Exporting creationists

[PhDP]

I was reading the "news" from one of my favorite website, CreationWiki. I learned that 15 christian families established in Quebec will get out of the province so they won't have to teach they children about evolution and, even worst, the "acceptance of alternative lifestyles".

 

http://www.wnd.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57199

[insane_alien]

amazing the lengths people will go to to keep their ignorance.

[iNow]

I posted the following comment in a thread which has since been closed:

 

Creationism is the answer for people who are too lazy to learn the hard, but accurate, information.

 

 

I then recieved, via PM (since the thread was closed), the following message (from a member whose identity I will not disclose, as that would open them up to attack)... Again, this was their response to my comment above:

 

That right there is so incredibly wrong I'm suprised no one told you off for it in the thread it was posted in. I believe in creationism because I believe in God and the bible. One of the fundamentals of my faith is "Grace through Faith", basically, we're saved because we believe in god with no proof. Therefore, it agrees completely with my religion to ignore the proofs of evolution and believe in creationism, not because I'm "too lazy to learn the hard, but accurate information."

 

"Because it agrees completely with my religion to ignore the proofs of evolution and believe in creationism."

 

 

What disturbs me is the pride with which this comment was shared.

[PhDP]

I posted the following comment in a thread which has since been closed:

 

...and this thread is also going to be closed if it becomes a thread about religion

 

In truth, it's not really about religion; it's about the new perspective of modern society on parenting and education. We don't consider that parents "own" their children anymore.

[iNow]

...and this thread is also going to be closed if it becomes a thread about religion

 

In truth, it's not really about religion; it's about the new perspective of modern society on parenting and education. We don't consider that parents "own" their children anymore.

 

Maybe you could spin the discussion toward home schooling instead... I see many parallels.

[Pangloss]

...and this thread is also going to be closed if it becomes a thread about religion

 

Yes it is.

[Phi for All]

Let's take this to General Discussion and just refrain from an in-depth religious discussion. AFAIC, creationism is simply an unnecessarily complex interpretation of the same Bible three major religions share (and really just the beginning of one chapter). You can still have your faith without it. God can still be omnipotent without it. And most importantly, religion and science need never worry about each other without it.

 

I hate compound mentality but I think it's preferable to forcing your religious opinions on the rest of the public school community. There's a family right down the street from me that have ten kids (in a four bedroom house) and they're all home schooled because they're fundamentalist Christians and don't want their kids exposed to evolution in school. In fact we almost never see any of them because they also refuse to mix with the rest of the neighborhood. They keep to themselves and don't show any of the kindness or compassion I'm used to seeing from devout Christians (I have a lot of relatives who are devout without being fundies).

 

Home schooling is one thing, but when your only socialization is within your "compound" I think it can get unhealthy. I keep picturing backward, inbred, buck-toothed, country hill people who keep spreading the same information and misinformation amongst their membership so no one ever learns anything new about anything. A closed system like that says stagnation to me.

 

Maybe that should be their symbol, a majestic male deer, proudly leading the herd into a box canyon. Then others would flock to this banner and the New Stag Nation would be born.

[ydoaPs]

Home schooling is one thing, but when your only socialization is within your "compound" I think it can get unhealthy. I keep picturing backward, inbred, buck-toothed, country hill people who keep spreading the same information and misinformation amongst their membership so no one ever learns anything new about anything. A closed system like that says stagnation to me.

/me pictures "The Village"

[CDarwin]

Home schooling is one thing, but when your only socialization is within your "compound" I think it can get unhealthy. I keep picturing backward, inbred, buck-toothed, country hill people who keep spreading the same information and misinformation amongst their membership so no one ever learns anything new about anything. A closed system like that says stagnation to me.

 

I'm not so sure about that analogy. Most "backwards hill-people" of the type you describe took a more pragmatic approach to religion. There are volumes of literature in Appalachian studies on that subject (that was a about a third of my English III class), and you can see a lot of it in James Still's River of Earth. Hill folks might have tacitly assumed that God created the earth in its present form etc, etc, but most never would have kept their children from school because the school master was teaching them Darwin.

 

Militant Creationism seems to come not from the isolated and backwards, but from people fully emersed in wider society who are threatened by what they see. The modern Creationist movement gained the most traction only after evolution started being taught more forcefully in public schools in the late 50's for example. Members of mainstream society were threatened by a trend in mainstream society. Or take Tennesee's Butler Act, which banned teaching "evolution" (really just the idea that humans might be descended from lower forms) in public schools. The impetus to pass it didn't come from the hill folks (like most Tennesseans at the time the law was passed, most probably didn't even know it existed), it came from urban progressives.

 

I don't know if there's much to that interpretation and I realize I'm not quite addressing your point that misinformation tends to propagate itself, which is certainly true. The "ignorant hillbilly" stereotype of Creationists just doesn't seem to match the reality of the movement, though.

[Phi for All]

I don't know if there's much to that interpretation and I realize I'm not quite addressing your point that misinformation tends to propagate itself, which is certainly true. The "ignorant hillbilly" stereotype of Creationists just doesn't seem to match the reality of the movement, though.

I definitely see your point but I wasn't really trying for an analogy, just stating that that's what I picture when I hear about people who want to be isolated amongst like-minded folk.

[Retrograder]

I'm not so sure about that analogy. Most "backwards hill-people" of the type you describe took a more pragmatic approach to religion. There are volumes of literature in Appalachian studies on that subject (that was a about a third of my English III class), and you can see a lot of it in James Still's River of Earth. Hill folks might have tacitly assumed that God created the earth in its present form etc, etc, but most never would have kept their children from school because the school master was teaching them Darwin.

 

Militant Creationism seems to come not from the isolated and backwards, but from people fully emersed in wider society who are threatened by what they see. The modern Creationist movement gained the most traction only after evolution started being taught more forcefully in public schools in the late 50's for example. Members of mainstream society were threatened by a trend in mainstream society. Or take Tennesee's Butler Act, which banned teaching "evolution" (really just the idea that humans might be descended from lower forms) in public schools. The impetus to pass it didn't come from the hill folks (like most Tennesseans at the time the law was passed, most probably didn't even know it existed), it came from urban progressives.

 

I don't know if there's much to that interpretation and I realize I'm not quite addressing your point that misinformation tends to propagate itself, which is certainly true. The "ignorant hillbilly" stereotype of Creationists just doesn't seem to match the reality of the movement, though.

 

Most things come with their dualities. There is something triggering off one extreme against the other. The best things, for me, tend to meet in the centre.

 

I can't dismiss the idea of a Creator, in fact it has to make sense when I really start to think about it. But at the same time, I find it rather strange that a book could contain an totally accurate explanation of one, considering all the cultuiral aspects of the past, for example.. This is why , personally , I'm interested in the idea of Pantheism. It makes sense when one considers the Creator to being outside time (God is Light). The creation is even assumed as a command to "let there be"....whooosh the wavefunction collapses, and the elements group up in their dualities and off it starts. Off what starts?

 

Well that's the thing. If the Creator is outside time, then the "desire" is already fulfilled, and we are actually the ones going through time watching the stages it took for the instant desire to be fulfilled. It took, particles coming togeher, stars being born, planets evolving, life to slowly start emerging, and on and on. This also brings in the idea of reincarnation. It wouldn't help the evolutionary process if one just never died physically. So what is outside time makes its appearances for brief physical moments, during the drama.

 

There needn't be such strong disagreements between the two main sides, evolution verses creationism. But whatever they are now, they will merge together into a complete understanding of the processes involved. It just takes evolution.

 

So yeah, keeping one's kids form school is a little over-reactionary, and won't help the state of this planet one bit.

[MrSandman]

Remember not to stereotype. I'm a christian that learns things things about evolution, but I'm quite sceptical. I help people analyze what they have been told.

[PhDP]

Remember not to stereotype. I'm a christian that learns things things about evolution, but I'm quite sceptical. I help people analyze what they have been told.

 

I don't mean to make a personal attack, but it's absurd to be "skeptical" about evolution before even knowing what evolution is.

 

I never said, and I don't believe, that all creationists were idiots. But they are not very well informed.

[DrDNA]

I was reading the "news" from one of my favorite website, CreationWiki. I learned that 15 christian families established in Quebec will get out of the province so they won't have to teach they children about evolution and, even worst, the "acceptance of alternative lifestyles".

 

http://www.wnd.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57199

 

 

It appears that they are just exercising their rights to move to place that they find more suitable to their faith and belief system.

Aren't many of the prototypical stories about immigration to the US filled with similar accounts?

As long as they aren't, for example, marrying off 12 old kids to 60 year old self proclaimed "prophets", what's the issue? I honestly don't understand why anyone would have a problem with this.

 

I don't mean to make a personal attack, but it's absurd to be "skeptical" about evolution before even knowing what evolution is.

 

I never said, and I don't believe, that all creationists were idiots. But they are not very well informed.

 

Ok. You don't believe that all creationists are idiots........ but all creationists are not well informed?

[PhDP]

Ok. You don't believe that all creationists are idiots........ but all creationists are not well informed

 

Well, yes... you think creationists are well informed about evolution ? I don't think so. Does it means they are idiots ? I don't think so.

 

As long as they aren't, for example, marrying off 12 old kids to 60 year old self proclaimed "prophets", what's the issue? I honestly don't understand why anyone would have a problem with this.

 

I do have a problem with that. They don't own their children, and all children have the right to get a good education.

[Phi for All]

I can't dismiss the idea of a Creator, in fact it has to make sense when I really start to think about it. But at the same time, I find it rather strange that a book could contain an totally accurate explanation of one, considering all the cultuiral aspects of the past, for example.

That's completely up to you and your beliefs should be respected. As has been stated, there is a difference between creation and Creationism.

This is why , personally , I'm interested in the idea of Pantheism. It makes sense when one considers the Creator to being outside time (God is Light). The creation is even assumed as a command to "let there be"....whooosh the wavefunction collapses, and the elements group up in their dualities and off it starts. Off what starts?

Again, no problems. Faith can help explain the supernatural for many.

Well that's the thing. If the Creator is outside time, then the "desire" is already fulfilled, and we are actually the ones going through time watching the stages it took for the instant desire to be fulfilled. It took, particles coming togeher, stars being born, planets evolving, life to slowly start emerging, and on and on. This also brings in the idea of reincarnation. It wouldn't help the evolutionary process if one just never died physically. So what is outside time makes its appearances for brief physical moments, during the drama.

We know only one thing about any afterlife for certain: it's not going to be in the body we leave behind. It's well documented that it stays here.

There needn't be such strong disagreements between the two main sides, evolution verses creationism.

Sorry, but this is just plain wrong. If you'd said science versus religion I could agree. Creationism requires all the evidence of evolution be magically created by God, including making the geological evidence *appear* to be millions of years old. It also imposes one rigid interpretation of Hebrew translations that any orthodox scholar will tell you is open to many interpretations.

 

But the worst part about creationism is that it misquotes science to people who then don't bother to check the facts. I don't know how many times I've told creationists that evolution has absolutely NOTHING to do with human origins. They pretend to listen and then just keep repeating that evolution precludes a creator. They tell their followers that if the fossil records are correct we'd be up to our ears in the bones of all the creatures who've died. When that's refuted they just pop over to the next bit of misinformation. When all their arguments have been thwarted they just go back to the beginning and start in with evolution precludes God again.

Remember not to stereotype. I'm a christian that learns things things about evolution, but I'm quite sceptical. I help people analyze what they have been told.

You're skeptical about evolution because you think you can't have your faith if it's true. You're wrong.

[DrDNA]

Well, yes... you think creationists are well informed about evolution ? I don't think so. Does it means they are idiots ? I don't think so.

Of course some (many) are. They just have a different belief system than you. Some creationists believe that evolution is possibly just a tool....a means to an end.....a matter of detail. Are they smart, ill informed, or stupid?

 

I do have a problem with that. They don't own their children, and all children have the right to get a good education.

 

And who is going to decide how best to do that? The state? Obviously, parents are not well informed enough to decide what is best for their children. Are they?

Do you really trust some beaurocrate that much?

[ydoaPs]

Remember not to stereotype. I'm a christian that learns things things about evolution, but I'm quite sceptical. I help people analyze what they have been told.

Judging by your previous posts, you lack even a basic understanding of evolution and are unwilling to learn.

[CDarwin]

I feel like a I need to point out that it's a pretty safe statement that most people are ill-informed, period (which is a little redundant with the period that's going to be right after this parenthesis, but shush). A lot of "evolutionists" don't really understand what evolution is, either.

[MrSandman]

Yeah, if they knew alot they would study other areas that need more attention. I know a lot more about evolution than your average creationist. My belief in creation is something I would never want taught in a science classroom. Not because I don't think it is valid, but because it can never be provened valid. MacroEvolution will probably never be observed. Sure there is evidence for it, but not enough. Same with the bible. Which is a book that can be interpret many ways. The problem is not enough is known about either. Just ask Cpt. Refrsmt. I had a conversation with him. He sort of sees my view. That is why I think macroevolution should kept from the science classroom. You can bring it up, but don't dwell on it, unless your class is just about it. This is one of the best ways I could put. I think there was confussion because I didn't specify that I meant MacroEvolution when I said evolution. An honest mistake.

[ydoaPs]

What do you mean by "MacroEvolution"? Speciation(which is what is usually meant by the term) has definately been observed.

[CDarwin]

Yeah, if they knew alot they would study other areas that need more attention. I know a lot more about evolution than your average creationist. My belief in creation is something I would never want taught in a science classroom. Not because I don't think it is valid, but because it can never be provened valid. MacroEvolution will probably never be observed. Sure there is evidence for it, but not enough. Same with the bible. Which is a book that can be interpret many ways. The problem is not enough is known about either. Just ask Cpt. Refrsmt. I had a conversation with him. He sort of sees my view. That is why I think macroevolution should kept from the science classroom. You can bring it up, but don't dwell on it, unless your class is just about it. This is one of the best ways I could put. I think there was confussion because I didn't specify that I meant MacroEvolution when I said evolution. An honest mistake.

 

Oh, not another one of these. Evolutionary theory makes predictions and those predictions can be confirmed by observations in nature. That's how scientific theories work. "MacroEvolution" has the same sort of basis as the atomic theory. Do you propose we stop teaching that?

[MrSandman]

Definitions of theory on the Web:

 

a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"

a belief that can guide behavior; "the architect has a theory that more is less"; "they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales"

 

Atomic theory is still more set than MacroEvolution, because with chemistry it has been provened time and time again. Microevolution is very evident, but to say there has to be a connection isn't necessiarly true. Therefore I think that it shouldn't be dwelt on as much as Atomic theory and other actual scienctific facts. I often imagine what new things could have already been figured out if our scientists stop dwelling on the argument between creation and evolution. I think that they are not all that important for understanding how to munipulate nature. Sure it could explain how it happened way back then, but that really doesn't help us now, does it?

 

Noctice that there is several different deffinitions for theory.

[ydoaPs]

Noctice that there is several different deffinitions for theory.

 

Notice how many of them are used by scientists.

[MrSandman]

All is what I find out in my studies.

 

I love how microevolution works. I still have faith in creation. How it started I'm not sure, maybe some sort of evolution. That's what makes me questionable about macroevolution. I don't just accept. Imagined if all our scienctists always accepted what was supposibly fact. A lot of things wouldn't be understood. Like heliocentrism for instance. I think everyone should question theories. It is in my book part of science.