iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

'No Dinosaurs In Heaven' Explores Shifting Debate Over Evolution

No Dinosaur In Heaven

First Posted: 10/11/2011 7:02 pm Updated: 12/11/2011 4:12 am

By Kimberly Winston
Religion News Service

(RNS) A new documentary examines the evolving battle over teaching evolution in American classrooms as tactics have shifted from a hard-nosed debate to a more subtle fight in the name of "academic freedom."

The film, "No Dinosaurs in Heaven," follows Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, down the Colorado River as she refutes creationist theories that the Grand Canyon is only a few thousand years old and shows evidence of the biblical flood.

It also charts the story of its director, Greta Schiller, as she studies to become a science teacher and is assigned a biology professor who refuses to teach evolution because of his religious beliefs.

"I made the film to convey three major ideas," Schiller said. The most important, she said, is "that science is a way to understand the natural world and is not inherently in conflict with a belief in God."

Americans have grappled with science standards since the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925, which put a Tennessee teacher on trial for teaching evolution. The debate was revived in the 1990s with the rise of "intelligent design," or ID, the idea that the universe shows evidence of a master designer.

Many thought ID was discredited in a 2005 court case, Kitzmiller v. Dover, the first challenge to teaching ID in public schools, when a Pennsylvania judge ruled ID is a form of religious creationism and therefore cannot be taught in public schools.

But evolution proponents say creationists have returned to the trenches to refine their attack. Where they once asked teachers to
"teach the controversy" -- one that most scientists insist does not exist -- they now promote their ideas in the interest of "academic freedom."

"Now they are not talking about balancing evolution with a religious idea, but about balancing evolution with evidence against evolution," Scott said. "Of course, scientists are unaware of any evidence against evolution. It seems only the creationists who can come up with a list."

Scott points to several "battleground states" where evolution is not the classroom standard:

  • Kentucky law now requires educators teach "the theory of creation as presented in the Bible" and "read such passages in the Bible as are deemed necessary for instruction on the theory of creation."

  • The Tennessee House passed a bill earlier this year that describes evolution and global warming as "controversial"; the state

  • Senate will consider the issue in 2012.

  • In 2008, Louisiana enacted the Louisiana Science Education Act, which described evolution and global warming as "controversial" and permitted the use of supplemental materials to teach alternative theories. It was the subject of an unsuccessful repeal effort earlier this year.

  • Texas, which has a long history of turmoil over its curriculum standards, is debating whether to include supplementary materials on theories other than evolution.

  • In New Hampshire, some legislators have said they will introduce bills requiring the teaching of evolution "as a theory" and the teaching of ID in 2012.

Such laws seem to reflect Americans' thinking on the subject. A recent poll conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute and Religion News Service found that 38 percent of Americans believe "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since creation." In a recent CNN poll, more than 40 percent of respondents said evolution was probably or definitely false.

"Yup, we have a lot of work to do," Scott said.

In Britain, too, the battle over science education standards is heating up. A group of scientists, including the prominent biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins, has called for a law prohibiting the teaching of creationism in public schools.

"No Dinosaurs in Heaven" premieres in New York on Oct. 25 at the New York Academy of Sciences, where Scott will also speak. The film is part of a "Celebrate Science" campaign initiated by the film's producers, Jezebel Films, which plans to screen it on college campuses and community centers across the country.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST RELIGION

By Kimberly Winston Religion News Service (RNS) A new documentary examines the evolving battle over teaching evolution in American classrooms as tactics have shifted from a hard-nosed debate to a ...
By Kimberly Winston Religion News Service (RNS) A new documentary examines the evolving battle over teaching evolution in American classrooms as tactics have shifted from a hard-nosed debate to a ...
Filed by Jahnabi Barooah  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,784
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (13 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DianaLynn1967
It's a great life if you don't weaken!
10:35 PM on 11/11/2011
I am a Christian and I think it is sheer idiocy to teach the biblical creation stories (there's more than one story) as science. They are not science. They are bible stories. One can teach the bible in church and at home. It should perhaps also be taught in the schools as part of a religious literacy class (see Stephen Prothero's book "Religious Literacy--What Every American Needs to Know--and Doesn't" for arguments in favor of this) but should definitely not be taught as science.

"'Now they are not talking about balancing evolution with a religious idea, but about balancing evolution with evidence against evolution,' Scott said. 'Of course, scientists are unaware of any evidence against evolution. It seems only the creationists who can come up with a list.'"

At most, this "evidence" against evolution should be brought up in science classes only in the interests of showing how flimsy this "evidence" is when compared to real, scientific evidence. Otherwise, let's stick to science in the science classroom--okay?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:28 PM on 11/05/2011
So now, Neanderthal, Cro-magnon, Deniovian, and Homo sapiens ALL had common DNA AND interbreed.

Science is killing evolution. Evolution is nothing but a cult that only thinks they are scientific.
Ana4
neutrino alert, just passing through
12:25 AM on 11/09/2011
Too bad you have no idea what you're talking about.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:23 PM on 11/09/2011
More empty attacks.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gerald Brogdon
09:35 AM on 11/11/2011
Ref: "I think you know the answer to the species variation question, as you've read the articles. I thought you accepted micro-evol­ution." The answer is that there is no consistent definition of species across all organisms. That is what I find disturbing. In order to prove the key points in macroevolution, there needs to be a non-changing definition of species. If you can change the definition of species to fit the situation, you are not proving anything; you are only changing the meaning of a word to match the facts. I believe microevolution is true (artificial selection and natural selection within a species has been proven). My premise is that all proof in evolution is in the area of microevolution.
Ref: "The scientific studies that deal with morphologi­cal difference­s in hominidae and the hominin family of primates fill many volumes." The problem is that they don't relate to other definitions and have been disproven by other species definition (e.g. DNA). The TOL by morphology was rearranged when DNA was taken into consideration. The same thing happened when early evolution tracked the evolution of the human fetus through all its evolutionary morphological changes and was proven false by DNA. Please don't provide a list of books with morphological definitions of what makes a species. Provide anything that justifies the morphological definition as being accurate or comparable to any other species definition. The volumes of tomes shrink to nothing in this situation.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:26 AM on 11/09/2011
Evolution is a process, not a group of people.

Are you really that illiterate?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:23 PM on 11/09/2011
No, but it seems you are.
Ana4
neutrino alert, just passing through
03:58 PM on 11/05/2011
When 'creationists' ask for "fact" or "proof" and then deny evidence given and sources cited are valid (or that sources were cited when they clearly were) it's puzzling until one realizes that by "proof" they actually want a Bible quotation, not reference to scientific information.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DianaLynn1967
It's a great life if you don't weaken!
10:50 PM on 11/11/2011
The Bible has its uses, but it's so not a science textbook.
Ana4
neutrino alert, just passing through
12:44 PM on 11/12/2011
Yes, indeed; yet some tenaciously argue forth to the contrary, ad nauseum. You've probably seen it. The edge seems to have dulled since the Nov 8th results and the recent debates, though. Thankfully.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:50 PM on 10/27/2011
150 bucks to rent this film! Over 200 to buy it!

There is one born every minute. And this cult has many followers!!
photo
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
07:30 PM on 10/27/2011
This is an important film that provides a solid grounding in scientific process. It is easy to innoculate viewers against the cultish creationist lies and slander because the facts and the truth are on science's side.
11:05 PM on 10/27/2011
Oh by the way, interesting thing I found in all my perusals. Nobody mentions this.
The Bible NEVER says that God made everything out of nothing. What it does say is: "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
With all we've learned about DNA and how things work at the molecular level, that is a 100% scientific statement.
photo
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
10:53 AM on 10/28/2011
No. It is a statement that is perhaps not incompatible with the science, but it is far too vague and poetic to be called "scientific".
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
TheCycad
Shape The Future, Don't Be Swept Away By It
10:55 PM on 10/26/2011
There is no debate over evolution!

There are those who understand how it works, and those who are creationists.
photo
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
11:50 AM on 10/27/2011
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." ----- Ray Mummert, creationist from Dover, Pennsylvania, 2005
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
TheCycad
Shape The Future, Don't Be Swept Away By It
11:53 AM on 10/27/2011
... your point?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
TheCycad
Shape The Future, Don't Be Swept Away By It
11:53 AM on 10/27/2011
Oh, I get it. It was a joke... sorry, I read it too fast. LOL.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CSDofNM
I speak lolcat
12:16 PM on 10/27/2011
Intelligent design is more subtle. A defrocked priest I knew who is an advocate of ID put it this way - "We use the tools and mechanisms of science to support the message of faith".

ID is evolution. ID is physics and big bang. ID merely states that "the Great Designer" SET the rules, CAUSED the law of natural selection to exist, and thus triumphs over science by consuming all of science. These highly educated, subtle religionists often confuse their lower level supporters who want to cling to creationism.

When the Vatican supports evolution (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html), (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html) you know the nature of the game has changed.

The lower level operatives just didn't get the memo.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DakkonA
www.DisentangledReality.com
02:16 PM on 10/27/2011
ID states that there is evidence in nature that natural things could not possibly have come about without an outside agent. It isn't about just the basic rules being set up with a goal in mind, it is about the rules being inadequate (they claim) to produce biological complexity.
photo
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
03:23 PM on 10/27/2011
ID is still a religious belief with no scientific evidence. IDers have offered hypotheses such as 'irreducible complexity' as support but none of these have stood the test of time.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
galanos1
Reality & Life Is Less Then A Second Away
12:24 PM on 10/26/2011
I agree with Mr. Winston and the poll taken that "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since creation. We have to intertwine science with Faith, science cannot possibly stand on it's own without a Divine nature. For example, if we take tow solid objects and squash them together, the void at the center of said objects would not allow natural evolution to commence without assistance. Hence a Divine intervention into Creativity.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DakkonA
www.DisentangledReality.com
06:11 PM on 10/26/2011
Amazing how some people can use many words to say nothing.
photo
phal4875
The world is run by cats; we just feed them.
08:24 PM on 10/26/2011
Agree as much as you want that humans have always existed the way we are since creation. Agree that a green lizard gave birth to the world, if you wish. We all rode dinosaurs and swam with trilobites. When we needed to get somewhere fast, we hitched a ride on a pterodactyl.

You say that "if we take tow solid objects and squash them together, the void at the center of said objects would not allow natural evolution to commence without assistance­." This is your explanation for some kind of divine intervention? Scary.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CSDofNM
I speak lolcat
12:21 PM on 10/27/2011
http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/09/05/funny-pictures-beginnin-ceilin-cat-conjerd-da-erth-outa-thin-airz/
"In da beginnin, Ceilin Cat conjerd da erth outa thin airz."

We need look no further to find out how it all happened.

Unless we want to actually know.
photo
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
11:04 AM on 10/26/2011
Intelligent Design/Creationism was falsified as a science about 200 years ago, even before Darwin published his first findings. Between that time and now, nothing in the way of data has been offered by the ID/Creationists to change its status from a religious belief to a scientific theory. ID/Creationism is a wedge used by far-right conservative politicians to preserve a small bloc of single-issue voters capable of tipping close elections in their favor.
05:16 PM on 10/26/2011
I will give you your view on politicians.
But as far as Evolution/Intelligent Design, NONE of them are based on scientific theory. NONE of them can be falsified. ID requires a designer. Can't produce one. Evolution cannot prove RANDOM. The cornerstone of Darwinian Evolution is RANDOM mutation through natural selection. Random is "Made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision". Therefore Evolution is not falsifiable and by definition NOT a valid scientific theory.
photo
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
05:29 PM on 10/26/2011
To make your argument work, you have to lie about what Evolutionary Theory is. Not one, but four elements comprise the overall evolutionary process. From time to time a beneficial mutation will express and coincide with an environmental change in which that mutation can be utilized. For example, a HOX gene doubling might make offspring of a litter twice as furry as the rest of the group at a time when a climate is cooling. That gives the carriers of the mutation a survival advantage. Of COURSE mutations are random - 99% of the time evolution FAILS and the species goes extinct. I mean, duh.
photo
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
06:37 PM on 10/26/2011
Extinction is not the same thing as death. And try Googling "immortal cells" sometime.
photo
phal4875
The world is run by cats; we just feed them.
08:29 PM on 10/26/2011
Dear Maezeppa:

As usual, your post was intelligent. It provides a great contrast to the dumbing-down that seems to be occurring in a few states. I still have to slap myself and think: These people are teaching something from a book that was written millennia ago by people who knew almost nothing about science. Genesis 1 has one creation story, and Genesis 2 has another. The two chapters on which intelligent design is based do not agree with each other, and its proponents want it taught as science. Perhaps medical schools should start teaching the demon theory of disease.
photo
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
09:32 PM on 10/26/2011
Hey, thanks for that very nice feedback. I have read through the Bible a couple of times and enjoyed most of it as a sort of cultural foundation but I have to admit I relish the Greek and Roman mythology more. The Bible has its moving and even somewhat humorous parts but it is so unevenly written that I have to admit much of it was a real slog. A science text or something to take literally? Christ, never.
08:04 PM on 10/24/2011
I have been reading a pile of stuff on DNA is a language, That sure sheds light on "And God said"

http://www.randommutation.com/darwinianevolution.htm
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:37 AM on 10/25/2011
This is a load of nonsense. Perry Marshall's random mutation generator has been debunked as a creationist fail. His generator fails to account for natural selection in the process.

This sentence generator by random mutation is setup to account for design and not random mutation through natural selecting. Which is the elimination of useless items in favor of items that cause survival.
10:23 AM on 10/25/2011
The random mutation generator is what it says. It simulates random mutation. You are free to provide the element of natural selection yourself.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
galanos1
Reality & Life Is Less Then A Second Away
12:26 PM on 10/26/2011
Mr el sistema, I don't believe you can really prove your theory's without allowing the possibility of additional method's.
photo
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
01:47 PM on 10/25/2011
Calling DNA a "language" is like calling the sun a "utility company". It just isn't true.
02:09 PM on 10/25/2011
DNA's definition as "code" (literal not figurative) is nearly universal in all biological literature.
Code is defined as a system of signals or symbols for communication.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FreedomMan
Writer, Illustrator, Philosopher
06:06 PM on 10/23/2011
I guess that also leaves out of heaven all those dogmatic, Republican Christians as well. . .
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
08:21 PM on 10/24/2011
A long forgotten wing in Hades is being reopened in anticipation of lots of Republicans arriving. They are even installing coal fired heat down there. The drinking water will be fracking water.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FreedomMan
Writer, Illustrator, Philosopher
05:44 PM on 10/25/2011
Them Republicans down there don't need no stinking drinking water of any kind . . .!
photo
Razpooten
Nil homini certum est
06:03 PM on 10/26/2011
And there will be no iced tea.
04:37 PM on 10/22/2011
As our Constitution - a frequently abused document by our courts, corporations and other institutions - states a, "freedom of religion," I think it also implies a freedom FROM religion too! Or am I being too obtuse...

Alan Ernesto Phillips

https://profiles.google.com/115902390478619061589/about?hl=en
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=raPey-ARdPs
Ana4
neutrino alert, just passing through
11:43 PM on 10/22/2011
Flagged for off-topic spam relating to a personal vendetta against family law courts. It's out of place here; angry as you must be it's an inappropriate forum for your grievance.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bring in swat
12:09 PM on 10/23/2011
yes, you can't have freedom Of religion without having freedom From religion!!!
Ana4
neutrino alert, just passing through
09:59 PM on 10/23/2011
The posted comment above is but a cover for a private agenda having nothing to do with evolution or religion. The links are to a private battle irrelevant to this forum.
photo
Ossit
Ossit
02:03 PM on 10/22/2011
Keep Creationism in Sunday School, keep science where it is. This is just the usual for Christians to force their beliefs on others. They don't have to explain Creationism to us, and we don't have to explain Science to them. We don't believe in Creationism, they don't believe in Science. It's futile to try to change each others' minds. Well that's my take on it anyway.
Ana4
neutrino alert, just passing through
06:12 PM on 10/22/2011
Hi Ossit, good post. Though evangelicals have taken to science, it is not the science we know; they've co-opted a type of science in the attempt to appear scientific in presenting I.D. I'm sure you know that and have read some of the ongoing arguments online.
Have you seen the Richard Dawkins interview with Wendy Wright on youtube? That's the ultimate example of how useless it is to try to 'debate' evolution with 'true believers'!
Also, I wanted to mention that the book, Wesley the Owl, is awesome in its description of owl behaviour and emotions as well as physical characteristics. That they have an oil gland on the tail and preen themselves from it although it contains NO oil is one more instance of evolution at work, as is their face, hearing, and feather type--all in order to silently hunt mice. That they can feel embarrassment and / or ashamed is amazing.
photo
Ossit
Ossit
07:34 PM on 10/22/2011
Hey Ana4, good to 'see' ya. You make a point that I never thought of. Very interesting. Nope. Just mainly see music on YouTube from my bookmarks. Sorry don't know about that interview you speak of. Now that's pretty interesting evolutionary trick about an oil oil gland that isn't in owls.
photo
Razpooten
Nil homini certum est
06:25 PM on 10/26/2011
@Ossit, I concur to keep creationism in sunday school, and science where it is. However, the two need not be completely in conflict. While the writings in the bible have been corrupted by dogmatic views, it does have some scientific information. The prophet Job wrote about things like the cycle of rain (Job 26:8); something that was not widely understood until a couple of centuries ago. He wrote about the position of Earth in space (Job 26:7), and he ecouraged to learn from the fauna ("...ask now the beasts... Job 17:7) - Ana, I've had a wild owl perch on my arm and have had conversations with ants. It is amazing what one can learn form them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joffan
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.
01:23 PM on 10/23/2011
The battle, as many see it, is not for the minds of those who make the arguments - it is for the minds of the next generation. Nobody is going to ban religions talking about their beliefs; but access to science education based on evidence should be a right for every child.
photo
Ossit
Ossit
11:55 AM on 10/24/2011
Excellent point, Joffan about access to evidence based science education being every child's right.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
guitarfitch
10:59 PM on 10/21/2011
Religion pushes a majority rules belief mindset on education. "We are all Christians and we believe "whatever it is we believe" therefore it should be taught in public schools. Well, my religion explicitly states that mankind was created when a giant armadillo pooped us out. I demand equal rights! You must allow the theory of AP (armadillo poop) to be taught along side of evolution and ID. How dare you deny me and all of the AP followers. We will take this all the way to the supreme court!
Ana4
neutrino alert, just passing through
01:24 PM on 10/22/2011
This gets my vote for eternal 'lol' award. And how apt.
photo
Blodo
Time to build a better world
10:38 PM on 10/23/2011
As a Pastafarian who believes that the divine Flying Spaghetti Monster brought us into being by a touch of His noodly appendage, I consider Poopers to be misguided infidels. That being said, I grudgingly uphold the right to have your vile creed taught alongside our clearly superior religion.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Julia Bailey
12:48 PM on 10/26/2011
I disagree. We should only be teaching pastafarianism in school, all other religions are wrong and immoral.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:58 PM on 10/21/2011
More ridiculous news in evolution:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/10/111018-fossil-tiger-skull-panthera-science-oldest-china-evolution/

Highlights:
A tiger-like skull unearthed from 2.5-million-year-old rock is the oldest known complete specimen related to modern big cats. OK

"Representing a new species, the skull isn't that different from those of modern tigers, suggesting evolution hit on a winning formula early on and stuck with it." WAIT, WHAT little change in 2.5 million years.
"The National Evolutionary Synthesis Center's Meachen said the skull's similarity to those of living tigers and jaguars is more striking than the differences." WHAT!

"[Big cats] were great at what they did right away in their evolution, so their [anatomy] hasn't changed much ... ," she said. "They were—and still are—really good predators, in part because of their extremely successful body plan." Wait, BUT!

If NO/LITTLE change proves evolution. AND BIG change proves evolution. IF every situation "PROVES" evolution?
HOW do you FALSIFY IT?

GET these CON MEN OUT of SCIENCE!
Ana4
neutrino alert, just passing through
03:08 PM on 10/21/2011
Simple; it can't be denied or falsified that evolution happens, and you've just admitted to evolution--congratulations.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:16 PM on 10/21/2011
If a theory is falsifiable, it is scientific, and if not, then it is unscientific.

The congratulations ALL belong to you, even though you have no clue why.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:05 PM on 10/21/2011
How would you describe evolution by means of natural selection? I presuming you think it means that life will change without the consequential result of outside influences.

For instance, you'd believe that life will be forced to change when it doesn't need to. Like small fish in the deepest oceans eventually growing eyes when there is no light.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Steve Lives
The Venus Project ... look it up
08:17 PM on 10/22/2011
Exactly, evolution is dependent on environment. If the environment doesn't change, then there is no need to evolve, so to speak. Which is why some species existed for 100's of millions of years with little change.
photo
phal4875
The world is run by cats; we just feed them.
08:50 PM on 10/26/2011
Dear el sistema:

I can explain it. God is always watching and is able to keep track of every creature in the world at the same time. His first choice as king of Israel was Saul, so God is not perfect, but back to my story. As soon as he saw the fish stumbling around and hitting objects, he gave them primitive eyes. The good Lord then gave them better eyes when the first ones were not sufficient. That also explains why fish never wear eyeglasses.
Ana4
neutrino alert, just passing through
03:02 PM on 10/20/2011
I'm amused by the argument evangelicals use to demean science by stating that certain evidence or theories are "out of date" no matter how correct the theories have turned out to be. Then in the next breath, evangelists say that Genesis is to be taken literally, and the Bible is the inerrant word of God because it is ancient tradition.
No, I'm amused by all the circular arguments, conflationary statements, and reversals (such as calling intellectuals "anti-intellectual") evangelical fundamentalists make while insisting that evolutionary scientists do that very thing.
Scientific logic is linear, religious faith based logic is not linear. There's room for both, and the proper place for religion is in church; the proper place for science is in schools. Luckily the hard-core evangelical fringe is a minority of 11-20% in America.
Feeling emboldened by end-of-the-world, 'second coming' and 'rapture' mythologies, and by the number of GOP candidates for high office who are either "dominionists" or pander to them, won't help that minority dictate to the majority.
The entire "debate" with its attempt to debase evolution to a belief system is fraudulent.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
08:20 PM on 10/20/2011
MY favourite part is where they assume their interlocutors know nothing about the bible, and then suffer the consequences for not ever having read the steaming pile contained within.
Ana4
neutrino alert, just passing through
11:41 PM on 10/20/2011
Indeed. They imagine the 'enemy' are as ignorant as they are, I suppose. Whoever is prompting them with tactics doesn't count on the realities of confronting real multi-dimensional people, among other mistakes. I liked your responses; knowledge of biology as well as the bible isn't part of their programming.
The few who continue the charade long after the game is up are intriguing. Not unlike a whack-a-mole, eclip doesn't venture beyond the script on file somewhere. I've engaged a few and to a 'man' they don't want facts, even though they may pretend to solicit information.
Demanding the TRUTH from others and then lying themselves reminds me of Professor Quirrell in Harry Potter-1. The lot posting on the science-religion fora are far more indoctrinated than those on the political articles, but perhaps fewer in number; on a 'mission' perhaps. It's good of you to counter the mis-perceptions.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gerald Brogdon
10:01 AM on 10/21/2011
Generalization is probably not the best tool in a debate because it only requires one person/example to defeat the general statement. I'm an evangelical. I believe in the creation story in Genesis 1. I also love science. Angel1999 and I are having an interesting discussion about the science of evolution. What's interesting is the only time God is brought up in the discussion is when Angel1999 brings it up. I also believe in artificial selection (it's even in the Bible: Jacob and the sheep - Genesis 30:25-43). I also believe in microevolution. The problem I have is in macroevolution (not the one defined by creationist or ID but the one defined by science -1927 - Filipehenko).
Angel1999 is taking a break but I'm willing to posit some of the questions that we are having if you would like to partake in the conversation. However, first, let's bring you up-to-date with some of the questions wrestled with already. I'll add these questions in another post.
Ana4
neutrino alert, just passing through
01:49 PM on 10/21/2011
Hi Gerald,
You're unique and civil, also knowledgeable; I like you and I've followed some of the conversations between Angel1999 and yourself, with respect.
Since biology isn't my field and I'm not too fond of the way folks twisted Darwin's original writings to justify mal-treatment of others, I'll not engage in a discussion about it. I was trained as an anthropologist-archaeologist in undergraduate studies but have been out of the field for awhile; all I can add is my personal experience.
Also, I've studied the Bible, and believe in an original creation--but not the Hebrew tribal deity called Jehovah. My God is infinite, incorporeal, and all-encompassing, all-inclusive. Jehovah divides, separates, rages; not very loving in my view.
I've studied too much science and history to accept a literal interpretation of the Bible, (and didn't believe literal interpretations of Genesis anyway); personally, I accept and delight in how life and the universe evolved. In fact, I'm willing to favor the notion that omniscience is inherent in electrons.
I fully understand how many reject religion altogether and become atheists or agnostics, though. They are still good people with high moral standards, in my experience. I have no problem with believers or non-believers as long as church and state remain separate; faith is a private matter.
Ana4
neutrino alert, just passing through
06:22 PM on 10/23/2011
Gerald, online reviews and wiki are unreliable. g-i-g-o. Kersey Graves made the mistake of not having a PhD before publishing and was therefore panned by those who might have felt threatened by it. d'Olivet was a 'heretic' in his day; both have been sidelined by the status quo.
I've read Graves book, and it is full of specifics I've subsequently checked out by reading 100+ books on history and mythology of the ancient world. His thesis bears out. I'll be glad to offer a bibliography, but I'd suggest you might start with Samuel Noah Kramer if you care to pursue the matter. Until one reads ancient mythologies, one has only a culturally biased basis for interpreting the Bible, and self-reference doesn't work. (The Bible is true because the Bible says so, e.g.)
The topic of Gods nature needs to be discussed elsewhere, some other time. I'll get back to you in a few months time.
photo
hirst shark
No man is a failure who has friends.
02:43 PM on 10/20/2011
What? No Jesus-horses in Heaven?
photo
phal4875
The world is run by cats; we just feed them.
09:17 PM on 10/26/2011
No; Jesus continues to ride his donkey. He does not put on airs since he reached Heaven.