Starboy

Principia, time to do your homework. Here are just a few links. And then there is the long term history..

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/US/9908/12/kansas.evolution.flap/" target="_blank">Kansas school board's evolution ruling angers science community</a>

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/09/26/creationism.evolution/" target="_blank">Ga. school board OKs alternatives to evolution</a>

<a href="http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/evol8.htm" target="_blank">WEST VIRGINIA BOARD REJECTS CREATIONISM PROPOSAL </a>

<a href="http://www.thehawaiichannel.com/hon/education/stories/education-90376320010803-130835.html" target="_blank">School Board Unanimously Rejects Creationism</a>

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/8666/nmschoolboard.html" target="_blank">N.M. BOARD VOTES AGAINST CREATIONISM </a>

<a href="http://www.sptimes.com/News/052001/news_pf/Perspective/New_form_of_creationi.shtml" target="_blank">New form of creationism shouldn't be in school curriculum </a>

<a href="http://www.laaclu.org/News/2000/aclu_wins_tangipahoa_creationism.htm" target="_blank">ACLU Wins Tangipahoa Creationism Case; Supreme Court Refuses to Hear School Board's Appeal</a>

<a href="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/newsletter/Hemet_School_Board%20.htm" target="_blank">How a California school board set policy on teaching science that ousted "isms" from the biology classroom.</a>

<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0208news.asp" target="_blank">Creationism battle heats up again in US schools</a>

<a href="http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1741" target="_blank">New Report Reveals Creationism-Evolution Conflicts in 28 States</a>

<a href="http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/evol5.htm" target="_blank">GORE WAFFLING IN DEBATE OVER TEACHING OF CREATIONISM?</a>

<a href="http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-161a.htm" target="_blank">EVOLUTION VERSUS THE PEOPLE</a>

<a href="http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopes.htm" target="_blank">Scopes Monkey Trial</a>

And these are only a few links regarding the creationism fight. They mean kill evolution in the classroom. Do you have to wait until you must teach remedial evolution to your lab assistants.

As alarming as all this is, this is just for starters, next will be astrophysics and the big bang then geology and plate tectonics and then archeology and carbon dating. The more extreme among them desire a Taliban like state. Complete elimination of separation of church and state, with teachings only consistent with the bible.

Perhaps I am being alarmist, but I am sure no one thought that Hitler would become the monster he became in 1933. If the fundamentalist are unopposed is it not possible they will get what they want?

Starboy

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

pz

I think one problem is that christianity is relatively diffuse, imbedded in such a plurality of sects that 'christianity' in and of itself is not a particularly potent force. It has to be roped to some other cause to be able to have any effect, and then what it primarily seems to be used for is as a justification: we want to kill some abortion doctors, and the bible says it's OK! Let's torture some fags, the bible says they're bad!

If you are a liberal christian who is fighting for something good, you don't have to wear jesus like a piece of armor to deflect anyone from pointing out that what you are doing is thoroughly despicable. I suspect that a lot of the people who are doing the right thing in this country are christians -- they just don't make their sanctimony the first thing you see.

Principia

Starboy,
I think the links you cite make my point. The Creationist 'success' stories are few (of which the GA one is probably the latest). Sure, they can and will continue to challenge science... But most fringe elements of society just refuse to disappear. I mean, why focus on Creationists? Why not the KKK? Or maybe neo-Nazis?

The other point is that the response to Creationism (our response) ought to be proportional to the actual threat. The Hitler and Taliban hyperboles are, for instance IMO, just unnecessary -- unless you actually want to take up arms against Creationists... If the ACLU can single-handedly defeat many of these Creationist tactics, I think it is a good sign that our system of government is working. Creationists may be misguided, and for sure I think they need to be checked. But the good guys in the anti-science arena come in many forms, and I agree with Rufus when he says that religious people may be our best allies.

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]</p>

RufusAtticus

They do. It's just that unlike fundamentalists, they don't issue press releases, or host their own talk shows. However, here are links to relevant statements about evolution from the <a href="http://www.umc.org/abouttheumc/policy/natural/e-science.htm" target="_blank">United Methodist Church</a> and <a href="http://www.pcusa.org/ga214/news/ga02108.htm" target="_blank">Presbyterian Church (USA)</a>.

If you think that liberal and moderate christians would rather side with other christians who disagree with them on social issues over atheists who do agree with them on social issues then, you need to get out more.

I'd hope they would if we agreed. But why even ask this question, unless you think that evolution is an "atheist" cause. That is the problem. As long as vocal atheists keep insisting that Christians must be against Evolution, normal Christians will be ostracized from our cause.

It might shock you that--gasp--my advisor is a Christian. And--gasp--does support science education. Sure they might say "screw'em" to an "atheist" cause. But suprising as it may seem evolution is not an "atheist" cause.

~~RvFvS~~

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

Bubba

Rufus, I couldn't agree with you more. Hell, your married to a Christian that supports evolution.

Most of the scientifically literate Christians I know are angry with both people live Provine and Dawkins who insist evolution is athiestic as well as people like Ham, Gish and Johnson.

Chris

Butters

Really? Imust admit that I don't know anything about it, but I always assumed that they did.
Could you give us a break down?
Thanks

Starboy

Rufus,

I hope you are right, but I am not hopeful. I disagree with you when you say that science and religion are compatible. From where I sit I see a very basic and inescapable conflict between science and religion. It is a war of authorities; the natural vs. the supernatural and religion is getting the tar beat out of it. It is so simple that it may take awhile for people to get it, but we no longer live in a world where it is rational to accept supernatural over natural explanations.

Starboy

Bubba

I hate to say this Starboy, but perhaps religion just needs to evolve?

BTW, you may be right. I would consider myself a thiest but I'm continueing to investigate things.

Bubba

pz

I see it in the same way. Religion will become progressively more irrelevant.

However, I think we've got a long, long, long time to go before enough of the mysteries have been displaced that religion is no longer viable.

Starboy

Hi Bubba, howya been? Consider this. The foundation of Christianity is the resurrection. Yet if Jesus was a live person then there are several obvious explanation, all of which involve trickery. Now why would a rational person accept a fantastic explaination over a very natural one even if it were unlikely? Perhaps there is a way out, claim that Jesus is a metaphor and was never flesh and blood. OK, I say. If so then what is the basis of Christianity? And it still doesn't remove the idea of soul, life after death and so forth. All of this boils down to accepting supernatural over natural explanations. Yet such thinking if applied to anything else would be considered crazy. We accept the insanity as plausable purely by social convention.

Starboy