Evilooshun Edjumacashun
Here in Texas we just had a bunch of Creationists try their best to get 'Intelligent Design' into science textbooks. They claim that they are being 'persecuted' because the education system refuses to acknowledge their insane fantasy sci-fi wacko view that the world was created 6,000 years ago in it's present form. I decided to troll a few forums and to my surprise there were tons of people who were not only Creationists but who fully deny any form of macroevolution! My brain started to hurt from the massive stupid that it encountered.
So then I move on to National Geographic to help release some of the fail that had been injected into my system. So there I was, reading various articles when out of nowhere I am again faced with the Beast known as Creationism. A study of 34 advanced countries shows that the United States is 2nd to last in accepting evolution. The only country dumber than us is Turkey, a country named after a half retarded bird. Of course I expected to be beaten by Italy, the UK, Ireland, Sweden, France.... the guys who usually stomp us when it comes to education. But how the fuck are we dumber than Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Malta, Slovenia, Estonia?????..... I can't even find Estonia on a map without help! Out of 34 countries we are number 33? What happened to USA Number 1???
Back in college I had a classmate that was trying to get a petition to ban evolution from schools because it was "teaching kids atheism". I argued back and forth with a guy who felt he was being 'persecuted' (that word comes up a lot with these types) since he got a failing grade for refusing to take any test that had evolution implied in the questions. Then there is the friend of a friend who practically disowned his son for believing in evolution.
Are we this dumb? I hear 2 things repeated all the time, Evolution is just a theory and evolution leads to murders and other immoral behaviors.
Correct! Evolution is a theory, which means that it is the best, most plausible general principle to explain something. Kinda like the Gravitational Theory? The Germ Theory? Cell Theory? Plate Tectonics? There is no other explanation for origins other than evolution. None.
Then there is the whole "evolution leads to immoral behavior" nonsense. The one I hear is that if we tell people that they come from animals they will act like animals. Another good one is that if we are all just animals then what will stop us from killing, robbing, punching grannies in the coochie, and shooting heroin all day? First, animals show a great deal of social skill and so far the animal kingdom has not eroded into complete anarchy. Last time I checked, it was Bloods killing Crips, not Penguins puttin' a cap into a Polar Bears ass. Finally, saying evolution causes people to kill is like saying that just because Newton discovered gravity and the rate of falling bodies then we should start shoving people off bridges.
BTW, thanks to everyone for their input. I love to hear your opinions, even if it is just a random fuck you.
He11vis out!
Comments (30)
Kwazy had something on this a while back. Go through his blogs.... it was a while back.\r
\r
I totally think Intelligent Design should be taught in schools: in comparitive religion class. Not in Biology class. \r
\r
People get \"wierded out\" by the term \"theory\". They don't understand that in science (especially biology) there are no absolutes. We \"never say never\" as the case may be.\r
\r
Basically Science is humble and is concerned with the Truth. I have a point: I publish my logic for you to see... you can agree, find holes in my logic whatever. It has to stand up to scrutiny. \r
\r
Religion is also concerned with the Truth. But with spiritual truth. It should also be humble. I am a mere human, how am I to know the mind of God, of the Almighty? It's like an ant outside the Louvre understanding 2000 years of Art History. Can't happen. I can strive for better, but I must remain humble.\r
\r
Creationism (ID) is concerned not with being humble or the Truth. There are holes in the argument. The answer (for them) is \"Ah but I am right because I have interpreted the Bible this way.\"\r
\r
How dare any of us say that we know and understand how God made us? \r
\r
There is only one type of truth that God gave us, and that is scientific truths. He gave us a mind to think and a logical universe. This is the only thing we have to understand our gift from God.\r
\r
To sum up: we can't know God. We can only hope to understand the universe in which he gave us with a humble and open heart.\r
\r
fantastic blog
Glad to see you are introducing yourself to the community with safe, nonthreatening blogs!
There is no God.It's a made up story.Grow the fuck up and stop trying to teach my child your bullshit stories as if they were fact.\r
Good blog.Get ready to be assaulted by all the knuckleheads and their magic book.We went through this in Pennsylvania a few years back,don't worry,it'll get defeated.
Good blog - I agree with most of your points..The only thing I don't agree with is stooping down to say that God-believers, Evolution-haters, or whatever are \"stupid.\" (Sure, some are, but so are some Atheists). \r
\r
It doesn't do the non-believers any justice in getting accepted in a largely believing country with their alternate beliefs or lack thereof.
I have mixed feelings about topics that concern gods and religion. And I'm entitled to be uncertain about things and believe in what I see fit.\r
I am fortunate enough to have experienced both sides of the story. As a young kid growing up, Adam and Eve is all I knew about the creation of the world. Then science took over my life and I learned of evolution.\r
\r
I think there is truth and good from learning both. I no longer believe in religion (but yet on some deep level I still fear it because every time I make that statement I expect to be stricken by lightning) but I think teaching kids both sides and letting them make a decision when they are older is the way to go. I have major problems when people only teach one thing. When things are presented to have no doubt. I think doubt and curiosity and extension beyond religious beliefs would make people more in tune, and smarter instead of retreating back to animal instincts. Evolution teaches survival of the fittest. Religion teaches it's good to \"get by\" as long as you follow the rules. If more people had the \"be the best or die\" mentality the world would produce smarter people. The overall pool of human beings would greatly improve things like IQ scores. \r
Religion is an instrument to keep order in the society. Evolution is what makes the society flourish. So in the end.. we actually need both.
dammit, the random fuck you's have already been done....
I happen to be a Christian and I also happen to believe that the singularity and evolution are the 'how' not the 'what'. If you went back 5000 years, do you think that you could explain particle physics to people who didn't have any concept on far simpler things like gravity and inertia.
LadyisRed... I had an 8th grade teacher that did exactly that. The way she explained it is that time in gods terms could be 1 day = millions of human years.\r
So the 7 day theory could be mapped out with the evolution theory if people stop thinking of it as 1 human day. This was actually the first major turning point in my life why I gave up religion. \r
\r
But I see both views. And I believed in both at some point. It's possible, if you don't read the bible too literally.
\"Understanding\" is about looking at all sides of an argument, and rejecting those views that don't fit. I don't believe people are stupid if they have analyzed any idea and chosen one perspective, even if it is different than mine as long as they have looked at different sides. The people that I would consider stupid are those who believe something but haven't considered anything else to be a possibility, regardless on what side of this argument they fall on. \r
\r
As J-Cat already said, everything is a \"theory\" and rightly so. No one knows everything. What the word actually means seems lost on people anymore, but theory is the basis for trying to understand absolutely anything in this world.\r
\r
P.S. There seems to be a new wave of theo-scientists coming into the public eye these days as an interesting side note.
I believe that someone is uninformed if they assume the other side has no logical arguments at all and that all the evidence points towards what you think. This argument always ends up at the question of the causeless cause. At some point you have to explain the origin of all matter (evolution/atheism makes no attempt at this). At some point you have to explain where the first living cell came from and how it acquired DNA. There are many parts of evolution that are not explained and require faith, belief, and the ability to overlook parts of the universe that don't line up with what you believe, just like every other form of belief that is out there.
I have a problem with the thinking that says 'hey, i believe this crazy idea so you have to respect it\". No, I don't. There are Holocast deniers who say that they simply \"reject the existing data\", but that doesn't make their view legitimate.\r
\r
That is why I can't understand Creationists. There is little or no factual data to support their hypothesis. The facts conclusively point to evolution time and time again. There are some things that simply are. Water will always be H2O, whether you want it to be that way or not. \r
\r
Religion is not even the issue here. My ex is about as religious as they come and she believes in theistic evolution, that god made evolution happen. She justifies her belief because she feels that Genesis was an allegory, similar to the parables of Jesus. It was a way to explain complex issues in a simplistic manner.\r
\r
I am all for religious instruction in the home. That is a totally different issue. I am talking about teaching sound scientific principles to students. \"God did it\" is not an answer. We need an educated youth to complete in the global markets and in an educational system that is blatantly anti-science we do nothing to help our future.\r
Lets all focus on what is important....paid days off work. All I know is that I don't get one paid holiday from work from the evolution side and the creationism side gets me paid days off work...so they are ok in my book - even if I don't believe :) Until the evolutionism freaks get me some paid days off work they can all fuck off - I have no use for them.
Gats - Mutual respect isn't in the aethists vocabulary or \"thought\" process. Such as it is.\r
\r
I'd leave more comment but I've been down this road too many times on this site.\r
\r
I'll only say what I've said before...\r
\r
It's not the scientist's job to disprove God nor is it the Christian's job to ignore sound science and bury their heads in the sand. If you believe in God then all science is is a discovery process of how God works.
Quote He11vis: I have a problem with the thinking that says \"hey, I believe this crazy idea, so you have to respect it\"\r
\r
I suggest more research is in order. \r
Did the big bang create more than just hydrogen and helium? \r
Are you familiar with \r
Cosmic evolution?\r
Chemical evolution?\r
Stellar evolution?\r
Organic evolution?\r
Macro evolution?\r
Micro evolution?\r
\r
Because if you think the observance of Micro evolution proves the other five I would disagree. But I suppose because I see the problems in a widely accepted theory that makes me uneducated.
\"There are some things that simply are. Water will always be H2O, whether you want it to be that way or not.\"\r
\r
Interesting example to choose. Before the molecule was discovered, do you think people believed water, steam and ice were all the same thing?\r
Dude, you are going off on a tangent. I am talking about the evolution of species. \r
\r
How does the evolution of Cosmic, Chemical, Organic (see list above) etc..... disprove Darwins basic premise of the evolution of species?\r
\r
Mike: I am lost with that statement. I am thiking of Thogg the caveman. He sees a puddle, it gets cold and the puddle turns to ice... I don't think cavemen needed to know the molecular structure of water to figure that one out.\r
I don't see how you can address biological (species) evolution without addressing chemical/organic/stellar evolution. You have to start at the chemical level, move to a reproductive cell, and up to a living organism. I think you bit off more than you can chew scientifically if you don't see the need for understanding those. You are building a house with no foundation. \r
\r
Darwin had no idea how complex a cell was, back when he did his research it was fair game to expect \"spontaneous generation\" of organisms. Without chemical evolution you don't have the periodic table, without the periodic table you don't have proteins, without proteins you can't have the cell that is believed to be the common ancestor of all bacteria, plants, humans, and animals. But even if you had those proteins you still have to explain where it's DNA came from cause without DNA it has no floor plan for building and replicating itself. You also have to believe that every part of the cell formed at the same time, because if you remove one portion it cannot operate. The fact is first of all you have to imagine your way to a place of beginning of where Macro-evolution can occur, that is a lot of faith in nothingness. \r
\r
Then you have to account for something to happen in animals that is unobserved. Animals replicate their kind and we see a narrowing of traits not a gaining of new ones. People say we see bacteria become resistant to medicine. Actually you the mutation you see is a loss of traits. Mutations of the ribosomes that the medicine clings to destroy the cell are lost and that strand of bacteria populates due to it's resistance, but in other ways is weakened by the abnormality. So if someone is planning on dragging out someones child by the legs, but the child has no legs. Is that child genetically better off? Yes and no, but either way they didn't grow something they lost something. \r
\r
Want some facts, look up the details of the analysis of \"Lucy\"'s body and what scientists now say she is. Find out exactly what her foot looks like in the remains they found. Find out how many days were left before his grant ran out when he discovered \"Lucy\".
I appreciate the challenge my friend. I invite you to a debate offline where we can discuss the issue futher instead of going back and forth in the comments section.\r
\r
I think I know where you are going with the Lucy thing. I have already heard one Creationist response in a PM but maybe you have something different new to offer.\r
\r
I am not aware of any Scientists claiming anything about Lucy that changes her importance. Who is saying differently? I did a quick google search but didn't find anything disputing the established opinion of Lucy.\r
\r
I will send you a PM and we can have a no holds barred intellectual Cage Match. :) Good Show! I like a little challenge every now and then!
I enjoy it too, I will pull some of the computer analysis information up and send it to you. The main thing is that just because someone doesn't agree with evolutionism I don't think it is right to label them as ignorant, creationist, or whatever else. \r
\r
Like it or not, Nazi Germany subscribed heavily to Darwin's concepts and applied them to society. It would not be right for me to label all people who believe Darwin's teachings as being nazis. In the same way extending labels to people who don't agree with an overarching evolution theory isn't wise either.
I just sent you a PM CMA. Good to talk to an intelligent dissenter.\r
\r
I can't let the Hilter one go though. Hitler disagreed with Darwin. In 1935 the official Nazi guidelines for libraries published a list of reasons to reject books and one of them was any work that dealt with what they called \"Primitive Darwinism\". He was also vocal about squashing any \"godless movements\", and is quoted as saying \"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord \".\r
\r
Doesn't sound like a Atheistic Darwinist to me. Hitler's crazed ideas about ethinic cleansing don't invalidate evolution. Social Darwinism is a whole other ballgame. But anyway, see my PM and we will hash this out in a more chivalrous manner.
lol Grow up.Creationism and Evolution do not share an equal grounding.\r
One is fact,and basically,the foundation of modern biology,and the other is a made up story promoted by people to make money and control people.Too bad if people think they are equal,they are not.You can believe some dumb stuff all day long and it still doesn't make it true.Big1 and cma get all bent out shape about how I express myself and my disbelief but once again,tough shit.
I don't get bent out of shape if people disagree with me. I expect many do and that's ok. I get bent out of shape when the personal attacks are thrown in for good measure. I get bent out of shape for being called \"knucklehead\", \"whako\", and much worse in the past. I thought personal attacks were off limits on this site. I guess not. So suck on that you pompous piece of shit.
excellent blog and some excellent points on both sides. \r
\r
more blogs like this one.