Creationist Scum
 

I'm totally sick of these moron creationists in America trying to get their religious hokum taught in schools as "Intelligent Design". The ID lobby will claim that evolution is a "controversial" theory, accepted by "some" scientists. Those terms imply that only a minority of scientists accept evolution when that is not true; the overwhelming majority accept it, and virtually no scientists who aren't also fundamentalist christians accept ID.
These IDiots are anti-science and have absolutely no respect for evidence or the truth. They simply want to hinder over a hundred years of scientific progress that evolution has granted in favor of teaching their bullshit religious myths as Truth.

Well then tell that to them. Why are you telling us? We already know this. Do you think this small rant has changed any minds what so ever? Seriously, go plead your case with the creationists.

This is the reason I don't bash what most people would call "intolerant people."
There are some people to whom I can be justifiably intolerant. I don't know how much juice this thread can have; I assume we all have the same opinion of creationism. But if there's some room for argument, this is gonna be sweet.

HOW DARE YOU DEFY JESUS?!?

YOU DEFIED FUCKING JESUS MAN!

HE ROSE FROM THE MOTHERFUCKING DEAD!

Anyway. You're preaching to the wrong crowd buddy.

In my high school, we learned evolution, Intelligent Design, the Gaia theory, and a few others. Spent a class covering that, then spent the rest of the chapter on evolution. I think I got a good education out of it, I learned what is accepted and also learned about other ideas. Yeah we all agree that evolution is the main theory we should learn, but that doesn't mean other theories have absolutely no merit.

I agree there's probably no one here who's gonna argue, but if you want I can pretend to believe in ID if it'll entertain you :D

But they don't. They don't teach you an astronomy class that mentions the Big Bang, the Triforce, and turtles all the way down, do they?

Does anyone else see the irony in the topic (i.e. Calling someone scum and saying that they are intolerant)?

He never once said they're intolerant.

If I'm taking the class in Hyrule, I'd kinda expect something like it.

What I mean is, is yes its not true, but its something that is accepted by others, has been accepted for a very very long time, so deserves an honorable mention. Like when you learn about Freud and Lamarck.

Well, then that's understandable, but there's a difference between seeing other views that were eventually discarded, and being taught as if they're still valid.

Well the way I was taught was we were given a sheet I think with different theories printed on it. ID was there as "the belief that the world was created by an intelligent being" and could include anything from God or aliens. I guess where its a tender subject and I'm from a place where there are a lot of religious people, we discussed it, and the teacher didn't say outright that it was a lie, but just said that science points to evolution, and thats what we were going to go into depth about.

Actually come to think of it the Gaia Theory was a bit of a fad after that.

You know, I thought this was ironic, we didn't have I.D. taught to us in a science class.

It was actually in an English class, and they called it "Creation Myths". Funny, the only one they brought up was the Biblical account of Genesis.

Just thought it was funny.

Having been schooled at a Christian school, I have a first-hand experience on how bad it is to teach something that is not evolution as scientific.
Fuck, even my best friend has doubted the existence of God for about a year already and yet she doesn't believe in evolution because she doesn't get it.

I think they called it that at my school too. We were taught it in RE though, and we got the stories from quite a few religions.

BTW, Creationists are now pimping "Intellectual Design." I find it amusing because Jung actually came up with intellectual design in one of his philiosophies. It states that a higher being affects people's lives.

I would like it if they used my theory of intellectual design if that ever goes through. Though it still involves evolution there are indicators of another being. They should give me money if they use it that way. The paper is free on the Internet for anyone wanting to read it, but if they are making money, give me my cut.

No, i didn't say they are intolerant (even though they are), but that doesn't really matter. I believe in using "conversational intolerance", to borrow Sam Harris's term for it, when approaching people that hold irrational beliefs. Irrational beliefs such as religious belief shouldn't be respected simply because they are religious. Religion holds a position of undeserved respect in our society in that so long as a person claims something is their religion, any real debate on the matter is looked down upon because it is "disrespectful to their faith". We need to openly question religious ideas if we are going to move forward into the enlightened era we should be living in.

I like you. Religion isn't irrational, religious people are. The bible is a collection of metaphors that was supposed to instill in people a general moral code. What we ended up with is slightly different...

Exactly. I don't have a problem with religion as a philosophy and as metaphor. But when people believe in the litteral truth of their religious books, even when they are demonstrably false, then they have effectively abandoned all hope at true intellectual inquiry. And the social ramifications of institutionalized religion are largely deviceive and cruel.

On what grounds is that argument (used to death by the way) based?
Do you really believe people back then used to be wise men that spoke of their knowledge in aphorisms and metaphors and that it's only now that people take them literally?
I'm pretty sure any theologian and anthropologist will tell you that people were dead serious in believing the reality of their religion.

For the record, I believe in both evolution and creationism. I'm not sure which one outweighs the other, but until one is scientifically proven without question or doubt, they are both viable arguments.

In a nut shell, evolution was helped along.

However, I don't think creationism should be taught in public schools with any inclination of fact. The only way it should be taught is as a sort of history, or as was stated somewhere above, as a part of some sort of literature or mythology class. There is truth in mythology. Finding it is the challenge.

And to the immediately above post, Jesus was a metaphor. His story is told throughout history, long before their was a bethlehem. It dates back to ancient egyptian myths, if not further. Put simply, its the struggle of light and darkness.

So you also believe it's just as possible that instead of gravity pulling, invisible angels push us down?

You can't remove all doubt. By what your saying we should think absolutely everything is equally valid.

Jillian, your sarcasm is a perfect example of the arrogance of the human mind. To believe that we are the most intelligent species in existence is arrogant and foolish. To believe that creationism is silly is also arrogant.

Of course science pushes us in the direction of evolution, and for the most part it does make sense, but there are too many unanswered questions and missing pieces to believe 100% without doubt or question that evolution is the reason humans exist. There are too many other possibilities and just because science has not proven them, does not mean they aren't valid or possible.

100 years ago no one had a clue about DNA. Had someone walked into a classroom and claimed that there are microscopic molecules that hold our entire genetic make-up and determine what we look like, that person would have been laughed out of the room. It doesn't mean DNA didn't exist. It just hadn't been discovered at that point. Whether it was being researched or not is beyond the scope of this post.

And no, i didn't say that absolutely everything is equally valid. Some ideas and theories are much more valid than others, based on evidence and proof. The point is, you can't disprove creationism anymore than you can prove evolution, at this point, which makes both ideas valid. I even said I'm not sure which one outweighs the other.

There are too many clues all throughout history that suggest the existence of a higher power. Whether or not that is a god or gods is entirely up for speculation, but no human can disprove their existence or even try to explain their reasoning.

Those three statements (which were contiguous, by the way) prove that you're either a hypocrite, or you don't have any understanding of science and the concept of falsifiability.

Exactly. It can't be disproved because it can't be observed or tested in the first place. Therefore, it is not science and has no place in a science classroom.