The Monkey Trials

[Commander]

Today marks the anniversary of the end of the Scopes Monkey Trials.

The case involved a law passed on March 13, 1925, which forbade the teaching, in any state-funded educational establishment in Tennessee, of "any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals." This is often interpreted as meaning that the law forbade the teaching of any aspect of the theory of evolution.

The trial ended with John T Scopes being found guilty and he was ordered to pay a $100 fine.

why was this trial so significant? what are your thoughts?

[old_abe]

I think they were significant in that it was one of the first big cases of science vs religion. Ultimately with religion winning this one.

I think a $100 fine is rather a joke. I mean I guess they had to punish him somehow. His lawyer ended up offering to pay the fine anyways.

[Professor Phantom]

I think this is signifigant because the political parties of the time were set between traditionalists and modernists. It was a major arguement that came to a boil in the court room with John Scopes.

[flaja]

I think they were significant in that it was one of the first big cases of science vs religion. Ultimately with religion winning this one.

I think a $100 fine is rather a joke. I mean I guess they had to punish him somehow. His lawyer ended up offering to pay the fine anyways.

The fine was why the case was later overturned on appeal. Under Tennessee law the judge did not have the power to impose a fine this large without getting the jury's approval- which he did not have.

[flaja]

Why is it OK for public schools to teach evolution, when this theory of origins goes against the religious beliefs of some students/parents?

How does using public money to teach evolution in public schools, i.e., tell some people their religion is wrong, not violate the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment?

[Vir0n]

Why stop at evolution? A local school board in my state is currently considering a request to pull all Harry Potter books from the school because the parent believes the books teach evil, anti-Christian messages and their presence in the library or use in the classroom violates her child's religious beliefs. This is a slippery slope.

Literature is not religion. Science is not religion. Teaching these subjects in school is not a violation of the Constitution. If parents want to teach their children that specific subjects taught in school conflict with their personal ideologic or theologic beliefs they are welcome to be good parents and do it at home.

I do believe that the biologic and anthropologic evidence supporting evolution should be presented to students in an unbiased, scientific way. Denying the existance of microevolution through genetic mutation is tantamount to denying the existance of gravity. The macroevolution and speciation of humans is more open to debate and the evidence for and against should be presented without bias.

[flaja]

Why stop at evolution? A local school board in my state is currently considering a request to pull all Harry Potter books from the school because the parent believes the books teach evil, anti-Christian messages and their presence in the library or use in the classroom violates her child's religious beliefs. This is a slippery slope.

Literature is not religion. Science is not religion. Teaching these subjects in school is not a violation of the Constitution. If parents want to teach their children that specific subjects taught in school conflict with their personal ideologic or theologic beliefs they are welcome to be good parents and do it at home.

I do believe that the biologic and anthropologic evidence supporting evolution should be presented to students in an unbiased, scientific way. Denying the existance of microevolution through genetic mutation is tantamount to denying the existance of gravity. The macroevolution and speciation of humans is more open to debate and the evidence for and against should be presented without bias.

Typical liberal.

[Vir0n]

Typical liberal.

Is that the best you can do?

I am actually a member of the Republican party, and my wife and I have volunteered in several local Republican campaigns. I'm not exactly sure why you feel it is necessary to make assumptions about me based on a single issue. Furthermore, I think you may be overestimating the support a ban of teaching evolution in schools has among conservatives. I believe there are many conservatives who share my opinion (in fact I know several who do).

You are certainly entitled to your views, and I respect them even though we don't agree. That makes me a tree-hugging hippie, right?

Love,
Vir0n

[Ritocal]

Why is it OK for public schools to teach evolution, when this theory of origins goes against the religious beliefs of some students/parents?

How does using public money to teach evolution in public schools, i.e., tell some people their religion is wrong, not violate the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment?

So you support removeing everying, no matter how remotely, that deals with religion from schools?

[flaja]

Typical liberal.

Is that the best you can do?

I am actually a member of the Republican party, and my wife and I have volunteered in several local Republican campaigns. I'm not exactly sure why you feel it is necessary to make assumptions about me based on a single issue. Furthermore, I think you may be overestimating the support a ban of teaching evolution in schools has among conservatives. I believe there are many conservatives who share my opinion (in fact I know several who do).

You are certainly entitled to your views, and I respect them even though we don't agree. That makes me a tree-hugging hippie, right?

Love,
Vir0n

Ever heard of RINOs?

In typical liberal fashion you believe you have the authority to determine what is and is not religion on everybody else's behalf.

[flaja]

Why is it OK for public schools to teach evolution, when this theory of origins goes against the religious beliefs of some students/parents?

How does using public money to teach evolution in public schools, i.e., tell some people their religion is wrong, not violate the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment?

So you support removeing everying, no matter how remotely, that deals with religion from schools?

Not necessarily. But, I am saying that provisions should be made to give parents opt-out capabilities. If a public school has to teach something like Darwinism, they should be obligated to allow opposing viewpoints to be presented. If Darwinism is right, Darwinists loose nothing by being publicly challenged. An honest scientist will never assume that he is always right about everything and he will show no hostility to people who question his data and conclusions.

BTW: Since Darwinism and all forms of Creationism all lack experimental evidence for some of their assumptions and conclusions, I don’t see either as legitimate science. Both are faith systems.

[Vir0n]

In typical liberal fashion you believe you have the authority to determine what is and is not religion on everybody else's behalf.

Uh, ok. :roll:

[flaja]

In typical liberal fashion you believe you have the authority to determine what is and is not religion on everybody else's behalf.

Uh, ok. :roll:

Your point? You said that science and literature are not religion. But other people say they are to some extent or another because they can be used to promote ideas that have religious overtones. What legitimate authority do you have to say these other people are wrong?

[jdbeatty]

What legitimate authority do you have to say these other people are wrong?

Define "legitimate" and "authority" for us in this context. What would be a "legitimate authority" in the decision between this belief system and that one?

Define "wrong" as it relates to the debate over ideological education. What would be "right" for you as it relates to what is taught anywhere? What "legitimate authority" would you have for excersizing this option?

[flaja]

What legitimate authority do you have to say these other people are wrong?

Define "legitimate" and "authority" for us in this context. What would be a "legitimate authority" in the decision between this belief system and that one?

Define "wrong" as it relates to the debate over ideological education. What would be "right" for you as it relates to what is taught anywhere? What "legitimate authority" would you have for excersizing this option?

You don’t understand such simple terms? Review this thread. I asked if it is OK to make parents send their children to public schools where they are presented with “scientific” ideas that go against the parents’ religion. I was told that science is not religion. However, as far as the 1st Amendment goes, no one has any right to tell me what my religion is. If I am to be allowed to freely practice my religion, the government must be prevented from ever telling me my religion is wrong.

[MrStoff1989]

What legitimate authority do you have to say these other people are wrong?

Define "legitimate" and "authority" for us in this context. What would be a "legitimate authority" in the decision between this belief system and that one?

Define "wrong" as it relates to the debate over ideological education. What would be "right" for you as it relates to what is taught anywhere? What "legitimate authority" would you have for excersizing this option?

You don’t understand such simple terms? Review this thread. I asked if it is OK to make parents send their children to public schools where they are presented with “scientific” ideas that go against the parents’ religion. I was told that science is not religion. However, as far as the 1st Amendment goes, no one has any right to tell me what my religion is. If I am to be allowed to freely practice my religion, the government must be prevented from ever telling me my religion is wrong.


I agree with the fact that the government should have no say in what one believes, but Tennessee is a massively Baptist state which is highly religious and oftentimes has very...well, different views, I grew up in Tennessee myself and based on what i've heard, the town that I was raised in would not have a Toys 'R Us there because they thought that Jeffery Giraffe symbolized the devil! I myself, as a future educator belief that a bipartisan agreement must be made in order to teach each from a certain standpoint and it should be the choice of the student alone to choose which teaching he or she believes!

[flaja]

What legitimate authority do you have to say these other people are wrong?

Define "legitimate" and "authority" for us in this context. What would be a "legitimate authority" in the decision between this belief system and that one?

Define "wrong" as it relates to the debate over ideological education. What would be "right" for you as it relates to what is taught anywhere? What "legitimate authority" would you have for excersizing this option?

You don’t understand such simple terms? Review this thread. I asked if it is OK to make parents send their children to public schools where they are presented with “scientific” ideas that go against the parents’ religion. I was told that science is not religion. However, as far as the 1st Amendment goes, no one has any right to tell me what my religion is. If I am to be allowed to freely practice my religion, the government must be prevented from ever telling me my religion is wrong.


I agree with the fact that the government should have no say in what one believes, but Tennessee is a massively Baptist state which is highly religious and oftentimes has very...well, different views, I grew up in Tennessee myself and based on what i've heard, the town that I was raised in would not have a Toys 'R Us there because they thought that Jeffery Giraffe symbolized the devil! I myself, as a future educator belief that a bipartisan agreement must be made in order to teach each from a certain standpoint and it should be the choice of the student alone to choose which teaching he or she believes!

Chances are Tennessee, like too many other parts of the country, is heavily Pentecostal rather than Christian. I would not consider Bryan College, a school that William Jennings Bryan wanted to establish, to be Christian since it accepts modern translations of the Bible that deny the divinity of Christ. This is why I don't support the teaching of Darwinism or any form of Creationism in public school because I don't want my tax money used to propagate religious ideas that I don't agree with.

[MrStoff1989]

What legitimate authority do you have to say these other people are wrong?

Define "legitimate" and "authority" for us in this context. What would be a "legitimate authority" in the decision between this belief system and that one?

Define "wrong" as it relates to the debate over ideological education. What would be "right" for you as it relates to what is taught anywhere? What "legitimate authority" would you have for excersizing this option?

You don’t understand such simple terms? Review this thread. I asked if it is OK to make parents send their children to public schools where they are presented with “scientific” ideas that go against the parents’ religion. I was told that science is not religion. However, as far as the 1st Amendment goes, no one has any right to tell me what my religion is. If I am to be allowed to freely practice my religion, the government must be prevented from ever telling me my religion is wrong.


I agree with the fact that the government should have no say in what one believes, but Tennessee is a massively Baptist state which is highly religious and oftentimes has very...well, different views, I grew up in Tennessee myself and based on what i've heard, the town that I was raised in would not have a Toys 'R Us there because they thought that Jeffery Giraffe symbolized the devil! I myself, as a future educator belief that a bipartisan agreement must be made in order to teach each from a certain standpoint and it should be the choice of the student alone to choose which teaching he or she believes!

Chances are Tennessee, like too many other parts of the country, is heavily Pentecostal rather than Christian. I would not consider Bryan College, a school that William Jennings Bryan wanted to establish, to be Christian since it accepts modern translations of the Bible that deny the divinity of Christ. This is why I don't support the teaching of Darwinism or any form of Creationism in public school because I don't want my tax money used to propagate religious ideas that I don't agree with.


It's acaully part of the Southern Baptist Belt. I disagree with you on the fact that modern interpretations of the Bible are not basis for religion, they are exactly what they say they are; Modern Translations. As stated earlier, The student should be taught both methods, so that each can be deciphered by The Student! It is of importance that the student is given the opportunity to explore his or her own beliefs so that he or she, not the parents, influence belief! Your tax money should indeed pay for this, because it is important for the schools, so that they may have the ability to give the student what is required of a school, the ability to learn!
This ability is crucial because it enables the student to understand the beliefs they have been taught and then the beliefs of evolution.[/b]

[flaja]

The student should be taught both methods

But, there are more than just 2 methods. You have standard atheistic Darwinism. You have theistic Darwinism in which some divine force set everything in motion to operate with the same natural selection mechanisms your average secular humanist academician accepts.

Then, you have intelligent design, but the designer need not be the Judeo-Christian God.

And you have Old Earth Creationism and Young Earth Creationism.

You simply don’t have enough time in a high school biology course to cover every suggested origins scenario.

[Ritocal]

Why is it OK for public schools to teach evolution, when this theory of origins goes against the religious beliefs of some students/parents?

How does using public money to teach evolution in public schools, i.e., tell some people their religion is wrong, not violate the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Teaching evolution does not prohibit you from practicing a religion. It does not apply. The first amendment does not protect you from hearing new ideas that you might disagree with. In fact, it protects the people with the new ideas that you might disagree with.

In a science class they should teach things from scientists... right? Call me crazy.. but that makes sense. Evolution is agreed upon as the most likely explanation for orgin of life by scientists. The fact that some people disagree with this is not a valid reason for a science class to not teach things from scientists.

[flaja]

Why is it OK for public schools to teach evolution, when this theory of origins goes against the religious beliefs of some students/parents?

How does using public money to teach evolution in public schools, i.e., tell some people their religion is wrong, not violate the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Teaching evolution does not prohibit you from practicing a religion.



Having an employee of the government tell you that your religion is wrong and that you will suffer bad grades if you say otherwise is not prohibiting the free exercise of religion?

Again, who are you to tell me what my religion can be?

[MrStoff1989]

We're not telling you what your religion is to be, We're letting you learn two sides of the story.

[flaja]

We're not telling you what your religion is to be, We're letting you learn two sides of the story.

Oh? When and where is any form of Creationism taught in public school?

Any form of Darwinism that leads to macro-evolution violates my faith in Divine Creation by the Judeo-Christian God. You cannot tell me that Darwinism is fact without implying that my faith is wrong. If you tell me that Darwinism is true, you are essentially telling me that my faith is false. If you tell me that I must accept Darwinism as fact for the sake of getting a good grade in public school, then you are restricting my free exercise of my religion.

[MrStoff1989]

We're not telling you what your religion is to be, We're letting you learn two sides of the story.

Oh? When and where is any form of Creationism taught in public school?

Any form of Darwinism that leads to macro-evolution violates my faith in Divine Creation by the Judeo-Christian God. You cannot tell me that Darwinism is fact without implying that my faith is wrong. If you tell me that Darwinism is true, you are essentially telling me that my faith is false. If you tell me that I must accept Darwinism as fact for the sake of getting a good grade in public school, then you are restricting my free exercise of my religion.

We never said you had to believe any of it! I just think it should be taught so that students can see both angles and deliberate on personal beliefs!

[flaja]

We're not telling you what your religion is to be, We're letting you learn two sides of the story.

Oh? When and where is any form of Creationism taught in public school?

Any form of Darwinism that leads to macro-evolution violates my faith in Divine Creation by the Judeo-Christian God. You cannot tell me that Darwinism is fact without implying that my faith is wrong. If you tell me that Darwinism is true, you are essentially telling me that my faith is false. If you tell me that I must accept Darwinism as fact for the sake of getting a good grade in public school, then you are restricting my free exercise of my religion.

We never said you had to believe any of it! I just think it should be taught so that students can see both angles and deliberate on personal beliefs!

So a public school teacher can ask me to outline the currently accepted ape to man scenario and I can tell him that such a scenario did not happen and not get a failing grade?

[Ritocal]

Ok.. This is a practice test from a regular high school biology textbook. It is from the chapter on the theory of evolution.

http://www.glencoe.com/qe/qe153.php?qi=4728&st=


Please point out the sections that your religion would forbid you from answering.

[flaja]

Ok.. This is a practice test from a regular high school biology textbook. It is from the chapter on the theory of evolution.

http://www.glencoe.com/qe/qe153.php?qi=4728&st=


Please point out the sections that your religion would forbid you from answering.

2. c is the expected answer with the implication that adaptation can lead macro-evolution. However, c runs counter to the real world example shown by the peppered moth. Neither the light, nor the dark colored moth was driven to extinction when each was subjected to an environment that favored the other. This coupled with Bumpus’ sparrows indicate that natural selection is pretty much a conservative force; it does not allow much in the way of change. It favors the normal morphology rather than the exception while also working to preserve as many genes as possible, lest they be needed in the future when the environment has changed. Natural selection may be a mechanism created by the Lord God of Israel for the purpose of preserving genes that are detrimental now because they may be needed later.

3. Without knowing anything about the walking stick’s taxonomy the answer could be e, no adaptation was needed because that’s the way the Lord God of Israel made it. However, some Creationists believe that adaptation and speciation by natural selection is possible but only within the narrow genetic limits inherent to the kinds of organisms God created. There is some speculation that the kind of Genesis is the genus or even the family rather than the species.

4. E. none of these because evolution is a myth that has no scientific, i.e., experimental, proof.

7. E. distinct traits created by the Lord God of Israel and not indications of any Darwinian ancestry as the public school teacher would have us believe.

10. E. That’s the way the Lord God of Israel made it.

8. E. None of the above because the giraffe is exactly like the Lord God of Israel wants it to be.

[Vir0n]

Ok.. This is a practice test from a regular high school biology textbook. It is from the chapter on the theory of evolution.

http://www.glencoe.com/qe/qe153.php?qi=4728&st=


Please point out the sections that your religion would forbid you from answering.

I have a big problem with the picture of the flying squirrel. The portrayal of those winged rats is an affront to my personal religious beliefs. I find it offensive that a school would suggest that my belief that the creatures are a direct product of Satan's seed is wrong. I have similar feelings about integral calculus, Charlotte Bronte, and the letter "Q". I have been told that no one has the right to tell me what does and does not constitute religion. As teaching anything that offends my religious beliefs is unconstitutional, I see no alternative to banning the letter "Q" (which works out really well because there is a splinter sect that denies the existence of the letter "U").

[MrStoff1989]

Aye, and my religion bans the letter "P" because it makes young children giggle gleefully.

[Ritocal]

Ok.. This is a practice test from a regular high school biology textbook. It is from the chapter on the theory of evolution.

http://www.glencoe.com/qe/qe153.php?qi=4728&st=


Please point out the sections that your religion would forbid you from answering.

2. c is the expected answer with the implication that adaptation can lead macro-evolution. However, c runs counter to the real world example shown by the peppered moth. Neither the light, nor the dark colored moth was driven to extinction when each was subjected to an environment that favored the other. This coupled with Bumpus’ sparrows indicate that natural selection is pretty much a conservative force; it does not allow much in the way of change. It favors the normal morphology rather than the exception while also working to preserve as many genes as possible, lest they be needed in the future when the environment has changed. Natural selection may be a mechanism created by the Lord God of Israel for the purpose of preserving genes that are detrimental now because they may be needed later.

3. Without knowing anything about the walking stick’s taxonomy the answer could be e, no adaptation was needed because that’s the way the Lord God of Israel made it. However, some Creationists believe that adaptation and speciation by natural selection is possible but only within the narrow genetic limits inherent to the kinds of organisms God created. There is some speculation that the kind of Genesis is the genus or even the family rather than the species.

4. E. none of these because evolution is a myth that has no scientific, i.e., experimental, proof.

7. E. distinct traits created by the Lord God of Israel and not indications of any Darwinian ancestry as the public school teacher would have us believe.

10. E. That’s the way the Lord God of Israel made it.

8. E. None of the above because the giraffe is exactly like the Lord God of Israel wants it to be.

Evolution is not a myth. Whoever told you that is lieing. Evolution is a fact. The orgins of life is a theory. Theorys have facts backing them up, but can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Going out of your way to reject all the questions would get you a failing grade. Your answers don't even make sense to the questions asked. How would you classify these wings? "the way god made it" Not matter what your belief is it shows a lack of understanding the material. For example, I know what scientologists believe. I understand it. It does not mean i have to believe it. Knowing and believing, despite what you are insuating, are not the same thing.

[Cunedda]

Logiclly, if we started out with Adam and Eve...wouldn't our genes be useless after a couple of generations of in-breading?

In my point of veiw, the creationist theory is based on outdated stories made up for uneducated farmers who lived thousands of years ago who knew no better.

I want my kids raised to be taught both sides of the story and let them make the choice for themselves.

I am sorry, but personally, evolution makes more sence to me.

[THELOUISIANAEXPLORER]

The belief that the trial was all about the teaching of evolution is a myth. It really revolved around publicity and major egos. A new book is out that discusses the trial. "I Called Him Grand Dad. The lost political papers of Harvey G. Fields" identifies a man that went to the trial to visit with his two firends, Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryant. These men were opposing each other at the trial.

[sculptingman]

The macroevolution and speciation of humans is more open to debate and the evidence for and against should be presented without bias.

There is no debate because there is no competing theory. Just a bunch of unsubstantiated malarky seeking to endorse a religious conclusion that is treated as unassailable.

There is no such thing as macro-evolution in contrast to micro-evolution just as there is no substantive argument that driving a car 100 miles is different than driving it 100 feet. The car operates the same.

If you stipulate to micro-evolution you stipulate to ALL evolution just as stipulating to taking a single step is to understand that enough additional steps will carry you 1000 miles.


The call to 'teach the controversy' is specious and an outright lie on the part of the religious ( ironic, given their claims to moral superiority )
It is a lie because there IS NO CONTROVERSY between scientific findings and delusional fantasy.
Talking about sasquatch is not evidence of sasquatch.

And you do not further science by teaching that science is invalid... which is the basic argument of all creationists.
In denying the validity of literal mountains of evidence... they deny the validity of evidence itself. This is simply a dodge to evade the fact that they have no evidence to offer.

But if we tolerate the attack on evidentiary argument, then we lose our grasp on the real technology and tools that have built the world on which we rely.

Look at the machine you are reading this on... look at your cell phone, your refrigerator, your prescription eyeglasses.
You turn a knob in your house and pure water comes out...

These are REAL miracles you take for granted... real miracles that only came into being because of science and evidentiary argument.

10,000 years of prayer did not improve the lot of mankind one whit.
An image of Jesus in a cheese sandwich?
Really? This is a miracle?

You want to make the lame walk? Try hip replacement surgery.
That is a miracle.


There is no controversy between idiocy and a fact based methodology.
No controversy between wishful thinking and actual observation.

Evolution is the single most successful theory in the history of science.
Science gives us power over the natural world... the power to have this discussion at all is entirely the gift of science.

We have clawed our way out of the dark ages thru application of evidentiary argument and experimental proof.

No one should tolerate the attack on reason that is the Creationist/Intelligent Design agenda.

[sculptingman]

The belief that the trial was all about the teaching of evolution is a myth. It really revolved around publicity and major egos. A new book is out that discusses the trial. "I Called Him Grand Dad. The lost political papers of Harvey G. Fields" identifies a man that went to the trial to visit with his two firends, Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryant. These men were opposing each other at the trial.

So what? Just because today's right wing can not be civil to anyone who doesn't agree with them does not mean it was ever thus.

Thru US history LOTS of men who were diametrically opposed on philosophical, religious or social grounds were, nevertheless, friends.

It is possible to feel someone you personally like has an opinion you think is wrong.

Darrow took the case for one reason only... he was HOPING to lose.
He wanted to publicize the idiocy of outlawing the teaching of science.
For him it was mostly a first amendment issue.
It was an establishment of religion AND a censorship of knowledge.

The teacher was in on it. He purposely violated the law to bring on the trial.

The whole idea was to get just such a case heard in just such a State so that they would lose on appeal... They WANTED to lose on every State level, and thus be able to get the case heard by the Supreme Court.

Yes it was grandstanding... but that does not mean it was not sincere in its objective... to stop the fascist forces of religious fervor that would sacrifice the secular triumph of the American Constitution, and turn a free nation into a theocracy.

[wittgenstein]

John Scopes being found guilty was not a victory for creationism. The court could not rule on the constitutionality of the law, that was for a higher court. The court could only decide if Scopes was guilty of teaching evolution, which he obviously was.

[Rasta]

Christians in America who oppose the teaching of evolution need to send their kids to private school. Evolution is a fact of reality. Sorry, but your belief does not change reality. You can deny reality. That is your right. You can deny that gravity exists if you want too.

What you can't do is insist that the entier country cater to your individual belief system.

[vera]

I find it amazing that people who oppose the teaching of evolution and the reading of books with "ideas" would ban the exposure to thinking. Consinstent throughout history of Christianity, but amazing still. Don't read, don't think, don't question, lest you be tempted.

[Rasta]

Evolution is not a myth. Whoever told you that is lieing. Evolution is a fact. The orgins of life is a theory. Theorys have facts backing them up, but can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Going out of your way to reject all the questions would get you a failing grade. Your answers don't even make sense to the questions asked. How would you classify these wings? "the way god made it" Not matter what your belief is it shows a lack of understanding the material. For example, I know what scientologists believe. I understand it. It does not mean i have to believe it. Knowing and believing, despite what you are insuating, are not the same thing.

Exactly.

[Rasta]

I find it amazing that people who oppose the teaching of evolution and the reading of books with "ideas" would ban the exposure to thinking. Consinstent throughout history of Christianity, but amazing still. Don't read, don't think, don't question, lest you be tempted.

What they don't realize, is that they are shooting themselves in the foot. The Christian's tactics are not working in the big scheme. If they deny reality, THEY tell others that science and religion are incompatible. Since science has proof to verify it's validity, THEY give the impression that the idividual needs to choose between faith (belief without evidence) and facts. This is a losing situation in the long run.

[vera]

What they don't realize, is that they are shooting themselves in the foot. The Christian's tactics are not working in the big scheme. If they deny reality, THEY tell others that science and religion are incompatible. Since science has proof to verify it's validity, THEY give the impression that the idividual needs to choose between faith (belief without evidence) and facts. This is a losing situation in the long run.
I think what they don't realize is that faith without temptation and questioning is worthless.

[wittgenstein]

Evolution is science. Creationism is not. While I agree that evolution is a true representation of reality, that is not the issue here. Evolution can be taught because it follows the scientific method. Creationism is not empirical and therefore not scientific, one cannot provide natural evidence for the supernatural.

[Rasta]

I think what they don't realize is that faith without temptation and questioning is worthless.

Good point. I've never thought of it like that.

[vera]

Evolution is science. Creationism is not. While I agree that evolution is a true representation of reality, that is not the issue here. Evolution can be taught because it follows the scientific method. Creationism is not empirical and therefore not scientific, one cannot provide natural evidence for the supernatural.
Perhaps the key for a change here is to stop saying that and understanding that there may actually not be a contradiction. While those who want a change are themselves saying this is mutually exclusive - there will be active resistance to the very concept.

[wittgenstein]

Vera.
Are you saying that religion is science? That it is based on the scientific meathod?

[vera]

Good point. I've never thought of it like that.
One of the basic teacings of Kabbalah is that overcoming the sitra akhra (the other side) brings a light higher than simply being tzadik (righteous) and doing the right thing by definition. For example, someone who stole money, or was sorely tempted to, and then went back and gave it up - his rise in light is much higher than one who doesn't steal because he is not tempted to steal at all.

[vera]

Vera.
Are you saying that religion is science? That it is based on the scientific meathod?
Not at all.

I am saying that creation doesn't contradict science. As long as the main argument for it is that it's against religion, there will be active resistance. The answer is in reading creation differently.

[wittgenstein]

I am not against religion, as my posts prove. My point is that faith cannot and should not be taught in the public schools. Evolution is not a faith. However, it is OK to teach religion in a historical or philosophical context.

[wittgenstein]

I would say that evolution contradicts a fundamentalist interpretation of religion. Luckily, there are more sophisticated versions of spirituality.

[vera]

I am not against religion, as my posts prove. My point is that faith cannot and should not be taught in the public schools. Evolution is not a faith. However, it is OK to teach religion in a historical or philosophical context.
Look, there is a cultural gap and a pcsycological button.

When you say "I allow this", "I don't allow that" - you're pressing the button. You're actually saying "my way is good, your way is rubbish". So ther's not much chance it will be accepted, is there? Especially, as you're talking about public education, and the religious public is by no means a small minority in your country.

There is a saying in Hebrew: don't be right, be smart (or wise, in that case).

If you change tactics, and insted learn to see and show creation as the metaphorical description in tune with the scientific theory, stating that the religion has in fact claimed from the beginning what science has only just learned to prove - can you imagine a change in reaction?

[Rasta]

If you change tactics, and insted learn to see and show creation as the metaphorical description in tune with the scientific theory, stating that the religion has in fact claimed from the beginning what science has only just learned to prove - can you imagine a change in reaction?

I can. The fundimentals would start bashing the "luke warm" Christians instead of "Eviloutionists".

[vera]

I can. The fundimentals would start bashing the "luke warm" Christians instead of "Eviloutionists".
I did not say it will be instantaneous, but the path, imo, lies there, and not in bashing the religious for their "rubbish", which is what most "evolutionists" do. The path to understanding lies in bridging the differences, instead of burning bridges. My opinion, naturally.

[Rasta]

I did not say it will be instantaneous, but the path, imo, lies there, and not in bashing the religious for their "rubbish", which is what most "evolutionists" do. The path to understanding lies in bridging the differences, instead of burning bridges. My opinion, naturally.

I'm not burning any bridges. I'm not telling anyone that religion is in violation of science. I'm not insisting that atheism be taught in schools in science class. I'm not going door to door saying: "Hey sheeple, wake up and smell reality." I'm not advocating violence of thoes who disagree with my world view. I'm not telling people that homosexuals should not be allowed to get a marriage certificate, because of whatever their reason is.

The fundimentals do all of these things and more, and deserve every single bit of critisizm they recieve. In my opinion.

[wittgenstein]

"If you change tactics, and insted learn to see and show creation as the metaphorical description in tune with the scientific theory,"
Vera
Unfortunately, a fundamentalist would say that I am attacking their literal* understanding of spirituality by calling it metaphorical.

* They believe that all of humanity literally came from Adam and Eve and that all of reality was literally created in 6 days, with the 7th being used by God to rest because of the strenuous nature of creating an entire universe.

[vera]

"If you change tactics, and insted learn to see and show creation as the metaphorical description in tune with the scientific theory,"
Vera
Unfortunately, a fundamentalist would say that I am attacking their literal* understanding of spirituality by calling it metaphorical.

* They believe that all of humanity literally came from Adam and Eve and that all of reality was literally created in 6 days, with the 7th being used by God to rest because of the strenuous nature of creating an entire universe.
I'm not burning any bridges. I'm not telling anyone that religion is in violation of science. I'm not insisting that atheism be taught in schools in science class. I'm not going door to door saying: "Hey sheeple, wake up and smell reality." I'm not advocating violence of thoes who disagree with my world view. I'm not telling people that homosexuals should not be allowed to get a marriage certificate, because of whatever their reason is.

The fundimentals do all of these things and more, and deserve every single bit of critisizm they recieve. In my opinion.
You are both right. But that is just the point: being right is not enough, is it? There is a conflict, and it suits neither you nor them. So will you continue being right - or look for a way to be wise?

The fact that "they deserve it" doesn't help, either, does it? It doesn't help find solution.

You are right, they think they are right, too. A way must be searched to build a bridge which would allow a compromise, an understanding. One that will suit both sides, one that will show them that you actually do not threaten their way of life. It is not enough that YOU think you don't, they feel you do, so it is valid.

That is the basis of every conflict solving. The basis is finding a language that may be understood by both sides. You personally (Rasta and witt) may not say religion is rubbish. But you personally are not the "movement" that opposes their "movement". So it is the language of the SIDES that needs to be built. And starting with your own side, naturally.

I have listened to many debabte, read excerpts from books, and seen even on this forum how people ridicule and attack religious for their "unfounded beliefs". I think that until this changes, there will be no significant solution, the conflict will only deepen.

[vera]

"If you change tactics, and insted learn to see and show creation as the metaphorical description in tune with the scientific theory,"
Vera
Unfortunately, a fundamentalist would say that I am attacking their literal* understanding of spirituality by calling it metaphorical.

* They believe that all of humanity literally came from Adam and Eve and that all of reality was literally created in 6 days, with the 7th being used by God to rest because of the strenuous nature of creating an entire universe.
Yes. But it is easier to move this belief slightly and gradually from literal to metaphoric, by attesting to its initial greatness - than making them accept that it is utter rubbish and istead THIS is the truth. Isn't it?

[Rasta]

Yes. But it is easier to move this belief slightly and gradually from literal to metaphoric, by attesting to its initial greatness - than making them accept that it is utter rubbish and istead THIS is the truth. Isn't it?

Tell that to my father.

[Rasta]

You are both right. But that is just the point: being right is not enough, is it? There is a conflict, and it suits neither you nor them. So will you continue being right - or look for a way to be wise?

I have man. I've tried being wise. I am now too tired of talking with fundimentalists that I don't do it anymore. Your turn. You speak to American fundimentalists then come back and let me know how it goes. Perhaps you are more wise than I am.

[vera]

Tell that to my father.
You know, we have the same problem here, as you have there.

Thirty years ago there were skirmishes in the streets between religious and non-religious, a matter of everyday life. There was a"war" going on, and both sides were equally stubborn and ignorant of the other. Both contributed wildly to the colflict. My mother was one of the atheist activists.

Then, some people understood that this is just making it worse, and ripping up the people. And they started talking.

Today there are still some issues unsolved, and they must get there one of these days; but largely the status quo is set so that neither group bothers the other or infringes on them. This promotes goodwill.

There are major issues yet to solve, indeed. But if the foundation is laid, and there is a will to listen and to created understanding - it will be done.

This far - it took thirty years. :D

[Rasta]

I have listened to many debabte, read excerpts from books, and seen even on this forum how people ridicule and attack religious for their "unfounded beliefs". I think that until this changes, there will be no significant solution, the conflict will only deepen.

This is the path many have chosen. You have to understand that in America, Christians fight amongst eachother. They are already aware of other positions, but don't want to become more "liberal". I say let the chips fall where they may. There is no amount of logic, reason, or persuasive argument that can even create the slightest dent in some of these people. They know they are going to heaven and you are going to hell. Simple.

[Rasta]

You know, we have the same problem here, as you have there.

Thirty years ago there were skirmishes in the streets between religious and non-religious, a matter of everyday life. There was a"war" going on, and both sides were equally stubborn and ignorant of the other. Both contributed wildly to the colflict. My mother was one of the atheist activists.

Then, some people understood that this is just making it worse, and ripping up the people. And they started talking.

Today there are still some issues unsolved, and they must get there one of these days; but largely the status quo is set so that neither group bothers the other or infringes on them. This promotes goodwill.

There are major issues yet to solve, indeed. But if the foundation is laid, and there is a will to listen and to created understanding - it will be done.

This far - it took thirty years. :D

Very interesting. It's possible I guess. Too many Americans view things through a dualistic lense, no doubt, this is true. Everything also is so emotionally charged and interconnected. It's almost at the point where you can't APPROACH certain topics without it getting heated.

[vera]

I have man. I've tried being wise. I am now too tired of talking with fundimentalists that I don't do it anymore. Your turn. You speak to American fundimentalists then come back and let me know how it goes. Perhaps you are more wise than I am.
Just more patient, perhaps (woman). :D

[Rasta]

Just more patient, perhaps (woman). :D

Wait, you are more patient because of women?

[Rasta]

Oh because you ARE a woman. I get it.

[Chookie]

I am saying that creation doesn't contradict science. As long as the main argument for it is that it's against religion, there will be active resistance. The answer is in reading creation differently.
I agree that creation does not contradict science, creationism, on the other hand most emphatically does.

Creation does not produce such idiotic examples as a fair-haired bloke wearing a white robe (the purported Jesus) riding on a dinosaur.

[vera]

Very interesting. It's possible I guess. Too many Americans view things through a dualistic lense, no doubt, this is true. Everything also is so emotionally charged and interconnected. It's almost at the point where you can't APPROACH certain topics without it getting heated.
Indeed. Imagine, that when we came to Israel, a movies theater functioning on Friday night was unheard of. Pork or any non-kosher food was not sold anywhere, except at Arab villages. Religious people in Jerusalem and Bnei Brak were stoning cars driving through their towns on Sabbath. The abortion question was a mess.

I remember my mother shouting that NOBODY will tell her what to eat or not and when not go places. That she will NOT be held hostage by a bunch of fanatics on a Sabbath. She cursed them and swore at their "idiocy".

I grew up and understood that we are still Jews thanks to those religious people. My great grandmother was one of them, and I even knew her! We are no better, no smarter, no more privelleged - we just think differently about things. There are deeply religious scientists in Israel, who show that there is no contradiction. There are people who are open enough to ask questions, to ask - why? how? and seek solutions. To understand. To stop the fanning of hate that stems from deciding the other side must be idiots who need to be taught the TRUTH. They have a different truth. But there is a way to connect, to understand.

Now there are cities, like Haifa, Maalot, where there is even some public transportation on Sabbath. Malls are open part of the time, even in Jerusalem. Parts of the religious towns/neighborhoods are being closed off Friday afternoon, so that we don't disturb them at Sabbath. There are non-kosher shops and even one supermarket chain.

These are pretty BIG issues that governments and coalitions feel over. And yet - it works.

By the way, Tanakh is a mandatory subject in every Jewish school, as well as oral Torah, and in some Talmud, - which doesn't rule science out. I haven't once heard the science teachers say: see? this is the truth, and not creationalism! Neither have I ever heard Tanakh teacher say - see? this is how the world was REALLY created.

There are other big issues, like secular marriages for those who want; like homosexuals; like burials; like army or civil service for religious boys who study in the Yeshiva...

We'll get to that, with time. :D

[vera]

Oh because you ARE a woman. I get it.
No, you just said - "I tried, man", so I corrected - woman. :D

[vera]

I agree that creation does not contradict science, creationism, on the other hand most emphatically does.

Creation does not produce such idiotic examples as a fair-haired bloke wearing a white robe (the purported Jesus) riding on a dinosaur.
"ism"s as a rule tend to be problematic. :D

[Chookie]

"ism"s as a rule tend to be problematic. :D
True, but my point was that creationism is an entirely different thing than creation.

OK, I may be reading this wrongly as I don't subscribe to any of the desert religions, but creationism seems to be based the fact that the world was created in 4004 BC, there are no such things as fossils (and even if there were, GOD put them there to confuse us). Creationists however, don't explain why their version of god would want to confuse us - or even notice us.....

[vera]

True, but my point was that creationism is an entirely different thing than creation.

OK, I may be reading this wrongly as I don't subscribe to any of the desert religions, but creationism seems to be based the fact that the world was created in 4004 BC, there are no such things as fossils (and even if there were, GOD put them there to confuse us). Creationists however, don't explain why their version of god would want to confuse us - or even notice us.....
The religious Jews believe that, too. I have even heard 25 years ago a young Rabbi say that the Good Lord has created the Earth WITH the fossils already in it.

However, the Kabbalah shows a very clear philosophic interpretation, shows knowlege of many things (like solar system, the earth is round and going around the sun and such) hundreds of years ago. There are Rabbis (obviously very religious) who are well versed in science and explain to their people how creation and the scientific threory actually combine. Now this is really great, because they can then say - wow, the Jewish book has all this written thousands of years ago! Aren't we smart? We were right all along! :D

It takes a long time to penetrate. Not by any means everybody are open to it, yet. But is helps that some scientist today are philosophers still (I always said it is essencial) - and have found this and brought it to light! And the less the "evolutionists" ridicule and use the "idiocy" words the faster the transition would occur. A painful long process.

Also, as Christians are not as used to phylosophy as Jewish people, it will probably take longer. The thing is - it can be done! And in my oponion - this way is so much better than the conflict. In the end - religious save face, science finds its way, everybody happy!

[sculptingman]

There can be no peace between science and religion.

BOTH serve the same purpose for human biengs... to explain the operation of the natural world.

Religion was invented in a time before literacy and science to answer the questions of why things happened.... why we were here, why people sickened and died. What happens when we die...

These are all questions about things for which the ancients had no means to truly answer.
Religion offered them the convenient fiction of FEELING that they understood a threatening world... and religion offered them the illusion of having SOME influence in events beyond their control.

Science also seeks to offer explanations for why things happen, Why we sicken and die, what makes that noise in the sky...
The difference is that science offers REAL answers that turn out to actually give us some genuine influence on the world around us. We don''t have to pray over Bob's stomach pains, we can KNOW its a gallstone and we can FIX it.

Unlike Religion, Science actually DOES make the lame walk and the blind see... Hospitals using the products of science ROUTINELY bring people back from the dead, every day.


Religion fears evolution because if we don't NEED a magical sky daddy to explain our origins... then we don't need a magical sky daddy to explain anything.

The truth is that Science supplants the function of religion...

Back before the idea of proving wild claims, GOd wrought miracles from fire and brimstone to universal floods...
But as literacy had advanced...as reportage and documenting evidence has progressed, the scope of God's miracles has substantially declined.

Today... it is all the omnipotent creator of the universe can do to make slapdash and amateurish likeness of his mom on a tortilla or cheese sandwich.

Religion is the delusion of influence, the delusion of being special.
Science is the reality of control, but over a much more narrowly defined spectrum of reality.

The religious are right to fear evolution and science in general, because it has a proven track record of delivering what religion does not.
They are as right to fear science as the schizophrenic is right to fear the meds that will make the voices in his head vanish like the delusions they are.

[THELOUISIANAEXPLORER]

The arguments are quit compelling and addresses the sincere beliefs of each side of the aisle during the trial. But what of the trial itself. When the mine owner that wanted to promote tiny Dayton, Tennessee hatched the plan for the trial in a downtown pharmacy, his concern was not around evolution. His concern was promoting Dayton. When Harvey G. Fields had driven across hundreds of miles of dirt roads to watch his two friends fight it out over evolution he was dismayed to see the trial transition from the teaching of evolution to the merits of ones belief in Christianity. He personally rebuked Darrow for "perpetrating a fraud on himself and America" when Darrow disclosed that he wanted Bryan to admit that Jesus came from only one parent and for him, Darrow, the trial was then over. As advesarial as the two legal teams were, reporter Col Tom Igore who was at the trial with Fields captured the true professional respect the men of the day had for each other. "After the trial Bryan ate a large lunch, laid down and died and thus we all shed salt tears at the passing of the Great Bryan."

[vera]

There can be no peace between science and religion.

BOTH serve the same purpose for human biengs... to explain the operation of the natural world.

Religion was invented in a time before literacy and science to answer the questions of why things happened.... why we were here, why people sickened and died. What happens when we die...

These are all questions about things for which the ancients had no means to truly answer.
Religion offered them the convenient fiction of FEELING that they understood a threatening world... and religion offered them the illusion of having SOME influence in events beyond their control.

Science also seeks to offer explanations for why things happen, Why we sicken and die, what makes that noise in the sky...
The difference is that science offers REAL answers that turn out to actually give us some genuine influence on the world around us. We don''t have to pray over Bob's stomach pains, we can KNOW its a gallstone and we can FIX it.

Unlike Religion, Science actually DOES make the lame walk and the blind see... Hospitals using the products of science ROUTINELY bring people back from the dead, every day.


Religion fears evolution because if we don't NEED a magical sky daddy to explain our origins... then we don't need a magical sky daddy to explain anything.

The truth is that Science supplants the function of religion...

Back before the idea of proving wild claims, GOd wrought miracles from fire and brimstone to universal floods...
But as literacy had advanced...as reportage and documenting evidence has progressed, the scope of God's miracles has substantially declined.

Today... it is all the omnipotent creator of the universe can do to make slapdash and amateurish likeness of his mom on a tortilla or cheese sandwich.

Religion is the delusion of influence, the delusion of being special.
Science is the reality of control, but over a much more narrowly defined spectrum of reality.

The religious are right to fear evolution and science in general, because it has a proven track record of delivering what religion does not.
They are as right to fear science as the schizophrenic is right to fear the meds that will make the voices in his head vanish like the delusions they are.
Yes. This post is exactly the type of thing I was talking about.

[Rasta]

No, you just said - "I tried, man", so I corrected - woman. :D

I learn something new everyday. :D

[vera]

I learn something new everyday. :D
One can ask for no more. :D

[Rasta]

One can ask for no more. :D

Indeed.

[sculptingman]

Yes. This post is exactly the type of thing I was talking about.

Well, I did my very best.

[vera]

Well, I did my very best.
I know. Just that very best is - imo, of course - the very thing that best creates and deepens the lack of understanding.

When a person looks at a conflict and begins with "it can never be reconciled" - he is right. And all else is superfluous.

[sculptingman]

A point well taken.

In truth, when I am not rabble rousing, I get along fine with the religious...
I often quote from scripture, and I think there are aspects of religion that are beautiful and deeply meaningful.

I appreciate the beauty in the concept of redemption... and all the other wonderful insights religion has to offer...

But I see them for what they are... inventions of the human mind and heart.

a form of art.

My post was meant to elucidate that while science really doesn't' pay much attention to religion... religion absolutely feels threatened by science... Because science keeps proving their claims unfounded.

The religious absolutist acceptance of unproven claims, as a mindset, is anathema to scientific understanding and method.

Given that... how do you propose reconciling the two when it seems one is diametrically opposed to the other as a strategy for making sense of the world?

[vera]

A point well taken.

In truth, when I am not rabble rousing, I get along fine with the religious...
I often quote from scripture, and I think there are aspects of religion that are beautiful and deeply meaningful.

I appreciate the beauty in the concept of redemption... and all the other wonderful insights religion has to offer...

But I see them for what they are... inventions of the human mind and heart.

a form of art.

My post was meant to elucidate that while science really doesn't' pay much attention to religion... religion absolutely feels threatened by science... Because science keeps proving their claims unfounded.

The religious absolutist acceptance of unproven claims, as a mindset, is anathema to scientific understanding and method.

Given that... how do you propose reconciling the two when it seems one is diametrically opposed to the other as a strategy for making sense of the world?
You are absolutely right. Religion is not using any scientific methods. So? Why is there only space in this world for either one or the other? They can and do coexsist quite peacefully.

Example: the famous archaeologist Israel Finkelstein whom vid like to cite, believes few of the Bible stories are anywhere near to historical. However, he is Jewish, though secular, and raises his daughters in the traditions of the Bible stories. Because the Bible is not a HISTORY book, and history can live beside philosophy without strife.

There are many deeply religious scientists. I know quite a few Jewish religious scientists. How is it possible? Because they recognize that (1) religion is unconnected to science and surely not contradictory; (2) the creation story is a beautiful and rather accurate depiction of what the science came to lately. Where is the contradiction?

The world and people in it are made of more than matter. We have spirits, too. And things spiritual are a need of our spirits. For harmony in the world both must exist. And the only thing that makes them "diametrically opposed to each other" is our minds. For instance: you think so, I don't. So do we talk about different religion? different science? NO, just different approach IN OUR MINDS. You allow religion, I accept and see the beauty. And BTW - I am not religious.

The point is - well, your approach is a bit like, say the militant Feminists. They claim that women and men are only equal if they are THE SAME. Which is a very great error. We are NOT the same, whyever should we be? Equally important, equally valuable - but not the same. And not mutually exclusive, as the oppression of women was treating them, only men have value, women were a tool of reproduction and an ornament.

Science is important. So is religion. Both have their place in society. But they are NOT the same, and neither are their mutually exclusive.

The way to reconcile the conflict lies through the understanding that religion is valid. That it requires no scientific proofing, because it is a different realm. It is applying color to sound. Some can do this, my aunt could, Kandinsky could I think. But for most this sounds like total bs - how can color have sound? How can sound have color?

Religion and science are sound and color, they exsist side by side. Some see they are one, connected beautifully and harmonically. Some don't. Which doesn't make them enemies.

If you come to a person who believes, and start pushing YOUR way (science) as the only VALID thing - you are showing agression, and what you get is a fight (if what happened at the corporations thread is any indication :)). You don't really expect that a person coming at you like that you will say - "Wow, you know what? you're right! What an idiot I am for believing this unsubstanciated bulls**t! Thank you for showing me the error of my ways!"

But if you allow that there are more than one way of thinking and may exist at the same time - you just don't have to USE them all at the same time - the picture is different. If you see and then show that the creation doesn't contradict the science - wow, religion is genius! profound! they saw it thousands of years ago! only they had no scientific knowledge to explain what they saw, so they wrote it as they understood, metaphorically. Now this approach may make the others slowly think, too, and much faster come to accept science that through a fight.

Conflict creates disharmony. Never understanding and acceptance. Creating harmony requires listening to what the other instruments are playing, and playing your different tune with them, instead of over them.

Makes sense? :)

[Wobomagonda]

The scopes trial is one of those moments in history that you just have to laugh at the fact that it ever happened. :p