h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Geology and palaeontology both show "proofs" of extinction events. For example, the event that ended the cretaceous period. Geology points to a layer of iridium in the rock strata globally at 65 Mya which suggests that something from space (e.g. a metoer) impacted. Palaeontology shows numerous species just stopped being fossilised, i.e., that they did not exist anymore. The dates of these two, by both carbon dating and the geological record (rocks basically), point to that date. Thisis just from memory, so I'm not sure if it's 100% correct, but the basics are there. The reasons behind these facts are easily obtainable if you access to a library of the internet.

But let's not get bogged down in the tiny details once more, let's try and continue to look at the bigger picture...

I have faith in scientists. I trust that they are strictly sticking to the scientific method to gather their results. When they publish their results I have faith in the scientific community that has peer reviewed the results and conclusions of any given study. However, Josh, you seem to have a deep mistrust of science. So does/did the other Josh. You talk of false data, what false data? There will always be some rogues, but they'll be weaned out by the community who will try to replicate any findings. I think this mistrust comes from being told that the entire universe was made in a week, literally, from people whom you respect and trust and then finding out that all-powerful and wise science (which is incidentally and rather unfortunately the only type of thought-system you are capable of using) disagrees. Basically you are a walking self-contradiction.

No offense.

So, you go on a crazy quest to find scientific explanations for everything in your bible that *you think* conflicts with science. You conjure up unlikely theories that have no base apart from agreeing with scripture in a strict literal way. Josh, honestly, isn't it more likely that the bible was written in a pre-science era, where people conveyed information not in scientific journals, but in story? If you see the bible as a series of stories they make sense, they do not conflict with science. They are more truthful in this form than when you strip them of meaning and look at them with a literalists eye. I have never said that the bible is a pack of lies, I do not believe that. I think it has a lot to say about existance *in a non-scientific way of explaining it*.

As a priest friend of mine once said: "The bible is not a shallow puddle, it is a deep pool." You see it as a puddle Josh, it's a shame. All the crap that comes with fundamentalist christianity, the intolerance, the clashes with science, everything, comes down to the misreading of the bible. Can you not see how this is the case?

I don't want to sound superior Josh, but I can see exactly why you say the things you do, why you think the way you do. This thread has been going on long enough for me to be able to say this. I maybe a scientist, but I can think in other ways than science. I have tried and tried to show you the error of your ways Joshes but you just won't budge. I hope this doesn't offend you so much that you choose to leave this thread, but it is so BLINDINGLY obvious that is has actually become quite painful for me to carry on without you acknowledging my efforts.

So, to reiterate, to make my point totally clear so that you may address it: Genesis conveys the truth, science also conveys the truth, *BUT IN DIFFERENT WAYS*. Genesis tell the truth in a medium that the culture of the authors used, allegorically. Science tells the truth by experimentation and following a strict set of rules (the scientific method, which came about circa 1600s). BOTH ARE EQUALLY VALID, THERE IS NO CONFLICT.

I am sad to type this as it may have been a bit over the top, so again, sorry for any offence, but I need to get my point across as clear as I can.

Ste

Dear Ste,

To refute your opinions on my supposed narrow-mindedness would only serve to make me seem all the more narrow-minded; whereas to just say "yeah, I'm narrow-minded, but I'm right anyway!" would serve...well, it would do nothing but cause more tension. Thus, I will leave you to your thinking in this particular area, since the only thing that will convince you otherwise (i.e. that I am capable of more than just a scientific perspective on things, etc...) is time and my choice of arguments. However, in the spirit of fun and just a teeny bit in the spirit of defending my good name, I will say this: My entries in this discussion have been scientifically driven because I feel that with a person of your intellectual standing, saying "just because" is not enough. To a child, it is very simple to believe that the world was made, literally, in a week. Just because. To a thinking adult, however, one must give reasons why. Thus the comparison of Christianity, and the concepts it embraces, being likened to childhood. You are not convinced that God even exists, much less that He loves his creation, died for them, etc... So how could I possibly begin to make an argument on THAT level to YOU?! I mean, come on! I would seem like the idiotic stereotypical Wildman from Borneo Christian Nut, waving my Bible and screaming for you to repent. Ultimately, that man is right, but he cannot reach a man of such intellectual standing as yourself (no flattery intended). No, my friend, you desire cold hard facts, and as such I have attempted to give them to you. Of course, they are only my personal views up to a point, but as far as I'm concerned there are certain things (such as the fact that evolution does not happen) which are fact. Now it seemed to me that this was the only way to have a decent discussion with you, since you would automatically reject any other approach. I could just as easily send you lengthy messages about why Jesus loves you, but would you even take them seriously? Probably not. So why the gripe? As I said before, I can't convince you that I think beyond science, but even if I could (which I do), would that fit here? You're confusing me, Ste, but don't worry; I don't plan to give up the thread.

**********************************************************************

I have heard of the geological studies which seem to prove the age of the earth, or at least provide a "fairly close" estimate. I will grant you that, due to my position on the outside of all of this, there are times when I simply fall back on my faith and say "well, I can't explain this, but I believe what I believe". If that is narrow-mindedness, remind me of it in the afterlife. Still, these geological things seem to be so chaotic, so unstable in their ability to remain fact. One time I will hear that it took 400 million years (random number) to form the Grand Canyon. The next time, someone says that a new study shows that it might have been formed over the course of a few days. Sadly, I have neither the documentation nor the knowledge of where to obtain the documentation, to prove either of these. You would choose to accept the 400 million years, because your scientific training suggests that it's the more likely one. I would choose the few days, since I know that the earth hasn't been around that long, and since the argument I hear makes sense.

If there's one point I would like to drive home here, it is that the psychological effect of media-driven science has pushed both ways in our society. On the side of science, it has "narrowed the minds" of scientists to only search for what they think they are going to find (yes, you all do it to. Think about it...), because it's what's expected of them. On the side of the public, the media has raised up many generations of people now who only see things one way (i.e. that man evolved, etc...), the popular way. Let me put it this way. If a skeleton identical to the infamous "Lucy" were found in Africa tomorrow, everybody from Dan Rather to Peter Jennings would be talking about it. In the schools, what was already taught as fact about "Lucy" and her habitat would be emphasized, since the proof would be in the pudding, so to speak. But let's say that a skeleton belonging to the Biblical race known as the Anakin (six-fingered, six-toed giants over nine feet tall, of which Goliath was one) was found. I guarantee you that it would get little to no press coverage, and sure as hell wouldn't be taught in schools. If you think that this is wrong, well, there's probably not much I can do to convince you. It's a political thing; religion poses a threat to many political positions, so it has been systematically removed as much as possible from any place they can remove it from. This may sound like paranoia, but it's sadly the truth.

So I think that I'm not the only person out here being a bit narrow-minded. Think about it; I'm sure you'll have something to say

Josh, MKOT

P.S. No offense taken. I think that we have been discussing long enough now that we can sling a little mud without getting angry over it. The simple truth of the matter is that we are never going to agree on EVERYTHING, and probably never going to agree on MOST things. Que sera sera!

"...saying "just because" is not enough."

But that is what you are, in effect, saying:

"Ultimately, that man is right..."
"...the fact that evolution does not happen..."
"...since I know that the earth hasn't been around that long..."

The man is right *because*?, evolution does not happen *because*?, the earth is only young *because*?... You are missing the second half of your sentances. Try adding "because" after those statements and see where it gets you. When it comes down to it, it's "because God said so" isn't it? Just like a child being told "just because". When it comes down to it with me it is with other people, not necessarily scientists, theologians and philosophers et al have a lot to say too. I can say "evolution happens because this person here discovered this here which lead to... and go on for hours."

You may have tried to argue with me on a scientific level about certain theories that happen to fit you faith, and others that do not. The motives behind this debate for you are religious, not scientific, which throws objectivity out of the window, why do you not campaign that the theory of gravity is a pack of lies? it's because it doesn't conflict with your unwavering absolute belief, therefore it's a-ok with you. Evolution on the other hand, oh no, that *cannot* be right since your flawed interpretation of the bible tells you something else happened. If this was a purely scientific debate we'd be addressing science, not religion. Therefore I have never really considered this to be a scientific debate.

I understand your desire to give me the "cold hard facts" that coincide with your faith but they won't wash because I know the motives behind them, it is quasi-science. Now, I can get bogged down easily here and say that "all that is not science is bullsh*t", but I won't do it. Other explanations of the world are just as valid, such as contemporary Christian understanding of the bible (I don't liken Christianity to childhood, only the fundamentalist minority, indeed *all* fundamentalist religion), Buddhism, Shinto, whatever, they all function within their own frameworks. However, your brand of Christianity doesn't even manage this, it uses the framework of one philosophy (science) and applies it another (Christianity) and comes out a big tangled mess full of hatred, intolerance, misunderstanding and an inflexible view of the world that defies reason and logic.

Tell you what, I'll just assume you can think beyond science, you're an intelligent chap (no flattery intended ), so give me a try .

"If that is narrow-mindedness, remind me of it in the afterlife." I wish I could mate, but I behaved badly one christmas and Santa got to hear about it so I'm sure my poor repututation is spread all over the make-believe world.

Two days to form the Grand Canyon? Sounds hard to believe but I suppose some massive geological event could have triggered it. Is it on a fault line? I could be convinced is someone showed me *why*, and not expected me to blindly accept it. Basically, I'd like to hear more of the debate.

"...scientists to only search for what they think they are going to find."
It's called hypothesis testing.

If another Lucy came along (just as two finds more important than Lucy have come along in the last few months) it would add to and modify our existing understanding. Science takes what it already knows, uses that to stretch further. It would justifiably be big news because it increases our understanding of where humanity evolved from a great deal. If we found an Anakin it would also be huge news! It would be classed as a new hominid and multitudes of scientists would get excited, froth at the mouth and start digging for more! If biblical scholars want to believe that the fossil is the ancient race of the Anakin then fair enough, let them believe it, makes no difference to anyone. I don't think it would be taught in schools in science classes as that position would be a pure faith one, belonging in Religious Studies classes. Is evolution taught in RS? Do I actively campaign for this?

"It's a political thing; religion poses a threat to many political positions, so it has been systematically removed as much as possible from any place they can remove it from."

Is that why we have a fundamentalist Christian as a President? Why is the religious right such a powerful voice in politics? Do you not realise that the USA actively sought to seperate church and state? And why they did it? It's a bloody good idea. I think the debacle about the pledge of allegiance is a bit petty, but the guy has a point. Religion is a powerful political tool. Just look at the massive, predominantly Catholic Latino population in the USA. They all vote Republican because they are seen as the more religious party, and then they get systematically screwed over by them again and again, yet they still vote. They don't call the Republican Party "The Stupid Party" for nothing y'know. The GOP know they have guarunteed votes there, but do nothing, that's why they always sound off on abortion and stem cell research but rarely actually do anything.

I think the key to this discussions continuation is to allow mud slinging but hold the tempers in check. Glad you're too stubborn to leave the thread (like me).

Ste

The founding fathers of the U S of A wanted separation of church and state because of the persecution they suffered, now the church is taking over.

Josh, can't you believe in God without the Bible having to be absolute truth? What are you afraid of?
BTW, the atomic clocks were taken up in jet planes.

The slopes of the Himalayas were once at the bottom of the sea. How long do you think it took to form the highest mountain range in the world?

Alji (Member of The Guild of Wizards @ U197895)

Dear Ste,

You puzzle me, my friend, with your keen ability to take what I have said, find the one small area where I have left out a bit of logic, and exploit it. I must learn this trick

Alij brings up a good point. There does come a time, as I said yesterday, where I simply have to say "because the Bible says so". I try not to do that much when I'm discussing with you, because I don't think you'll take it seriously. Anyway, I don't have time today to get very far into this, but in the morning, if I have time, I will expound.

Peace, love and a profound sense of the painfully obvious,
Josh, MKOT

I hoped I had addressed all of your points in your last post, forgive my carelessness if I missed out any other areas which I could exploit.

I look forward to your expounding *looks in dictionary*, oh right. Tomorrow then. Get the other Josh back here while you're at it .

"I don't think you'll take it seriously"
Why not? As long as it's not religion dressed up in science's clothing (which I admit gets my goat, being a science person), I cannot possibly argue.

I'll stop here and wait...

Ste

Dear Ste,

I am, it seems, constantly plagued with little or no time; the former being almost worse than the latter since no time produces nothing, and little time produces only poorly thought-out snippets of what may or may not be logical. Nevertheless, I was looking through our discussions, and I found one thing that caught my eye.

In post 203, you mentioned that if a fossil were found that resembled the biblical race of the Anakin (named after the founder of the race, Anak by the way), it would be fine that it was considered to BE one by religious scientists, but would probably not be taught in schools because of its faith base. There are some things about this statement which stand out to me.

If science is fitting of facts to suitable explanations, and Anakin is a suitable explanation (which it probably is, since the Anakin were documented by other sources besides the Bible), then why would it not be considered. Science is willing to take great massive leaps of "logic" when it comes to looking at a fragment of a skull and determining the most minute details of that creature's social habits. I mean, come on! How biased is that? Just because the theory that happens to fit the fact (and fits perhaps better than many related theories) is a religious one, we must throw it out?! You may say to this: Well, we know from science that creationism is wrong, so the whole biblical theory must be wrong. But the proof that Anakin existed would NOT disprove evolution; it would merely give scientists pause to reflect. Now, Ste, I suspect that at this point, were I to leave off, you would backpedal a bit and say something like this: Well, Josh, I'm not saying that if there were specific proof, the scientific world wouldn't accept it. But in effect, that is exactly the case. I'll give you an example.

Biblically speaking, there was a great flood at some point near the beginning of mankind's history. Science has refuted this, saying "ahh, this is a bunch of religious hocus-pocus". Thus, it is not taught in schools, and is not even considered to be anything more than a myth among scientists.

Strangely, though, the story of the flood is not ONLY biblical. Yes, in fact, around the world there are MANY myths and ancient stories surrounding a great flood, from which only one family survived by building a large boat. Sound familiar? Furthermore, some of the more objective scientists have been stating for a long time that much of the Earth's geological history suggests massive amounts of water in places where massive amounts of water shouldn't have been. Lastly, there is the fact that many people claim to have spotted what they think might BE the Ark, on a mountain in Turkey, the VERY mountain that it was supposed to have settled on. Now with this last, I don't want to jump to any conclusions. Like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster, the finding of Noah's Ark is awfully speculative, especially since the hostility of the Turkish government hasn't allowed for any research into this area. Still, with all the other evidence, you would think that science would at least give the flood a chance.

And I think you will find that there are MANY things like these. Items which are catalogued in the annals of science as religious myths, not to be taken seriously. What does one say about this sort of thing? Could it actually be that Science, in it's all-powerful existance, is slightly biased?

I must go; I have already exceeded the amount of time which I had planned to spend here, and I fear I will be late...

Josh, MKOT

Josh, yes there ae many stories of floods around the world and there are cities under the sea but there are also stories of dragons and giants and see monsters.

"According to astronomical calculations of the Hindus, the present period of the world, Kaliyuga, commenced 3102 years before the Christ on 20th February, at 2 hours 27 minutes and 30 seconds. They say conjunction of planets took place and their table show this conjunction. It was natural to say that a conjunction of planets then took place. This calculation of Brahmins is so exactly confirmed by our own astronomical tables that nothing but actual observation could have given so correspondent a result." (Theology of Hindus by Count Bjornstjerna page 32).
With the astronomical quantities known, the Kaliyuga epoch establishes the summer solstice as the beginning of the tropical year and 147108 B.C. as the last conjunction of the summer solstice with the initial point of the sidereal sphere. This verifies the fixed initial point of the sidereal sphere given in the SuryaSiddhanta, and points to Sirius as true reference star.

See http://www.aaronsrod.com/time-cycles/index.html for the full text.



Alji (Member of The Guild of Wizards @ U197895)

"...looking at a fragment of a skull and determining the most minute details of that creature's social habits..."

Um, are we talking about Nebraska Man again? I thought that had been dealt with. I'm sure it's obvious to anyone that it is impossible to determine any social habits from a bone fragment.

I said it wouldn't be taught in science classes, not in schools. I'll elucidate; it would not be known as the bible's Anakin if such a creature were discovered. It would be classified objectively, something non-religious based. Now, I mentioned that if anywhere it should be taught in Religious Studies classes. What is the problem with that?

Indeed, what is the problem with creationists trying to force their beliefs upon the children of the world as science? Should evolution, as an alternative to God's creation be taught in Religious Studies class? Should science classes critique the theory of gravity, and offer an alternative "theory" that states that we are held to the earth because God lives in the centre of the planet, pulling us all downwards with his great loving hands? Sounds ridiculous doesn't it?

You make this assumption: "Well, we know from science that creationism is wrong, so the whole biblical theory must be wrong" and then continue to base the rest of your post upon this. It is simply wrong. The vast majority of both scientists and religious folk have no problem with the idea that evolution happens and that the bible is right. Creationism is wrong because it applies science to a religious allegorical story. So creationism *is* wrong, but it is *not* logical to follow that statement with "so the whole biblical theory (?) must be wrong". It simply isn't the case.

Great flood? Sounds like an ice age ending to me. And we know man has lived through ice ages, is it such a wonder that such a dramatic event as the end of an ice age has been carried down through the ages as story and myth? That is the way the ancient peoples of the world disseminated information, like creation myths for example.

Is science biased? I would never say science is perfect, it is full of egos and individuals competing furiously, etc. If science is biased away from religion it is because any attempt to incorporate religion into a theory would throw objectivity out of the window. If you're looking for God hard enough in your data, you are bound to find him (see the anthropic principle). It would also make the catastrophic mistake that creationists make, but in reverse; the application of a religious framework upon a scientific one. That don't work.



Alji, that last post went over my head a little , can you give some explanation to my poor self



Ste

Dear Ste,

OK, for once, I saw that argument coming

I knew when I wrote it that it was weak, but I had so little time to explain. First of all, I think that you're missing my point about where evolution and creationism are taught. Frankly, evolution IS taught in religion classes, but is examined as flawed. Creationism, however, is not thoroughly studied, but is merely labeled as flawed (and yes, I am sure that there are exceptions to the rule on both sides).

You made an interesting statement, which I feel to be a severe error. "The vast majority of both scientists and religious folk have no problem with the idea that evolution happens and that the Bible is right." Ste, I just don't think this is true. The vast majority of scientists, perhaps. But if the vast majority of "Bible thumpers" believed as you say, why would there be such a controversy?

Anyway, that's majoring on the minors, something I thought only you were allowed to do Back to the Anakin:

If indeed this were found, why wouldn't it be considered an Anakin. Science, in its all-encompassing objectivity, should at least look at this and say: Gee, y'know, it DOES kind of fit the story here. What is so incredibly difficult here? Let's examine what we KNOW:

We KNOW that a King David existed in Israel's past. Their minutely detailed geneological records would prove that, even if the Bible could not.

We KNOW that Israel was, at times, at war with the then-nation of Philistia, during the reign of said King David.

So, if we suddenly KNEW that there had once existed a race of giants over eight feet tall, whose hands and feet had six phalanges instead of five, respectively, why would it be so hard to piece together the puzzle? David, whom we know to have existed, fought Goliath, whose race we would now know to have existed, during one of the wars against Philistia, which we know happened. Seems pretty straightforward, and even nonreligious, to me.

But, because it would suddenly mean that the Bible was, once again, right about something, scientists would bury it under a mountain of "evidence", suggesting that Anakin was a link in evolutionary history, from a time when we broke off from giraffes, or some such bunk.

This is not really a scientific argument we are having at the moment; it's a question of politics. I hope we can get back to the thread at some point, but for the moment this is fairly interesting

Josh, MKOT

P.S. I spoke to Josh the G and demanded that he return to the forum. We'll see what happens.

Hi Josh,

I'm very suprised that evolution is taught in RE classes in Oklahoma. Evolution has no place in RE classes, I wasn't taught it there and neither should anyone else. RE teachers are not qualified to decide whether a scientific theory is flawed or not. How can there be any sort of informed debate?

"You made an interesting statement, which I feel to be a severe error...."

No, I don't think so. If I had said "The vast majority of both scientists and *Christian fundamentalists* folk have no problem with the idea that evolution happens and that the Bible is right" then that would have been clearly wrong. Your beliefs are not in the majority Josh. See the entry on Creation - A Mainstream Christian Viewpoint for clarification. Many flavours of many religion have no conflict with science, and that included the vast majority of Christians. I didn't use the phrase "Bible Thumpers". There is such a controversy because people like yourself are trying to force your religious beliefs onto innocent children in the school systems of the USA. It is wrong, and it is unconstitutional, as it has been proved. If you kept your faith to yourselves and didn't do any damage, whilst not trying to control the political processes to further you own goals then there would not be any controversy. People are not disagreeing with your beliefs for the hell of it, they are trying to protect their children and their society.

Now I have a Unix class that's just about to start, I'll be back with the rest later

Ste

How can it be "majoring on the minors!", what we are discussing is the very crux of the issue. Skirting around it with small-scale points about hypothetical finds of biblical creatures is the minors. If you percieve me to be concentrating on things that you consider to be minor, it is not because I am picking at holes for the sake of it, it is because I have different priorities than you, namely the larger picture of fundamentalist christianity and science. Then we have the *huge* practical problem of a section of society forcing their beliefs as hard, scientific fact upon the children of thw whole of society!



You hit the nail on the head when you said that it was not a scientific debate (nothing wrong with that). Science, by it's very nature, *could not* accept the finding on a large six-fingered homonid fossil as the biblical creature known as the Anakin. If you want to personally interpret any such data as an Anakin, then that is up to the individual, but it is a step that science will not take.

Why do you need acceptance of your faith from the scientific community? What makes you need to prove to the whole world that your faith is scientifically sound? Do you realise that it is impossible, as soon as you bring religion into it, it becomes poor science.

"Let's examine what we KNOW..."

You would be assuming the infallibility of the bible as an historic document to prove that the bible is an infallible historic document. Those things that you KNOW are far from certain in most people's view.

"But, because it would suddenly mean that the Bible was, once again, right about something, scientists would bury it under a mountain of "evidence""

Honestly, there is no scientific conspiracy against fundamentalist christianity (though I am thinking about trying to start one ), and we are not trying to destroy God. The bible is a small fry when the entirity of nature is taken into consideration, which is what science aims to do. You put too much significance onto your book (not suprising) but you have to remember that ancient religious texts simply do not come into consideration when scientists are thinking up theories to fit observed events.

I hope I didn't scare the other Josh away, poor little devil.

I am currently learning about Unix shell scripting, very useful...

Ste

Josh, Have you read The Epic of Gilgamesh, Tablet XI, The Story of the Flood @ http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab11.htm

Ste look at the dates in the text. The Hindu texts date from about 1500 BC (though some give the date as 3500 BC) but the source is much earlier. The Hindu story of the death of Krishna is said to have happened at the end of the Yuga before Kaliyuga. Professor K. Srinivasaraghavan, perhaps the foremost authority on the topic, has even determined November 22, 3067 BC as the day on which the Mahabharata War took place.


Alji (Member of The Guild of Wizards @ U197895)

Thanks Alji. You making the point that flood myths are not exclusively Christian. If this is the case, is this a point validating Christain belief or making it less significant in your view?



Ste

There are stories of floods from many countries around the world but the Gilgamesh flood story may be the basis of the Noah story. BTW the Greeks identified Krishna (Hari Krishna) with Heracles.

Alji (Member of The Guild of Wizards @ U197895)

But one *could* say that this is corroborating evidence if you looked at it from a particular viewpoint. Another could be that the Noah story is based upon Gilgamesh and therefore is a mere story adapted from a myth based upon an event that might or might not have happened.

Krishna is identified Heracles? That's fascinating, I hadn't heard that before.

Ste (gotta love that smiley)

"...from a time when we broke off from giraffes, or some such bunk."

Incidentally, did you know that we have the same number of vertebrae in our neck as giraffes do? I love that little fact-ette. Just couldn't resist telling you.

Good thinking Alij; you're a real fact-trouper, something that Ste and I probably need in these often factless debates.

Sadly, again, I have almost no time to discuss today, but I will say this: Ste, your opinion about religious fanatics (such as myself) attempting to force our opinions is right, but the reason we have to try so hard is that the ideas have been oppressed. The separation of church and state was meant to separate CHURCH and state, not CHRISTIANITY and state. There's a difference. The institutional church has no place in government. A solid moral compass based on Christian principals does. For proof, look at most of the founding fathers, and what they believed in. Even so, that in itself is not a case, necessarily, for my argument. Just because some of the wisest men in our country believed that way doesn't mean that everyone should be forced to believe that way. I'll let you in on a little secret: we don't want to force anyone to believe the way we do. All we ask is to have a voice. Take a look at the statistics, Ste. One really good example (out of many examples) is God in school. Since God has been removed from school, the incidences of school violence have soared exponentially over the years. No longer are children taught what morality is, much less how to appropriate it correctly. It's rather sad that you can be in just as much danger in some big city schools, as you are in a New York ghetto.

Ahh, but I forget: this must be how we evolve into a better society. Forgive my thickness

Josh, MKOT

"...often factless debates."

"...the reason we have to try so hard is that the ideas have been oppressed."

Have you searched upon the internet recently with the criteria "creationism"? Even if you search for "evolution" you get a load of creationism dogma-junk. The ideas are not oppressed, they are simply incorrect. Factually and logically. And they have been thoroughly debated for a good few decades. If you feel like your ideas are repressed it is because the creationist side loses the debate over and over again, but still insists on bringing it up at every passing opportunity. You have a "voice" (a rather loud one actually given the current state of the religious right and the damage that they are doing to the country), you just choose to use it to spout irrelevant dogma. I remember when the other Josh's entry critiquing evolution was thrown out of Peer Review for the third time Josh complained that he was being silenced, it must seem like a conspiracy to you though mustn't it? When you are so comprehensively wrong all the time but just stick to your guns without modification of any things that have come under criticism, it must seem like that.

"The separation of church and state was meant to separate CHURCH and state, not CHRISTIANITY and state."

Christian moral values are still how Western society judges morality. I'm sure you'd readily agree with me. But when it basically comes down to it, and you decontruct what the message behind Christian morality, it is "be condsiderate to others" and "don't do to someone that which you wouldn't want done to yourself", which is firmly rooted in pragmatism, and is perhaps why they have been such a success. So, you do not necessarily need Christianity to be moral. I assume you can see this. Having Christianity and state constitutionally linked marginalises those who are not Christian (quite a lot of people), and can only be seen as a bad thing.

Is it your opinion that if children were brainwashed into believing in one brand of religion, that society would benefit? Why can't we miss out religion and just teach ethics and morality? Why the need to link the two? For you they are linked, but they don't have to be.

Josh, I could just have easily said that "since the words 'under God' were levered into the pledge of allegiance in the 1950s the murder and crime rates in the USA have exponentially risen". Such a spurious correlation is both true, logically flawed and obviously misleading, just as "Since God has been removed from school, the incidences of school violence have soared exponentially over the years" is. To imply that people who do not have God in their lives have no morality is profoundly offensive and clearly wrong.

Ste

hey, I thought I already responded to this posting. Guys, I think that sometimes my posts aren't posted when I post them, if you know what I mean. Ah well, I will try again.

Ste, I never meant to say that people who do not have God in their lives have no morality. Some of the people whom I would trust the most are not, in fact, believers in God, much less Christians. I am not asking that we (Christians) be allowed to "brainwash" people. I am asking that our voice be heard with equality. I know that it sounds much like the often pointless and loud pleadings of minorities, claiming that they are never heard when, in fact, they are given more leeway in most areas than a majority. But I think that even your own statements correlate to the idea that Christianity is viewed as something to be left out of the educational process/political process. Frankly, I think that if you had your way, it would be out of every process, since it seems to make you so uncomfortable But really, Ste, what is the problem with granting a little bit of freedom of speech. I mean, I know that these days, freedom of speech is practically nonexistant. We can't state our feelings on any issue without hurting someone else's feelings (unless, of course, that someone happens to be a fundamentalist wacko like myself), so we must "try to be accepting of everybody, so we can all live a happy, flawless life". This is a load of crap, but it's how most people these days tend to view things.

Sorry if a)I am irratable and/or b)I don't make much sense today, but I have a rather severe crisis going on at the moment, and it's very difficult to switch my thought process over to science and or political debate over religion. Please forgive me

Josh, MKOT

P.S. I hate to sound stupid here, but just how DO you make all those other interesting faces? is getting pretty old, and I like to be able to express myself to the full capacity of this site.