Darwinism vs. Creationism (531 hits)
Category: Science & EnvironmentalRating: 0.1 on 40 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by nospringchicken.net (View user info) at 2005-08-29 05:09:57 EDT
Just a little something we discussed in english the other day, and what I figured would be a good topic for discussion. Lately the US government's been locked in controversy over whether the Theory of Evolution should be taught in public schools as opposed to religion.
According to the first freakin' amendment -- and I quote --"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Basically, the constitution directly states that religion should have nothing to do with the government. Religion is comprised of beliefs based on faith rather than scientific evidence and should be treated just so - a mythology.
Now, lately I haven't seen anyone integrating the prophecies of the Oracle at Delphi into their lessons, nor preaching the coming of Gotterdammerung, the Norse Armageddon, in the streets, nor praising the valiance of Marduk as he slew the great dragon & Babylonian God of Chaos, Tiamat. And why is that, ladies and gentlemen? It's because Greek, Norse, and Babylonian mythology is exactly that - MYTH. How is it any different from the Catholic God creating the world in seven days? It's the exact same concept; they all have no basis on scientific fact. Valkyrie have nothing to do with the pH level in Milk.
So why do people still insist on teaching creationism? Why do people still insist that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is blasphemous and should be removed from the curriculum at their childrens' schools? The difference is, Darwin's Theory is based on solid scientific FACT, something that the Bible cannot live up to in a lot of ways. I mean, I'm all for the entire "each-to-his-own" concept of opinion, but it all boils down to the fact that religion simply should not be a part of a school's curriculum. I say, leave that to the private, religion-orientated schools, and I say, to those parents who complain day and night about how their children ought to be taught about God and Jesus and Mohammed and Hercules and Marduk and That One Mormon Guy, get over it, and send your kid to St. What's-His-Face's School for the Religiously Misled.
User Reviews
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-08-30 03:42:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
didn't read this post, but creationism is antiquated and moronic, and believers thereof should leap into an industrial shredder
Submitted by XII (user info) at 2005-08-30 03:35:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
someones opinion is NOT fact, ie you
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2005-08-29 17:21:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i already did this
http://www.ubersite.com/m/59256
Submitted by alragusa (user info) at 2005-08-29 15:41:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
This posting is shit.
Actually, it started as shit and evolved into shittier shit.
In his later life, Darwin was frequently asked about his religious views. He went as far as saying that he did "not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation", but was always insistent that he was agnostic and had "never been an Atheist".
Submitted by forthewin (user info) at 2005-08-29 11:30:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Obviously you didn't do much research on the subject you're posting about. Think before you post next time please.
Recently Darwin's theory has been butchered because of modern technology. How is someone alive back then with so much less technological ability going to have a sound theory that can't be disproved?
Who's to say that Darwin wasn't just partially right and that evolution exists, but in a different sense than he had previously thought due to the time in which he lived?
It's possible that intelligent design could be the reason for the starting existance of life, and it was designed to support evolution, but not quite the same way Darwin thought because of his lack of research abilities. That's where Darwin didn't have much reason, is the beggining of life itself. intelligent design brings up some good points.
Both are theories, and can be disproved. But who's to say the theories aren't just partially right? Both theories slightly altered can even work with one another.
What's fucking retarded is trying to back Intelligent Design with religion. stfu about religion and stop trying to explain intelligent design with the bible and shit.
Submitted by Sassmasterr (user info) at 2005-08-29 10:58:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
what iddqd said. this has been done before. hundreds of times on this site, thousands of times elsewhere...lame attempt at heat.
my $0.02 -
i think kids (and their parents) should be given a choice. say someone believes in a god and follows their religion, why should they be forced to take classes that continually tell them they're wrong? in this day and age, america is bending over backwards to accomodate everyone. oh! it's gotta be politically correct! don't hurt anyone's feelings! if a kid is taught to believe in God (or his/her respective god) in church and in the home, he shouldn't have to go to school to hear his teacher say "everything they say is wrong." the choice should be given to the parents/kids on what they are taught.
you could argue that the parents should just put their kids in a private school, but not everyone has that kind of money. plus, it sucks when their parents have to pay for their kids education and pay taxes to support the public school education.
also, (it's been said before) creation/evolution are both theories.
"The difference is, Darwin's Theory is based on solid scientific FACT..."
don't call evolution a fact.
(the -2 is for your lame attempt at heat)
Submitted by jack0173 (user info) at 2005-08-29 10:50:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Indeed.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2005-08-29 10:27:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh yea, it's a theory like relativity is a theory.
The problem is that the Christian right is threatened by education. Religion is the default way of explaining things that we don't understand. The more we understand, the less we **need** religion.
bullocks to you for standing up for yourself, this is going to end up becoming a shit storm
Submitted by TuTs (user info) at 2005-08-29 10:24:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I LIKE MONKIES.
Submitted by Geekboy_1 (user info) at 2005-08-29 10:22:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Eh, I agree with you, but this is ooooold.
Submitted by Gollman (user info) at 2005-08-29 10:17:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I've heard this all before, and what you have done as usual is made it biased towards darwin. (as most people do because it's easier to choose darwin because it makes sense logically - but that don't mean that it's true)
Against Creationism - we haven't seen God or a creator
Against Darwin - We really don't know how old the earth is. We only have records of the earth from about 7000 years ago at most. (I don't know for sure) We don't have observations of chimps slowly changing into men. We HAVEN'T seen it.
For Creationism - What gets me, is how complex all of everything is! How could an animal just have 'evolved' over a certain period of time into a perfect being? It's highly unlikely that there are all these different types of aniamls, all relatively perfect
For Darwin - It makes sense.
But the damning thing against darwin is: In his later life, Darwin became christian (for some reason) and said that his earlier theories were rubbish! The inventor denying his own work - doesn't that have a huge significance? (The only thing that I know would make someone do that against darwins own will was a bribe from somewhere - although unlikely)
Recently, there has been more evidence to support creationism than darwin's theory.
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2005-08-29 09:22:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
again?
Submitted by DJMattB241 (user info) at 2005-08-29 09:13:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
the point is, they're both theories (intelligent design vs darwinism) neither one is a fact, and BOTH should be taught in the schools. Plus who's to say they both don't happen? It's obvious that species evolve defenses and adaptations to their surroundings, but who's to say there wasn't a "creator" that started it all?
none of us, that's who. Which is why both theories should be presented to the student, so that student can make up his or her own mind.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2005-08-29 09:12:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Bart can you please take that disgusting message off the Uberboard? I'm really sick of looking at it.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2005-08-29 09:00:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
for the love of hubbard, please dont let this shit post inspire an equally shitty argument on a shitty topic that was done too many times two years ago.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-08-29 08:59:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
sorry thorpe, but that's the exact language used by id proponents. evolution is "just" a "theory" and so is intelligent design, and thus they are equally valid. thought that's the reasoning you were using.
Submitted by fluff (user info) at 2005-08-29 08:53:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
agreed
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-08-29 08:44:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-08-29 07:59:42 (#)
Ranking: 0
what is wrong with the US education system?
thorpe: evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory, supported by a lot of evidence and years of research. intelligent design is creationism with a scientific veneer, and it in no way deserves the same intellectual respect as a scientific theory.
arguing that the two theories are equal and so should both be taught is just a huge steaming load.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Uh, that was exactly my point. I agree. You've obviously misinterpreted what I was trying to say here...
Submitted by ajanssen (user info) at 2005-08-29 08:31:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Well to your credit you arent as bad about it as Caulaincourt. That motherfucker truly does hold a terrible grudge against Americans.
Submitted by ajanssen (user info) at 2005-08-29 08:28:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I understand that America is not very well liked at this point in time. I don't even agree with a lot of government policies. Maybe I'm wrong but the reason I give you a hard time is because EVERY time you mention America it seems like you are bitching about it. Almost like you are bitter or its personal. If youve had American friends than surely you know better than to stereotype. Why do you come off so bitter about it?
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-08-29 08:22:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
because your instant response to most of my comments is "ANTI-AMERICAN!!! ANTI-AMERICAN!!!"
which is annoying. I don't hate America in general. I eat at McDonalds and Burger King all the time. my favourite telly shows are CSI and the Shield, and I'm really getting into Lost. I had some good American friends at uni. the laptop I'm writing on is of US manufacture. I talk to lots of American Uberers on AIM.
but the first response of a lot of posters here to any criticism is "why do you hate America" or more rarely "why do you hate freedom" or the like. you may not realise it, but a lot of the world outside the US harbours real or imagined grievances against the US. or more specifically, its government.
Submitted by ajanssen (user info) at 2005-08-29 08:15:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Zakalwe, I agree that its fucked up. I just give you a hard time because the only time you mention the US is when you have something negative to say about it. Why all the hate?
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-08-29 08:11:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
fuck off ajanssen. it's the US that is spearheading this ridiculous intelligent design theory. I know other countries have dabbled with it, but the US sets the example in these matters. and it's a bad one.
Submitted by ajanssen (user info) at 2005-08-29 08:03:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Ah, Zakalwe. I knew you would arrive shortly to contribute your -2 cents. How does one join your Coalition for the Defamation of America?
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-08-29 07:59:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
what is wrong with the US education system?
thorpe: evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory, supported by a lot of evidence and years of research. intelligent design is creationism with a scientific veneer, and it in no way deserves the same intellectual respect as a scientific theory.
arguing that the two theories are equal and so should both be taught is just a huge steaming load.
as an opposing example, the same groups (ie religious ones) are not arguing that both Aristotlean and Copernican astronomy be taught in schools. why? because one theory is wrong and was displaced by the other. they are not equally valid, and neither are evolution and intelligent design (ie creationism).
I'm just glad this sort of nonsense will probably never happen here. the US is already commiting slow suicide as far as its science graduates are concerned. this will only speed the process.
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-08-29 07:54:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
You get a positive rating for encouragement, but little else.
I wholeheartedly believe in evolution, and I disagree with religion interfering with the state, but I would neither use your arguments to back up my views, nor claim that "Darwinism" (an interesting turn of phrase, since most evolutionists follow the later Dawkins et al) is "scientific fact", because most rational evolutionists (the latter part being a frankly made-up term) would concede that there is not enough of a body of evidence to allow the theory of evolution to transcend its theoretical existence, as of yet.
Note ye well: "as of yet".
Submitted by TuTs (user info) at 2005-08-29 06:02:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Perth
and we are also taught about primates in Human biology since when are monkies people?
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2005-08-29 05:59:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
see every other post on science v religion on this site. there are a shitload. this is one of the shittier ones.
Submitted by ICO (user info) at 2005-08-29 05:30:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Hahahaha. Over here in Europe, you won't go to hell for being atheist, so that system you desire is already in place at schools here. Next stop for the evolution of American schooling; stop vowing pledges every day/week/month or whenever the hell you guys do the things that I see in movies. A country is a country, not your dicatorial master.
Wow, first postage being well-constructed!
Submitted by Beer_bong (user info) at 2005-08-29 05:29:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I out more thought into what to rate this, than the actual post.
Turns out +1 was the right answer.
Submitted by TonyMontana (user info) at 2005-08-29 05:29:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
hell yes.
Submitted by gabrielpm (user info) at 2005-08-29 05:28:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-08-29 05:25:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I like how Thorpe amended his +1 to a +2 when he thought the author was Australian and changed it back quickly when he knew otherwise.
Good ol' favouritism.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-08-29 05:23:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Dont get me wrong, I agree with you in part.
Just build a stronger argument.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-08-29 05:22:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
According to the first freakin' amendment -- and I quote --"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Basically, the constitution directly states that religion should have nothing to do with the government. Religion is comprised of beliefs based on faith rather than scientific evidence and should be treated just so - a mythology.
-------------------
if you are basing your entire argument on this premise, perhaps you should build a stronger premise.
I challange you to show me where the first amendment in and of itself directly states that religion should have nothing to do with government at all.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-08-29 05:22:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Although a bit disoriented as to how to make a +2able post I have a feeling you'll do well here. Welcome to uber.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-08-29 05:21:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Wooops - thought TuTs was the author of this.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-08-29 05:20:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You're an Aussie? Where're you from?
Submitted by TuTs (user info) at 2005-08-29 05:16:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Well actually here in good ole Aussie land we are taught Darwins theory in science so yeah.....
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-08-29 05:15:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Firstly, Darwinism is still a theory, and it will be for quite some time. However, it is clearly the most likely theory, and should be taught as such.
Decent first post, been done to death but you put some effort in. Welcome to Uber.