Creationists in Museums. Two tier America ?

[Sequent]

@lekatt

The debate has only begun, and the more you try to bully, ridicule, and belittle people who hold religion sacred, the more they will vote against everything you believe in.

lekatt is right. I hate to say it, but it’s already happening. When we start “voting” for the science we “believe in,” then the word “science” no longer has any meaning.

There was one episode of Rome where two soldiers were camping out at night, lookin up at the stars. One asks, “what are the stars?.” The other goes into a blissfully simple explanation about how they’re huge celestial holes in the firmament that only look so small because they’re hundreds of miles away. But what struck me was, after he finished his explanation, he said, simply, “it’s philosophy.”

It used to be philosophy, until it became science. And it became science through through a very hard-won struggle. History shows us what happened when Gallileo simply came to a different conclusion than the prevailing religious institution at the time. To him, it was science–that is to say, it was observation and inference towards proof. To the church, it was far more dangerous than that.

It’s embarassing for them, the church, if you ask me. When I studied history, I was consistently embarassed for the church (perhaps because I was a Catholic back then). The Crusades. Gallileo. The Inquisition, the Reformation…the histories of the Popes, some of whose bios sound like a Hunter S. Thompson nightmare. I mean, you’ve gotta feel kind of bad for an institution with such a consistent history of being so incredibly and pig-headedly wrong. You’ve got to feel even worse for the people living under their thumb.

These days, even the Vatican has an observatory. Which would be a big step, if the church could learn that it is worthwhile to simply observe, even if you can’t immediately establish some dogma about it. And that’s what the words “intelligent design” are to me–a dogma. A myth made reality. And the genius of its adherents is that they’ve actually been able to elevate it–in terms of mainstream American conciousness–to the level of scientific theory. They have, in the year 2005, taken a huge step toward turning the debate between science and religion in our culture into a debate between science and Science. It’s beyond embarassing. It’s beyond sad.

We’ll be a two-tier America if we’re lucky. If we get to the point where we have to prep museum workers with Biblical talking points, I think we’re truly headed for our own dark ages.

[tomndebb]

@Sequent

These days, even the Vatican has an observatory. Which would be a big step, if the church could learn that it is worthwhile to simply observe, even if you can’t immediately establish some dogma about it. And that’s what the words “intelligent design” are to me–a dogma.

There were observatories in Rome when Galileo was stomping around. Jesuits confirmed many of his initial observations. Galileo got in trouble when he tried to mix science and theology and encountered religious nuts as stubborn as he was.

The RCC has also accepted evolution (at least as theistic evolution) for over 100 years. While one loony archbishop recently made some odd comments about Intelligent Design, he clearly used the word differently than it is used by its (pseudo)“scientific” proponents and his views were personal, not official.

[Sequent]

@tomndebb

There were observatories in Rome when Galileo was stomping around. Jesuits confirmed many of his initial observations. Galileo got in trouble when he tried to mix science and theology and encountered religious nuts as stubborn as he was.

Since you’re the one who can spell his name correctly, I guess I stand corrected. I’m aware of the Catholic position on evolution, which was part of my point–it’s a sad day when the Catholic church outpaces you in terms of scientific thinking.

[jshore]

@John Mace

Are there no creationists in Brazil? Why is it such a big deal in the US, but not elsewhere? Don’t take this a tu quoque, it’s just that it sounds like you’re having trouble understanding this in the US, but it has nothing to do with country of origin.

I don’t know about Brazil, but I have seen statistics that show that it is an unfortunate truth that public support for the theory of evolution is significantly lower in the U.S. than in other First World countries, e.g., in Japan and Western Europe. I’ll leave it to others to dig up the cites…but I seem to recall acceptance rates on the order of 80% for evolution in these other countries. Actually, here is something I dug up quickly:

According to the foundation report, polls consistently show that a plurality of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago, and about two-thirds believe that this belief should be taught along with evolution in public schools.

These findings set the United States apart from all other industrialized nations, said Dr. Jon Miller, director of the Center for Biomedical Communications at Northwestern University, who has studied public attitudes toward science.

Americans, he said, have been evenly divided for years on the question of evolution, with about 45 percent accepting it, 45 percent rejecting it and the rest undecided.

In other industrialized countries, Dr. Miller said, 80 percent or more typically accept evolution, most of the others say they are not sure and very few people reject the idea outright.

“In Japan, something like 96 percent accept evolution,” he said.

Even in socially conservative, predominantly Catholic countries like Poland, perhaps 75 percent of people surveyed accept evolution, he said.

[Guinastasia]

@Lissa

As for what it means for science in the future, fear not. Yes, I often feel great pity when home-school groups come in for tours, because I know these kids have no hope of becoming great scientists.

Uh, you do know that not ALL home-schoolers are creationists, right?

[John_Mace]

@jshore

I don’t know about Brazil, but I have seen statistics that show that it is an unfortunate truth that public support for the theory of evolution is significantly lower in the U.S. than in other First World countries, e.g., in Japan and Western Europe. I’ll leave it to others to dig up the cites…but I seem to recall acceptance rates on the order of 80% for evolution in these other countries. Actually, here is something I dug up quickly:

Yes, I’m familiar with the statistics. My point was that even at 50% vs 20% creationists, it’s just a matter of degree. And I don’t believe that the 50% represents an increase over, say, 50 years ago. So that “problem” has exited here for a long time, and exists elsewhere to a lesser degree. There isn’t going to be a “two tiered” society in the US due to this issue, and it’s unlikely that the creationists in the US are different in kind that creationists in other countries, even in Brazil. Brazil may be poor by US standards, but it’s not some backwater with no educational system.

[Rashak_Mani]

@John Mace

There isn’t going to be a “two tiered” society in the US due to this issue, and it’s unlikely that the creationists in the US are different in kind that creationists in other countries, even in Brazil. Brazil may be poor by US standards, but it’s not some backwater with no educational system.

So your saying that creationist percentages have remained the same in the US ?

Brazil does have a public education system… but even compared to the US (which gets a lot of flak here in the SMDB) its quite bad. Middle Class all goes to private schools that vary in quality.

As for creationists being the same everywhere… I’d say american creationists seem to be on a mission to give their ideas more spotlight. They have become more active. I’ve seen evidence of US money coming to some Brazilian churches to finance abstinence programs and creationism.

[Lissa]

@Guinastasia

Uh, you do know that not ALL home-schoolers are creationists, right?

Of course, but the majority seem to be, especially in this region-- home-schooled for religious reasons. Call me prejudiced, but when a home-school group calling themselves The Lifting-Up-Jesus Academy comes, I make an automatic assumption they’ll probably be Creationists.

I met one family who were home-schooling but were using a secular cirriculum. (The kid was super-bright.)

[John_Mace]

@Rashak Mani

So your saying that creationist percentages have remained the same in the US ?

I don’t have the statistics, but I’d be surprised if the % has gotten bigger. To validate your claim of a two tiered society, you should show us some statistics that it has. Otherwise, why don’t we already have a two-tiered society?

As for creationists being the same everywhere… I’d say american creationists seem to be on a mission to give their ideas more spotlight. They have become more active. I’ve seen evidence of US money coming to some Brazilian churches to finance abstinence programs and creationism.

Well, maybe that’ll put them in the top tier of the hypothetical two-tiered society. After all, looks who’s running things now? So, are you worried that us non-Creationists will end up in the bottom tier?

[Rashak_Mani]

@John Mace

I don’t have the statistics, but I’d be surprised if the % has gotten bigger. To validate your claim of a two tiered society, you should show us some statistics that it has. Otherwise, why don’t we already have a two-tiered society?

Other posts seem to support your position… numbers seem to be the same or very slightly bigger. Still the US seems to have a greater % than any other first world country.

Well, maybe that’ll put them in the top tier of the hypothetical two-tiered society. After all, looks who’s running things now? So, are you worried that us non-Creationists will end up in the bottom tier?

True I might… after all if I tell a creationist to shove it… I’m offending his religion. If he tells me to shove it… what is he offending ? My science ? So its a lopsided fight. Non-creationists can easily be the villains and its harder to get a creationist to become an evolutionist than vice-versa IMO.

[New_Iskander]

There’s more to life then evolution and creation theories.

For example, many people donating to religious charities in US are creationists. Many of those charities provide relief to children in notorious Brazilian slums. Chances are, US creationists are doing more to help Brazilian ‘second-tier’ children, then some Brazilian evolutionists.

[lekatt]

I don’t have the time to keep my part of this debate going. If you truly believe science has disproved the existence of God, and religion is just superstitious nonsense you have ignored a great deal of real evidence to the contrary.

I have never really understood atheists. They believe in no-God and get nothing in return. While people who do believe live longer and happier lives. Why would someone choose nothing over something, when they can’t prove nothing exists.

Yes, I understand what I wrote. I think you would be better off to fake a believe and get some benefits rather than throw every thing away. What do you have to lose – nothing, that’s what you have to lose. Ludicrous argument isn’t it.

[whiterabbit]

God and Science aren’t an either-or, lekatt. But enough people have explained that to you that I guess you just can’t see it.

[John_Mace]

@lekatt

If you truly believe science has disproved the existence of God, and religion is just superstitious nonsense you have ignored a great deal of real evidence to the contrary.

OK, let’s do this one more time…

Science has not and **cannot **“disproved the existence of God”. That is impossible to do. Science can tell us nothing about God because. if he exists, he exists outside the bounds of science.

Science has, OTOH, disproved some religious beliefs (such as the idea that God created man fully formed). That is entirely different from disproving the existence of God. If you think a belief in God is continent on believing every religious precept that you hold to, then you have an extremely narrow view of what God is.

[tdn]

@lekatt

I think you would be better off to fake a believe and get some benefits rather than throw every thing away.

How does one “fake a believe”? I believe what I believe.

Ludicrous argument isn’t it.

Darn tootin’.

[Siege]

Actually, the approach the article suggests looks sensible to me. There are people who aren’t aware that one can believe in God, even be a devout Christian and still accept the theory of evolution, cosmology, etc. as they are at the moment. It may never have occurred to them that such knowledge can reinforce, rather than damage faith. They know what they believe and why; it seems to me to be a good idea to show why scientists have reached the conclusions they have. If it can be done in such a way that it can be made clear to them that science and God are far from incompatible, so much the better.

By the way, lekatt, I’m fairly sure there’s no such word as “religionists”. If you must refer to people like me who are devoutly religious, “religious” or “the religious” will do nicely.

CJ

[Der_Trihs]

@lekatt

I don’t have the time to keep my part of this debate going. If you truly believe science has disproved the existence of God, and religion is just superstitious nonsense you have ignored a great deal of real evidence to the contrary.

What evidence ? There is no evidence for God. That’s why religion is based on faith. Science has not disproved God; not only is there no evidence to prove he exists, there isn’t any proof that he doesn’t exist; there isn’t any evidence about such a hypothetical being at all.

@lekatt

I have never really understood atheists. They believe in no-God and get nothing in return. While people who do believe live longer and happier lives. Why would someone choose nothing over something, when they can’t prove nothing exists.

I don’t need to prove nothing exists; it’s the religious folk’s obligation to prove something exists - especially since they are determined to ram their beliefs down everyone else’s throat. What do I get ? The satisfaction of being right, and the fact that I’m not hurting people by screwing up the world because my religion says so.

@lekatt

Yes, I understand what I wrote. I think you would be better off to fake a believe and get some benefits rather than throw every thing away. What do you have to lose – nothing, that’s what you have to lose. Ludicrous argument isn’t it.

Ah, lekatt, the person who thinks religion makes you moral, that religion is the source of enlightenment…thinks fraud for profit is something to be admired.

[UncleBeer]

@lekatt

Yes, I understand what I wrote. I think you would be better off to fake a believe and get some benefits rather than throw every thing away. What do you have to lose – nothing, that’s what you have to lose. Ludicrous argument isn’t it.

But the supposedly omnipotent, omniscient (and for all I know omnivorous) God of the Christians would know you’re faking your belief, making it all just a fool’s game anyway.

Also, suppose you choose wrongly? You come to believe in a God who is a false god. And the “real” god is actually a jealous and malevolent sumbitch (much like the God of the OT)? Wouldn’t He be likely to damn your soul to an eternity of hell? Whereas, if I choose to believe in no gGod at all, and the “real” God turns out to be more benevolent and loving (much like the God of the NT). A god with this characteristic would be more likely to forgive me and spare me eternal torment.

[tdn]

@lekatt

I think you would be better off to fake a believe and get some benefits

Like dental?

[lekatt]

@tdn

Like dental?

I have had some experience with this, I know you are not that interested, but it works like this:

Let’s say you are very thirsty, and God has provided a large tank car full of clear, cool water. It’s free for the taking, but you have to walk up to the tank car and pull down the little lever to get some. People around you may be saying all kinds of things like, “the tank is empty”, “there is no tank”, “it’s all nonsence, don’t fall for it, do as I say”, “only the ignorant do things like that”, etc.

There is nothing to lose but your thirst, from there it’s all up hill. I highly recommend it for those who are in pain, depressed, troubled. The rates of suicides, mental illness, depression, anxiety attacks are high and rising. Science is making claims, but has no cures I know of. God has cures.