First, I’m normally a lurker in GD, so if even if I don’t respond to this thread, I’ll still be reading it.
I’ve been reading certain threads, like this one, where people who don’t believe in evolution have schools and other educational institutions remove references to Evolution, or want to have Creationism taught along side Evolution in science classes.
Now, I know that the theory of Evolution is the best explination for what we know is true, and I totally believe it is the absolute truth (at least as truthful as is possible with science). What I don’t understand is Creationists who don’t believe it is true, and that think the Earth has only been around for ~6,000 years, and go as far as trying to force this belief onto everyone else.
Why do they think that? What is their motivation for discounting many many decades of scientific findings? Why are they so insistent on forcing their beliefs onto people taught in public schools? As far as I’m aware even the Catholic Church teaches that Evolution is the accepted theory?
Disclaimer: I do consider myself a Christian, however my beliefs are more inline with Deismthen normal organized religions.
Their motivation for discounting the findings of science is that they accord more authority to a particular interpretation of a particuler set of religious texts.
As for “fording their beliefs onto people taught in public schools”, much as I deride their position I have to acknowledge that they do not (mostly) demand that people accept that their view is true, or that people be taught that their view is true, or even (the present instance excepted) that only their view be acknowledged. They demand only that their view be presented. Their motive for this, I think, is that they are looking for affirmation in the form of an acknowledgment that their view is not completely refuted, that it has to be accepted as at least an arguable position, and therefore that it must be presented (along with evolution) as an explanation of how things came to be as they are.
They’re afraid of facing the truth, so by ignoring the truth and preventing their children from learning the truth, they can persist in their delusional fantasy world.
I’m unsure if the Church has formally endorsed evolution, but I think Catholics don’t make a big stink over evolution or creationism – most of these public school battles are spearheaded by Charismatic Fundamentalists in the U.S. But IIRC, the Catholic Church didn’t accept Kepler’s heliocentric model of the Solar System until the 19th Century or so.
Except that they do mostly think you should literally burn if you don’t accept their view. Many, I suspect most, of them pray for people to be burned for not accepting that their view is correct.
That’s pretty much the definition of demanding that people accept their view, no?
That’s because they fought that case and lost already. For many years this is exactly what they demanded. Don’t fool yourself, if they had half a chance they would demand a return to the days when people had to be taught that their view is true, and when even acknowledging another view was a crime.
I don’t buy this.
Based on their past history they want people to be forcibly exposed to their beliefs against their will, and that expressing any other views be forbidden. This has nothing to do with acknowledgment and everything to do with proselytism and heresy.
Ok, I just looked at the definition of Intelligent Design, and as far as I could tell, it doesn’t preclude the theory of Evolution. After all, the way I understand Evolution is basically, Decent with modification, with the modifications that lead to greater reproductive success spreading faster, and then overtaking, or driving out, the modifications without as much success.
Now, as far as I see, there isn’t any actual disagreement between intelligent design and evolution itself, the only main difference is that intelligent design implies that there is a “master plan” behind evolution. However, that doesn’t actually change the science of anything. The Theory of Evolution explains “What Happened”, while Intelligent Design explains “Why Evolution Happened”.
Now, before anyone gets the wrong idea, I’m not trying to defend Intelligent Design being taught in schools. School should teach the “What”, and leave the “Why” to someone else.
Anyone see anything wrong with my interpretation? And can explain why Creationists have a problem with this?
In all cases, intelligent Design is in opposition ot the science behind the Theory of Natural Selection.
Some ID supporters, (Michael Behe) accept that generally Natural Selection is the engine driving evolution, but insist that some evolutionary events just can’t be explained by random mutations and natural selection, so they have to invent a belief that some Designer steps in every once in a while and tweaks the process to keep it going. (Unfortunately for them, all their examples of events that could not possibly occur through natural selection keep getting disproven.)
Some Intelligent Design supporters, (Phillip Johnson, William Dembski), are put off from Natural Selection for philosophical reasons having nothing to do with science and make outlandish claims (both about Intelligent Design and Natural Selection), that have no grounding in science (or reality).
There is a separate religious belief that a god might have set up the universe and let evolution do its thing in each biosphere, either knowing what would happen from His (or Her or their) vantage of immortality outside space and time or not caring about it, in any event. However, that belief is better known as Theistic Evolution, not Intelligent Design which is anti-scientific.
This is simplistic stone throwing, however. The opponents of evolutionary science, as wrong-headed as they are, have a philosophical opposition to the theory that is neither the result of “not thinking” nor of “being afraid of the truth,” (although there is an element of fear in some beliefs).
Among Fundamentalist Christians, (and some Jews and Muslims), the opposition is based on firm belief in one interpretation of the Bible that requires the direct intervention of God for the creation of humans, with all the other aspects of abiogensis and evolution simply proceeding from that starting point.
Others, not necessarily prompted by religious beliefs, simply see the amazing interactions of life on earth as being far too complex to allow for them to have arisen through a series of accidents or mutations.
Most Catholic scholars recognized the heliocentric system along with Galileo and the formal opposition to the theory, once Galileo’s errors were corrected, was dropped in the eighteenth century, although inertia left Galileo’s books on the Index for another hundred years.
As to Evolution, the RCC has accepted the Darwinian explanation since the 19th century, with the only proviso being that one should not infer a lack of God by accepting Darwin’s theory.
I’ve given this question a great deal of thought, for the simple reason that my mother became a Young Earth Creationist many years after I had left the home. (Ironically, I had become at almost the exact same time an atheist and a materialist.) The motivations for believing in YEC and for insisting that it be offered in school are dffierent. For the former, it’s a slippery slope problem. Either the Bible is the literal divinely inspire Word of God or it’s just a book. (Yes, there’s a middle ground, but they don’t see that.) For the latter, it’s a problem of having official education contradicting what’s being taught at home and at church. We believe YEC. You say that’s wrong. How dare you? Haven’t you heard of free exercise of religiion?
Except, fundies choose a selective literal interpretation of their Holy Book. They choose to interpret “day” in Genesis ch.1 as 24 hours, no more no less, but when Jesus Christ said he will return “within a generation”, fundies will twist those words and come up with all kind of bizarre scenarios to explain away what obviously, literally, means 30 years or so. And they’ll discount entire passages of the Bible entirely, such as the Book of Ecclesiasties.
There is no basis whatsoever for YEC, not even in Genesis, if you properly interpret the story as myth or metaphor.
Well, I must agree with them on that point. I don’t see that much middle-ground. Either it is THE Holy Book from or at least about GOD, you know The Omnipitent. That is something really really big. There is one GOD who created the whole universe and us people and this is HIS BOOK that tells us all about him.
I mean, like… WOW! man.
Or… it is a collection of writings from long ago, by old dudes,that really didn’t know anything about how the world actually works, and ehrm…just made up lot of stuff. To fill in the blanks, to manipulate, to feel important.
If you take just one step down from the idea that God dictated the Bible, that it his Manual, what actual basis do you have left for any passage inside that book to determine its Truth about God. It becomes levels of truth, greyness, things to ignore, to pick and choose.
What we see is a lot of clutching at straws in the fall from that slope. In the form of creationists, intelligent designers but also regular christians and agnostics. they are all tumbling down, trying to keep that feeling that they are being watched over.
Eventually mankind is going to have to come to grips with the fact that, after all, it’s just an old book.
Wow. You’ve got to love this board’s inability to understand Christianity. Jesus specifically forbade anyone to wish harm upon another. In fact, it’s tantamount to murder. Anyone who wishes for you to burn is not a Christian, other than in their own mind.
Yes, some jerks use Christianity to get people to do some very nasty things. Yet, in every part of recorded history, there has always been another Christian sect that fights back. And, usually, the first group changes to try and get the other people back.
I hate this tendency to treat one group of people as some sort of subhuman. Christian prejudice against atheists is no worse than atheist prejudice against Christians. It is not fair to judge a group based on what it’s ancestors* did.
As for the part about wanting other people to accept their views. They honestly believe they are right, and that other people are wrong. So what if they want to fight what they consider to be ignorance?
Heck, that pretty much answers the OP. They think they are right. They are usually evangelical, believing that, if they don’t convince everyone of the truth, those people will have an awful fate. Sure, the exact details of creation is a very small thing, but, if they can prove their point, then they are that much closer to evangelizing the world.
I personally don’t give a care.
*The best word I could come up with. It works in a metaphorical sense, if not a literal one.
A person is a Christian if they say they are; there’s no objective standard. And using a definition of Christian that is so restrictive that it excludes most of the people who throughout history have called themselves Christian is counterproductive at best.
Thorughout history, millions of Christians have warred, enslaved, massacred, burned books, tyrannized, destroyed cultures, kidnapped children for conversion, condemned others as damned, and in general behaved in a violent, intolerant fashion and tried to ram their beliefs down everyone’s throats. And they all had just as much right to call themselves Christian as you do. You can’t unilaterally define Christian as “People who make Christianity look nice” and exclude all the people who were doing awful things in its name.
Um, no. Historically those other Christians were just as nasty. Christianity only started acting all civilized when it lost most of its power and couldn’t get away with killing heretics and so forth because the secular governments would stop them.
Because they are utterly wrong. Willfully ignorant at best.
Au contrair. You will have to look hard to find any group of people anywhere in the world with a more comprehensive understanding of Christianity.
Really? :rolleyes:
Luke 10:13-15 (King James Version)
Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment, than for you. 15And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell.
Acts 13
8But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith. 9Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him. 10And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? 11And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand.
Is this the same Jesus we’re talking about here? Because the one in the Bible sure had no problem wishing harm upon others. Nor did he have a problem granting magic powers to his followers to allow them to actually work the wished for harm upon others.
So, tell us, do these true Christians take sugar with their porridge or not?
For many Christians it undermines their view of humanity. If we are simply a more advanced form of ape, then we are not particularly special. There are parts of Genesis that are obviously metaphor (it even contains some poetry), but Christians are generally taught that it is supposed to be taken literally. Same with Noah’s Ark etc. Nowhere does the writer of Genesis say “By the way, this is all made up and you shouldn’t take it all at face value.” Neither does the writer of Revelation I guess, but Christians are generally taught there that John was writing cryptically on purpose. Is that true?
It’s also part of their evangelism technique. If you can get someone not accepting evolution anymore, it’s going to be pretty easy to provide alternatives to how we came to be. And if you can provide that, then converting them to Christianity should be a simple matter.
And I have witnessed that it does indeed ‘work’. Men and women who outside of church would otherwise be intelligent thinking people, abandon that logic at the church doors. Churches do get converts based on this (how long they last, I don’t know - I would guess not very long) and whole books are written on the subject. This one seemed to be quite popular in churches I’ve been to. I quite like the title actually.
One thing I find amusing about that attitude is the fact that biologically we are indeed just more advanced apes, even if we were all created 5000 years ago ( complete with a falsified archaeological record, naturally ) by God, aliens or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If being a type of ape makes us not special, then we aren’t special regardless of evolution.
Seriously, what do the teachings of Jesus have to do with Christianity? I’ve never understood this. When they asked Jesus how to get into heaven, he said that you have to feed the hungry, give the thirsty something to drink, invite in the homeless, and visit the sick and imprisoned. He condemns to hell people who do not do these things. When I attended church three times a week, every week, for 18 years, I never once heard that this was the way to get into heaven. I was told, at a variety of different denominations of churches, that I had to “ask Jesus into my heart” to get into heaven. In fact, it was specifically stated that I could not get into heaven by doing good deeds. In other words, the exact opposite of what Jesus said. Jesus never spouted any nonsense about “asking him into your heart.” That’s totally made up, and the exact opposite of what Jesus actually said.
I always got the feeling that Christians were anxious to get Jesus crucified as quickly as possible, so that he wouldn’t be able to open his mouth, and they could move on to Paul’s more convenient teachings.
Yi! This would make a good basis for a GD thread, one that I would be interested to read. As an atheist, I am not interested in starting one, but I would love it if anyone who takes issue with this post would…
Religion <----------------------------------------------------------> Logic :dubious: