Slashdot Mirror
Science Wins Over Creationism In South Korea
ananyo writes "South Korea's government has urged textbook publishers to ignore calls to remove two examples of evolution from high-school textbooks. The move marks a change of heart for the government, which had earlier forwarded a petition from the 'Society for Textbook Revise' to publishers and told them to make their own minds up about the demands. The petition called for details about the evolution of the horse and of the avian ancestor Archaeopteryx to be removed from the books. In May, news emerged that publishers were planning to drop the offending sections, sparking outrage among some scientists. The resulting furor prompted the government to set up an 11-member panel, led by the Korean Academy of Science and Technology. On 5 September, the panel concluded that Archaeopteryx must be included in Korean science textbooks. And, while accepting that the textbooks' explanation of the evolution of the horse was too simplistic, the panel said the entry should be revised rather than removed or replaced with a different example, such as the evolution of whales."
The Fellowship of the Rings should be taught in science class along side the [derisive tone] "theory" of evolution. Precious.
Your phone did not pop into existence by command of an almighty Creator. Instead, it evolved in over hundreds of years from insights and incremental improvements from many different people.
Silly Americans to think different(ly) (tm)
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
It is fun to watch evolution in action. I.D. and Creationism are dying out by generation, as few people with evolutionist parents accept anything but evolution, and many that have parents that are I.D. or Creationists still only accept evolution. Mostly because, to them, evolution is far more elegant and fits the observations, while Creationism doesn't and I.D. only deals with unobservable and untestable.
This might be one of the greatest arguments for the process of evolution, but by the time it becomes convincing to the fundamentalist and die-hard I.D.ers, there may no longer be the need to make that argument as the next generation would be so overwhelmingly against such anti-science.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Fundamentalists (Read: believes in the fundamentals of Christianity) such as myself applaud such rulings very loudly. Our scriptures - Genesis - clearly portray the sun, moon and stars being in our atmosphere. If you really want to take the creation accounts literally, you cannot say "Oh, we know not to that that literally". But that is exactly what many literalist Christians say. Why do you then insist that you have to chose between science and a seven day creation?
Someone has to pay for all the bailout money and we sure cant have the banks and their wealthy owners doing that can we?
HTTP/1.1 400
Wow, I'd like the US to resemble your comments. But here, it seems that organized religion keeps trying to worm its way more and more into the government. You can't get elected to any national office unless you are religious (this is not a rule, but many surveys even reported here on slashdot show that a majority of people don't trust, and won't vote for, atheists). I'd love to see theism die out, but in the US it is hardly on its last legs. It seems poised to keep on destroying lives and practicing exclusionism in the name of rules supposedly handed down by an invisible friend.
Thank Science for that!
Woppa science style!
According to the Wikipedia page, Christianity came to South Korea in the 17th century. When the more obnoxious form of modern fundamentalist Christianity arrived, with anti-science creationism, I'm not sure. Or maybe that statement is a bit ridiculous, since anti-science creationism is part of the original philosophy. Does anyone have any insight into the history of this form of evangelical Christianity? There is now a Korea Association for Creation Research, whose history I'd like to know more about. I imagine they have some tie to the Institute for Creation Research. Creationism, setting science education back by several centuries.
Why on Earth is this even an issue ? It is clearly that creationism is nothing but religious fundamentalism Taliban style. I have grown tiered of people are undermining society, democracy , technical progress and science with there own stupidity and religious fundamentalism. This is an non-issue. The creationisms are wrong. Have always been wrong. All there arguments are lies and always will be that.
This people are best put silent by telling to shut the fuck up! Preferably forever.
I know that I am going to flamed for this by religious fundamentalists that lurk slashdot for this type of comments and articles. But I do not care. As I know that I am right and they are wrong.
The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.
ACK
You can't get elected to any national office unless you are religious
There are plenty of counterexamples. Politicians in the US apparently do have to make a public show of being religiously observant. But they don't have to be religious. For example, of the last few presidents since Reagan (who I gather was fairly religious), only George W. Bush (the younger one) was notably religious. We'll probably even find out at some future time that Clinton or Obama were atheist, just not openly so.
They're not even just pushing religion into science class anymore. Now they're actually trying to censor information that contradict their dogma. Pathetic.
I think that has been the strategy all along: keep the kids ignorant so they won't abandon the religion.
And since they haven't had much luck getting creationism taught in schools, home-schooling has evolved (no pun) as an alternative means for keeping them ignorant.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Let's be sure to elect someone who will do nothing but kowtow to corporate leaders his entire time in office!
It worked perfectly last time. And the time before that.
Science is man's description of God's creation.
God is men's description of their own ignorance.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
You can't get elected to any national office unless you are religious (this is not a rule, but many surveys even reported here on slashdot show that a majority of people don't trust, and won't vote for, atheists).
You don't have to be religious, you just can't be overtly anti-religious and need to be respectful. That's where many get blowback from, including here.
I think South Korea's education system may have more pressing problems...
Yes, let's definitely insist that the ONLY possible explanation that's "scientific" involves pre-existent matter, pre-existent energy and pre-existent natural and physical laws...not to mention the entire "evolutionary process" having NO means to add information. That's clearly more "scientific"...
Basic creationist 'logic':
Everything requires a cause.
Therefore God must exist.
(God doesn't require a cause.)
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Wow, if Korea turned against evolution, how would Zerg do their upgrades?
evolution of the horse
I'm sorry, but science simply cannot explain how the pegasus (equus aves) and unicorn (equus magicus) arose from the earth pony (equus terra) without intervention from the goddess Faustia.
I don't see any obviously Lord of the Rings images on their website:
http://controversy.wearscience.com/
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
"scientific" (which rhymes with "science")
o.O
So the "fic" is silent?
Holy cow, have I been saying it wrong all these years! Why did no one say anything!!
The beloved Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un wins from both science AND religion! All hail Kim Jong-un!
rm -rf --no-preserve-root /
Many secular parents have an issue with that.
Homeschooling textbooks cater to the religious crowd so much, that secular parents basically cannot even touch the science books as they will be filled with so much nonsense.
It is not trying to worm itself into government. It is what the US was based off of. Go look at just about ever building built back when the country was founded and you will see written in the stones and the paintings on the walls that religion influenced Our government. The capitol in D.C. used to hold church services.
Not really, failure to bow before god will lose you an election in most of the country unless your opponent chooses to not publicly attack you on the topic for some reason.
On the first day, Man created God.
...include examples of devolution.
Here you go! We're through being cool.
Not a chance. I don't know if you're an American or live in the States, but my wife and I were camping in Southern Indiana last weekend, and we saw several billboards and signs in front of churches that mentioned Darwin.
Now that the religious Right thinks they have a lock on this country, their efforts to drag science behind their truck and then burn its corpse are only going to get more fervent.
I keep wavering between dreading a civil war and hoping for one, because they're making anything like progress in this country a lot harder. Sometimes I wish Mexico started at the Mason-Dixon line and Missouri could just be turned into a reservation for what I refer to as the "American Civil Religion" (because it doesn't have anything to do with Christianity). It's not about Christ or any part of the New Testament, it's just about showin' them egghead scientists what-fer and tellin' fags to die and women to shut up and go get me a beer.
You are welcome on my lawn.
This might be one of the greatest arguments for the process of evolution, but by the time it becomes convincing to the fundamentalist and die-hard I.D.ers, there may no longer be the need to make that argument as the next generation would be so overwhelmingly against such anti-science.
So IDers are anti-science because they accept scientific theories but do not accept the notion that God had no hand in creating life which science currently can not explain. One of the many large hurdles with life spontaneously generating lies with amino acids, in order to from protein they all need to be left handed and only 6% right handed can be present for a protein to form. The problem is that when amino acids are generated in nature you end up with equal number of left and right handed ones. There is no known natural way separate the left and right handed amino acids to get the concentration of left to 94%, currently the best natural separation method allows for a 68% left handed, these concentrations were found on a meteorite but no proteins were found. There is no anti-science in that statement just the citing of facts and where you draw the conclusion that God didn't play a role IDers draw a different one.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Exactly right, the textbook claims that life can be created synthetically using Natural means is a joke, we are no where near achieving this or evening proving that it is possible.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
What people mockingly call "devolution" is evolution. You can even cite examples of traits which wither away because they are no longer advantageous for genetic selection. There's no need to cover it as a separate topic. The loss of a trait or ability can be and often is advantageous as most require energy to maintain. (Our large brain is a huge disadvantage when food is scarce.)
There's also the myth that evolution has an overall direction, for example from single celled life to humans. While humans might take longer to evolve and might seem more advanced to us, we share the world and even our bodies with billions of single celled organisms which are doing just fine. They have been evolving for just as long as we have, and in that sense are just as evolved.
Your question is easy. Origin: Mutation. The ones not having it died. Mutation prevailed.
Tell me, what good does all that reproductive rate do them if we're the ones that are sitting with our fingers on nothing more than a big red button?
Another "god of the gaps" argument. We don't know how it happened, so god must have done it!
Your point?
I think you drank too much coolaid. You've lost touch with reality.
Right... Bush has *nothing* to do with the current state of affairs? Did I read that correctly?
Abiogenesis is definitely an unsolved problem - so far. So what? The question of how life got started is logically distinct from how it developed after that start. And evolution addresses that question comprehensively. (Even in the case of the putative examples of 'irreducible complexity' that ID'ers have advanced - e.g. the bacterial flagellum, the clotting cascade, or the vertebrate immune system.)
(Oh, and progress is actually being made on the abiogenesis front anyway.)
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Sometimes I wish Mexico started at the Mason-Dixon line and Missouri could just be turned into a reservation for what I refer to as the "American Civil Religion"
This is exactly the kind of thinking that leads to the persecution of Jews in Germany and Russia (Soviet Union) and Falun Gong in China and .....
My question is, why do Atheists care about proselytizing their Atheism to others? Why do they care what "religion" says at all? Why are atheists so quick to dehumanize others?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
You don't watch enough Ancient Aliens. It goes, I'm not sure exactly how they did it, therefore...ALIENS!
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
Gimme the name of any textbook actually in use in any school that "claims that life can be created synthetically using Natural means".
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Christians already have their own class that they can take, it's called going to church on Sunday.
... but you are not obliged to go to church by law.
While you are obliged by law to go to school.
Anyway, in certain countries like Italy, they have Catholic religion course in school. From 6 to 18. They can opt out, since few years now.
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
Basic evolutionist 'logic':
Evolution is Science! Science is always true!
Science is better than Religion because it can be questioned
(Someone cites a centuries-old fairy tale written by humans as scientific "proof".)
DON'T DO THAT!!! YOU'RE A BIGOT BACKWARDS HILLBILLY IGNORANT FOOL WHO BELIEVES IN MAGIC!
I fixed your typo. For what it was worth, you were mostly correct.
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
I think it's worth reposting this:
No Evolution in Korea?
"What STR did manage to pull off with three textbook publishers was this: STR convinced those publishers that two diagrams in their books -- one about the evolution of horses, and the other about archeopteryx -- and the text accompanying them were scientifically incorrect. Notice the claim here: the claim was not that the diagrams were against creationism. The claim was that the diagrams were scientifically incorrect."
"And you know what? Technically, they were right! The diagram above showing the evolution of horses is horribly outdated, and the pictures no longer comport with the current scientific consensus. The text accompanying archeopteryx said archeopteryx is the middle step between dinosaurs and birds, which is also technically incorrect -- archeopteryx is considered a close relative to the true ancestral birds, not itself a true ancestral bird. So the three textbook companies decided that they would drop the two diagrams in the next edition of their textbooks."
"Pay close attention to what actually happened here. What got dropped was two diagrams and the accompanying texts about evolution that were scientifically incorrect -- not the theory of evolution. It is not possible for the textbook publishers to drop the discussion about the theory of evolution, because that would violate MEST guidelines. Further, not even the decision to drop the two diagrams was final, because MEST still had to approve the new textbooks that the publishers proposed to make."
"But of course, STR nutcases thought they scored a huge victory for creationism, and started trumpeting their "victory." By and large, Korean media yawned -- exactly one national newspaper (and a relatively minor one at that) covered the story, and even that story made it quite clear that all that got dropped were diagrams. But the Nature magazine decided to run with the story, with a sensational headline that read: "South Korea surrenders to creationist demands," and here we are -- Korea is branded as a dumb country that doesn't believe in evolution."
Basically, it didn't become a problem until foreigners misunderstood what happened and trumpeted it as the beginning of creationism in Korea. The Korean government responded not because of creeping creationism but to save face in front of the international community. If anything, this whole misunderstanding may in fact work in favor of creationists in Korea because now it has drawn attention to what had been a fringe, ignored cause from other creationist movements overseas.
One of the many large hurdles with life spontaneously generating lies with amino acids, in order to from protein they all need to be left handed and only 6% right handed can be present for a protein to form. The problem is that when amino acids are generated in nature you end up with equal number of left and right handed ones. There is no known natural way separate the left and right handed amino acids to get the concentration of left to 94%, currently the best natural separation method allows for a 68% left handed, these concentrations were found on a meteorite but no proteins were found.
There's no reason to expect early organisms to have the same restrictions on chirality that modern ones do. Nor reason to expect modern organisms to have the same versatility that ancient ones might and probably did have.
Assuming you're not harming anyone else, live as you see fit. I believe that if by living and learning you happen to ignore religious "law" god will understand it's all a part of growing up. If god does will not understand then he is not god, so why worry about it?
If god was so offended that creationism is not taught, why didn't god write/inspire his holy book/s correctly the first time?
Don't get me wrong, I completely agree creationism must be taught alongside of science, my problem is which version of creationism to teach.
Once we can decide which religion is true and which is false we can finally begin the holy work of teaching the right version of creationism and all that good stuff.
Of course I'd not want to put many different people of different religions in a room to debate this, god might be offended by their consequent behavior.
Come to think about it, if god is so bothered about people believing in him and their eternal souls and all that, why doesn't he just say so? heck Amazon will give him an exclusive on the Kindle Fire HD. I can see it now "Kindle Sin Hellfire - GOD EDITION!"
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
There are 'holes' in General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, too. (They make conflicting predictions in conditions we can't yet test, so at least one and probably both are wrong.) But we still teach them in schools, because they are the best theories we have and they cover such a huge range of phenomena with such precision that, whatever the truth turns out to be, it'll still look a hell of a lot like GR and QM.
As Isaac Asimov put it, "[W]hen people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was [perfectly] spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Newton's Laws are wrong, yes... but they are so close to right we still use them every day, and teach them in schools. Hell, NASA still uses plain old Newtonian physics to pilot their space probes, with just a few occasional relativistic fudge factors, because a full GR treatment would be prohibitively complex and add no useful accuracy.
It's the same with evolution. We know that all life is related by common descent, and that life has changed drastically over the course of 3.5 billion years, and that complex structures were built by numerous small tweaks well within the realm of chance. Natural selection has been demonstrated now and over the fossil record.
Evolution is true. Will there be further clarifications and refinements? Sure. But they won't upend evolution any more than GR and QM could possibly be 'overturned'.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Unification Church Founder Rev. Moon Dies at 92:
By HYUNG-JIN KIM Associated Press GAPYEONG, South Korea September 2, 2012 (AP)
Officials say the religious leader who founded the Unification Church and built it into a multibillion-dollar business empire has died in South Korea at age 92.
Coincidence? I do not think so.
As a homeschooling parent, I can back this up. Luckily, the internet opens up a world of information beyond creepy textbooks that say that you will to go to a lake of fire if you think that the earth is more than 6000 years old (I am not making that up).
We're afraid of (your) 'alternative views' because they're both A) insolvent and B) constantly trying to get pushed into law.
Old fairy tales aren't evidence, folks. The bible can't "prove itself". When you come up with a way to turn your "alternative views" into something a little more concrete than "this book is true, cause the funny dressed man in the old building told me so", let me know, cause, like, I'd really love to be Christian. I really would. The problem is that, sans lobotomy, I'll never be able to be one of you, cause I can't stop trying to think critically.
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
Touche
And that's about as far as most posters read, I'll bet, before posting their "look how stupid religious people are" rants. Creationists are not all stupid. You might think they're wrong, but people can be very intelligent and wrong at the same time. Archaeopteryx and eohippus are oft cited examples of evolution, but there is some doubt today about their accuracy. Heck, the scientists COMPLIED with half of the request. The eohippus to horse scenario is inaccurate and should be removed! However, they let the Archaeopteryx stand even though it might not really represent a transition between dinosaurs and birds. "Science wins"? Maybe Korean educators should be embarrassed that creationists had to point out the scientific flaws in their textbooks. BTW, my kids' science textbooks had the same examples.
Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
Now can the South Korean government please use science to figure out that you can't die from being exposed to a fan overnight?
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. It deals only with existing populations. Attacking evolution on these grounds is entirely unfair, and it misrepresents the logic and data that supports the theory. The vast majority of ID supporters seem more incensed by the notion that humans evolved just like any other animal, and I don't think it's fair for you to claim that they object to evolution simply because they're conflating it with a tangential field of study.
No, if asked what your religious beliefs are, you may not answer "atheist". Voters won't elect anyone that admits they're an atheist. They don't trust them, because they assume they have no moral code.
Which is funny, since they're the only honest ones in the room.
It was a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître, that most pushed for the big ban theory, which was advanced science in that day. It was the atheists that were anti-science then, with their now-debunked "Static" theory.
Actually the person who first came up with a dynamic cosmological model of general relativity was Alexander Friedman, hence the reason for the term FLRW metric. Lemaître did come up with a "primitive atom", but it was Fred Hoyle who first coined the term "Big Bang".
Bullshit, the most evolutionists claims is 'this' is what we have evidence for now. In the future, we may have to revisit some of the minor points, the major points would already have counter-examples were they wrong. Evolutionists also rather think of Science and Religion as being apples and oranges, comparing them makes little sense. Leave the hillbillies out of it, they probably don't have an opinion.
Or we could, you know, present both possibilities and let people decide from themselves instead of trying to force one theory or the other down someone's throat. I'd imagine, when presented with the facts, most people would look to science for the answer in this debate, but I don't see the need to force one argument or the other.
There is only one theory, i.e something that makes testable predictions, has undergone testing and not been falsified. Creationism whether of the original kind or in its clown-shoe variant "ingenuous design" are not theories in the scientific sense.
Except in the US, saying "I'm not religious" is considered disrespectful to religion. Saying "I don't want my government to pay for your religious beliefs" is an attack on and oppressive to religious people.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Creationists are not all stupid.
As the saying goes, you can be intelligent, honest and a creationist.
Just not all three at the same time.
Ok, give a counterexample then? All you are saying is that you believe some politicians are lying about being religious with no evidence given one way or the other. That isn't a counterexample. Instead you are actually making the case that they need to appear to be religious to get elected, enough so that some of them may be lying about it.
You don't have to be religious, you just can't be overtly anti-religious and need to be respectful.
So, you don't have to be religious, you just have to pretend to be. And since we cannot know what is truly in a politician's heart (as they are superb actors), from all outward appearances a politician must be religious. Or you haven't been watching the same presidential elections I have at the least.
Dome may not be a correct translation of the word more commonly translated as Firmament (and may be due to the limits of people reading this).
Anybody that can read hebrew wanna comment??
a big thing when reading the bible is REFERENCE THE ORIGINAL TEXT (as much as possible) one could notice that the Latin for verse 14 reads dixit autem Deus fiant luminaria in firmamento caeli ut dividant diem ac noctem et sint in signa et tempora et dies et annos
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
I It is what the US was based off of.
Wrong. http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html
My question is, why do Atheists care about proselytizing their Atheism to others? Why do they care what "religion" says at all? Why are atheists so quick to dehumanize others?
Look at the Republican party and their push to enact the Christian version of Sharia law in the US. As soon as that shit ends, we'll stop giving a shit about what nonsense you believe.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
The word "evolution" is horribly misused and equally misunderstood.
For instance: I enjoy the X-Men universe. However, their description of "evolution" and what happens in the X-Men universe would actually contradict the theory of evolution. For someone to suddenly grow large insect wings would disprove evolution -- or at least throw a major wrench in our understanding of how it works.
And, in response to your rhetorical question: the reason people never say that the plants in their back yard are evolving is because the plants in your back yard are not evolving. Not all change is evolution.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Only if he really meant it, not as a joke. On the other hand, these guys don't seem to be joking, not unlike the old witch hunts.
I don't really care if people believe in unicorns. But then, there isn't an "Office of Unicorn-Based Programs" in the White House. Atheists tend to care in direct proportion to how much religion drives policy that they have to live with.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
My thoughts: Science classes should teach evolution, not creationism, the latter is not science. If you want to rationally approach the subject of our origins in an open minded way, that is the place of an appropriate branch of philosophy. If you look for a theory that fits the evidence and make reasonable assumptions that batsh** crazy stuff isn't happening behind the scenes, evolution's what you get, thus that's what should be taught in science classes. What direly needs to be taught is that the scientific approach isn't the only way to view the world, and that science divorced of its underlying philosophy becomes like a house with its foundations removed. There is a point to faith, and indeed to myths. The point of myths is that much meaning can be conveyed to a level sufficient for everyday life that would require thousands of journal articles to pin down to scientific standards, if it can be pinned down at all. Sometimes a myth is enough.
In short, teach basic maths, basic science and teach people how to be open-minded, reason carefully and not be dogmatic about what they believe.
Also develop a good notion what faith is, in both a secular and religious context and teach that. Do not teach the agressive secularist idea that faith is old-fashioned, backward, inconsistent with evidence or just plain wrong. That is, alas, the seed of religious dogmatism growing up within the humanist viewpoint, where surely religious dogmatism has no place.
John_Chalisque
If you'd like me to play an educated creationist and see where we go, I'd be more than happy. There is a rational alternative to the theory that our origins are purely evolutionary if you question your assumptions deeply enough. As my other post points out, however, the discussion has no place in science. For reference I'm a WeDontHaveAClueist in the sense that my position is we don't know and can't know and science can't tell us where we really came from. Truth, when you dig in, is one of the biggest cans of worms in creation/uncreation/notcreatedatalleation.
John_Chalisque
The cult leader is dead. Sudden outbreak of common sense.
New Economic Perspectives
The Bible is not in conflict with science. Many people have interpreted the Bible in ways that are in conflict with science. That does not make their interpretation correct and science wrong, nor does it make the Bible wrong because their incorrect interpretation does not line up with science.
My interpretation, which I have held for decades, doesn't have issues with an old earth. Indeed, it requires the earth to be older than the ~ 6k+ year old value that is commonly bandied about. I feel my view is consistent with what the scripture actually says from cover to cover. My view doesn't address evolution, as the Bible doesn't address it. I am completely neutral on whether macro-evolution occurred in the past or whether God just had fun tinkering because He was bored. Science really can't prove that macro-evolution is true over other options due to the time scales involved. Natural selection and micro-evolution is observable, but macro-evolution is not and probably won't be at least in the near to mid range future. Macro evolution / God experimenting - will remain unresolved.
The important thing is this. Whichever view is correct doesn't matter as far as the purpose of the Bible and doesn't affect my religion at all. Pastors have taught young earth theories from the pulpit and have taught old earth theories from the pulpit over the course of my lifetime in a single church. I'd say the congregation was about evenly split if a vote were to be taken as to which was right. But who is right and who is wrong is completely irrelevant. It simply doesn't matter in the grand plan of things.
Since you mentioned it, I'll also note that I have no desire that the schools be forced to teach religion by law. All I do expect is that the schools be fair in their treatment of religion should the topic arise and present a balanced view of any side that wishes to be heard. I wholeheartedly agree that the place is not in a science class room.
I believe in God because I see His work in people's lives today. I observe how He is interacting with my life and in the lives of those around me who I personally know. I have observed tangible changes and events which cannot be explained by science or medicine. Yet they match up with what the Bible said would happen in words written ~2k+ years ago. Thus I stand as one of the few in the forum who is both a champion of science, and a champion of religion. Yet I realize that what I have experienced in my life will be just as irrelevant to you as the Bible you mock.
If you really are honest in wanting to be a Christian, find a smaller Pentecostal church and attend it for as long as you have studied science. Go in skeptically. Don't let those who attend off the hook about their beliefs and make them give you real answers, being respectful to ask the questions in a normal learning environment like a Sunday school class or small group when the topic arises. Realize that some topics like creation have wide ranging views. Remember that these topics aren't what Christianity is about - they are fringe issues which are largely irrelevant to the Gospel's message and that you will hear a wide range of opinions. Go with the intent of finding out what Christianity is really all about. Do go in with an open mind and stay for an extended period of time and really get to know the people and their lives. That way, when God does do something special that you observe, you'll have the confidence that it wasn't just some trickery since you really know the lives of the people involved.
If you do, then God will prove Himself to you, and that is the important thing. Once He has proven Himself to you, then you will look at the Bible in a new light and read it and see how it really is about a whole bunch of things other than the five or six that get bandied about in this forum when people start trying to tear it down and raise science up.
I usually avoid these flame-fest articles entirely anymore, but I have to point out that any texts that claim archaeopteryx as an avian ancestor (it's more like an avian uncle) or show horse evolution in an equally flawed manner need to be revised. A creationist group was involved, but the fact remains the book needs to be fixed. But let's not bother reading the article. TL;DR. Don't let a good attack on those radical fundies go to waste.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Well, there is a direction in the sense that single celled life needs to evolve before more complex life can evolve. One could also argue that, given relatively stable circumstances, complex life is bound to evolve at some point. And even though complex species can be much more fragile than single celled species as a whole, the individuals can be more resilient in the face of changing circumstances and less prone to die.
Well, I've heard the theory that religion in the US became popular during Cold War, as a view opposing Atheistic Communism in Soviet Union.
Now that strategic enemies (Iran, for example) are more religious, I think anti-atheism positions will get weaker over time.
May Peace Prevail On Earth
Okay, I'll feed the troll.
White people did "evolve" from black people as you say, however your complete misconception appears to be that evolution means "better", i.e. that white people are better that black people. Yes white people are "fitter" for an environment that it far from the equator. However, black people are "fitter" for an equatorial environment. That's it, that's the only conclusion that you can draw, nothing about any other traits. One cannot draw any conclusion about which is "best" from this evidence - except that black people are "better" for equatorial regions and white people are "better" for non-equatorial regions.
Also don't forget that the black population that remained near the equator also continued to evolve based on fitness for their environment, just as the population who moved away from the equator evolved paler skin based on fitness for their non-equatorial environment.
Also, if you have a lot of trials that 6% doesn't look that bad either.
So, you dehumanize others because you feel superior? Godwin for the win?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
To you, and all your buddies below, I didn't mention Christianity at all. If that is the best retort you have to a legitimate concern then we are screwed. I made no mention of "Christian" anything. I mentioned two religions that are suffering persecution by the "atheist state" that weren't even Christian. How your hatred of Christians has twisted your thoughts should start becoming clear right about now, because you're seeing things that aren't there.
BTW, I am not a "Christian". And the people putting their own version of "sharia" law are the nutbag liberals who want to ban happy meal toys and make everyone drive Prius'
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
1. How does science explain where the material for the big bang came from and why it was there? Where's the scientific explanation of the material's origin, I would love to hear it... science only goes so far no matter HOW MUCH of it you accept
As far as I know, science does not yet have a solid theory for how this came about. There are some interesting hypothesises, for example one is that that the universe actually has a net zero energy state. The energy in the matter is balanced by negative gravitational energy - see this article. Of course this is just one hypothesis, there are others. However, just because we don't yet have a complete answer for the origin of the universe doesn't mean that it's acceptable to say "god did it".
Also the origin of the universe has nothing to do with evolution as taught in school and college. The origin of the universe is more properly part of cosmology and physics. Evolution is biology and ONLY deals with how organisms change over time, it doesn't even address how life might have come about in the first place. So if the argument is that we shouldn't teach evolution because science does not yet have a theory about the origin of the universe, you might as well say that we shouldn't teach ANY science at all. Should we not teach chemistry because we don't know where the matter came from, should we ignore physics as well?
So while it's true that science only goes so far as you say that is still not an excuse for not teaching it. Science it can only address topics where, by definition, the scientific method can be applied. Religions' claims are, again by definition, not scientific. One cannot apply the scientific method to supernatural claims - since no hypothesis can be tested; a god could always use its supernatural power to ensure any result it wanted.
2. How did the reproductive system evolve? If the theory of evolution is that mutations that help an organism survive are what get selected, none of the system in either gender existed at the outset, most if not all of it needs to be present in order for it to work, and without it working there is no survival advantage, how did it evolve? Was it just 1,000 random mutations all happening at exactly the same time?
Your first misunderstanding is that the reproductive system needs all of it's current complexity to give an advantage. Being able to combine DNA without having different sexes gives a huge advantage in terms of natural selection, and then once you have that then selection pressure will evolve fitter and fitter mechanism until one has the full complexity that we see today. The system evolved in very very gradual steps. If you are thinking that sexual reproduction is an example of irreducible complexity, then I suggest that you do a little bit of research into it. For example, a quick look at Wikipedia provides a useful starting point for the layman.
I am not really religious. But I will discount all theories of some other being having a hand in creating us when science has a full and fully defensible explanation
So if you discount all theories until there is full and fully defensible explanation, then I guess you discount gravity. That can't be useful at all since we don't yet have a full explanation. Oh wait, yes it's still useful to use Newton's equations even though they've been superseded by Einstein's, and it's useful to use Einstein's even though they don't work so well at the quantum level.
As I've mentioned above, I'm not a Christian. And your assumptions are the real lies, but they are lies you tell yourself to make yourself feel so smug. So you just make excuses for the abuses of humans because they are religious and your hatred of religion? Exactly my point.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
They're not even just pushing religion into science class anymore. Now they're actually trying to censor information that contradict their dogma. Pathetic.
Indeed. Which makes me wonder, why is whale evolution acceptable but not horse evolution?
while accepting that the textbooks' explanation of the evolution of the horse was too simplistic, the panel said the entry should be revised rather than removed or replaced with a different example, such as the evolution of whales.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
So guess what? Piss on such ideas. Even if they were true, they'd still be totally worthless.
In passing, I note that I've seen people who argue both that (a) the universe is so fine-tuned that any change would make life impossible, so God must have designed the universe, and (b) the laws of nature might have been totally different in the past, so that 4.6 billion years of radioactive decay could happen in 1/750,000th of the time without evaporating the Earth. I don't know if you're one of that ilk, but it wouldn't surprise me.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Wait, the Jews didn't believe in science either? Did anyone tell Einstein?
You are welcome on my lawn.
That's apparent.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I'm not strictly an athiest. I don't have enough evidence one way or another to make a determination on the existence of a god-like higher power, or maybe I just haven't seen the evidence.
But I've seen data that supports the theory of evolution. Replicable data.
I don't care if someone wants to believe in God, but they better not tell me I shouldn't believe my own eyes.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Ok, give a counterexample then?
George H. W. Bush,
Bill Clinton,
Barack Obama.
You should have noticed that I had already mentioned them as examples.
All you are saying is that you believe some politicians are lying about being religious with no evidence given one way or the other.
Well, there's also their actions. They show up in church occasionally, but there's not the fervent demonstration of religious faith that George W. Bush showed.
You are giving counterexamples to "You can't get elected to national office unless you demonstrate as much religious faith as GWBush showed." That was not the original premise you are attempting to disagree with! I have heard Obama say things like "God bless America" and other such religious statements and I am not even listening to a 10th of the stuff he says. No one knows what is in a persons heart. If you need to pretend to be religious to get elected, that is the same as having to be religious to get elected.
The fight is between science an creation in any case. If God created the universe, the earth and all creatures in 144 hours (6 days), there's no need for it to have occurred in the 'known' order either.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
You said "religious". G. W. Bush is the only religious president since Reagan. That's one out of four.
I'm really wondering that the creationism debate infected South Korea at all. Up until now, I thought that the debate of creationism in textbooks and education was a typical Americanism, strictly confined to the USA (or maybe just to its Bible Belt). Is South Korea's educational system such a carbon-copy of the US's system that it is just as vulnerable to the same memes? Anyone from South Korea caring to shed some light on this?
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
While not considering himself an atheist, Einstein's views on the Judeo-Christian religion are pretty explicit:
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. ... For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong ... have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything “chosen” about them.
You know, I used to think that way, but I'm becoming a little more forgiving.
There is something endearing about a human being's deep-seated need for meaning which creates such extraordinary stories and beliefs.
And I find if I see it as part of their humanity, I'm less dismissive of religious believers as people. It doesn't change my own beliefs, but it makes me a little bit less of an asshole about it.
In regard to the human cost of religious beliefs via wars, etc, I'm pretty sure that if it wasn't for religion, people would just find another excuse to fight and kill.
Yeah, living is a lot easier for me when I'm not a dick about other peoples' religious beliefs.
You are welcome on my lawn.
NOTE: The above does not apply to Mormons.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Many faith based programs are funded completely by individuals. They're covering all the overhead and operating expenses already internally and usually have large volunteer components at all levels including upper management. Some that I know of are 100% funded by the members and so 100% of donations received are used directly for what they are given for. They are being the best stewards of any funds or other items donated to them to have the greatest reach possible.
If the government can use them to funnel aid to individuals without more government bloat and paperwork taking a big chunk of that largess before anyone who needs help ever benefits from it, I'm all for it.
Certainly there are exceptions considering the thousands and thousands of programs out there and there are failures and there are cases where overhead is way too high. I suspect that if it were possible to score every single faith based program in the world including all major faiths as to how much of each dollar or dollar equivalent for goods like clothes or foodstuffs they received actually went to recipients and compared that to all private programs aiding individuals and compared that to all government programs aiding individuals, faith based programs would win hands down in doing the most good with what they get.
That isn't to say they do the most, because governments are huge compared to the number of faith based programs. It is only to say they are far more efficient. The Red Cross or Red Crescent or Salvation Army frequently grabs the headlines in dealing with disasters, but along with each of them are a host of faith based generally large denominational programs that also roll out help to provide food, shelter, and other items to help those who are suffering. Would I rather get 95 to 100% equivalent of a donation of food along with a tract or a brief word of hope if disaster had struck or would I rather get 50 to 60% from a public source. If you really feel people would prefer to get less without an encouraging word, I suspect you have never been in their shoes.
There is something endearing about a human being's deep-seated need for meaning which creates such extraordinary stories and beliefs.
Considering the amount of propaganda and descriptions of atrocities committed in the name of God, I find the Bible (as well as many other historical scripture) mostly disturbing and sometimes amusing (the penalty for having sex with livestock, ridiculous claims of old age probably due to mistranslation, ...).
Also, taking into account the number of past and present religious belief systems as well as the amount of modern fiction, I don't consider these stories particularly extraordinary, but I agree that this deep-seated need for meaning you mention is fundamental to human nature:
We are not Homo sapiens, Wise Man. We are the third chimpanzee. What distinguishes us from the ordinary chimpanzee Pan troglodytes and the bonobo chimpanzee Pan paniscus, is something far more subtle than our enormous brain, three times as large as theirs in proportion to body weight. It is what that brain makes possible. And the most significant contribution that our large brain made to our approach to the universe was to endow us with the power of story. We are Pan narrans, the storytelling ape.
- Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen, Science of Discworld II
As an aside, I find it quite surprising that a lot of people self-identifying as Christian (as in: follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ) aren't as disturbed by the Bible as I am. Frankly, I don't cosider such people Christian at all, as they have made the Bible their golden calf instead of heeding the word of their living god.
I objected to faith-based programs at the White House. As in, " religion driv[ing] policy that [atheists] have to live with." So your response is rather beside the point.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Yeah, yeah, the terrible atheists are coming. Sorry my asking for effective government policy implies that I crave to be a totalitarian oppressor.
The differences between religious and secular giving aren't that pronounced. And that situation is influenced by lots of propaganda that there's no reason to be good to others if you don't believe in God, which seems to be something of a self-fulfilling prophecy for people who lose faith sometimes.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
I guess that burning people on stakes wasn't called fundamentalism as it happened before that. Maybe the correct would have been mainstream Christianity and others were called heretics and tortured to death (of course many mainstream Christians were also tortured until they "confessed" and then they were burned at stake).
We don't know how it happened
http://www.aiyiagroup.com Hot dipped galvanized steel coil