The Dangers of Creationism

[Tuatara]

The thread isn't about theology. The thread is why anybody's theology, unless it is acted out in a way that violates the rights of others, should be considered dangerous.

But what violates the rights of others is open to various interpretations. Gay rights, abortion, religious scripture in public places have all seen varios degrees of rights for others.

And isn't it a good thing that what you believe to be delusional or stupid could in itself make you delusional or stupid? Or just wrong?

You will have to explain that. I lost ya.

You see, I allow for the possibility that what I believe might not be as it seems to me. But, I have had enough Bible study and immersion in theology to arrive at a reasoned conclusion that all of the Bible is not symbolic, allegorical, or metaphorical. The fact that I believe some passages are does not in any way detract from the power or truth or importance of the Bible.

The Bible is obviously very important whether one believes it is fiction or not. The truth of it is up to the individual.

And if we allow everybody the liberty of their beliefs, neither of us is dangerous. Nor are those who take all of the Bible literally. Though I think there is an element of evil, however unintended, in those who would go out of their way to try to destroy or ridicule the faith of those who believe something that involves them in no way.

It's funny you say that because for many years atheists have been persecuted and looked at as second class citizens by the religious. To say your faith involves us in no way is very ignorant.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luib2pT6yi4]The Persecution Of Atheists In America - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4fQA9mt-Mg]Why do atheists care about religion? - YouTube[/ame]

Those who do not wish to include Creationism in the school curriculum should not include Creationism in the school curriculum. But if we believe in a concept of unalienable rights, they exist only if those who do wish to include Creationism in the curriculum can do so. And when there are opposing points of view about that, in a system that respects and protects liberty, a social contract goes with the majority.

Creationism is not science therefore does not belong in a science room. If a school cirriculum wants to involve it in a theological classroom setting then fine. The majority do not get to decide what is science and what is not.

 

[Tuatara]

Suppressing knowledge can be very dangerous. When Pope Benedict XV claimed that condoms would make the Aids crisis worse we saw the the opposite was true. These "beliefs" killed off thousands. We've also seen in the news where parents do not get medical attention for their children because they would rather pray for them and their children die because of this neglect. Having a belief in the supernatural can be very potentially dangerous if it is abused, especially by those with power.

The opposite is true here. Birthrates skyrocketed in the high school when they had free comdom vending machines. The reason why it skyrocketed was because few people like wearing condoms because skin feels better than latex and the kids didn't wear them. Officials already encouraged the use by giving them out and kids are getting HPV and oral cancer from oral sex which keeps pregnancy down but distributes disease another way.

Are you saying it's safer to go without condoms when engaged in sexual intercourse?

 

[Tuatara]

Suppressing knowledge can be very dangerous. When Pope Benedict XV claimed that condoms would make the Aids crisis worse we saw the the opposite was true. These "beliefs" killed off thousands. We've also seen in the news where parents do not get medical attention for their children because they would rather pray for them and their children die because of this neglect. Having a belief in the supernatural can be very potentially dangerous if it is abused, especially by those with power.

The opposite is true here. Birthrates skyrocketed in the high school when they had free comdom vending machines. The reason why it skyrocketed was because few people like wearing condoms because skin feels better than latex and the kids didn't wear them. Officials already encouraged the use by giving them out and kids are getting HPV and oral cancer from oral sex which keeps pregnancy down but distributes disease another way.

Yes. High profile people with influence do have a special responsibility to use that influence responsibly. It is no secret that the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church has long preached abstinance, fidelity, and sanctity of life. And while we may disagree with the Pontiff appearing to speak against condoms--he actually didn't--he only said they would not cure the problem.

His exact words were "AIDS cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems". You do realize because of these mere words that thousands have died.

And who can argue with his observations that promiscuity, prostitution, human trafficking, high divorce rates, etc. have contributed to sub Sahara Africa having 2/3 of the known AIDS cases in the world as well as being plagued with other sexually transmitted diseases.

All this happens all over the world. People have sex. Preaching abstinence alone does not work. Preaching abstinence along with safe sex works so much better.

He is right that those who are uninfected who abstain from sex or who are faithful in a monogamous relationship with an uninfected person will not develop or transmit such sexually transmitted diseases.

No he is not. You can be faithful in a relationship but no one can guarntee their partner will be. How can one be so sure that their partner is unaffected. Even deeply religious people cheat.

However much some do not wish to see that as a solution, does not change the fact that it is a valid solution.

It is not a solution. If it were easy for humans to refrain from sexual activity then we would see christians (who wait until their married to have sex types) marrying at age 30 and 40. Also I find the notion that some christians preach about abstinence and then are found with hookers, or cheating on their spouses or having porn obseessions or many sexual related issues to be hypocritical.

I have long opposed highschools making condoms available to minors because it is tacit approval of kids having sex with each other. Tell them if they have sex to use condoms, yes. But at the same time tell them the condoms are not fool proof to protect them from pregnancy or disease and there is absolutely nothing wrong with not having sex with somebody you aren't 100% sure of or limiting it to somebody you marry.

There is nothing wrong with what you said in the bolded area. I would also explain to youngsters the dangers that can come along with sex. But I would not discourage them. If a group of teens had sex regularly and used condoms and not one was ever impregnated or inflicted with a disease what would be wrong with it?

 

[daws101]

Seems he wants to control what others think, it's a liberal thing. But, I've praying for him, it may take some time, but.......

and that would be another false assumption..it's not a liberal thing..From what and the way you folks post you don't jack shit about what's liberal or how to think.
praying for me assumes there's a problem of defect that can be repaired by and imaginary sky faire.
it also assumes a false superiority. ..
when it's really an act of self serving condescension ...

Nope, it's my belief, no superiority or self serving condescension.
Religion has made a huge difference in my life since I turned to it.
It was always there, it brought me out of the dark.....nothing more I could add to that.

good for you .

 

[Foxfyre]

To Tuatura:

I am going to assume you are a leftwinger, because those are the ones who most often are unable to discuss a concept, but will point to unrelated blame, accusations, incidents, issues in lieu of arguing a concept.

So let's try again here. The principle(s) involved:

1. So long as I do not act out my beliefs in a way that violates the rights of others, whatever I believe about ANYTHING is not dangerous to anybody other than possibly me.

2. Unless a majority who believe in Creationism are allowed to teach that in the education system they create and maintain - and - a majority who reject Creationism and want Darwinism taught exclusively in their school are allowed to do that - then there is no liberty.

3. And in a free society, each side, both the Creationists and the Darwinists, must be allowed the liberty to petition their government to implement a given point of view. And in a free society, the social contract would result in the majority prevailing in a difference of opinion of that type.

The devout Christian will see harm in the teaching that God had nothing to do with creation as much as the Atheist sees harm in teaching that God created. In order for liberty to exist, each must be allowed their convictions. And it is not the least bit dangerous to anybody that they are allowed their convictions. It is deadly to liberty if one side is able to force the other to profess a particular belief or is able to punish the other for their beliefs.

 

[Tuatara]

To Tuatura:


1. So long as I do not act out my beliefs in a way that violates the rights of others, whatever I believe about ANYTHING is not dangerous to anybody other than possibly me.

One's interepretation of what violates the rights of others may be diffrent from others. Most christians are against abortion and right now the law favours the pro-choice side. If the law were to change I'm betting many would feel this would violate their rights. The same goes for stem cell research. Each side in the controversey probably feels the other side has violated the rights of each other. I can elaborate more on this with other examples if you would like.

2. Unless a majority who believe in Creationism are allowed to teach that in the education system they create and maintain - and - a majority who reject Creationism and want Darwinism taught exclusively in their school are allowed to do that - then there is no liberty.

What to teach in Science is not to be debated by the general public or the majority. They are not scientists. If the majority felt the moon was made of cheese because some scripture said it was would you feel that it should be taught in a science class? I'm not saying that creationism doesn't belong in a theologian class or discussion and no one is ever trying to slience you from discussing it in your church but it is simply not science.

3. And in a free society, each side, both the Creationists and the Darwinists, must be allowed the liberty to petition their government to implement a given point of view. And in a free society, the social contract would result in the majority prevailing in a difference of opinion of that type.

Petition their governments for what? You are already free to have your opinion in the matter. A majority would not get to choose what is Algebra and what isn't.

The devout Christian will see harm in the teaching that God had nothing to do with creation as much as the Atheist sees harm in teaching that God created.

And each has an apropriate place to teach these disciplines. One is in a church and one is in the science class. Surely you are not suggesting that Darwinism be taught in your church?

In order for liberty to exist, each must be allowed their convictions. And it is not the least bit dangerous to anybody that they are allowed their convictions. It is deadly to liberty if one side is able to force the other to profess a particular belief or is able to punish the other for their beliefs.

How is your side being punished? There are many scientic papers and journals throughout many disciplines of science. Those who wish to argue them are welcome to. The scientic method encourages deabate.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Remember when they said this wasn't being taught in schools

 

[Foxfyre]

To Tuatura:


1. So long as I do not act out my beliefs in a way that violates the rights of others, whatever I believe about ANYTHING is not dangerous to anybody other than possibly me.

One's interepretation of what violates the rights of others may be diffrent from others. Most christians are against abortion and right now the law favours the pro-choice side. If the law were to change I'm betting many would feel this would violate their rights. The same goes for stem cell research. Each side in the controversey probably feels the other side has violated the rights of each other. I can elaborate more on this with other examples if you would like.

2. Unless a majority who believe in Creationism are allowed to teach that in the education system they create and maintain - and - a majority who reject Creationism and want Darwinism taught exclusively in their school are allowed to do that - then there is no liberty.

What to teach in Science is not to be debated by the general public or the majority. They are not scientists. If the majority felt the moon was made of cheese because some scripture said it was would you feel that it should be taught in a science class? I'm not saying that creationism doesn't belong in a theologian class or discussion and no one is ever trying to slience you from discussing it in your church but it is simply not science.

Petition their governments for what? You are already free to have your opinion in the matter. A majority would not get to choose what is Algebra and what isn't.

The devout Christian will see harm in the teaching that God had nothing to do with creation as much as the Atheist sees harm in teaching that God created.

And each has an apropriate place to teach these disciplines. One is in a church and one is in the science class. Surely you are not suggesting that Darwinism be taught in your church?

In order for liberty to exist, each must be allowed their convictions. And it is not the least bit dangerous to anybody that they are allowed their convictions. It is deadly to liberty if one side is able to force the other to profess a particular belief or is able to punish the other for their beliefs.

How is your side being punished? There are many scientic papers and journals throughout many disciplines of science. Those who wish to argue them are welcome to. The scientic method encourages deabate.

1. As long as my exercising my rights requires no contribution or particiption from you and does not prevent you from exercising your rights, then nobody's rights are being violated. That is the ONLY criteria that applies under the intent of the Constitution. If we truly believe in freedom we can barter, contract, or negotiate with others willing to do so, but we have no right to demand another citizen to provide us with anything.

2. What I believe should be taught in a science class is my right. To petition the school to teach what I think should be taught is my right. To demand that what I want taught in opposition to what somebody else wants taught is not my right. If the majority want to teach that the moon is made of green cheese, that is their unalienable right. It is also my unalienable right to choose to educate my children somewhere else.

3. I did not mention which side I am on nor did I say anything about anybody being punished. I am arguing a principle. Something most liberals are incapable of doing.

 

[Montrovant]

To Tuatura:

I am going to assume you are a leftwinger, because those are the ones who most often are unable to discuss a concept, but will point to unrelated blame, accusations, incidents, issues in lieu of arguing a concept.

So let's try again here. The principle(s) involved:

1. So long as I do not act out my beliefs in a way that violates the rights of others, whatever I believe about ANYTHING is not dangerous to anybody other than possibly me.

2. Unless a majority who believe in Creationism are allowed to teach that in the education system they create and maintain - and - a majority who reject Creationism and want Darwinism taught exclusively in their school are allowed to do that - then there is no liberty.

3. And in a free society, each side, both the Creationists and the Darwinists, must be allowed the liberty to petition their government to implement a given point of view. And in a free society, the social contract would result in the majority prevailing in a difference of opinion of that type.

The devout Christian will see harm in the teaching that God had nothing to do with creation as much as the Atheist sees harm in teaching that God created. In order for liberty to exist, each must be allowed their convictions. And it is not the least bit dangerous to anybody that they are allowed their convictions. It is deadly to liberty if one side is able to force the other to profess a particular belief or is able to punish the other for their beliefs.

I just wanted to make an observation about your first point. What you believe can be dangerous to others if they are children in your care, even if it is not dangerous to anyone else. For example, parents who refuse medical care for their children.

Not that anyone should be forced to do anything, I'm just pointing out a possible danger to others from what someone believes.

 

[FA_Q2]

Suppressing knowledge can be very dangerous. When Pope Benedict XV claimed that condoms would make the Aids crisis worse we saw the the opposite was true. These "beliefs" killed off thousands. We've also seen in the news where parents do not get medical attention for their children because they would rather pray for them and their children die because of this neglect. Having a belief in the supernatural can be very potentially dangerous if it is abused, especially by those with power.

The opposite is true here. Birthrates skyrocketed in the high school when they had free comdom vending machines. The reason why it skyrocketed was because few people like wearing condoms because skin feels better than latex and the kids didn't wear them. Officials already encouraged the use by giving them out and kids are getting HPV and oral cancer from oral sex which keeps pregnancy down but distributes disease another way.

Are you saying it's safer to go without condoms when engaged in sexual intercourse?

I think that is misinterpreting his statements IMHO. I don’t think it is a matter of thinking that condom use is not safe but that pretending sex is possible without risk of consequences. That is, essentially, what the condoms are for – mitigating the consequences of sex be that children or STD’s with unknown partners.

The push for condoms, particularly for young people, is akin to endorsing free sexual activity. That is generally what religious people are against.

 

[Foxfyre]

To Tuatura:

I am going to assume you are a leftwinger, because those are the ones who most often are unable to discuss a concept, but will point to unrelated blame, accusations, incidents, issues in lieu of arguing a concept.

So let's try again here. The principle(s) involved:

1. So long as I do not act out my beliefs in a way that violates the rights of others, whatever I believe about ANYTHING is not dangerous to anybody other than possibly me.

2. Unless a majority who believe in Creationism are allowed to teach that in the education system they create and maintain - and - a majority who reject Creationism and want Darwinism taught exclusively in their school are allowed to do that - then there is no liberty.

3. And in a free society, each side, both the Creationists and the Darwinists, must be allowed the liberty to petition their government to implement a given point of view. And in a free society, the social contract would result in the majority prevailing in a difference of opinion of that type.

The devout Christian will see harm in the teaching that God had nothing to do with creation as much as the Atheist sees harm in teaching that God created. In order for liberty to exist, each must be allowed their convictions. And it is not the least bit dangerous to anybody that they are allowed their convictions. It is deadly to liberty if one side is able to force the other to profess a particular belief or is able to punish the other for their beliefs.

I just wanted to make an observation about your first point. What you believe can be dangerous to others if they are children in your care, even if it is not dangerous to anyone else. For example, parents who refuse medical care for their children.

Not that anyone should be forced to do anything, I'm just pointing out a possible danger to others from what someone believes.

You're into a gray area here that would require a separate thread to sort out I think.

Do the children given to us to raise, discipline, nurture, educate and love also have a right to protection from abuse and neglect and irrational danger inflicted upon them? In my opinon they do, and abused and neglected children should be removed from the situation in which they are abused and/or neglected.

But then there are those gray areas of what constitutes 'abuse' and 'neglect' so the issue isn't so precisely cut and dried.

Then what about convictions of parents who do not abuse or neglect their children but love them as much as is humanly possible to love? Who is to dictate what the children MUST or MUST NOT be taught, how they MUST or MUST NOT be educated, how they MUST or MUST NOT be exposed to religion, or how they MUST or MUST NOT be treated medically?

Despite a great track record, given the ineffectiveness of medical science in accomplishing cures of many symptoms and diseases, does the parent who believes in giving the child to God to heal or who puts greater faith in holistic non-traditional medicines have a right to exercise such belief? That is one that I think needs careful consideration from all of us and a knee jerk response is not likely to produce the best answer.

I didn't come to my conclusion re Creationism without a great deal of thought and prayer. But in the end I know that children taught Creationism are neither abused nor neglected and it is unlikely to affect their health in any way. The worst that can happen to them is they won't learn other significant sicentific theories until later in life, but if they are free, they will have the ability to learn them. And decide if their childhood teachings or the more prevalent scientific theories have the grreater credibility.

And the bottom line is that unless parents are as free to teach Creationism to their children as they are free to teach natural selection, then there is no freedom.