Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."
-Douglas Nigel Adams

Crom wrote:$25 million and that is all they could come up with? When there are like tons of creationists out there that are actually intelligent?




While I do not agree with this guy, he is obviously smart.

Man, and here I thought he was going to go and actually teach the audience something, and then he has to go and quote the Bible.

Interesting conversation.

I wish people did not say "evolution" when they mean "natural selection". Back in my University days my evolutionary science course made it clear that pre-darwin most if not all the scientists (mostly devout christians) believed in evolution.

Darwin just altered the discussion by presenting a system that did not require the almighty. However those who attack and those who support the "natural selection" hypothesis keep using the buzz word "evolution".

"Evolution" is extremely difficult to deny based on the fossil record, "natural selection" however does have a few sticking points (I particularly dislike the ideas about "preadaptations"). Of course so does "intelligent design", but I have not studied it as much.

The real problem with natural selection is that it is taught not as theory but as fact. Thus it becomes a clashing point for the religious vs. the anti-religious.

Any therapod eating coconuts is just silly though, just like all the cretaceous dinosaurs in Jurrasic Park . . . but I digress . . .

infinite_array wrote:

Crom wrote:$25 million and that is all they could come up with? When there are like tons of creationists out there that are actually intelligent?




While I do not agree with this guy, he is obviously smart.

Man, and here I thought he was going to go and actually teach the audience something, and then he has to go and quote the Bible.

This is an intelligent design guy. He knows his science, and is intelligent but also has faith. He believes in evolution but also believes that a higher power had influence in the making of everything. I guess he is maybe comparable to the old school deists, the ones that founded the USA. They believed in a natural God, not a god from the Bible and that the Bible was pretty much all mythos.

He is the sort of guy that would say God did not create the T-Rex to eat coconuts, but rather set the framework for how life evolved. Which is sort of what the deists believe.

Kilkrazy wrote:
I have made it very clear in this thread that religion as mainstream as the Pope accepts evolution. I have also stated that nothing in the scientific theory of evolution denies the existnece of a Creator.
That cannot be taken as implying that religion is anti science.
YEC/IDs is anti-science. It denies the evidence for evolution, and wishes ID to be taught as a scientific theory.

So what you mean is Killkrazy 'doesnt understand what Intelligent Design is'.

To put it briefly Intelligent Design is a subset of creationism (I prefer to just say creationism and omit ID) that believes that God was a presiding force in creation and that evolution is a tool of creation.
This is fair and necessary if education is led to mean, 'this is evolution, this is where we come from and there was nothign else involved'.
Remove the atheist hijacking of evolution and you remove the need to teach intelligent design. You can teach ID as part of evolution simply by adding evolution is considered scientifically sound, people differ on opinions of the purpose of evolution. Some people think it is a truly random event sequence, other believe that a divine being or beings are overseeing the process.

People can add to this but that is the core of what creation through guided evolution/ID actually is. When it comes to interpreting Day-Ages etc that is theology, theology should not be feared and should be taught in schools preferably from a multi-point perspective. Howeever the core point is that ID and evolution are not at issues with each other unless you insist on atheistic evolution being exclusively taught.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Element206 wrote:
Maybe its that whole IQ thing and the ability to rationalize creationism vs. evolutionism in an intelligent way.

Speak for yourself.

Theology taught in school? Not on my tax dollar. Sorry but there's enough misinformation already outside of public schools. Maybe if it was taught in the same way that Greek or Norse mythology is taught, as a mythical explaination of the world by non-advanced cultures, I would accept it.

How does intelligent design see micro evolution then? Things like MRSA staph bacteria? Bacteria, that with in only the last 100 years has evolved to become antibiotic resistant, and done so at a very fast and effective manner? That is proof that evolution works, and it is not some sort of genetic mutation or anything like that. The creationists will claim, that is micro evolution, that exists, but macro evolution does not.

Guitardian wrote:Theology taught in school? Not on my tax dollar. Sorry but there's enough misinformation already outside of public schools. Maybe if it was taught in the same way that Greek or Norse mythology is taught, as a MYTH, I would accept it.

I don't think you pay taxes. I don't think you're even out of school yet...

Yeah wilkom to texas... where good taste was invented somewhere else. Whatever frazz. Why is Christian theology any different than teaching about the humans being created out of mud (and coincidentally also flooded for being bad, and then pitied and saved)? By the way 'easter' is a derivation of a Sumerian goddess of love and war 'Ishtar' who's festival just happened to be on the same day that our personal lord and savior died and resurrected. Hey there's only 365 days a year, it's perfectly reasonable coincidence. I happily learned that in school just as willingly as I would learn about Noah. Nice bait.

Frazzled wrote:

Guitardian wrote:Theology taught in school? Not on my tax dollar. Sorry but there's enough misinformation already outside of public schools. Maybe if it was taught in the same way that Greek or Norse mythology is taught, as a MYTH, I would accept it.

I don't think you pay taxes. I don't think you're even out of school yet...

Well..I do pay taxes..and I'd have to agree with Guitardian,I strongly support the separation of Church and State and would not want to fund "Religion" in public schools.

Crom wrote:How does intelligent design see micro evolution then? Things like MRSA staph bacteria? Bacteria, that with in only the last 100 years has evolved to become antibiotic resistant, and done so at a very fast and effective manner? That is proof that evolution works, and it is not some sort of genetic mutation or anything like that. The creationists will claim, that is micro evolution, that exists, but macro evolution does not.

no dude, that's because it's a punishment for gay people. God made germs able to get stronger. duh.

Guitardian wrote:Theology taught in school? Not on my tax dollar. Sorry but there's enough misinformation already outside of public schools. Maybe if it was taught in the same way that Greek or Norse mythology is taught, as a mythical explaination of the world by non-advanced cultures, I would accept it.

Perhaps this is why theological study is needed. There is so much ignorance flowing, people are taught crap by dodgy preachers and don't know enough to say hold on, your not doing it right. People are getting very agitated over foreign faiths they simply do not understand and are often deliberately misled over the nature of. And atheists fear that any exposure to knowledge of religious matters will turn them into drooling morons.
So much hype, so much fear, so much distrust.

Is this what happens when theology is removed from the curriculum in a nation?

Guitardian wrote:Yeah wilkom to texas... where good taste was invented somewhere else. Whatever frazz. Why is Christian theology any different than teaching about the humans being created out of mud (and coincidentally also flooded for being bad, and then pitied and saved)? By the way 'easter' is a derivation of a Sumerian goddess of love and war 'Ishtar' who's festival just happened to be on the same day that our personal lord and savior died and resurrected. Hey there's only 365 days a year, it's perfectly reasonable coincidence.

Every Christian holiday is a recycled holiday just like all Christian mythology and ideas have also been recycled. Many recurring themes and parallels are found across all major religions that ever existed.

Well..I do pay taxes..and I'd have to agree with Guitardian,I strongly support the separation of Church and State and would not want to fund "Religion" in public schools.

I would totally support any and all religious studies in public schools, as long as they were treated as electives, not required, and the school taught all religions. Teaching about a religion and preaching about a religion are two different things. I am all about education, and to be honest I would have taken religion courses if offered in high school. Of course I am a non practicing non believer, but I do find religion rather fascinating.

No man. Alternate viewpoints and possibilities than "because it was written" are what happens.

edit post too fast... this was at Orlanth's post.

Guitardian wrote:

Crom wrote:How does intelligent design see micro evolution then? Things like MRSA staph bacteria? Bacteria, that with in only the last 100 years has evolved to become antibiotic resistant, and done so at a very fast and effective manner? That is proof that evolution works, and it is not some sort of genetic mutation or anything like that. The creationists will claim, that is micro evolution, that exists, but macro evolution does not.

no dude, that's because it's a punishment for gay people. God made germs able to get stronger. duh.

Well, I was sort of looking for a real answer, but lulz is always good

Orlanth wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
I have made it very clear in this thread that religion as mainstream as the Pope accepts evolution. I have also stated that nothing in the scientific theory of evolution denies the existnece of a Creator.
That cannot be taken as implying that religion is anti science.
YEC/IDs is anti-science. It denies the evidence for evolution, and wishes ID to be taught as a scientific theory.

So what you mean is Killkrazy 'doesnt understand what Intelligent Design is'.

No, what I mean is that ID is purportedly a scientific theory that an Intelligent Designer interferes in the world to create new species. It is based on the idea of Irreducible Complexity makes it impossible for complex organs and systems to arise through evolution. This idea has been refuted.

ID was invented by American YECs after their attempt to have their interpretation of the Bible pushed into science classes was defeated by a legal challenge. Another legal challenge defeated the attempt to have ID pushed into science classes.

@ Crom..

I find certain facets of religion interesting in the same way I find Norse/Greek mythology interesting....and I see your point concerning "Religious studies" offered as part of a curriculum...

However,I doubt the topic of Christianity could be discussed in an "appropriate context" in public school,seeing it isn't viewed as Myth by some..but rather as Fact.

EDIT:...The same could also applied to any "Modern/Practiced" Religion.

Guitardian wrote:No man. Alternate viewpoints and possibilities than "because it was written" are what happens.

edit post too fast... this was at Orlanth's post.

You really think so. Half my time is spent dispelling what can best be described as 'atheist belt' Americans who believe what was 'written' about religious people. You are so afraid of narrow mindedness you become narrow minded. Its a recurring feature and a disturbing one.

Others follow the concept of not believing in God a lot better of course. However your above point doesn't put you currently in that category. Theology explores what was 'written' and what it means and other things besides, it does not fear what was 'written' no should/does it encourage unthinking obedience to it. Rglious education and religious dogma are two opposed forces, more so than religion and atheism. People fall for diogy preschers in the US because thety arent taught any better, and others believe that the dodgy preachers and their strange doctrines represent faiths they come to hate out of equal ignorance.

If you want to open your eyes to the world theology is a good place to start. students are exposed to things that are 'written' all the time, and are taught as correct, and are marked pass or fail dependant on their ability to absorb the knowledge within presented as fact. Theology taught from a multi faith viewpoint has built into it, you learn several different viewpoints often mutually exclusive ones, this in fact ensures rather than inhibits thinking for yourself. Subject material is still marked right or wrong from an individual perspective of the faith represented in the particular study but this only establishes an understanding of the materials provided, collectively they raise unavoidable questions as the components faiths in the curriculum are mtually exclusive and therefore must be assessed as such witn no real opportunity to blindly believe 'everything' one is taught.

I can answer sebs question regarding "aggressive" atheism.

Its defensive atheism.

I have religious friends, I wont go near a church cos it bores me, most of us (non believers) arent interested in rallys, placards, marches and fething.... non believer festivals. I think if your that sad you need a proper hobby.. like 40k or something.

But the reason I speak out is public policy. I would never dream of not sitting through Grace at a meal, or bowing my head when a believer prays, or any of the stuff that atheists get accused of doing, frankly I dont believe 99% of it. Most non believers are like me, you just happen to be one, your not an "Activist" who tries to spread the word of nothing.

But I feel I must open my mouth when it (religious belief) affects public policy and affects how my taxes get spent. Or if we go to war, you know, a big deal!

If the NHS are spending 80million a year on priests, I want to know why its not being spent on better medical care. If your schools are teaching nonsense, I want to know why. If I cant get a pint when i fancy one on a Sunday, your damn stright I want to fething know why. How is this aggressive?! Defending myself against unfair rules made by people who i have a different world view to?

I would leave them alone if they left me alone. But they dont. They bother me, they lobby parliament and knock on my fething door when im watching cartoons with a hang over. So we must speak. If they affect my life, than ill open my yap. I dont see how thats being "agressive" and i dont for a second believe thats the case. I believe that Religious people purposely do their best to be offended because they dont want to answer our questions, because they know their position is difficult to defend. If it made perfect sense, it wouldnt matter what people like me said about it, the truth would shine through undimmed, because the truth always come out in the end.

But thats not what happens. They are ultra easy to offend, ultra prickly, ultra defensive. And its because they cant disguise that fact that under a bit of scrutiny their religious belief is about as substantial as a merangue.

I am more than polite when im around a religious person, ill prey, ill kneel, ill say grace, ill even read the bible to stop ruffling anyones feathers. gak, Id even join in a carol service! But if they fethers are trying to bend me to their will, and force me to play by their rules, then I aint bending.

Guitardian wrote:Yeah wilkom to texas... where good taste was invented somewhere else. Whatever frazz. Why is Christian theology any different than teaching about the humans being created out of mud (and coincidentally also flooded for being bad, and then pitied and saved)? By the way 'easter' is a derivation of a Sumerian goddess of love and war 'Ishtar' who's festival just happened to be on the same day that our personal lord and savior died and resurrected. Hey there's only 365 days a year, it's perfectly reasonable coincidence. I happily learned that in school just as willingly as I would learn about Noah. Nice bait.

I'm sensing you have greater issues with Christianity than a couple of farmer Teds whining about them there schoolmarms teaching libber creationism instead of good old readin riting and rithmetic.

You've totally missed Orlanth's point and by that I think you're proving it.

The NNS spending money on priests contributes to the well-being of religious patients, and is therefore properly justified.

Perhaps I am a bad guinea pig for this idea, as I have read lots of religious texts and minored in philosophy emphasis world religions a few years ago. It is because I have seen so many different yet just as implausible fantastical stories that I am convinced that it is all silly. I can understand teaching the bible, as well as I can understand teaching the Prose Edda or the Epic of Gilgamesh, but I cannot understand teaching it as factual.

If I have square holes, I will not be able to fit a round peg in them, no matter which color round peg I choose.

FITZZ wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Guitardian wrote:Theology taught in school? Not on my tax dollar. Sorry but there's enough misinformation already outside of public schools. Maybe if it was taught in the same way that Greek or Norse mythology is taught, as a MYTH, I would accept it.

I don't think you pay taxes. I don't think you're even out of school yet...

Well..I do pay taxes..and I'd have to agree with Guitardian,I strongly support the separation of Church and State and would not want to fund "Religion" in public schools.

You're not. This is an issue to 15 losers, some religious wackjobs, and some nervous principals. Newflash to the world: Who cares? you're teaching teenagers. They're not even awake, much less paying attention.

Kilkrazy wrote:The NNS spending money on priests contributes to the well-being of religious patients, and is therefore properly justified.

I disagree, If they want a priest they should come for free. Or pay for it themselves.

I put a priest on par with a boob job. I think there are things that the NHS should be paying for and things they shouldnt. And a priest aint one of them.

@mattrym

meringue--it is spelled meringue.

Everything else you said was spot on.

It is!?

I dont think ive had one since i was in primary school..

What is it French or something?!

mattyrm wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The NNS spending money on priests contributes to the well-being of religious patients, and is therefore properly justified.

I disagree, If they want a priest they should come for free. Or pay for it themselves.

I put a priest on par with a boob job. I think there are things that the NHS should be paying for and things they shouldnt. And a priest aint one of them.

If you believe the NHS should pay for things that promote healing, then you should be happy to pay for priests. They promote healing in religious people.

Your entitled to your opinion KK, its each to their own.

Do they though?! I thought the number one reason was to make them feel better before they pop their clogs! I mean, its not like they pray to heal cancer or regrow a leg or anything.. or maybe they do.

I also dont agree with homeopathy on the NHS, but, well there are a whole laundry list of things I dont agree with on the NHS.. but i think thats a new thread in the wings right there.

I think Tyrannosaurus was a pretty cool guy. Eh ate coconuts and doesn't afraid of anything.

Overall I agree with what Matty posted, I don't have a "problem" with anyone's belief and will even participate in certain "Christian" events,even though I myself am a "non-believer".
I've enjoyed many discussions concerning God and the Saints chances to go to the Superbowl with a wonderful Parish Priest back home...and it turned out he was spot on about the latter.
However,I freely admit to having a huge problem with religion when it interferes with/effects my life...both in the political and private capacity.
When I find myself engaged in a debate with an individual who tells me that my 40k minis "Invite demons into my home". (and yes that has happened twice)...then I just have to shake my head and laugh.