|
|
| Re: nonsense about atheism (241902) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by soton si on Tue Aug 28 16:22:15 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Aug 28 14:28:08 2007. ""they don't give them what they want,""Sure they do." how? what these 90% want is to not learn about evolution, yet you make them learn it. It's absurdities like that, that make no logical sense (not x = x again, or say 0=1) that explain why your world view that, even though the initial statement is an absurdity Evolution is the lynchpin of all biology and medicine." I think you'll find that it's not - Chemistry is - trust me, I know a lot of biologists and medics - medicine in the UK doesn't often even require biology to get in. They all, however, require Chemistry. Evolution is a part of biology, definitely not it's linchpin. I studied Biology with top grades till effective graduation - we studied natural selection for a couple of weeks in year 10, and that was pretty much it. IIRC, my exam paper had just one question on natural selection, worth a pitiful amount of marks. It had far more on the Chemistry of respiration, photosynthesis and so on. "No, evolution is an issue of scientific illiteracy." It is, but it's also effectively one of religion, namely the interpretation and truth of Genesis 1, and it poses questions on the existance of God. Richard Dawkins always goes down (well he did before he started just assert absurdity of it and using selective sampling, treating the minority as the whole and ad hominem) the evolution route to undermine religion, for instance. You still haven't adequately explained why teaching something (namely evolution) in schools is any different to teaching (assuming correct, which I believe it is, as do a vast wealth of historians) that Jesus rose again from the dead. Both offend people's religious views, both are true. Yet one you think is not only neutral, but beneficiary, but the other you are passionately against. Let's take a 'hypothetical' (air quotes as it's the situation now, just most people outside 1st century history in the Middle East deny what the scholars have found to be true) situation. Let's say that the resurrection of Jesus is proved to be a historical event. Would you let it be taught in schools, as it is true, and to deny it would be historical ignorance? if not, why? "It is an example of misuse of religion by ignoramuses who feel their political power is threatened by it." Indeed it is. I'm not condoning the teaching of creationism one bit, but more interested as why you have double standards, based on your religious views, as to what should be taught in schools, but want to deny the right of others to have that same thing. "Christians, Jews, Moslems and others have all made important contributions to our understanding of evolution." Indeed. the problem is when you extrapolate Darwin's theories (which most theists happily believed) into shaping everything, not just biology - such as Spencer's 'survival of the fittest' being applicable to everything. Evolution, however, has become more than just Darwin's work, but a secular philosophy, that's justified communism, capitalism, fascism. It's due to both the secular side and the religious side being unable to see the difference from biological evolution and the philosophy that applies it to all sorts that has created the problem, and made evolution a religious and philosophical issue. "Often, no surprise, the folks who push creationism are as ignorant and bigoted about their religion as they are about science." Likewise those who push no teaching of religious things as true, even if the evidence and scholarship says they are, are just as bigoted |
|
|
|