Charles Darwin is too controversial for the U.S.

Remove all ads!

... Good point. You know, that means you just hurt me, right? By introducing me to Gigli? Because I've heard of it now. Why do you hate me, DR? Why?

 

I'm...I'm sorry. I...I didn't realize...I've, I've taken your innocence, haven't I. Oh dear God, what have I done...I've exposed an innocent to...Bennifer.

I'm afraid there aren't enough rosaries for this one.

 

He doesn't hate you. He hates freedom and America.

 

NOG, let me tell you about some wonderful shows, called Big Brother and Idols...
Only joking; I wouldn't willingly expose anyone to that.

According to the bible, there were two original humans, called Adam and Eve. They ate an apple (of knowledge?!), and disobeyed God. This stigmatized them and their entire offspring (us), branding us with the guilt of Original Sin. No one can be born innocent, because of this Original Sin. But God sent us his blessed son Jesus, who took away this sin for all those who accepted him as their saviour. Isn't God great? He killed his son (=himself) in a blood sacrifice as retribution for Original Sin! So we no longer live in guilt and sin for something our distant ancestors did.

Then comes evolution, which proves conclusively that we couldn't all have evolved from a single reproducing pair of humans. If we're not all descended from Adam and Eve, but rather from a protohuman population, how can we share the guilt of those ancestors? What's the deal with Jesus absolving us from this guilt, if it wasn't even ours in the first place? Who is to say if we actually descended from Adam and Eve, or if these fictional/historic characters left any descendants atall?

 

I think the other implication that you're not considering is that they're genuinely ignorant. Even as commonplace as Evolution vs Creationism is, I'll bet there are tons of people who geniunely couldn't tell you word one about either. I mean, have you ever seen Jaywalk? Apparently the Earth has four moons.

I'm not saying you did. What I'm saying is that, on a subject as polarized as Evolution vs Creation, I'd bet the number of people who would genuinely ardently claim one and then ardently claim the other in a single poll are slim to nil.

Again, the different ideas are far from a recent development. They're not a reaction or ploy to any modern device, even science.

I'll agree that those that want to teach Creationism over Evolution are nuts, but they're also a very select subset of the crowd you're talking about.

Ah, I see where that all came from now. I was looking at it as a seperate poll result. I'm still suspicious about those drastically low 'no opinion' values, and I still have a problem with the false dichotomy presented (i.e. talking about one extreme or the other). As for them being seperate questions, since they were in a single poll, it's essentially useless. The topic of the whole poll will automatically polarize the issue. People will look at it as asking is Creationism/Evolution, as a whole, right or wrong.

It obviously depends on the nature of the study. If the study is on the frequency of child abuse in murder cases, I think surveying convicted prisoners is a pretty good approach. Obviously, studying the frequency of Vanilla preference among Americans that way wouldn't be such a good idea.

Actually, there are some serious problems with that. For one thing, even the Genesis account admits there were other people around. When Cain was cast out for killing Abel, he went and found himself a wife. Guess where she came from. Likewise, Adam and Eve's other children went out and found spouses, too. The ancient Jewish theologians said that this is because God created Man in a long process, essentially shaping the species into what He wanted before giving the first humans spirits. They then argued that the world was filled with man-like creatures who simply didn't have souls yet. They originally called these creatures golems. You may recognize the term. Since science says nothing about the spirit or soul or anything, and even has a hard time defining things like sapience and when mankind first developed it, there's no contradiction.

And, as a side note, the tree was officially the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and we don't know what shape the fruit took. My personal guess is squash, maybe sweet potatoes.

 

Wear that knowledge like a true beacon of light that it is.

Actually, I've never heard of those either....

 

Myyyyyy precioussssss, I wantsss it, it'ssss mine. Gollem! Gollem!
But what if I'm entirely descended from these soulless flesh golems? Or were the mindless vessels of flesh and bone only females at the time?? It's just another testament to the barbaric way religious traditionalists look upon women.
There's a distinct 'undead' feel to the christian story. Not only did our distant ancestors mate with golems (which essentially have the same singlemindedness as a zombie), but even the saviour Jesus was animated from the dead. And to celebrate his blood sacrifice (approaching demonic-worship-terrain here), we are told to believe we are drinking his blood, like vampires.

I thought this video might be fitting:

 

I would have gone with using leaches for the anology over prayer, but point well made.

@coin - you know, I never really looked at it that way until watching the video, and if that's how the religious faithful view it, then I can see why they believe Darwin's Theory of Evolution is anti-God. I honestly never thought of it that way, but if you can disprove the exitence of an Adam and Eve as presented in the Bible (and that is one of the more unbelievable stories in the Bible - right up there with the parting of the Red Sea, and the walls of Jehrico falling from the sound of a horn) it does set off a cascade of events that drive to the heart of the Abrahamic religions - and I'd guess about half of the world's population follows one of the Abrahamic religions.

 

And how many of those people do you think even know if there are any competing theories, much less what the evidence behind evolution is?

Yeah, but that's not Long Day Theory.

Actually, even teaching it in school at all is a small minority.

I think the first question or two made it pretty clear.

Then you would have no soul, no free will, and no concept of right and wrong.

No. Just plain no. That's 100% wrong, and an ignorant assumtion, to boot. Remember, Adam and Eve had daughters, too, and they found husbands.

Zombies? Really? You think apes and cats and dogs and the like all have a zombie-like singlemindedness? WTF? Golems didn't eat brains! They didn't have rotting flesh! They were essentially human-shaped non-sapient animals (or so the idea goes, at least). And anyway, we don't actually know that these other humans were golems. My personal theory is that the story of Adam and Eve is a sort of 'case-in-point' or exemplar of the kind of thing that happened all over the place, that there were a multitude of humans at the time, each with their own (possibly the same) original sin.

... Yeah, actually. And, to be fair, blood sacrifices go back a long, long ways. The Torah commands them, and they were apparently culturally established at that point.

Yeah, Coin, that video is as bad as the people that want to teach Creationism in school. I'm not surprised if you believe that carp, but it's 99% BS.

No, no, no. That's not suitably miraculous. Now, if they were Angelic sappers... But wait, does the sapper class have an alignment restriction?

 

Welcome to Texas.

http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=10933571&nav=menu117_5_5_7

In college, as a literature student, the Bible was taught in literature classes, since its influence is very pervasive, even in secular literature. How many different retellings are there of the Adam and Eve, the Garden, and the Serpent stories? These themes are always relevant because of how they have been codified and infused into our culture. I know there are people who believe that it is precise, actual, historical fact - even though the accounts have been often edited and reworked. Despite that, I don't really see any problem with teaching it as a "foundation" story, since it has relevant importance in the literary tradition.

 

@Aldeth

Did you miss most of the discussions about religion where either I or Chandos commented?

Neither of us are Bible literalists and I readily call myself a Christian (am a member of an Abrahamic faith). I bring that point up because I know the both of us readily disagree with taking all of the Bible literally and have said so.

The idea that the video presented that the Theory of Evolution undoes Christianity is pretty foolish considering that major Christian groups embrace and teach it in their schools (including Catholics which are pretty hard to miss in terms of notable world religions).

The video oversells what evolution means for its cause and strikes me as more than a bit narrow minded and propagandistic.


@Coin

Are you a Fundamentalist Atheist?

Do you think Christianity should be held responsible for the Inquisition while Atheism is held above and apart from the actions of Communists (and other groups of people who did terrible things in the name of ending superstition)?

That is something to think about and ask if you hold others to a standard you are unwilling to apply to yourself and a group of people you belong to (cult leaders would love that kind of loyalty, a thought that should give you pause).

 

@pplr - I agree. I'm just saying that IF you take the Bible literally, I can see how the theory of evolution would really rub you the wrong way. If you do NOT take the Bible literally, evolution and Christianity (or really any of the Abrahamic religions) can live happily side-by-side. I wasn't suggesting that evolution should undermine belief in God, merely that it could for Bible literalists - although I admit when I look back at my post that I didn't make that point particularly clear.

 

Ok Aldeth, wasn't quite sure you discerned the difference-sorry if I was a bit snippy there that is something I couldn't tell from what you wrote.

That is a basic reason why I suspect that there are Creationist groups out there. Because it does conflict with what they view as an underlying ideology.

Some groups love to edit things to suit ideology-a reason historians have to (or should) keep an eye on social studies texts in general.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- evolution is fine by me. The only problem that I have with it is when people say that it 100% proves there is no God. It bloody well does not.

I know that very few people say that, but you get my drift.

 

I happen to know a little about the jewish golem stories, and they were also created later on by people. They could be given one simple task, hence the comparison with zombies: "Mussst eat brainsss!" is similar to "Must [your task here]". Golems weren't like animals, although they apparently got angry, they felt no pleasure, and didn't learn like animals or children.

So you think that there were multiple humans, all committing an Original Sin? I guess god didn't have the luxury of public libraries, so he couldn't get tips about parenting from anywhere. We're lucky he didn't just wipe out the whole failed experiment, and start over. Maybe he was just too lazy!

The woman narrating the video was most definitely human, not a carp.
The video presents some very strong points that are hard to ignore for those who take the bible literally. Those who don't take the bible literally, have made their faith so fluid, they can weasel their way through any argument.

Sorry to sound evasive, but I'm not taking the bait. This has nothing to do with the subject at hand, and can only serve to discredit me.
Maybe you should think about why you changed the subject?
From my perspective, it seems like you labeled me a fundamentalist atheist, and hence, you had best disregard what I say. Is this a valid assumption, or maybe prejudice or dogma?

 

Teaching the Bible as literature, especially at a college level, is nothing objectionable. It is literature, it has had a massive impact on western society. I also noticed that, in your link, the class in question is a literature elective class. Meaning:
1.) it isn't teaching Creationism as fact.
2.) it isn't teaching the Bible as fact.
3.) it isn't a mandatory class for anyone.

That's much later jewish mythology. Comparing the two is like comparing the basilisk of the 1st century AD with the D&D monster. They're completely different.

Or sin was a necessary component in the master plan. After all, if you don't have any other choices, is there really free will?

And I, a biblical literalist (as much as we can tell it's intended to be taken that way), have directly addressed all those points in the past, and blown them out of the water.

More like an attempt to get you to critically analyze your own claims and others of the same inclination. At least, that's how I read it. Pplr can correct me if I'm wrong.