more to do with religion in general than creationism.

I suppose those arguments are to make the point that the "authority" cited by creationists isn't as reliable as creationists think it is? But it is important to note that accepting evolution as a fact does not necessarily mean one is rejecting God any more than accepting gravity as a fact does, or accepting the heliocentric solar system as a fact even though the Bible implies a geocentric (and flat earth) solar system.

leejosepho and others have bought the big lie spread by creationists that this is a choice between science and God. Because of fear (mainly), when it is presented in that way most people will automatically go with God (probably because of the Pascal's Wager idea). I like the way Pascal's Wager is debunked in this video.

As I point out repeatedly though (to no avail apparently), when one denies the fact of evolution because one insists on a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis, then one is calling God a liar one way or the other. IF a literal reading of Genesis is the only correct way to read the Bible, then God is either lying to us in His Book or God is lying to us in His Creation with all the evidence that clearly shows evolution happens. The God of the Biblical literalists is a malicious prankster too, because if we are fooled by his prank we may end up in Hell for eternity.

Of course another possiblity is IF the Bible IS true that Genesis was never meant to be taken literally, and those who do cannot understand the concepts of metaphor or allegory. When one reads a metaphor as fact one misses the whole point the metaphor is trying to teach. A story told to teach a message is like the envelope containing a letter in the mail. Those who belong to so-called "fundamentalist" denominations that insist on taking the Bible literally (but apparently not the parts that teach a flat earth) focus (even obsess) on the envelope without understanding it is being used to convey a message inside, and by doing so they are calling God a liar and a malicous prankster even if they don't realize this.

Catholicism in particular has (finally) made peace with science (too late for Galileo). This is wise.
from a Catholic website
http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/co ... ngs/27.asp

I have known quite a few Catholics (and Christians in general, orthodox, baptists, methodists, etc), in my family (and ex-husband's family), and other people I have known, and the only ones who believed in creationism were my ex-husband's parents. My brother and sister are also Christians, and they also don't believe in Creationism, my brother especially is very interested in science.

Yeah, fundamentalist Christians make Christianity look really stupid. They also turn people away from Christ by spreading distortions and falsehoods in His name. I do not agree with most of what the noted atheist Dawkins says or how he says it, but when it comes to categorizing evolution deniers he nailed it when he famously wrote:

Source: http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p88.htm

The only thing I disagree with about how he said this is his use of the word "believe" in this context. When one is asked if one "believes" in evolution, I want to say "Yes" but the question itself is poorly worded. It is like the old question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" I don't believe in evolution. I accept it as an observable testable fact of nature just as I accept gravity as a fact of nature, and for the same reasons: overwhelming evidence that this is so.

Outlaw Creationism, and then only outlaws will get created!

(SOME one had to say it).

On a federal level, it is permissible to discuss the crucial role of religion in medieval European history, creationism may be discussed in a civics, current affairs, philosophy, or comparative religions class. Creationism cannot be taught as science, nor can intelligent design. So in this particular instance, science has been given a legal definition.

The big hang-up is state laws that are worded in a way that allow (or in some cases require) in their science standards "students critically analyze key aspects of evolutionary theory." I think Louisiana still requires that teachers discuss scientific evidence critical of evolution.

Eventually, the various cases will wind their way up to the District courts and eventually to the SCOTUS for even more specific bans on teaching creationism, which has technically been illegal in public schools since 1987. Intelligent design was struck down in 2005. And prohibiting the teaching of evolution was struck down in the 1960s.

I was actually very surprised the first time they mentioned it, as even after years of marriage, I had no idea they believed in Creationism (or were Creationists, however you prefer to put it). It was after they moved to a different town, and started going to church again (I'm guessing their new pastor must have been a Creationist himself). It was years ago and I don't remember exactly how the conversation went but at some point I mentioned fossils and bones and I was very surprised when they started questioning it and saying things like "how would you know scientists are not lying about this and didn't plant these bones there", etc.

It was all very new and strange to me because myself I was also raised a Catholic, but my parents didn't believe in Creationism, they were interested in science like most people, and I remember they even bought me a book about dinosaurs.

The worst part about the term "Creationist" is that it usually implies denial of what is demonstrably real. It is very possible to believe in a Creator without being batshit crazy in denial of reality, but the fundies try to make it look like if you accept the reality of evolution that automatically means you are rejecting God. What one is rejecting is the Biblical literalist interpretation that has theological problems in addition to being falsified by the evidence of the physical world.

Here is a quick list of some important points to make about this subject:

Accepting evolution does NOT necessarily mean rejecting God.

It IS possible to believe in a Creator (even the God of the Christian Bible) without denying that evolution happens.

Most Christians worldwide belong to churches that either accept the fact of evolution or say it doesn't matter to their faith.

The fundies are batshit crazy and have dumbed down this country to an amazing (and disgusting) degree.

Creationist sources ignore most of the strongest evidence for evolution and they deny or distort what they do not ignore, so people who base their opinon about evolution on this misinformation are naturally going to have bogus opinions because their knowledge of this subject is so inaccurate.

^If more fundamentalists could realize this, maybe there would be a whole lot less hatred spewed out of the mouths of those supposed Christians.