Stores, Joel, stores. It’s a joke in response to the query about Big Band and directly quoted from your OP:
Hindu weighing in here. There are most definitely Hindu anti-evolutionists. The Hare Krishna’s are a good example of this.
I use the term anti-evolutionist instead of creationist, because I firmly believe that God created the universe (and by extension, evolution), and that this idea of creation is completely irrelevant to any discussion about evolution.
And there are Hindu fundamentalists. However, in India, the Hindu fundamentalists tend to focus on religious politics (with regards to Hindu-Muslim conflict) rather than on science issues.
Given the highly mystical and supernatural nature of Hinduism, and coupled with the fact that Hinduism tends to intertwine with daily life on several fundamental levels, I’m actually surprised that there aren’t more Hindu anti-evolutionists.
I credit this to the following:
-
The highly decentralized nature of Hinduism and lack of formal organization structures (barring certain specific groups such as the Hare Krishnas) mean that there is no one overriding dogma that people can cling to. Instead, most people’s beliefs are a mish-mash of several distinct strains of Hindu theology. For example, many Hindus are polytheistic and monotheistic at the same time. Doesn’t make sense, does it? But it does to a Hindu. So, really what is one more set of conflicting beliefs? God created the world and the first men and women, but there was evolution. Logically inconsistent on its face, but pretty much like a lot of beliefs in Hinduism.
-
Evolution simply has no impact on some Hindu philosphies. For example, mayavata philosophy states that the world is essentially illusion. So, what difference does it make if evolution is true or not, since it’s part of the illusion anyway.
-
A significant portion of Hindus are not actually familiar with the literal text of the Vedas, The Mahabharata, the Ramayana, or the Upanishads. Instead, they are familar with stories that are told from specific episodes in this book. It’s hard to hold something as inerrant which you haven’t personally read.
-
In India, right now science and engineering degrees are highly prized. Of course, any engineer or scientist worth his salt will have at least a basic grasp of evolutionary theory and an understanding of what science is and what science isn’t.
-
In the rural areas, you’re probably more likely to find people who wouldn’t believe in evolution. But realistically, who in the rural areas is going to be debating evolutionary theories? Just a WAG, but I think for a lot of people, the subject just never comes up.
That’s my take on it anyway. YMMV.
Ohhhh, OK, I see. Ooops, guess I missed that one 
Posted by foolsguinea:
I think we need to narrow the terms of this discussion. A “creationist” should be defined as one who not only believes in a creator-God, but rejects the theory of humanity’s origins through biological evolution. By this definition, foolsguinea is not a creationist.
That’s what I meant when I said a philosophical theist such as Martin Gardner might be, but probably would not be, a creationist. Obviously, almost any kind of theist will be a creationist in the sense of believing that God is behind it all; but if that merely means God set up the Big Bang and then let things take their course – that is beyond the scope of what science can study in its present stage of development, and it is not the kind of “creationism” which is a focus of any controversy in science, politics, or educational policy.
As you can see- actually there are quite a few “Creationist” Jews. However, here is the big difference- Judaism, generally, does not prosletyse. Christianity does. (So do the Moslems, but not much here in the USA). Some of the Christian who try to gather converts are of the (mistaken) belief that if they can just show you that Evolution is wrong and Creationism is right, you’ll convert “toot sweet” (to borrow a phrase from Cecil.). And, what is worse, some of these “Fundies” will try to refute “Darwinisn” using bad psuedoscience- which we can easily refute.
Zev here (and mazel tov to him for this) is not trying to get you to convert, he isn’t going to argue Creationism over Evolution. He comes here, quietly & firmly states his states his belief- as a matter of Faith alone , and then that’s it. Most of us (I’m an agnostic, or maybe a Deist, or maybe… but also a “Darwinist”) respect him for that- as he is completely correct within his Faith, and there is nothing really to debate. His Faith says that, he believes it, and he doesn’t try to argue us over with any footprints found with dinos or crap like that. ;j
Col- I think you need more adjectives & adverbs. You’re wearing that one out.
Thank you, DrDeth. I’m honored that I’ve earned your respect.
BTW, I’m willing to argue for dinosaur footprints. After all, I saw them on The Flintstones.
Zev Steinhardt
Given that the Pope has weighed in and confirmed the scientific fact of evolution, I think “poping up” would be a waste of time. 
Alan Owes Bess: “Musselman”? :rolleyes: Methinks you have badly misread your audience. Your so-called points have popped your own balloon.
Hijack-
I was worried that some of my posts from Moti’s Darwin thread may have been misunderstood and caused offense. I did not intend to imply that Hinduism is obssesed with sex. I mentioned the Kama Sutra and hijras only to point out the hypocrisy of Prabhupada.
Sadly, the thread closed before I could mention that one of the quotes had a disciple saying how one whore was particularly disgusting because her buttocks were “fatty”. So, the body is unimportant and we should all strive to be like Prabhupada, but it’s okay to insult overweight people?
Rather than e-mail all participants in the other thread, I’ve posted here to save time.
Heres another question:
Why is Christian Creationism an overwhelmingly American phenomenon?
I’m not sure, but I think it’s something to do with the “Everybody is just like us” phenomena, which is related to our lack of seperate countries close by.
Or not.
Christianity and its beliefs, to include creationism, is like a nerve action potential. It’s an all-or-none phenomena. There is no room for compromise. Just as they doggedly adhere to the literal resurrection of Jesus. In their eyes, it’s like the proverbial house of cards. Take away one card (ie. creationism or the resurrection), and implosion occurs. IMO, that is why they are so adament and display such fervor in their position.
Please don’t paint all Christians with such a broad brush stroke. Only the fundamentalists take all of the Bible literally. The rest of us take some of it literally, and the rest as stories, parables, etc…
This isn’t necessarily true. SOME Christians certainly believe in the “all or nothing” aspect of the bible, but most of whom I met, including Catholics and Methodists (the pastor for the church my family goes to has a subscription to the skeptical inquirer, dang it!) are able to accept that some parts of the bible may be parable or metaphor. At a camp I once went to, I asked the pastor if he thought the book of Jonah was literally true. His words were “What matters more, whether or not Jonah got projectile vomitted out of a giant fish, or the message the story proclaims?” I think it’s safe to say that this is a reasonably common attitude.
A little addendum to BrightnShiny’s post on why Hindus don’t seem to be “weighing in” on evolution…
First, you have to note that Hindus are in general a lot like Anglicans. (I’m referring to the English kind, not transplants, who behave differently and have different leadership).
That is to say, the Anglican Church is more of a social than a religious grouping.
Hindus are Hindus because they are born to Hindu parents and thus raised, and hold fewer illusions as to why they hold their faith. Hare Krishna is not really a Hindu movement, per se- its adherents observe Hindu teachings but also practice some decidedly non-Hindu ideas, such as aggressive conversion, which simply doesn’t happen among traditional Hindu groups.
Also, probably the most important Hindu tenet is that all faiths are reflection of the same basic truth, just as all g(G)ods are facets of the same higher power. Hindu attitudes to scientific world views run the same way- they aren’t contrary to Hindu beliefs, merely differently phrased.
In other words, there is no conflict between Hindu creation beliefs and evolution, and thus no need for “creationism”…
Incidentally, “Moselman” or “Mussulman” should not be taken as an insult- apart from anything else, its still the French word for Muslim. It is also a Hindi word, and not taken as anything other than descriptive.
Je le sais tres bien mon cher, et le mot est musulman en Francais, but we’re not a bloody French message board, now are we? No, we are not. The usage in English is archaic and invariably indicates something about the user’s education and/or background on the subject. As it did in this case with made up assertions.
Generally a decent grasp of archaic terms tends to imply something rather different about one’s education than what you’re implying…
I agree that “Alan Owes Bess” is a moron and deserves to be ridiculed, don’t get me wrong. I was just making a FACTUAL assertion.
It’s not offensive, no ( unlike “Muhammedan”, which was based on the faulty western perceotion that Muslims worshipped Muhammed - a heretical idea in Islam and therefore insulting ). However it is considered a rather archaic usage in English. It’s derivation is from the Turkish Musluman or Persian Musulman, both derived from the original Arabic Muslim.
Muslim is generally preferred ( makes sense since as Arabic is the liturgical language of Islam anyway ). Moslem I believe is the classical spelling ( that’s what I was taught in High School, anyway ), but Muslim is more phonetic in English, hence its prevalence these days.
- Tamerlane
A decent grasp of archaic terms is not in any way synonymous with using them inappropriately, now is it?
Indeed a decent grasp rather implies knowing the terms are indeed archaic and that their usage has implications.
In my experience those who use the terms in such context as this either have accidentaly and inexplicably gotten their education on Islamic issues from mustly old books or are the usual bigots who’ve delved into old 19th century prejudices as modern scholarship eschews that.
However, ‘factual’ it may be, w/o reviewing I believe I noted the terms were archaic, I hardly see what was added.
Well then you might profitably reread my earlier post, since all but two lines were about Hindu attitudes toward creationism; if you’re asking how I added to the ridicule being heaped on Alan OB, I didn’t say I was ridiculing him now did I?
Rather clearly my comment was regarding the Mussulmen etc. usage, not your otherwise unobjectionable post. My point being I had already noted the usages were archaic and reeked of the 19th century. Speaks volumes, in general, about the poster’s knowledge to bandy such terms about, in English of course, the language of this board.