creationism in the us of a

by googlemagoogle 91 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Big Dog

  the idea that we are special creation is arrogant, and does not help in dangerous situations like ecology and war, to name a couple.

  Tetra, I think just the opposite, to think that we are not special is very dangerous, if we are nothing but big brained apes then slaughtering a bunch of beings that swung down from the trees a couple of hundred thousand years ago is no big deal. They are nothing special, just animals with cognitive abilities, there is no higher power to answer to, you can kill as many as you want. I can rape the planet because once I'm dead, what do I care, I'm gone, I'm not going to be punished for it.

  Christians are not the only ones that can use their world view to come up with some pretty twisted ideas IMO. I can't believe every slimy industrialist polluting the planet is a christian, nor do I believe every despot that practices genocide is a christian.
• 

  doogie

  I can rape the planet because once I'm dead, what do I care, I'm gone, I'm not going to be punished for it.

  what's up BD,

  i see what you're saying, but to say that the only reason people do good is fear of punishment is not really fair (plus, it kind of cheapens the good things that people of faith accomplish...). sure, some people may fit the mold of the atheist that you presented, but i feel pretty safe in assuming that the vast majority don't.

  i don't know if i'd classify a belief in special creation as arrogance, per se, but i do agree with tetra that for some individuals, that belief "does not help" in circumstances like long term preservation of natural resources. this is probably a minority of christians, but in any case, anyone (christian or otherwise) who does happen to believe that we need not take care of the planet because "Someone" will clean up after our "special" selves later, is dangerous (just as anyone, atheist or otherwise, that believes the way that you protrayed is dangerous).

  i'm fairly confident that both believers and non-believers have nutcases inhabiting their ranks, but for the most part, i don't think that the fundamental beliefs of special creation or "big brained apes" is essentially 'dangerous'.
• 

  kid-A

  Finally these children need to be given the opportunity to form their own views on how they got here.

  Yes I agree, however the point concerns the separation of church and state. Public education is an instrument of the state, and last I heard, the US consitution quite clearly defines a separation between church and state. "Intelligent design" IS a RELIGIOUS point of view. Anything pointing to supernatural causes instantly falls into this category.

  If parents want to teach their children that life on earth is the result of supernatural forces, that is their prerogative. The state has NO business in this regard. In Canada, we have no consitutional edict for the separation between church and state and yet we seem perfectly able to recognize the plurality of our society and to keep religious teachings COMPLETELY out of our public education system, as it should be.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Sadly even in a state college nearby the proffessor there slips in his creationist ideas.
• 

  Deputy Dog

  If the schools would simply teach pure observable science, I don't think that would offend either side. It's when you add your particular presupposition that one side or the other gets upset, and yes, both sides have them. I don't believe evolution is any more scientific then creation. D Dog
• 

  Daunt

  I feel that it's laughable to assume that since there is no all powerful creator that all of our actions are purposeful, without consequence, and that we do not have natural "morality". The natural love of a mother to her child (with the help of a few chemicals) will greatly decrease the possibility of a worldwide dumping of babies into trashcans (Which in itself, is not always a "I have no love for this baby" situation). That is just one example as how we are naturally built to deal with life in this world. There are an endless amount of other examples that drastically shape our morality and our surroundings. It doesn't matter if every person believed in God or every person didn't these natural occurences will still surround us (God figures are even born from this human natural morality, if you do not feel that Your God falls under this category, just look at the thousands of other Gods man has created).
  
  
  
  
  
  
  I still wonder why we are so behind in many aspects of education and in the sciences. The American Dream may be a culprit.
  
  
  
  
  I feel that the ID movement is just further attempts to undermind grade school education and now it seems, college education.
• 

  startingover

  I read something in the newpaper the other day that stated the percentage believing in creationism in the US was unchanged from 2000, but the number believing in evolution increased from 8% to 13%.

  Also in that article it claimed that in the western European countries the number believing in evolution was around 50%.
• 

  AlmostAtheist

  And please don't give into condescension. It's not pretty when Christians do it. It's no more palatable when evolutionists do it.

  Fair enough, and if I came off condescending, I apologize. I don't hold ID in high regard, but it doesn't necessarily tell me much about the person that believes it.

  I don't think ID is a theory that stands up to scrutiny, in fact I don't think it really fits the definition of "theory" at all. It's a belief, as best as I can tell.

  I'm all about telling kids what's out there and letting them form their own opinions, but you bring up a problem with introducing ID when you say "tell them some people believe in evolution, and why, and that some people believe in ID, and why." Evolution actually has a series of "why"'s associated with it. Beyond "I don't see how complex things could come about without intelligence", ID can't present any "why". That's why it strikes me as a belief, not a theory.

  People that just think god(s) had a hand in making life or intelligence or love or whatever don't scare me. The ones that stare the overwhelming evidence against the biblical creation account in the face and declare it all false are the ones that scare me. You don't appear to be in that camp. So I don't have to be afraid of you! :-)

  Doogie, I agree that most atheists are not also amoralists. But do you think that religion does serve the purpose of cordoning those that can't control themselves into a form of morality? Personally, I don't. I think folks would mostly do "the right thing" without the fear of a god hanging over them. But some people think religion is necessary to provide that fence.

  Dave
• 

  stevenyc

  A possible compromise?:

  Natural science class = evolution

  Social science classes : ID, and all the varying religious methods of ID

  steve
• 

  Daunt

  Many people feel that religion and control through religion is the only way for anybody to have some form of morality. Many times, individuals do not think outside of themselves and their immediate God-thought buddies. Individuals around the world have created religions and morality that do not coincide many times with other religious doctrines. Many of these are totally distinct from each other, they had minimal influence with another religion's views. If one religious person or group claims that without God in the minds of man, there is no morality, this is forgetting all of the instances of religious thought that had o influence fom that one religious person or group.
  
  This independence from each other, to me, sorta signifies the human aspect of this and not the divine aspect of it. An individual has to deny all evidence of sociological, psychological, and many times biological to assume that human morality can only come from a set religious doctrine. And many times, individuals do deny it, leading that person down a road of ignorance from all of these fields of science. Unless the doctrine has conclusively understood and addressed these human sciences in detail (which I doubt any have) it is damaging to view that as the only source of morality. I'm not saying anybody hear sees it as this way, but the thought of religion being the main or only proponent of human understanding and morality is just not right.
  
  
  ID has too much religious implication to be taught anywhere near the level of evolution. And the total lack of understanding of scientific integrity that the ID proponents express and the adament efforts of their campaign leads me to feel that there is some suspicion about it.