For most young people just out of high school, college is a great time to redefine who you are and what you believe. Many are out from their parents’ direct authority and supervision for the first time. If they came from a household that was overly controlling, they may go hog wild and reject their parents’ value system in trying to define their own. I know, I was as wild as can be, sporting a mowhawk, and abusing just about any substance I could get my hands on.
But you know what I’m "concerned" about now? Since the state of Ohio is not allowing its students to critically examine evolution, I guess they have to take it on – well, faith. But what happens when they get to college and are presented with the "convincing" arguments of the ID and creationist folks? Will they be prepared? Or will they fall away from evolution in a burst of rebellious truth seeking? I think all of this fascist supression of dissent may backfire on the evolutionists.
I can hear the conversation now between the secularist parents. "Oh my god, Harold, our son has become a … a … creationist! He’s left his senses! When will he return to the truth?" "Don’t worry Maggie, I’m sure it’s just a phase he’s going through. He has to sow his wild oats, but he’ll grow up quick enough." LOL.
In other words Seeker, you have no problem presenting Hindu creationism as scientific classrooms as fact, right? No problem with your kids learning Hindu creationism…none what so ever.
Perhaps you could explain Hindu creationism to me.
And by the way, not allowing critical evaluation of evolution is not tantamount to teaching religion. Not allowing critical thought is fascism, pure and simple.
Oh you poor Christian you. Poor little Seeker – whatever chance for success do oppressed Christians have in our Christian hating country.
The point isn’t Hindu creationism, which I know nothing about. The point is that you absolutely don’t tolerate the teaching of creationism. You. Want. Christianity’s. Version. Taught.
If anything else was taught, you’d predictably throw a fit. Because while we can’t subject a Christian to evolution – the horrors! – the can subject non-believers to Christianity.
No one is disallowing the teaching of evolution, just trying to break the fascist orthodoxy of modern evolutionary teaching – when a school system won’t even let students hear views critical of the status quo, there is a problem.
The “critical” views are Christian orthodoxy Seeker. Good Lord, be honest about it. I’d have no problem with you recommending that religion be taught in schools, as long as it was VOLUNTARY. But no nonChristian should have to sit through Christian creationism presented as if there is any HARD science to back it up.
Just admit what you want to happen.
What about the IDers who are not xian? Are they part of the conspiracy to get religion in the schools? What about the evolutionist scientists who criticize evolution – their views are excluded too, because there is “no question” about evolution – at least, none that people need to hear, or have the right to hear.
Honestly, this is about science, not religion. But wer are fighting the powers of orthodoxy, so the battle will continue.
All I want to happen is for people to see that evolution very well may not have happened, that the evidence is spotty and not conclusive as we’ve been mislead to believe, and that it is entirely possible that our origins can NOT be explained by evolution.
It was the science, not the religion, that convinced me that evolution was quite possibly a farce, and I was pissed when I found out that all but one of my college science teachers had duped me into believing that evolution was a fact. Once I saw the holes in the data, big enough to drive a truck through, that put sand in the gears, adn eventually, I abaondoned it as a believable theory of origins. But evolutionists don’t want people to see the contradictory evidence or even the disagreements within the science community. Fascist pigs.
Right, and you abandoned evolution for the all-the-more-believable argument of a "Light" in the sky creating everything in seven days. Your logic breaks down when you arrive at creationism Seeker, which has enormous scientific holes which you, apparently, aren't willing to drive a truck through.
Well, I find the scientific evidence for creationism convincing, and the lack of science behind evolution to also be convincing. Is it beyond doubt? No, but to say that you can PROVE evolution is silly.
Why can't you accept that creationism has scientific merit? Let me change the title to make it more clear to you.
The Theory of Rapid Appearance. It looks to me like the complexity we observe was created as a holistic system, and has always been so from the beginning of history, and has been degrading, not improving. I think the evidence supports that – the genetic, as well as the palentologic record.
So if I have evidence, and find it more convincing than the mostly poor evidence supporting evolution, the only thing that is breaking down is my faith in evolution. Because the SCIENCE doesn't back it well.
In other words, we who believe evolution are wrong to make our own conclusions, because they disagree with your own?
Explain to me the difference between you believing in creationism based on the (laughable to me) scientific "evidence" and me believing in evolution based on the (laughable to you) scientific "evidence." Is there a difference? Yes – religion. Your version involves your religion, which should be a choice for everybody. Teaching the dominant scientific ideas of our day is not the same as teaching religion. What science classes accomplish, hopefully, is the teaching of dominant scientific ideas to children.
Let churches talk about creationism, whatever those churches might be. That's where religious discussion belongs.
Pointless.
Seeker,
Good comeback buddy. Way to really back up your claim that you're the one offering the good evidence, and I'm the one being dismissive and sarcastic.