The Foundations of the Debate

I can't tell whether this person is for real or not.

Much can be said in the creation vs. evolution debate but what can be said about the dispute itself? The creationist movement is Darwin’s illegitimate child. The father doesn’t want to know his child and the child hate its father for rejecting it. Before Darwin there was no such thing as a creationist movement. Science worked under the watchful, and sometimes vengeful, eye of the church. The church answered questions that science was not allowed to ask, among them were those of origin (cosmological) and those of the soul (who and what am I?). The latter intrinsically linked with the former. But throughout history there have been those who were not satisfied with the narrow confines that had been imposed on science and demanded access to the domain reserved for pious dogmatic philosophy.There have been theologians such as Luther who questioned the church as source of historical truth, stating that historic evidence has primacy over dogma (I know this statement need modification). In more ancient time church fathers who were philosophically inclined questioned dogma as the foundation for morality stating that that is good is good in itself and not because an external agent (God) says it is good. We also have those famous men in natural science, such as Galileo. Darwin and Freud, who dared to take scientific enquiry into the domains of dogma. The result has always been the same anathema. Al of these men have been accused not only of blasphemy but of moral depravity, carnal motives and lies.My thought about the creation vs. evolution debate is that it is not a matter of different interpretations of data because it never has been and never can be a question of facts. But it is, and will always be, a question of authority. Religion need and craves for a tangible basis for its claims. That base is the privilege of solely have possession of an answer to; why man is and what man is.Modern biology just as astronomy and psychology offers answers to that question. They offer answers, though not in the all comprehensive way religion does, that aren’t outside the sphere of religion. Religion is thus threatened at its power base, it is no longer the sole player in the arena, and it can’t lay claims on explaining man’s place in the universe without bumping into science.When one surveys the creationist camp the core arguments that are lashed against ToE are not about certain facts in nature but about theology. If mere facts were at stake the score would have been settled in the laboratory and not in court. Why does defenders of creationism otherwise go to great length in expounding the moral implication of Darwinism? Why does creationist proponents otherwise make a big fuss over “the methodological atheism” in science. And why, oh why, would creationists otherwise insist that their “theory” should be taught in school even when it is a field without research, without academic support and without a program apart from the idea of creation/design being taught?So the thing I’d like to ventilate is “why all this fuss?”. Why are people so upset and religious leaders so zealous in this matter? In short, reflections upon the motives behind the creationist movement.

That's an interesting idea.If you are correct, then creationism has chosen its battles very poorly. For knowledge of the world will always be derived from observational evidence, and cannot be held hostage to authority. By challenging science, the creationists have taken on a battle that they cannot win.For cultural knowledge, the situation is different. Authority can be a source of social/cultural knowledge. For authority can set the rules, and the rules influence the direction of the culture. But even here, conservative religion is on the losing side. Gay activists have been gaining support. Pop culture has been more influential than the church, and rapid technological change undermines the traditional resistance to change of conservativism.

just to tell you all the OOT stuff and archeological anomolies are all fake or misinterpreted by the people who found them, or they are thought to be real but the person who runs the site doens't have a clue about geologyas for the 7 pairs its numberology and religious and has nothing to do with domestic animals any evidence for this? funny i've read plenty on many of these questions, one: dogs are wolves domesticated by man about the time of the iceage. two: oboriginals came to america, america has never been isolated as people like to claim it has
three: those same people from new zealand went back and forth between the two places peleg isn't about pangiea its about the societies being divided into countries, how do people go from reading nations to continents is the question!misinformation isn't well tolerated, claiming soome unknown unfounded conspiracy is even worse

its because fundies feel that anything that they associate with god is threatened by something that doesn't praise god as the origin, they feel the need to beat it till its dead
i should say basicly - "if it controdicts the bible, its wrong!"
or fill in any text as needed

There is GOLD in them thar hills of US fundamentalism and evangelism. Lots of GOLD. Why all you need is a microphone and call yourself a preacherman and they will line up to give you money. It is the ultimate source, the unending fountain of financial fulfillment.Ken Ham was going broke back in Australia, so he packed up his medicine wagon and dragged it over to the US where the streets are paved with gullible Christians. Where else could folk like Gene Scott, Benny Hinn, Ron Wyatt, Dr. Dino or Fred Phelps be taken seriously. Where but the US would someone like televangelist Peter Popoff who got caught scamming the gullible religious folk and exposed on national TV come back to be earning over $500,000.00 a year as a televangelist again and be taking in millions of dollars every year.Nah, the answer is simple.There is GOLD in the US Christian Mine.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I cannot let this pass untouched. Either retract these ludicrous claims or propose a new thread and be prepared to defend them. I guarantee any Proposed New Topic in this vein will be swiftly promoted - I have an in with the administration.

Exactly.Question: How can I make $500,000 a year?Answer: Get 10000 people to send you $50 apiece.

Throwing your weight around already eh? That didn't take long.Or would this be more like influence peddling?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

Absolutely the latter. What good is power if you can't use it?

Reminds me of a favorite quote!

quote:

---

Power corrupts, and absolute power is really neat.

​

- Colin Powell

---

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

See, again there's the assuption that the faith came before rejecting evolution, and that creationists are looking to preacher to tell them what to believe, but how can genuine students of the subject make such an 'assuption' if the intent isn't to just 'influence' new seekers who hit this site.And why keep asking to provide 'proofs'you can google in an instant to find detailed papers on, if you don't hope 'lazy seekers' won't take your lead and look no further?See, I see this on forums all the time, and students of 'social engineering' know, this aspect of the NET is a priceless tool for the Cororate 'dictatorship' running the world.Thats where all the real money and power of sell evolution is.

Wow, does that mean I'm part of the "Cororate 'dictatorship?'" [/chest swelling with pride] Where do I go to collect my share of the money and power that comes from selling evolution? I could use a bit of green.As far as why ask for proof, that's an easy one. If someone says something outlandish, I like to find out if they have any support for it. If they do, I look into it. Maybe it's not as outlandish as I thought. Mostly though, they have none.Edited by subbie, : No reason given.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

In a historic retrospect the magic world view has been on the retreat for over 2000 years. Even religious documents such as the bible lash out against some part of the magic world view it self contains. Let me give two concrete examples. First, contrast the fable with the talking donkey in Numbers 22:22-30 with the view in 2 Pet 2:12 and Sap. Sal. 11: 15 that acknowledge animals lack the faculty of reason. Second, the commitment to magic places in the old testament (Gen 28:17-22) with the denial of the same in the new testament (Joh. 4:22).The cosmogonic myths of creation were disbelieved by the Greeks since they too closely reassembled human affairs and the church consider witchcraft as folklore based on superstition during a long period pre “Malleus Maleficarum”. So we can conclude that even within religion there is an opposition to superstition when it is considered harmful instead of useful or is deemed just too outright ludicrous.In this cases religion have used reason, as well as theology, to attack itself to remove what is unwanted religiosity. But in spite of the churches efforts superstition due to its un-dogmatic position evades and transforms itself in ever new forms.Today we have faith healers and new age gurus filling the role of ancient medicine men and myths about Satanism and Islam filling the role of witches. Man has a drive for the irrational and supernatural and mysterious explanations are found more appealing by a sufficient number of the population for religion to continue to thrive at least as long as it is not stung in it heart of hearts. But that is another question!What singles out creationism is that it has a fixed dogmatic position from which it cannot escape without losing its truth claim. In short, creationism defends a less evolved form of religion. It is a remnant of an institutional religion that had monopolised certain questions. When that monopoly disappeared there were only two options, either stand your ground and fight or undergo a metamorphosis until you are no longer susceptible to attack.Much of what has been done during the 1900 century within theology has indirectly been a response to Darwin. The Catholic Church as well as the Anglican and most Lutheran churches chose to undergo dogmatic change. Today they still claim the same monopoly as before but they do it in a way that, at least according to them, is beyond the scoop of scientific enquiry. They talk about “ultimate reality” and “the need for wholeness” not referring to observational facts but to the “inner reality” of man.Back to creationism again. It represents those who are still left on the battle field fighting, not a shadow fight but a fight for survival, the survival of their religion. They are still left with a way of presenting their question (why and what are man) that collides with observational facts. So of cause they are loosing and they darn well know it! That is why the either want to bring Darwin to their own arena claiming it’s a religion or attack scientists whit libel trying to discredit them. That is why they use politics and courts to settle their issue. That is why they rather talk morality then facts.But loosing is not the same thing as “going to loose”. I do think there is a die hard determination to stick to the fight with legal and political means. If the flame of the Arab enlightenment could be washed away in the avalanche of religious fanaticism that swept over the Muslim world a few hundred years ago and if the Greek thought could be quelled by Christian hogwash philosophy, why should not modern science as well be able to succumb to a religious revival?Religions most formidable opponent has always been reality therefore it strives to monopolize truth.

I took an African-American History class last year, and most of it consisted of discussing various issues in class. Early on in the year, the teacher brought up de facto segregation and poorer, inner city students not being able to get into as good colleges as suburban students. As an aside, he mentioned that the same thing was happening with homeschooled kids who don't learn evolution. They obviously could get into SOME colleges, but (and I'm not very knowledgable on this) I'm sure most universities require certain credits of biology that a homeschooled creationist would lack. This could be a factor (if a small one) fueling the debate between creation and evolution and teaching them in schools. By not getting into good colleges, creationist Christians can't get good jobs, and they are being discriminated against as much as inner city minorities.