Slashdot Mirror
Imax Theaters Demur On Controversial Science Films
circletimessquare writes "The New York Times is reporting that a number of Imax theatres are passing on science-themed films that might provoke controversy among a handful of religious fundamentalists. Films that are having their distribution impacted include '"Cosmic Voyage," which depicts the universe in dimensions running from the scale of subatomic particles to clusters of galaxies; "Galápagos," about the islands where Darwin theorized about evolution; and "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea," an underwater epic about the bizarre creatures that flourish in the hot, sulfurous emanations from vents in the ocean floor.'"
...that the theater owners think that showing science films is too controversial or not interesting to the general public...
...or that they're probably right.
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
because this is epidemic of our society in america.
we lose out on interesting ideas and concepts because they may offend someone. it happens in all levels of education, in business, everywhere.
this is sad but not suprising.
how is "an underwater epic about the bizarre creatures that flourish in the hot, sulfurous emanations from vents in the ocean floor" offensive in any way?
we shouldn't let a minority dictate what is right or wrong because we risk having our freedom become the same "freedom" they have in China.
Investing forum
Why do they stick their heads in the holy sand all the time, why can't they just accept that people have different views and should be allowed to express them.
It makes me sick that religious wackos are given all the freedom to worship/teach/live as they please, but fuck everyone else over with their righteous bullshit.
The New York Times is reporting that a number of Imax theatres are passing on science-themed films that might provoke controversy among a handful of religious fundamentalists.
Wake me up when there is something happening the US which doesn't upset a minority group which goes in search for media attention or takes it to court.
bash$
OK, I get the Galapagos and Cosmic Voyage films being rejected as controversial, but why would a film about animals living in a harsh environment be controversial? Don't Creationists have enough room in their ontology for animals now?
After all, I am strangely colored.
Welcome to America, where ignorance isn't just bliss, it's a virtue.
Who will welcome our new overlords, the ChrisTaliban turning the USA into Afghanistan West? Where are the reasonable Christians who repudiate this demented abuse of our country into a market theocracy in their name? ...tumbleweeds..
--
make install -not war
Soon enough American students will not be exposed to scientific methodologies and theory because of the complains of Christian fundamentalists. While the Religious Right will feel their children are pious and enlightened, the rest of the world will progress with our understanding of nature and science. The rest of the world will innovate and prosper, while America will be dragged down into religious strife. Christian fundamentalism will be the death of America.
I recently met a girl who chewed me out for accepting evolutionary theory. I was at first shocked, as I thought that the issue of evoultion and religion had been worked out. Then it really bugged me that she could be so backward and regressive in her thinking. Then I finally realised that none of it mattered, I was being just as closed-minded as she was. What was more important was if I just forgot the differences and found a way to get the project we had done without making a big deal out of it.
I'm not American, so I can't say how much of a real impact something like this has, but I wonder if this recent rise of very conservative religious fundamentalism in the USA and efforts to stop the presentation of things that contradict their view might not lead to the USA eventually falling beind in key sciences, and, as a consquence, losing its edge in the world of technology.
While the situation isn't as bad as that Escape from LA movie from the late 80's, there certainly are aspects of that in modern American politics it seems.
First off, I am not a religious person.
....as I watch my Karma plummet....
But, this is my gripe with them...
If I had a conversation with one of these people, they want you to embrace their way of thinking... OK fine.
Yet, when I try to peddle MY truth, its immediately too much to handle, so not right and so horrible they wont hear it.
I am in the south. This is how these people are.
but, then they are quick to call themselves open minded. YEAH RIGHT.
If I cant tell you my truth, and have you at least LISTEN, your not open minded. your a closed minded fool that doesnt deserve to breathe air. its that simple.
All I ask of these people, is to meet us all half way here. they dont have to like it, and they dont have to agree with it.
but saying they are 'good, understanding people' is a REAL stretch.
They DO NOT have to go see these movies....
yet, they boycott their presence. thats not open minded... that is just religion attempting world domination. their way or the highway.
Go watch the documentaries. I do.
Rebel against religious zealots.
It keeps happening! The "PC" culture of this country keeps destroying what's left of the free thought that was painfully conquered a long time ago (I'm not even going to go into free speech).
It's a battle on two fronts: the religious lobbyist that do things like hindering the teaching of science in schools, and the large corporations that would do anything not to offend anyone for fear of losing a few bucks.
How do they get away with it? Why don't people say "oh this is horrid, no more IMAX for me". We just can't be bothered anymore: the PC rants (if you say something controversial YOU are at fault), the lack of any real political debates (besides minor economical and odd moral-related issues) since the outlawing of Communism and any other non-majority view, and of course the the vultures of the media that keeps feeding on this whole thing (WHY show that piece about "evolution is just a theory" over and over?).
I'm an European, and I have no voice in what the American people decide to do, but it's their lack of action and ignorance of the issues at hand that makes me heed this warning: how soon until the free-flying politicians and corporations will do all they wish while you're too busy watching TV? You may have these comfy lives forever, with no blood or guilt on your own hands, but one day you may find yourselves unwilling free citizens of what you yourself would name an "evil empire" if you were on the other side.
The cookie told me to.
As a thinking christian (as opposed to the new moronic version of christian) I really despair of this childish rejection of reality (science). Religion has lived with the reality of the world around them for a very long time. I believe now in this time of deep denial about the changing landscape of America and an uncertain future that the more unstable elements in many sects see the rejection of science as somehow bolstering there own flagging faith. A faith that if real in these people would easily be able to encompass science as a wonder of God and not a challenge to him.
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
It seems this neo-conservatism is nothing more than some Fanatical Religious front not unlike the Muslim Fundamentalists Washington likes to demonize as the root of Terrorism.
All this crap about faith based this and faith based that coming out of the whitehouse and with a president who openly claims to have a mandate from God... Uhh... I was gonna talk about church and state but, am I the only one here that thinks the President is fucking batshit loco?
But it's a good thing! Really! Lets embrace our freedom to express fundamentalist Christian religion! Lets ban any science that goes "too far" into ethical grey areas for religious pundits to swallow, lets get the federal government to force a tube down a vegetable's throat... it's nice to have a "conservative" government that wants to regulate our way of life. The Founding Fathers would be proud at this emerging christian police state. And if you voted for Bush I bet you're damn proud too.
Controversy = Exposure
Exposure = Money
Why are they scared to show the movies again?
Disclaimer: I am Catholic, and therefore Christian.
TRUST me, there is nothing NEW about a moronic Christian. They've been around for CENTURIES, if not millenia. Pick up any ol' history book.
OK, I'll play the Big Bad Scientist and call Bullshit on your implied equivalence between the theory of evolution and the desperate hand-waving of creationists.
Mod me down for flamebait but isn't about time we stop pretending that these are just two flavors of truth and you have the option of picking one or the other. IMAX theaters in science museums shouldn't show creationism, as it's not science. Commercial IMAX owners can make ther own decisions; it's just sad that they choose to knuckle under.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
They will show a movie like Constantine, which portrays the angel Gabriel switching sides and making a deal with Satan, but they won't show a film that might contain evolutionary theory. Too funny.
Because one is about facts and reason and the other is about taste. Censorship by standars and mass acceptance, or perception of, is just another form of censorship.
If we had followed the same path, we would have been eating feces long time ago, afterall if we following correctness from numbers... it is clear that 10^12 flies can't be wrong.
A lot of what we consider today to be masterpieces happened to be rather offensive to the standards of the community where they were being created. Had they followed the classical "let the market speak" approach to acceptance of a cultural product, we would be a much poorer society w/o those works of art.
A group which has already forced people to accept that humans come from mud and dung, which has been proven false. A group that has argued that the earth was a) flat, b) the center of the universe, and c) that its core was some sort of purgatory. Well, with such "hit rate" when it comes to factual information... I am inclined to think that this group should be nowhere allowed to force moral or cultura standards with such low accuracy when it comes to actual fact, no matter the number of followers.
you don't get love from a whorehouse.
likewise, you don't get spirituality from a church/ temple/ mosque.
but that is ok, because just as there are some who will never know real love due to intellectual or character issues, and therefore need whorehouses to sake their lust that would otherwise drive them insane or drive them to commit horrendous crimes on the street, so to are their spiritual pinheads in this world who need churches/ temples/ mosques to give answer to their doubts and fears, so they don't commit horrible atrocities of spiritual void.
so the lowest common denominator empty pap we call organized religion is vile, but still necessary. just like whorehouses.
we don't want ugly or crude men raping women on the streets and we don't want small-spirited people walking around without a sense of morality or a human conscience. if they don't have the spiritual backbone to decide right or wrong, or find the basic goodness in human existence on their own, well then please, let the church turn them into sheep. better sheep than demons without a sense of social responsibility or a clue as to their relationship to human society and the idea of a greater good.
however, when these spiritual pinheads band together and try to gain political power and enforce their narrowminded interpretation of human nature on everyone else, including those who are spiritually sound on their own, they need to be stopped. in many ways, the consolidation of spiritual pinheads into organized religion and then their subsequent desire to see all of humanity fall in lockstep to their blind interpretation of a given creed is unavoidable, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't head them off at the pass and continually deny them political power over the rest of us who are spiritually grounded all on our very own.
so organized religion should not be stopped, it is useful to the health of society by satisfying the spiritual needs of those who can't do that on their own. organized religion and the fruits of its passion is even enjoyable in the way a quaint parade in a rural backwards town is enjoyable to a tourist.
but the cost of accepting that means we must be forever and eternally vigilant that the church, the mosque, and the temple never ever enjoy political power. lest they doom the rest of us to the spiritual zombification that is organized religion.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
While this article discusses something limited in scope (thanks for the spin, Slashfaux), this is becoming more and more common. But who is to blame? We (secularists and freethinkers) are.
We refuse to affiliate or support organisations which champion our cause. We refuse to be sufficiently vocal about matters of importance to us. We refuse, at the very least, to put our money where our mouths are.
Let me tell you, with absolute certainty, that the religious fundamentalists are more than happy to do all these things.
So, when are we going to step up and demand an end to this nonsense?
Join Tor today!
I rather strongly suspect that the NYTimes article had all of the religious comments that were recieved, not merely a sampling, or very close.
The Galapagos Islands one may offend someone, but Cosmic Voyage, unless they are not telling us something, would be objected to only by a total lunatic fringe... which is no problem because every film will be objectionable to some total lunatic fringe, no exaggeration.
I am not aware of any significant religious group in operation in the United States with any sort of organized, sigificant political clout that has a serious problem with or denies the existance of atoms or galaxies.
If the Imax documentary industry wishes to commit suicide for a dubious political point, they are welcome to. But all y'all Slashdotters would be wise to not suck it up like little lapdogs getting your world views confirmed; for those of you who would consider your world views confirmed by this story, class it in the "too good to be true" category.
The primary adjective to apply to anyone ignorant enough to protest atoms or galaxies is just ignorant, not "religious", and I assure you, a lot of very ignorant people agree with any position you care to name.
When I was growing up as a kid, I never thought that Science and the Bible were necessarily in conflict. Most people believe that the bible represents a guide and isn't to be taken absolutely literally.
For instance, the whole "God created the Earth in seven days." Seven days could mean seven million years, or seven billion years. It's worded in a way that man can understand. Why do people reject Evolution, when it could have been God that kickstarted the whole thing?
I can't say that I believe these things anymore but if you can believe that there is an almighty being that created us, why can't you also believe that this being crafted the universe as we know it now, and all the wonders it contains that science as yet to scratch the surface on?
It's a scary time when the few people with extreme religious views can change the life of everyone to suit their needs.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
You misinterpreted what they meant by "open minded".
:)
You, mistakenly, thought that "open minded" meant having an open mind, and being open to new ideas.
What *they* meant by "open minded" was that they'd no longer accuse you of witchcraft for being different from your neighbors, or throw you in prison for the crime of "blasphemy", or just come by and burn down your house because you're a filthy non-believer.
The fact that they've allowed you to live, even though you're obviously some sort of eviiil horrible pagan-creationist science-worshipper, shows how open-minded that religious zealots in America have become lately.
People are constantly reminded on slashdot to keep an open mind and at the slightest bit of US centrism people are immediately flogged for not considering the other point of view. Most comments with obvious prejudice are quickly modded down. However when it comes to religion already there have been posts that get modded insightful for comparing it to mental illness, dictators who killed thousands of people, etc.
In this "enlightened" state where everything is relative and we are to respect every viewpoint the last minority it is ok to hate is the Christian minority.
Not every Christian has the same viewpoint or takes the same action on every social issue. The blatant and glib stereotyping that is being modded up here is sickening.
I would pose your question the other way around. Living in California, if I so much as breathe a single word about God, I am immeadiately told to cease and desist. I am not talking about getting up on a soap box and preaching (not my style), but rather about praying in public. By myself or with a few friends. Not loudly either. Let the Troll begin, but I am going to stand firm. You may be treated like that in the south, but we're treated like that everywhere else! And as a matter of fact, I am open minded. Not every Christian is a bible thumping zealot..just like every atheist isn't going to shove their moral's down your throat through legislation. I have no issue watching documentaries about other religions, or lack thereof (though, of course, it raises an interesting view..if you lack a religion..doesn't that become your religion? If you refuse to believe or acknowledge God, aren't you following a belief system?) But I do have a problem with generalization. Judge us on who we are. Listen to what we have to say, and we will listen to what you have to say. In General. Of course, on both sides you have the loud mouths, which do nothing for either side, just cause more misunderstanding and anger. I'm sure the Anti-christian /.er's are going to take this as a troll, but frankly, I'm sick of being slammed for this. You complain about people acting that way, while you yourself seem to feel free to bash the other side in the manner you just mentioned offended you!
To quote someone I heard once: "If I cant tell you my truth, and have you at least LISTEN, your not open minded. your a closed minded fool that doesnt deserve to breathe air. its that simple."
Errrr...If you recognized anything, you would recognize that the word "theory" means a very different thing in science then it does in Common parlance. For instance, Gravity is a theory. That Germs cause disease is a theory. The Earth Revolving around the sun is a theory. Basicly, anything that cannot be directly observed is a theory. Evoultion is Just as well supported as any of the above theories I mentioned(sometimes more so). If you would like to to tell us about the problems you "know" evoultion has I would be glad to address them.
I feel that the truth lies somewhere in the middle between evolution and creation.
I thought you said you weren't a christian. Why do you half belive in Creation?
If there weren't it would be fact, and not a theory.
Do you mean a law? A theory really is a more appropriate description of evolution than a law, but it doesn't mean it's not true. http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
The fact is that neither religon or science is capable of describing the way in which everything in the universe works. There is a great deal of belief inherent in both systems.
Religion always falls flat when it attempts to describe how anything works. Likewise, science falls flat when it attemts to answer questions like "why are we here"? Remember that if it weren't for "science" (man's attempt to understand the physical world), we'd never have invented tools, and perhaps would still be picking bugs off one another for sustinance.
I feel that the truth lies somewhere in the middle between evolution and creation. This whole debate between the two is really only a tool to divide and conquer (polarize) people. (That is an obvious deducement because that is the obvious product of the two sysems)
The only debate really occurs on the side of religion, when it attempts to answer the "how" questions. How do new species arise, how does my car work, etc. Otherwise, there's no conflict. I really don't see an attempt to divide anyone, there's just an attempt to restrict the pursuit of knowledge lest someone feel their child isn't being properly indoctrinated in their personal faith.
Neither system is really concerned with truth.
Science is by definition the pursuit of truth (in the physical world) through hypothesis, observation, and experimentation.
Religion is the persuit of salvation/happiness/enlightenment through an unseen entity (sometimes all-powerful) and in many cases involves a book that's more than a thousand years old.
I'd say that one system is clearly concerned with truth, and the other is concerned with purely spiritual matters. It's not that religion doesn't answer some really important questions people have, like "what happens when I die", etc. It's just that I'm not going to pray to God to ask him how my car runs, what causes nuclear explosions, or how species emerge on this planet. I imagine that he gave me a brain to figure those things out, or at least be smart enough to find the library.
I'm just thankful that there are people like you that will at least be mindful that some people have differing opinions. I know a LOT of non-religious people, and many of them are my friends. If I pester them and confront them about my faith, they would probably detest me. I just respect their beliefs as they respect mine.
Anyway, a little more on-topic, I kinda doubt that IMAX would cancel movies just because of crazy fundamentalist concerns. Even down here, businesses are not likely to throw away money for such things. There are probably other factors that are causing the cancellation of these movies. And what is the deal with the last example? I kinda sorta somewhat understand the first two.
The Church made him renounce his teachings... turned out he was right and they were wrong. Those that lead their life based on beliefs and dogma rather than observations and the facts that come from them need to be eradicated from this planet for the better of it.
Is it me, or does it seem that every week that goes by, I read, hear or encounter something that makes me believe that the U.S. is turning into a increasingly dumbed down, lowest common denominator, theocratic fundamentalist society?
We cant research stem cells because jesus doesnt like stem cells, every other person you meet has a fucking creed or "w" bumper sticker on their car. Creed also sucks but thats another issue. Forget facts, forget learning, its much easier to believe and have faith.
The type of people that listen to screaming right wing nutcases that tell them what to think, then watch their Nascar, sports and wrestling with other people screaming at them, then on sundays go to their protestant churches to listen to yet another person scream heavily edited and faultily translated 'holy' screeds at them.
And I am supposed to listen to these low-grade meme receptacles because they are more righteous, more holy and more american?
Then fuck america and give me a one way ticket to France with a complimentary bag of olestra free French fries.
P.S. to the right wing tool in the house (Rep. Bob Ney) that came up with the idiotic moniker Freedom fries, they were invented in fucking Belgium.
"Why is it that people insist on categorizing all fundamentalists as being the same?"
Because, by and large, the core "features" of Christian fundamentalism that they promote are the same. For example there doesn't seem to be any large debate within the fundamentalist community about the validity of evolution (and all the supporting evidence from biology, astronomy, cosmology, geology, etc). It's simply rejected out of hand.
"I am a fundamentalist Bible-believing Christian, but that doesn't mean that I checked my intelligence at the door."
Then I wish there were far more of you, and I wish you were much louder than those who would see us enter the Dark Ages again. Given my direct personal experience with friends, relatives and associates who claim to be Christian fundamentalists, intelligence (where intelligence == rational reasoning) is the first thing checked at the door. "Fundamentalist" is generally synonymous with "bible literalist" in these folks.
I was speaking to a woman the other day who, with a straight face, told me that lions, tigers, etc. used to graze on the grass in Eden with the deer. Never killed prey or even scavenged meat. Vegetarians. That "carnivore thing" only started after "The Fall". Yes, intelligence checked at the door and the claim check thrown into the shredder.
"It makes me sick that people can't fathom the concept that within such a large group you will have people at all extremes."
Then I hope you loudly and persistently educate those in your religious circles who cannot separate Islam from terrorism, and see all Muslims as "forces of evil". I hope that makes you just as sick. Does it? And do you speak out on their behalf? If so you have my deepest, genuine gratitude. If not, your just another member of a hate group who cries out when receiving the same treatment you give others.
Also please educate me, what are the different extremes in Christian fundamentalism? And who are their leaders? Because all we hear coming from the leadership (and the door-knockers and "sudden friends" on college campuses) is the same thing. That's not flamebait, I really want to know. It'll give me some hope.
Perhaps the fundies should visit the Vatican Observatory:
a tican_observe_000716.html
"Analyzing the space rocks, or training the Vatican Observatory's $3 million Arizona telescope on a distant galaxy, are both ways of gaining 'a closer appreciation of the personality of the creator', he said in an interview."
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/v
FWIW, my local parish priest was the Dean of Chemistry at a local State University. I mention this because I would like readers to be aware that the pro-science side has its own lunatic fringe that likes to pretend that hard science and religion are incompatible.
We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
As an atheist I have always wondered about prayer. The muslims go though an elobarate ritual of genuflecting and kneeling, the christians seem to think kneeling or bowing the head is enough.
The thing I wonder is this. If your god is omnipresent and omnicient why do you have to go through physicals gyrations in order to be heard by god? Most christians pray out loud why is that?
I suppose you would get the same reaction to praying in public that a muslim would get if they took out a prayer rug, faced east and started genuflecting or perhaps a wiccan got if they drew a diagram on the ground, lit candles and chanting (or whatever else they do)
I would sincerely like to know your answer to this question. In the same spirit I will answer a couple of your own questions.
"though, of course, it raises an interesting view..if you lack a religion..doesn't that become your religion?"
The answer to this is no. In the same way that not having a porche does not mean you have a porche or not having an ulcer does not mean you have ulcer.
"If you refuse to believe or acknowledge God, aren't you following a belief system?"
Yes but not all belief systems are religions. This is where you seem to have tripped up. You apparently believe that any set of beliefs constitures a religion and that's just not true. For example homosexuality is not a religion although the set of people who are homosexuals believe in having sex with their own gender. Similarly utilitariansim, liberalism, conservatism, and lots of other "ism"s are not a religion even though they are belief systems.
evil is as evil does
I have relatives and friends who are fundies. I believe they all have one thing in common: they are baffled and confused by current society moving too fast for them; not just the pace, but also the pace of change. Some of these fundies, IMHO the "good" ones, have benefited from using the bible or the koran as some sort of safe haven, where, when the "hectic" and baffling changes get to them, they can find a safe place to recuperate. By "good", I mean they don't try to impose on others.
Then there are the "bad" ones, who rage and rage about the evil society they think has grown up around them like a fungus. They cannot accept that other people are different. I mean this quite literally. They simply do not have even the concept or a word for the concept that it takes different types of personalities to make the world go round. They see everyone who behaves differently as deviant and the work of the devil. I do mean this literally. Since they haven't got even the concept of different, they are left with seeing differences as pure evil.
These bad fundies are the ones I spit on. I have relatives like that. I have given up trying to even co-exist with them. They are not interested in co-existence with evil people like me any more than they are interested in co-existence with moldy bread or spoiled milk.
I tell you what --- I think the rise in fundies the last few years is temporary. You look back a generation or two, that is people who had contact with the beginnings of the first rapidly changing society, with cars, airplanes, telephones, radio, TV, either personally or via stories from their grandparents. They could see the pace picking up, the gradual quickening, and so the continued quickening does not scare them. Future generations, the ones actually growing up now, see it as natural. The problem is with a generation or two in the middle, who think they have some bizarre vague false genetic memory of a time that existed only in their fantasies, where society was stable, and can only see modern society as being a corruption. They had no gradual start of changes to help them see change as good, and they didn't grow up with the rapid changes of nowadays.
I do believe these fundies will be a shrinking minority soon, a decade or two at the most, and these frenetic attempts at getting the ten commandments into courtrooms and censoring books and movies and everything else -- they are just the tremors of a dying segment of society. Of course, dying things tend to cause havoc around them, and I'd rather they just went away now and quietly, but I console myself with the idea that they are nevertheless the last gasping tremors of a bunch of muddle headed losers who are afraid of independent thought and those who practice it.
Infuriate left and right
Because, by and large, the core "features" of Christian fundamentalism that they promote are the same. For example there doesn't seem to be any large debate within the fundamentalist community about the validity of evolution (and all the supporting evidence from biology, astronomy, cosmology, geology, etc). It's simply rejected out of hand.
You seem to be missing the point. What people believe isn't the issue here, it's tolerance for what others believe. Most Christians have no problem with theatres showing science films that don't line up with their beliefs. If people want to believe these films, then fine, that's their choice. Unfortunately, there is a vocal minority who does have a problem with this sort of thing.
Then I hope you loudly and persistently educate those in your religious circles who cannot separate Islam from terrorism, and see all Muslims as "forces of evil".
Again, vocal minority. Personally, I don't know any Christians who think Islam == terrorism.
It offers an unfalsifiable account, religiously inspired, that it orders me to accept or denounces me as evil.
If it was true, I'd expect to see a fossil layer populated equally and evenly with the same animals I see today. And I do not. But when I bring up this objection, I'm retorted with:
"SATAN IS TRYING TO FOOL YOU! Clearly, God is testing your faith by making the earth with the appearance of age."
This is not science. This is religion dressed up as science.
I have no faith. Otherwise, why not assume the universe was made ten minutes ago? By Satan? As a practical joke?
I have been watching the news lately and is what they have been telling me to believe is wrong with America.
1. Sex (Too many issues to count)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sex_po
2. Terrosim http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/
3. Teen Sex http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinio
4. Gays http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150737,00.htm
4. Bad Words / Howard Stern / Media http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149000,00.htm
5. Drugs (sports and non-sports) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150800,00.htm
6. High Gas Prices http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150977,00.htm
7. Lack of Feeding Tubes http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150988,00.htm
8. Abortion http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/35670.html
9.Iraqhttp://www.boston.com/news/world/articles
10. Slashdot http://slashdot.org/
If you watched the news lately you would know that your lack of a right of a feeding tube is the most dangerous thing in America. The President even flew back a week early to sign the bill into law to secure you right, Not to mention Congress having a late session. You need to get your head screwed on straight, and look at the important things in life and stop listening to Science. Science is too busy messing with something called FACTS.
mnewberg.com
just like every atheist isn't going to shove their moral's down your throat through legislation
What, that every citizen deserves equal rights under the law... including homosexuals?
No, you must be talking about the athiest support of stem cell research that could help ease the suffering of millions.
Those bloody athiests.... only ever thinking of themselves. Where are their moral values?
Shitdrummer
When the original poster specifically mentioned experiments, then experiments are fair game. Read the quoted text. As far as observational science goes, the fossil record provides an extremely fragmentary, internally inconsistent, and generally unhelpful view. It is reasonably well accepted (except by idiots^W americans) that this in itself does not deny evolution, it merely doesn't support it very well.
If we come to try and make judgements about long-time-scale dynamic processes from point observations, we fall into the trap of blind inductionism. And that's not (good) science.
Evolution is sufficently poorly characterised that it isn't very good at making predictions, and there aren't many new observations to test them on, so that trivial view of hypothesis doesn't work too well either.
Popper would disagree. How can a singular event be falsifiable? It's the grue/bleen problem all over again. If you're denying this, what account of science are you using?
Nihil Illegitemi Carborvndvm
"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
These days, vigilance is lax and "democracy" seems to be more valued than liberty anyway. The religious right and the politically correct left both seem to have an intense desire to dictate how we live our lives and the current state seems to be a "compromise" where both extremes get to do their worst.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
History teaches us that an empire rises because of inovation, either in the art of war and/or commerce. Look at the Romans with their legions or the British with their navy and the Americans with their commerce, productivity and armed forces after the second world war.
Similarly an Empire falls when it either fails to deal with new inovation or knowledge, or its people become indolent and self-centered or decadent.
In the Middle age's Arab civilisation was vastly in advance of Dark age Europe, mainly because it had a religious view that respected learning and knowledge and was not afraid of learning from others , even if they were not of the same religion or creed, it saved much knowledge from the Greeks that was lost in Europe due to the actions of religious zealots
I think this is just another indicator of the end of the American century, its a shame because America, whilst far from perfect, has or had a lot of good things to teach the world.
"And I suppose there is a little difference between praying aloud in a group, and everyone getting out a prayer rug and becoming an obstruction to traffic (people, cars, customers, what have you)"
If you have gathered in a circle at the local starbucks and are praying loud enough for other people to hear (even if barely) then there is no appreciable difference between that and opening up a prayer rug in the local starbucks and starting to genuflect.
"Loosely, any specific system of code of ethics, values, and belief." and "A cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." (google Definitions of religion on the Web)"
If that's a definition of religion then libeterianism is a religion, basketball is a religion, weightlifting is a religion, ebay is a religion. All of those are a cause, principle or an activity that is pursued with seal or conscientious devotion.
"And Homosexuality, if I remember correctly, is a value system and life style choice..."
So is christianity or islam. All religions are lifestyle choices.
"And I didn't mention that the isms are automatically Religions. Though, one could make it his/her/it's religion."
Ok then. Athesims is not a religion. It's just another ism.
Here is the thing that really gets my goat though. Atheism, homosexuality, liberterianism, scientology, and christianity are all lifestyle choices and yet of those only scientology and christianity get constitutional protection. I think that's wrong. If homosexuality as you say could be made somebodies religion then it should have the exact same constitutional protection as christianity does. And yet it doesn't. Could you imagine what would happen if your state passed a law saying christians can't get married or serve in the military?
evil is as evil does
My point is that religion & science are two of a kind, not parts of a whole. They each aim to completely describe the universe in their own way. In this regard, I find them both lacking.
Religion is lacking because of any kind of facts or evidence to back up its claims. Science is lacking because it fails to even begin to explain some of the most basic and important things in our universe.
You might say that science will be able to explain those things given enough time, but isn't that really just another belief? What if it can't? How many times in history have scientific explanations been proven to be totally untrue? How long will it take for currently held scientific explanations to be proven untrue?
Do you get what I'm trying to say?
Given what I have said, is religious belief any better or worse than scientific belief? Is it any wonder that there is so much conflict between the two?
Dom
I'm not even a christian and these are really easy questions to answer from a religious viewpoint.
Q: "Okay. Cool. So why did Adam have nipples?"
A: Who the fuck knows and/or cares? Why do all males have nipples? Also even if he did not, what does this have something to do with religion? I don't recall Adam's nipples ever being mentioned in the bible.
Q: "Did he have a belly button also?"
A: No. He was not born and therefore did not have a belly button.
Q: "And then there's the topic of incest between Adam and Eve, 'cause where else did everyone on the planet come from?"
A: Incest is bad because it causes birth defects and other such problems. Back in the days of the Garden of Eden there were no diseases so incest was not a problem.
P.S. Cocky dumbass atheists like yourself give all atheists a bad name.
Including the Buddhists who burned down a chirch near where I live (twice in two years), along with several hundred others in this coutnry?
If you refuse to believe or acknowledge God, aren't you following a belief system? - that's a logical fallacy. Refusal to believe in existance of any entity until there is scientific proof or at least strong imperical evidence is not a religion of any kind. It is common sense. I am an atheist, but at the very moment you come up with a provable proof of existance of god that will withstand peer review, I will accept god as a fact.
You can't handle the truth.
You have to realize, it could very well have been seven days AND billions of years or perhaps less than an instant, time isn't the constant we often think it is.
:-)
Any religious person who "proves" science is bunk using timelines can be proven to be a heathen who thinks that some how, time has authority over God.
Doing so is fun for awhile, but arguing with the religious is rather boring and pointless. If the current trends follow, suggesting the world may be round will soon get you killed in boiling oil for the act of heresy. Ever wanted to live way back in the days before computers, but still retain your knowledge? nows your chance! what an opportunity I guess.
In the grand scheme of things, I suppose I should remain positive since we, as humans on this planet, have come a really long way. We have ceased to believe the Earth is the center of the universe and we have ceased to believe that it is flat. It's progress.
One day people will sit up and realize that disbelieving in multiple gods such as Greek or Roman is pretty much the same thing as disbelieving in a single god and that for the same reasons they disbelieve in those multiples is the same reason for disbelieving in their one.
Many people have realized this, individually, yet so many won't admit to it... and the culture of belief persists. It frightens me that believers exist today -- it truly does.
For what it's worth, I consider myself a Christian. I'm happy with my faith, and I can easily see how the study of science fits in nicely with the faith.
I love to see documentaries about science. Learning about the universe that God created fills me with wonder, and the more I see how absolutly amazing the universe is, the more I appreciate what He has given us.
Now, there are those out there who feel that only their understanding of the Bible is correct, and chose to turn their back on any course of study which reveals how truly fantastic creation really is. I have a name for those people: Wackjobs.
It's hard for me to even give those sorts the consideration of being misguided but well intentioned. These people come off as mean-spirited individuals who aren't interested in discovering the truth. God is truth, and turning your back on what is the truth, both spiritually and scientifically is akin to turning your back on God. The way I see it, there's only one way to deal with those types of people: Ignore them.
The only way these people get power is to take their demands seriously. If Imax theaters refuse to show scientific films because they are afraid of offending this very small, but very vocal minority (or in this case, because a few nutjobs said they thought it might be "blasphemous" in one of those inane focus groups), they are doing a disservice to the public in refusing to educating them.
We live in a secular country. We should all be able to celebrate our faith, regardless of what it is. But we shouldn't allow our faith to get in the way of an objective, secular science. Nor should we allow fundamentalism to ruin the education of the population as a whole.
Now, that having been said, it would be nice if the scientific community stopped presenting evolution as the "truth", and touted it for what it is: The best scientific explanation we have right now that outlines the origins and development of life. I only say this because I sometimes think that science, in difference to religion, can be guilty of the same closed mindedness that plagues the fundamentalist movements. When something like "Intelligent Design" comes around, it's immediately dismissed as religious pseudoscience, despite the fact that there might be something to it.
Sure, as far as our current understanding goes, evolution still makes more scientific sense, but let's not sit on our laurels and ignore studying any other ideas. In the same way, let's not succumb to the crazy idea that trying to tell the story of evolution, or of the big bang is somehow an affront to God. Or, more accurately, let's not listen to the vocal minority who wants to stymie any understanding of science which they see as a threat to their faith.
We're fighting a global war on terrorism right now. A good number of those who are out to harm us are motivated by closed minded fundamentalism. Let's try and not give an ear to those within our own country who are motivated by the same thing.
The Internet is generally stupid
1. I'm no fundamentalist
/. discussion I've ever read. Stupid little rants and gratuitous religion-bashing are being modded as "insightful" and even "informative." Come on, moderators: The system doesn't exist so you can go "Right on dude! Religion sucks!" and click "insightful."
/. users, because they confirm their pre-set worldviews. The fundies are taking over! BusHitler! TalibafghanistCreationis GACK!!
2. This is perhaps the worst-modded
3. If this story is legit -- and I'm not at all sure that it is -- the villains aren't the fundies. The villains are the theater managers. TFA doesn't mention any actual protests -- just the *fear* of protests.
4. Like a few other brave souls in this discussion, I find the story pretty fishy. It reads like a pretty typical liberal alarmist, NYT view of what they *think* all those red-state yokels are like. A few of the things that raise warning flags:
* Everyone interviewed had the same point of view (there doesn't seem to be even an attempt to get a quote from "the other side");
* There is no quantification at all (how many people of the 137 in Ft Worth complained? The NYT, oddly, doesn't tell us.)
*The story notes, about the film "Volcanoes": "On other criteria, like narration and music, the film did not score as well as other films, Ms. Murray said, and over all, it did not receive high marks, so she recommended that the museum pass." So that raises the question -- if it WAS good, then would she have run it? And if so, doesn't that make the whole religious angle moot?
Etc. I agree with an earlier poster -- these stories just ring true to a certain subset of
- Alaska Jack
Christian fundamentalism will be the death of America.
As an European, this might not be a bad thing if I were not affected. What I worry about is that they take the rest of te world down with them. The US does have the power and nobody able to stop them.
I hope that when it finaly does come to that that the Amercan public realize why they have a second amendment. Especially the part for the comma.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
What believers of creation forget is that their theory has no evidence at all. None. Zero.
They don't. They're not.
They do and they are, and always have. If they didn't, we wouldn't have Seven Dirty Words, and Winfrey would be getting fined as much as Stern for talking about the exact same topic. Now, how about a nice, warm cup of STFU.
I find myself in the very uncomfortable position, on the Iraqi war, of despising the modern means of publicizing a war and thus agreeing with the protestors, and yet also realizing that American power over the world is currently very fragile, and yet is the world's best or only hope for (long-term) peace. So I don't know what to think, really. I'm not ultimately sure what is more important: that unjustified war be politically impossible, or that justified war be politically possible.
In Europe, we have the same growing right-wing as in the US, but it has not been incorporated by religious factions.
So were does the difference come from? The parent post explanation is way off, at least in Western Europe religions are struggling massively just to get people into the churches - most people just don't believe in churches as institutions anymore, that try to prescribe how people should live. So it's not about the content of the religion, it's about the institution that looses acceptance.
And this is a phenomenon that goes beyond religion; trade unions or any other institutions loose grip on people's lives. We live in the era of the individualist, people make their own choices for their own lives. And they assemble their own 'belief' from religions and non-religous streamings like Buddhism.
NB: European countries don't have state religions
"It's going to be hard for our filmmakers to continue to make unfettered documentaries when they know going in that 10 percent of the market" will reject them
Last I checked you're not forced to go see a movie if you don't want too. They will potentially loose the 10% regardless if the movie is shown there or not. The theatre/museum knows it's market and their 10% is probably more like 90% of the money they make. It's a no brainer.
Oh never mind I forgot. If you disagree with something your still suppose to support it with your hard earned money. I'm sure people will line up.
theres plenty of wars that have been started by christians for religious reasons where they felt they had "god on their side". the crusades for one.
personally i see fundamentalists as being the same whether they are moslem or christian.
again, not really suprising to see badly educated americans with a shaky grip of history pontificating about the world on slashdot.
I find it abolutely hilarious that people believe whole heartedly in one set of myths (Christianity) while at the same time viewing all of the myriad of other ones that have occured through out human history (Egyptian, Norse, Celtic, Space Aliens, etc) as funny stories at best, or evil at worst.
The Christian viewpoint is under represented? It's _Science_, not an overview of creation myths. If you want to hear the Christian theories of how the universe started, go to someplace that teaches it. If you want to teach it, open a "museum". Just don't think everyone has to attend and to accept it.
At the same time, it's not really funny, because this mental shutdown and absence of critical thinking is the true root of evil. Truly evil people don't think they're bad people like they do in movies, they generally just think they know better than everybody else, and that they must do what they must do for the greater good. Hitler is a perfect example. I'm sure many others immediately come to mind as well.
The importance of the separation of church and state in a truly democratic and free society can't be overemphasized - simply compare the countries that have secularism vs those that don't. The ones that don't are truly terrifying places, in general.
Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."
Note that the term "servant" in the King James Version of the Bible refers to slaves, not employees like a butler, cook, or maid.
Yet, slavery was defeated in the USA, or that's what rational Americans think today.
A great reference about this is: What the Bible says about slavery
Makes you wonder what's behind the apparent rise in America of fundamentalism and the belief that the Bible is inerrant. Some people (some, not most) are still trying to fight the civil war, it appears.
He rested on the seventh, remember? Anyway, "when saying the earth orbited the sun instead of the other way around was declared heresy, and punishable by torture and death." First, this punishment was meted out by at least the Catholic Church, which as history has shown, and continues to show, has no particular regard for Bible standards, particularly as regards idolatry, bloodshed and sexual immorality. They have hardly made an issue of upholding the Bible unless it is a pretence for furthering their own desires. Second, astronomers to this day talk of a star or even the sun for that matter, rising or setting at a certain time, yet they know full well it is only an illusion to an earthbound observer. This is simply the way the Bible states it too.
The reason there is closed mindedness is because the FACT that your religion is a manifestation of a mental illness that you carry. You can't help it. You need treatment, but unfortunately your type shouts down those who would provide you the correct treatment.
You can take comfort in your illness if you want, like schizophrenics might wish to too, but don't expect society to want to do anything else but eradicate the illness you carry. Working against that is illogical and simply perpetuates the illness.
And that CANNOT be tolerated, just as tuberculosis, AIDS, schizephrenia, ebola, child molestation, typhoid and other physical and mental diseases cannot be tolerated in a civilised society. They must be cured.
Facts combat religious illness.
RST
That slashdotters are even commenting on religion. It is obvious that 99% of the posters haven't a clue.
just like every atheist isn't going to shove their moral's down your throat through legislation.
Name one instance in which an Atheist has shoved morals down anyone's throat via legislation. Just off the top of my head I can think of one going the opposite way right off the top of my head. Blue laws. There is absolutely no reason to prohibit the sale of alcohol on Sunday aside from religious reasons. There are more, but I'll let that one stand as an obvious example.
(though, of course, it raises an interesting view..if you lack a religion..doesn't that become your religion? If you refuse to believe or acknowledge God, aren't you following a belief system?)
No. A lack of religion does NOT constitute religion. By definition. It's not like Atheists (in general) actively disbelieve God in the face of any evidence. On the contrary, the resounding lack of evidence is what drives us to the conclusion that there is no God. On the other hand, if God were to appear tomorrow in a manner that was indisputable, we'd (again, most of us) be instant converts. A religion implies a faith. And faith requires that one believes in something absent evidence. Given evidence, faith is no longer required.
idiots, plain and simple.
To lean on your religion in this way is to use it as a crutch for your inability to understand anything past your nose, plain and simple.
I know plenty of people who are very scientific, very well educated, very intelligent, and very religious.
Do they feel that their beliefs mean they can't follow science? Of course not.
What's wrong with feeling that God put the universe there for you to figure out yourself? You can still look at creation and say "It's all part of God's plan". If what you see doesn't match what's in your particular translation of the holy book, your responsibility is to find out WHY it doens't match. Translation error? Historical error? Plain old human error? Science experiment is wrong?
But stuffing your head in the sand and saying "how DARE they teach science" is absurd.
What's laughable to me is that people ridicule my faith in accepting that the universe was created in 6 literal days, about 6,600 years ago but those same people are not even willing to accept the notion that their belief in evolution is based on no less faith then I have. Evolution is bad science, simple fact. The problem, though, is that the community of crazies will do anything to protect their "religion" and so the truth never really gets out. There are so many fallacies and outright lies in text books about evolution, many of which have been proven wrong as long as a hundred years ago, yet the establishment is hesitant to remove them because they have nothing to replace it with. One of the best examples of this is Ernst Haekel's drawings of embryos. Kids are told on one page that fossils are dated by the rocks they are found in, and then on the next page that the rocks are dated by the fossils that they're found in - and we wonder why kids today are confused. As to other lies that have been used to promote evolution at one time or another, we have Java Man, Piltdown Man, Lucy, the beaks of finches, and the colour of moths, and beneficial mutation, which has never been observed. I have no problem with evolutionary theory being taught to my children in school. The problem that I have is that it is presented as proven fact, which it is not, and there is a substantial group of the scientific (and non-religious) community who believe the same, but no one is willing to even entertain an alternate theory because all their credibility is tied up into evolution. You want me to believe that somehow I've 'evolved' from a puddle of goo where life spontaneously came into existence and that that through the miracle of evolution that one cell has eventually changed into every life form on the planet. And somehow, you say you're based on science and I'm the one of us who is full of faith.
Joachim
People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]
Truth: Damn near all terrorists are Arabs.
Yes, from the Arabs who blew up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, to the Arabs who plant all the car bombs in Belfast, to the many Arab revolutionary movements in South America, to the Arabs who bomb abortion clinics, to the Arabs who spray Sarin gas in Japanese subways. Nothin' but freakin' a-rabs.
I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
Evolution gets the brunt of the contoversy, but modern astronomy, cosmology, physics, and geology are no more consistent with the prevailing theology than is the science of biology (as Galileo Galilei unfortunately discovered back in the 17th century). I doubt any field is safe that finds itself in contradiction with what was known and believed 2000 years ago. Is our Age of Reason once again in twilight?
There's no equivalence. Here's why: on one hand, you have a theory formed from observation of the physical world over the last 150 years, subject to constant change and revision. On the other hand, you have the story of the Creation, which is held to be true because God said so (well, because His followers and a certain Book said so, and the Book actually has two Creation stories which contradict each other).
When we start burning bibles, then we'll be as bad as they are.
k.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
Uhh.. you completely missed the point of that passage. Let me quote: "When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you."
This is a pride/humility issue, not an evangelism issue. How do you think Christianity spread to non-Jews in the 1st century? In the marketplaces and Mars Hills of the world.
I'm not defending lunacy, just evangelism.
Nobody is dumping on religiously oriented people, we're dumping on fanatical, fundamentalist, bigoted religious people, and yes there are people out there who's sole purpose in life is to assault anything that even hints at a different point of view whether it's scientifically based with the backing of evidence or not. All it takes is one bigot to start screaming and one negative article in the news and your business loses money. You can't ignore terrorist Christians just like you can't ignore terrorist Muslims.
So there was probably a big-ass flood at some point. Too bad that's unrelated to "creation".
... if you have the right fundamentals.
An example of what should be fundamental to a Christian is as follows:
"The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against these things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and wants. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other." (Galatians)
The problem with Bible-thumping Christians is that they love to get fired up over the Bible's condemnations of evil, such as
"Every morning I will put to silence all the wicked in the land; I will cut off every evildoer from the city of the Lord" (Psalms)
without studying the Bible to understand how it defines evil. They'll cling to a verse like that, and go fight against not the true evils of the world, like greed and imcompassion, but they war against some superficial "evils" that are usually just cultural impasses.
A great example of Christians missing the point: you know that the Bible doesn't feature the sin of Sodom and Gommorah as having anything to do with homosexuality? Here's what it says:
"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did destable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." (Ezekial 16)
If Christians believe in the Bible, then maybe they should read all of it, and think on it, instead of lingering all their life on John 3:16 and the 10 Commandments.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
The point is not about under-representing a certain point of view, but rather about blocking other "undesirable" viewpoints. While it may be interesting to mention various creation myths in a scientific film for the sake of cultural reference, the whole point of a scientific film is to present the findings of science, not of religion.
If I'm interested in religious explanation of how we came into being, I'll go to a church, mosque, etc... not a science movie.
see a Text Widget
They do sound interesting. I wouldn't mind seeing any of those, either, nor would I mind exposing my kids to them, so long as the programs don't outright mock what I believe. I would view it as an opportunity to discuss with my kids what I believe and why I believe it. Ultimately, my kids have to decide for themselves what they believe about the world around them.
I don't think that evangelical Christians, by and large, are afraid of the marketplace of ideas. They are used to being the underdog in an ideological war.
If you look at the public struggles between creationists and evolutionists, the creationists who represent the mainstream Evangelical thought are not trying to remove evolution, they would just like the teaching of evolution to acknowledge that it is not a proven fact, and that there are other schools of thought, an in particular, the possibility of intelligent design.
As a creationist, I do *not* want the teaching of religion in the public school classroom. Public school teachers have a wide variety of religious beliefs, so what would be the guarantee that they would represent the Christian belief? I rather not even go there.
wants to be the first monkey to touch the monolith
In Government (aka public) schools, you can't even talk about the differences or controversies within evolution, nor the various hoaxes (the peppered moths, ontogony recapitulates phylogeny, piltdown man, etc.) since the grand inquisitor (or if you prefer, secular humanist mullahs) of the ACLU will come in and shut you down for heresy.
Were there even a discussion about intelligent design (even one that said nothing about the nature of the designer), I think people would be more open minded.
But war breeds war. If we cannot even discuss evolution except as dogmatic truth in any governmental forum (and the courts and congress expand the definition of "government" daily), why should you expect people to respect the opinions on those who are on the side of the oppressors.
Evolution is true? Then debate it. Present both sides and those who have to make up things or evade or mindlessly cite authority texts will look silly.
But then we would have to have a truly open society.
When the original poster specifically mentioned experiments, then experiments are fair game. Read the quoted text. As far as observational science goes, the fossil record provides an extremely fragmentary, internally inconsistent, and generally unhelpful view. It is reasonably well accepted (except by idiots^W americans) that this in itself does not deny evolution, it merely doesn't support it very well.
Unless you believe that land mammals can magically transform into whales, fossil evidence supports evolution pretty fucking well.
Secondly it is not fossil evidence alone that supports evolution. There are many, many other evidences of evolution to be found. We can trace abberations in DNA back though ancestors, aberations that can be found no where else.
If we come to try and make judgements about long-time-scale dynamic processes from point observations, we fall into the trap of blind inductionism. And that's not (good) science.
Bullshit. First that is not all that is done. Secondly this reasoning would discount all of astronomy as well.
Evolution is sufficently poorly characterised that it isn't very good at making predictions, and there aren't many new observations to test them on, so that trivial view of hypothesis doesn't work too well either.
Bullshit. Evolution makes tons of predictions. You seem to be completely ignorant on this subject.
+4, Jesus Christ this is bad forum for science.
At least they don't pull out the old "The devil can quote scripture to his own ends" line. That one really drives me up the wall. You can prove things out of your magic book, but I can't?
I would argue that war does not always equate to evil. Just because you hate Bush, Republicans, and religion does not mean they are wrong.
Next up, not all religious people are Bush supporters, as you seem to imply. Frankly, I'm indifferent to politics because politicians almost always are self-serving, regardless of their party association.
Finally, invoking the name of God in vain, well, my guess (I could be wrong) is that you don't have the full understanding of what that means. Please read my blog post that touches on the name of God, and what it means to "take it in vain".
What I dislike about these sorts of all-out, unbridled attacks on religion is that everything is generalized to the point of fallacies. This very thread is based on an article written by a leftist (and therfore, anti-Bush, probably anti-religious) newspaper, the New York Times, in an attempt to slander religious people, and by associaion, the NYT's political enemy, George Bush. Because of hate-filled posts like those found in this thread, all we religious can do is defend ourselves from peanut gallery onslaughts like this one.
I choose to believe that a God has existed throughout history and still does. You don't have to believe that and I won't force my opinions on you. I just wish you would do the same and not force your hatred and your world views on me.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
Far better than that "gap theory" is the "day age" theory. The Hebrew word translated to "day" in Genesis 1 is the ONLY ancient Hebrew word that COULD have been used to describe a long but finite period of time.
In that context, with days being eons, Genesis 1 fits quite nicely into modern cosmology and geology. I could explain further, but no time right now.
Nearly every culture across the world has their own flood myth, because cultures developed near sources of water and transportation (i.e. rivers) that tended to flood. No single event generating all those myths is needed; in fact, the single flood hypothesis is not supported by the details of those flood myths.
The "separate floods" hypothesis is further supported by those cultures that lack flood myths. They're not by rivers. Surely they would have a flood myth if they got flooded out, no?