Fred Clark has written a critique of the ideas implicit in the thread title. His take:

"""I think my favorite response to Kevin's post, though, comes from Katha Pollitt at The Nation. "What's the Matter With Creationism?" she asks. Well, for one thing, it promotes a delusional, paranoid view of the world that requires tinfoil-hat belief in a global conspiracy of malicious scientists:

"Rejecting evolution expresses more than an inability to think critically; it relies on a fundamentally paranoid worldview. Think what the world would have to be like for evolution to be false. Almost every scientist on earth would have to be engaged in a fraud so complex and extensive it involved every field from archaeology, paleontology, geology and genetics to biology, chemistry and physics. And yet this massive concatenation of lies and delusion is so full of obvious holes that a pastor with a Bible-college degree or a homeschooling parent with no degree at all can see right through it."
This is important. This "fundamentally paranoid" belief in a vast scientific conspiracy is not optional for belief in creationism. It�s a mandatory, necessary component of creationist ideology. To be a creationist, as 46 percent of Americans claim to be, means that you believe that universities, libraries and laboratories are evil places filled with evil people."""

*

No, that is not true.

What is your expertise in the opinions of creationists towards accepted science -- evolution, global climate change, carbon dating -- and academia?

I am not speaking for any other Creationists, only my own beliefs.

I believe in evolution, have always embraced and studied science, and I most certainly do NOT believe
that universities, libraries and laboratories are evil places filled with evil people.

This belief in reincarnation, in the cycle of life, strongly influences the lifestyle of may Hindus. It can best be explained by the terms 'dharma' and 'karma'. Dharma may be translated as 'duty' and for Hindus, part of that duty is to respect and care for all living things. The belief that after death we are reborn in another body, not necessarily human, leads to a great respect for all life and results in many cases of vegetarianism. Karma is the result or product of what we do. If we do our duty, then we create good karma, since the next life we may have is directly related to the actions of our present life. To the Hindu, everything is part of the Supreme One, and thus every living thing is equally important in the great cycle of life.

Each such period of manifestation (or non-manifestation) is called a kalpa of Brahma the Creator and is equivalent to 4.32 billion human years thas a lot longer than a measly 6000 years.

I took this photo of Bhaktivedanta swami prabuphada on 5th Ave heading to Washington Square.

I'm sure he's very holy but these stories are just longer pieces of nonsense than everyone eases nonsense & there are a lot of stories out there.

I love creation myths. Human being have vivid imaginations.

Rationale tells me that a god did not create this one planet and its occupants in 6 days, beginning (most conveniently) with man, and using a piece of man to make woman. The story, as written by mankind in the bible... choose any one you like... does not quite match up with what humankind has learned of genetics and breeding. Without an outcross at some point, we'd have died out a long time ago. Therefore, the christian bible and its story doesn't work on a scientifically logical level.

We have not yet explored vast, deep space... so we really don't have all the answers yet... just as we don't know what happens post death.

Religions were historically created to allay the fears of the human condition, and were most concretely written by man, not some god.

Strangely enough, most different religions and their stories, and myths of gods, carry many similarities. I think they, too, evolved as humans realized what they could potentially be used for.

I tend to go with what a combination of science, physics, anthropology, paleontology, archeology, and geology have discovered by studying our past and looking at all theories and evidence combined.

It takes eons to change minds... look how long it took before humankind realized his world was sphere shaped, and not flat.

I suppose certain spiritual beliefs can help a person, but I can't support something based in imaginative fairy tales and open to such interpretation and hypocrisy that it allows for war, hatred, prejudice, and killing, holding women below men, shunning other beliefs and ways of life, etc... it makes little sense to me.

Today, organized religions are more like businesses, selling peace of mind, entry into a place of eternal bliss that no one even knows exists for certain, and a punishment of eternal burning in hell if one is not "good" and "moral", along with instant forgiveness for "sinning". And we see how that all works. It's my opinion that organized religions are responsible for the stagnation of our social constructs.

Creationism, according to my understanding, is the sold conspiracy. It doesn't exist... there's little evidence to allow it to hold water. It makes no sense from a logical and scientific point of view.

We simply don't have all the answers as of yet, and why that should bother some so much... I can't imagine. I feel that if we try our best to live a decent, happy life, we've done all we can do. And I find vast amazement in what science and the collective fields of study have and are discovering. Who knows what we'll find out tomorrow?

In the meantime, I'm ok without having all the answers, without having total control, without knowing all there is to know. It means there's so much more to discover!

Since I have researched this myself, I come down with the majority. But everyone should research it for themselves right?

Believing that a Judeo-Christian God created the world is an accepted part of Christian theology; Creationism (and Creationists) separates itself from mainstream Protestants by adhering to a literal interpretation of the Bible, thus the 'young earth' belief and antagonism to Darwin and the scientific theory of evolution. That is my understanding of Creationism as it evolved in the U.S. in the 20th century.

Creationists are trying to introduce 'intelligent design' in school curricula as equal to and as valid as evolution. There's also plenty of disparaging of evolution as being unscientific and only a 'theory' which ignores the real meaning of scientific theory. Given the links and quotes of creationists that have been presented in HT in support of teaching 'intelligent design' aka creationism, the belief is troubling, and in some cases, shocking in the disregard for established science.

Religion.

Hay

But back to Young Earth Creationists.

How'd I do, Hay-ing?

That's what makes people that have it not whiners.

I don't think evil is the necessary conclusion: creationists seem to believe that universities, libraries and laboratories are filled with whiners the unenlightened. It's a topsy-turvy world where belief trumps fact; actually creationists remind me of politicians I knew in East Germany -- doesn't matter what empirical experience says, as long as the Party's definition trumps it.

I certainly won't be looking at the creationists to find a cure for cancer any time soon.

Why not circus? God gave us great abilities, the thirst for knowledge, the hope for mankind. I would certainly look to a believer for a cure for cancer.

nahh houseful, remember, it is called intelligent design, so that must have been a compliment.

Wonder what the response by evolutionists would be if a creationist said this?

Except for when they whine about the whiners....

"because you also need intelligence and scientific disipline"

Yep. That would work.
____________________

Posted by mrskjun 9 (My Page) on Mon, Jul 2, 12 at 7:29

"Why not...? God gave us great abilities, the thirst for knowledge, the hope for mankind."

I'll finish your sentence for you, YQ; how's this?

"because you also need intelligence and scientific disipline, like the following well known brilliant people who also believed in God:

PART I. Nobel Scientists (20-21 Century)
Albert Einstein Nobel Laureate in Physics Jewish
Max Planck Nobel Laureate in Physics Protestant
Erwin Schrodinger Nobel Laureate in Physics Catholic
Werner Heisenberg Nobel Laureate in Physics Lutheran
Robert Millikan Nobel Laureate in Physics probably Congregationalist
Charles Hard Townes Nobel Laureate in Physics United Church of Christ (raised Baptist)
Arthur Schawlow Nobel Laureate in Physics Methodist
William D. Phillips Nobel Laureate in Physics Methodist
William H. Bragg Nobel Laureate in Physics Anglican
Guglielmo Marconi Nobel Laureate in Physics Catholic and Anglican
Arthur Compton Nobel Laureate in Physics Presbyterian
Arno Penzias Nobel Laureate in Physics Jewish
Nevill Mott Nobel Laureate in Physics Anglican
Isidor Isaac Rabi Nobel Laureate in Physics Jewish
Abdus Salam Nobel Laureate in Physics Muslim
Antony Hewish Nobel Laureate in Physics Christian (denomination?)
Joseph H. Taylor, Jr. Nobel Laureate in Physics Quaker
Alexis Carrel Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic
John Eccles Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic
Joseph Murray Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic
Ernst Chain Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Jewish
George Wald Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Jewish
Ronald Ross Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Christian (denomination?)
Derek Barton Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Christian (denomination?)
Christian Anfinsen Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Jewish
Walter Kohn Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Jewish
Richard Smalley Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Christian (denomination?)
PART II. Nobel Writers (20-21 Century)
T.S. Eliot Nobel Laureate in Literature Anglo-Catholic (Anglican)
Rudyard Kipling Nobel Laureate in Literature Anglican
Alexander Solzhenitsyn Nobel Laureate in Literature Russian Orthodox
Fran�ois Mauriac Nobel Laureate in Literature Catholic
Hermann Hesse Nobel Laureate in Literature Christian; Buddhist?
Winston Churchill Nobel Laureate in Literature Anglican
Jean-Paul Sartre Nobel Laureate in Literature Lutheran; Freudian; Marxist; atheist; Messianic Jew
Sigrid Undset Nobel Laureate in Literature Catholic (previously Lutheran)
Rabindranath Tagore Nobel Laureate in Literature Hindu
Rudolf Eucken Nobel Laureate in Literature Christian (denomination?)
Isaac Singer Nobel Laureate in Literature Jewish
PART III. Nobel Peace Laureates (20-21 Century)
Albert Schweitzer Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Lutheran
Jimmy Carter Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Baptist (former Southern Baptist)
Theodore Roosevelt Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Dutch Reformed; Episcopalian
Woodrow Wilson Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Presbyterian
Frederik de Klerk Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Dutch Reformed
Nelson Mandela Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Christian (denomination?)
Kim Dae-Jung Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Catholic
Dag Hammarskjold Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Christian (denomination?)
Martin Luther King, Jr. Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Baptist
Adolfo Perez Esquivel Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Catholic
Desmond Tutu Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Anglican
John R. Mott Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Methodist
Part IV. Founders of Modern Science (16-21 Century)
Isaac Newton Founder of Classical Physics and Infinitesimal Calculus Anglican (rejected Trinitarianism, i.e., Athanasianism;
believed in the Arianism of the Primitive Church)
Galileo Galilei Founder of Experimental Physics Catholic
Nicolaus Copernicus Founder of Heliocentric Cosmology Catholic (priest)
Johannes Kepler Founder of Physical Astronomy and Modern Optics Lutheran
Francis Bacon Founder of the Scientific Inductive Method Anglican
Ren� Descartes Founder of Analytical Geometry and Modern Philosophy Catholic
Blaise Pascal Founder of Hydrostatics, Hydrodynamics,
and the Theory of Probabilities Jansenist
Michael Faraday Founder of Electronics and Electro-Magnetics Sandemanian
James Clerk Maxwell Founder of Statistical Thermodynamics Presbyterian; Anglican; Baptist
Lord Kelvin Founder of Thermodynamics and Energetics Anglican
Robert Boyle Founder of Modern Chemistry Anglican
William Harvey Founder of Modern Medicine Anglican (nominal)
John Ray Founder of Modern Biology and Natural History Calvinist (denomination?)
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz German Mathematician and Philosopher,
Founder of Infinitesimal Calculus Lutheran
Charles Darwin Founder of the Theory of Evolution Anglican (nominal); Unitarian
Ernst Haeckel German Biologist,
the Most Influential Evolutionist in Continental Europe
Thomas H. Huxley English Biologist and Evolutionist,
Famous As "Darwin's Bulldog"
Joseph J. Thomson Nobel Laureate in Physics, Discoverer of the Electron,
Founder of Atomic Physics Anglican
Louis Pasteur Founder of Microbiology and Immunology Catholic
Part V. Great Philosophers (17-21 Century)
Immanuel Kant One of the Greatest Philosophers
in the History of Western Philosophy Lutheran
Jean-Jacques Rousseau Founder of Modern Deism born Protestant;
converted as a teen to Catholic
Voltaire French Philosopher and Historian,
One of the Most Influential Thinkers of the Enlightenment raised in Jansenism
David Hume Scottish Empiricist Philosopher, Historian, and Economist,
Founder of Modern Skepticism Church of Scotland (Presbyterian)
Spinoza Dutch-Jewish Philosopher,
the Chief Exponent of Modern Rationalism Judaism; later pantheism/deism
Giordano Bruno Italian Philosopher, Astronomer, and Mathematician,
Founder of the Theory of the Infinite Universe Catholic
George Berkeley Irish Philosopher and Mathematician, Founder of Modern Idealism,
Famous as "The Precursor of Mach and Einstein" Anglican
John Stuart Mill English Philosopher and Economist,
the Major Exponent of Utilitarianism agnostic; Utilitarian
Richard Swinburne Oxford Professor of Philosophy,
One of the Most Influential Theistic Philosophers
PART VI. Other Religious Nobelists
60 more Nobel Prize winners are listed
(32 scientists, 17 writers, 11 Nobel Nobel Peace Laureates)
PART VII. Nobelists, Philosophers, and Scientists on Jesus
Quotes by 16 individuals about their beliefs about Jesus
- Alexis Carrel
- Albert Einstein
- Arthur Compton
- Robert Millikan
- Francois Mauriac
- Sigrid Undset
- T.S. Eliot
- Mother Theresa
- Albert Schweitzer
- Theodore Roosevelt
- Frederik de Klerk
- John R. Mott
- Kim Dae-Jung
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
- Jimmy Carter
- Blaise Pascal"

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

I well understand that, MrsK, but we are not talking about moderate Christians here. We are talking about the topic of the OP, namely folks labeled (or self-labeled) "creationists" in the US, who by definition reject any tenet of evolution.

Most children go through this phase at one point in their lives, however, most children eventually outgrow it, and move on.

At least science and affiliated studies offer evidence, and not forced blind faith.

.....the above is from the link provided by jhug.

Neither would be accurate nor useful.

I can just imagine Demi's "Christian" church. Christ standing at the door, conducting a means test, because Christianity cannot include the poor, according to Demi. And Demi as the handmaiden, pointing out "whiners" who will also be excluded. Mrskjun, nodding wisely, and piping in occasionally, "I believe exactly as demi does," helping her to identify the whiners, who do not deserve god's grace. No doubt admission standards to that religion will also include dress and language codes - no Spanish, for god's sake.

Both of you have reached a new low. Congragulations. I thank you of course, as an atheist, because every time you espouse your religious values here or anywhere else, you convince rational and compassionate human beings that your religion is not the place for them.

These are the folks whose political influence is - IMHO - undermining education in the country. Because, once again, its pretty hard to get anywhere in any of the biological sciences if you don't accept the basic tenants of distant, related ancestry.

Finding information in its true form is not that difficult. It's simply a matter of knowing how to use the brain and the resources at hand, and around the globe... and taking some of it with a grain of salt, and a lot of rationale and common sense.

"No one need give up hope and faith.
That's what makes people that have it not whiners."

I can just imagine Demi's "Christian" church. Christ standing at the door, conducting a means test, because Christianity cannot include the poor, according to Demi. And Demi as the handmaiden, pointing out "whiners" who will also be excluded. Mrskjun, nodding wisely, and piping in occasionally, "I believe exactly as demi does," helping her to identify the whiners, who do not deserve god's grace. No doubt admission standards to that religion will also include dress and language codes - no Spanish, for god's sake.

Both of you have reached a new low. Congragulations. I thank you of course, as an atheist, because every time you espouse your religious values here or anywhere else, you convince rational and compassionate human beings that your religion is not the place for them.

*

But Ninamarie, you just LIED about me and put words in my mouth.

I never said anything of the kind.

I explained why people of faith have hope and faith and generally don't whine. BECAUSE we have hope and faith.
I would think someone that continually whines about life when bad things happen to them would want to know how other people who also have bad things happen to them, manage to not whine.

In any event, whether an atheist whines or not or has faith and hope or not is their choice.

I know I have had bad things happen to me, I know mrskjun has had bad things happen to her, and I know just about everyone on this forum has had bad things happen to them.

Some whine, some don't.

Maybe it's a personality thing.
Maybe it's a religious thing.
Maybe it's a cultural thing.
Maybe it's a geographical thing.
Maybe it's a character thing.

Who knows?

You did not articulate my views, I never said anything about poor people or even whiners not being acceptable to Christ.

You articulated a hateful diatribe and CONJURED lies about what I think and then blasted me for the LIES you made up about what I think.

This part is particularly egregious and you crossed a line that should not be crossed, Ninamarie:

I can just imagine Demi's "Christian" church. Christ standing at the door, conducting a means test, because Christianity cannot include the poor, according to Demi.

You should retract that LIE that you attributed specifically to me by name, as it is particularly offensive to me, Ninamarie.

a hunk of humor (humour) here

What I can't reconcile - and don't really care to since we're all allowed what we hold - is how Creationists can "discover" something new if everything was created in place a mere few thousand years ago. It can't all be explained away in a reworked Bible interpretation. How did we get to be a planet of nearly 7 billion strong in such a short time?

Kind of.

You've been sick so I'll give you a pass. ;)

Ninamarie crossed a line and she should retract that statement.

I'm waiting on it.

while leaving out Msgr George LeMaitre (I can't believe I'm writing this again).
The first to expound on the idea of the "theory" (not the guess not the hunch not the idea the Theory of an expanding universe or BIG BANG (which was the snarky term thrown at it at the time.

The Pope said wow I like that idea I can use that idea for the beginning of creation. Lemaitre requested a not so fast of the Pope.

Now while this man was a catholic priest & had a profound belief in God he was not looking for more ways of supporting tales & poetry as hard fact truth. He was a scientists a mathematician.

When the Pope was delighted in the notion of a beginning point a Fiat Lux rather than the eternal constant universe which scientists had existed up to that point.

He was alarmed at this for good reasons "He realized quite fully the tentative and hypothetical character of scientific theories and for this reason alone, if for no others, opposed the use of such theories to support philosophical, theological or faith statements."
Keeping metaphysical implications completely separate was his other work. One is a practice (science) the other is an interpretation "SECTARIAN RELIGION" ...that fat head can't seem to grasp this part.

So many claim him for their own my sketchy ideas about god & the universe line up with my beliefs in a 6000 year old earth.
People toss around intelligent design creationism & a general paradox of dogmatic religion pretending to be science with cherry picked quait isdeas about a scientific method.

We have argued this before here most people use the words science and have the most basic general understanding of terms like theory & hypothesis. CREATIONISM as a court issue was solved already as was the stealth version of it in which the courts proved not scientists that those adherents sought to disguise materials used in court previously as new information it was the same crew.

One speaks in terms of inspiration/revelation as a cure for disease rather that the painstaking process (the scientific) process that is step by step methodical & testable.
"Creationism" exists only where certain factor come in to play.
YEC are always going to be religionists first scientists second and seek to bend the latter to sooth (not suit the former)

No need for Cern or the Hadron colliders when they do not support biblical passages in the case of Creationism (that is a specific term) Science needs to validate scripture for it to be vaild science.
(Horse PUCKY)

There is no excuse for that.

With all the knowledge we have today, about our past, about our changing world and the stars and sun, and our vast Universe... and that which we still have to discover... I was shocked that anyone could enclose themselves within such a bubble of stunted, stagnated ideas, and do exactly what is mentioned above in other posts... cherry pick the biblical passages they like, and discard the rest. It makes no logical sense.

She hit a nerve when she mentioned how her church felt about the lgbt community, and revealed other prejudices... and since we were working together, I decided it was best to agree to disagree, and leave it at that. But I made no effort to hide the fact that I am an atheist, after being forced into catholicism for part of my young life.

Typically, she immediately prayed for my lost soul, and wondered out loud how empty my life must be, and how sad that I was a soulless heathen, unhappy in life.

I assured her I had my own strict code of honor I kept, and was anything but unhappy or lost or empty.

I don't think those with religious conditioning have the capacity to step back and look at the larger picture... to realize how strange it is to see so many different faiths claiming to be the only way, the only one. Or how strange it is to see people behave in the exact opposite manner as they claim to believe people should act... and a host of other ideas and behaviors that place a hypocritical cap right on top of the whole exercise.

Anyway... we've discussed religion to death in here... and it's very difficult to climb out of psychological conditioning once it's implanted... especially from birth. What more can one say?

I still maintain that the very first matter didn't create itself. We cannot make more matter than already exists. So why can't scientists embrace, that creation plays a part? Matter always was/is. And life cannot be made to happen where none exited before. Where did the original life begin? Man did/can not create life. Saying creationism doesn't happen at all is asking me to take a leap of faith. I don't understand why those who are claiming to be so doggone rational aren't accepting that the building blocks created themselves sounds just as unreasonable? But such is life.

*

That's the part I do not understand, that part seems to be glossed over. It just happened. Everything came from absolutely nothing.

That seems even more unreasonable to me than believing in a Supreme Being.

But, you don't need to make a decision based on physical evidence.

Once you have had a spiritual experience and communication, you know.

Even with faith I not only do not have all the answers, I have none.

There is, like in politics, extremes in religion and that "might" be where some of the problem lies. Some people have taken religions and twisted them to fit their idea of how all people should live, and others like myself are tolerant of other's beliefs and/or lack of.

I would definitely put myself in the "moderate/liberal" category :)

Now, back to the subject: Creationism trying to wreck havoc on science:

And once again, we're talking about the Young Earth "Creationists" who believe that the world is only 5000 years old, that the Grand Canyon is the result of Noah's flood, that God made all the animals the same at the same time, etc.

These are the folks whose political influence is - IMHO - undermining education in the country. Because, once again, its pretty hard to get anywhere in any of the biological sciences if you don't accept the basic tenants of distant, related ancestry.

This has been going on for decades. It's just done in the open now.

I think my argument was, no one is wreaking havoc on anything. That it is time for both sides to meet in the middle. One does not exist without the other.

Saint Augustine felt that animals that were produced through spontaneous generation were not necessarily included on Noah�s Ark, thus making the task of collecting all living things less formidable.
As to another customary inquiry of the scrupulous about the very minute creatures, not only such as mice and lizards, but also locusts, beetles, flies, fleas, and so forth, whether there were not in the ark a larger number of them was determined by God in His command, those persons who are moved by this difficulty are to be reminded that the words "every creeping thing of the earth" only indicate that it was not needful to preserve in the ark the animals that can live in the water, whether fishes that live submerged in it, or the sea birds that swim on its surface. Then, when it is said "male and female", no doubt reference is made to the repairing of the races and consequently there was no need for those creatures being in the ark which are born without the union of the sexes from inanimate things, or from their corruption; or if they were in the ark, they might be there as they commonly are in houses, not in any determinate numbers; or if it was necessary that there should be a definite number of all those animals that cannot naturally live in the water, that so the most sacred mystery which was being enacted might be bodied forth and perfectly figured in actual realities, still this was not the care of Noah or his sons, but of God. For Noah did not catch the animals and put them into the ark, but gave them entrance when they came seeking it. For this is the force of the words "They shall come unto thee"�not that is to say, by man�s effort, but by God�s will. But certainly we are not required to believe that those which have no sex also came; for it is expressly and definitely said "They shall be male and female." For there are some animals which are born out of corruption, but yet afterwards they themselves copulate and have produce offspring, as flies; but others, which have no sex, like bees�.
Saint Augustine, City of God...Now we all know this was one smart cookie.

Then we have Aquinas oj and I'll top it off with that great
Protester and man about town Luther.

St. Thomas Aquinas felt that "imperfect animals" can come to be through spontaneous generation, especially through decomposing matter. Matter either has the power to generate life due to an original power given to the elements or to the influence of the stars. For imperfect animals, the influence of heavenly bodies alone suffices and it is through this power that angels and demons can influence the production of living things.
St. Thomas Aquinas; Summa Theologica, Book I
Q. 45
Obj. 3. Further, in nature, like begets like. But some things are found generated in nature by a thing unlike to them; as is evident in animals generated through putrefaction. Therefore their form is not from nature, but by creation..
Reply Obj. 3. For the generation of imperfect animals, a universal agent suffices, and this is to be found in the celestial power to which they are assimilated, not in species, but according to a kind of analogy. Nor is it necessary to say that their forms are created by a separate agent.
St. Thomas Aquinas; Summa Theologica, Book I
5th day
Q. 71
Obj. 1. It would seem that this work is not fittingly described. For the waters produce that which the power of water suffices to produce. But the power of water does not suffice for the production of every kind of fishes and birds, since we find that many of them are generated from seed. Therefore the words, Let the waters bring forth the creeping creatures having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth, do not fittingly describe this work.
Obj. 3. Further, fishes move in the waters and birds in the air. If then, fishes are produced from the waters, birds ought to be produced from the air, not from the waters.
St. Thomas Aquinas; Summa Theologica, Book I
Q 105, 2nd Art.
Reply Obj. 1: Thus animals, produced by putrefaction, and plants and minerals are like the sun and stars, by whose power they are produced.
Hence angels and demons act on visible matter, not by imprinting forms in matter, but by making use of corporeal seminal principles.
Luther felt that mice could spontaneously arise from decaying matter.
Here questions are raised also about the mice and door mice, whence they originate and how. Indeed, we have learned from experience that not even ships which are continually floating on the sea are safe from mice. Likewise, no house can be so thoroughly cleaned that no mice are produced in it. We can also inquire about the manner in which flies come into existence. Likewise, where the birds go in the fall�.Thus mice belong to the kind produced by their unlike, because mice originate not from mice alone but also from decay, which is used up gradually and gradually turns into a mouse�.The sun warms; but it would bring nothing into being unless God said by His divine power: "Let a mouse come out of the decay." Therefore the mouse too, is a divine creature, and, in my judgement, of a watery nature and, as it were, a land bird; otherwise it would have the form of a monster, and its kind would not be preserved. But for its kind it has a very beautiful form�such pretty feet and such delicate hair plain in view. Therefore here, too, we admire God�s creation and workmanship. The same thing may be said about flies.
About birds I surely have no knowledge. It is not likely that they go to regions lying more toward the south, inasmuch as from experience it has been learned that the swallows lie dead in the waters throughout the winger and return to life at springtime. This is truly a weighty proof of our resurrection. Therefore I think that birds are preserved either in trees or in waters. These works of the Divine Majesty are plainly miraculous. So we see them, and yet we do not understand them.
Martin Luther, Commentaries on Genesis, Vol. 1, p. 52
The previous Summer on a Porch in Rockaway Beach Queens my father had a pitched battle with Frank Coffee a man he knew from Ireland.
Coffee had a few cocktails & was telling about rags & spontaneous creation of mice from rags or the spontaneous creation of eels from a dead horse thrown in the river. My father roared & Coffee was enraged that his words about spontaneous generation weren't at all accepted by me DA.
There was no internet in those day to show Frank (the blow hard) that he was out of his ever loving mind still hanging on to this old Chestnut as the truth!

had it not been for Pasture some of you would still be hanging on to this after all great minds of 2 churches accepted it as fact. Why even Aristotle wrote about it & surely that must count fer sumtin!

I remembered the argument & though how could someone live in such isolation as to maintain something so discredited into the 1960's like that.
Well hear we ARE!

It is just a theory - not a LAW. To be a law there would have to be a vast body of unrefuted evidence.

Whence came the Big Bang - can only speculate it came from a free exchange with energy for particles. But as for the ultimate cause of all causes, I'm guessing that something was permitted to begin existing without cause. So I have to believe that cause itself was born in the big bang.

Posted by david52 z5CO (My Page) on
Mon, Jul 2, 12 at 13:06

Lets focus on the main issue here. Should we be teaching, in public schools (religious outfits can do what ever they want), that the Earth is 5,000 years old, and God created all living things during those initial 7 days?

*

Yes, but only as part of teaching about religion.

Science should teach what it knows.

I agree with Demi's reply to you David, but I'll add, 7 "God days" aren't man days. Probably. I'll find out later on. I assume they're only allegorical days.

I don't know how to say this without being rude to MrsKjun (I honestly apologize in advance), but misinformed statements like the above are exactly why I fear the erosion of real education in America by anti-science theologues.

It hurts us all. From the OP's link:

A lack of wide understanding of evolution is hurting the country, most obviously in the form of antibiotic resistance. Industrial feedlots grow their animals stewed in powerful antibiotics to shave their operating costs, which is leading to bacteria evolving past them and resistant infections cropping up in humans. It's a classic case of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs, which are tough to overcome in any case, but an understanding of evolution makes the situation immediately and alarmingly obvious, while disbelief can cloud the situation. Witness hack "scientists" at Liberty University, who publish work quibbling with the details of the evidence and thereby muddy the conversation. I'm not saying that's the only factor, but surely if 80 percent of the country had a strong understanding of evolution, it would be easier to horsewhip the FDA into outlawing antibiotic use in non-sick animals."

In older grades I have no issue with teaching about the history and differences of religions, all religions, but not the the teaching of religious beliefs. In younger grades I think general teaching about being a good person, respect for self and others, respect for property etc is AOK but NOT with any religious bend.

If it was ever offered in the first place. I don't remember ever seeing such a course offered in K-12.

Why does one have to address it at all? Ontology is a specific field within philosophy, and there are various physics hypotheses that delve into it. Scientists are comfortable saying "it's unknown" in the lack of any evidence. Me, I think matter has probably existed forever in some form, and I don't understand why there has to be 'a beginning', but I'm not particularly antsy about it one way or the other.

I think the other point that is often made is, evolutionists want proof of stuff we can't prove, yet there is no proof to what they claim. Why is it ok they cannot prove, but not ok that creationists cannot? (grin)

See above. What do you think evolutionists are "claiming" for which there is no proof? A scientific hypothesis or theory is a set of principles that seek to explain an empirically observed phenomenon. They are tested and either proven or disproven. As far as I'm aware, there are certain observed biological phenomena that prove many facets of evolutionary theory.

But what do I know, I'm in the Humanities. ;0)

Circuspeanut, you beat me in responding to that astonishing statement by MsK.

At the turn of the 20th century, pioneers in the field of population genetics, such as J.B.S. Haldane, Sewall Wright, and Ronald Fisher, set the foundations of evolution onto a robust statistical philosophy. The false contradiction between Darwin's theory, genetic mutations, and Mendelian inheritance was thus reconciled.[39]

In the 1920s and 1930s a modern evolutionary synthesis connected natural selection, mutation theory, and Mendelian inheritance into a unified theory that applied generally to any branch of biology. The modern synthesis was able to explain patterns observed across species in populations, through fossil transitions in palaeontology, and even complex cellular mechanisms in developmental biology.[21][40] The publication of the structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953 demonstrated a physical basis for inheritance.[41] Molecular biology improved our understanding of the relationship between genotype and phenotype. Advancements were also made in phylogenetic systematics, mapping the transition of traits into a comparative and testable framework through the publication and use of evolutionary trees.[42][43]

And then there's this misstatement:

now it's the only truth, or the new religion, depending on how you look at it.

The theory of evolution, formalized by Charles Darwin, is as much theory as is the theory of gravity, or the theory of relativity. Unlike theories of physics, biological theories, and especially evolution, have been argued long and hard in socio-political arenas. Even today, evolution is not often taught in primary schools. However, evolution is the binding force of all biological research. It is the unifying theme. In paleontology, evolution gives workers a powerful way to organize the remains of past life and better understand the one history of life. The history of thought about evolution in general and paleontological contributions specifically are often useful to the workers of today. Science, like any iterative process, draws heavily from its history.

I spent the better part of last year teaching my son about Muslim beliefs (about a girl he was infatuated with) as I've come to understand them (from Muslim friends) and he spent a good part of elementary school learning about Judaism from a good friend of his. He's come to learn that being respectful through religion is very important. And very different each time. It's made his friendships very personal and very deep. If he'd been afraid to learn about them or told they were taboo to understand, I'm not sure where it would've ended up.

Not true. The scientists I know are not comfortable saying unknown. Idiosyncratic is a dirty word in the science world in which I live.

Rob I don't think it should be taught to younger children because it may confuse them in terms of what religious beliefs they may be being taught at home. I think it could be very confusing. By the time they are teenagers they are better able to resolve and rationalize the differences between religions.

That's not what I typed...I said :

"It's not easy for one to give up hope IN faith."

I've read any number of articles stating conflicting human paleontology hypotheses when new discoveries of human or hominid remains are reported. And then there are those scientists that are in neither camp and offer quotes saying that both are interesting hypotheses.

I don't know of anyone that attended public school in the teens, 20s, 30s, 40s, and even the 50s was taught much if anything about evolution. This includes my grandparents, parents, and older people I know.

Isn't it just a bit fascinating that the speed of light is finite...when you look at an object, what you're actually seeing is an image of that object from the past. If one accepts the objects in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field are stars billions of light years away making them tens of billions of years old, something in me wants more than to be told if God can create the sun and stars, He can also create the light between them.

But that's me - the Humanities were my field, too. :-)

If you remove human greed and destruction from the equation, it's very hard to deny that something created all this. The order with which things grow, reproduce and live in symbiotic relationships is astounding.

Read my words.

You are lying about me.

NOWHERE have I promoted "intolerance" or "cruelty."

I have your answer.

I don't recall talking about taxes on this thread, so I must come to the conclusion that you have some prejudice about me as your statements about taxes are somewhat bizarre. As a former employee of the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Department of the Treasury, I know full well who pays taxes.

You may pay more taxes than I do in Canada, I may pay more than you think here in the United States. What does that have to do with anything? I am entitled to my opinion about what happens to my tax money and whether I am taxed additionally and why.

If you don't like it, that does not give you the right to lie about me and what I have said.

We're speaking in huge generalities here, of course, but I don't myself know any reputable scientists who would promote a theory without any evidence to back it up, because that's not part of the general scientific stance of informed skepticism.

This is precisely what is so infuriating about these so-called intelligent design "scientists" -- their goal is to twist the facts to fit their theory. It's "gotcha" science. And thus pap.

And I'm with you, Steve, and if I had kids I'd be terrified at the lousy science and math education the majority of American schoolchildren receive. (Having taught freshman English at college for many years, I could add: and it's pretty rotten in basic English and reasoning skills, too.)

Rather than encourage a universal literacy, we've banked all our hopes on those random sparks of genius who will struggle out of Mudville and make their way to Silicon Valley with virtually no institutional support at all. We're living on borrowed time.

Its the basis on what all biological sciences are founded, explained, interpreted, and defines the terminology and technology and knowledge base of how these sciences progress. Everything from GM corn to viruses to organ transplants.

I'm a biologist by training, and spent a career in related fields. Just to begin with, when we identify species, we trace them back to common ancestors - the most basic fundamental of defining life for scientific purposes is taxonomy. So everybody studying that organism knows where it comes from and what its called. These days, that tree is further refined with all the advances in genetics, where the basic building blocks of life, the DNA and genes, further conform to the theory of evolution and how species are related.

So what ever. Good luck with teaching your kids to grow up to work in any field related to biology.

Can you complete this sentence? I believe all life came from..."

Good grief.

Can you imagine the hue and cry if the tenets of the Muslim faith were taught in school? People like Rob would likely be OK but by and large the outcry would become a national story.....sorta like delivering a valedictorian address in Spanish!

Avoiding this question tells me that you all are not interested in a serious discussion, just creationist bashing.

And this faux concern for my children isn't working. My mama bear instincts are strong, but this this doesn't even register on my radar.

And since you brought it up, Maddie. Can you explain high school science, including chemistry and physics?

I know of at least two people here that love to call me stupid that don't have college degrees. Most people that "would never" homeschool hide behind the guise of wanting their children socialized and open-minded. There are many ways for kids to socialize and become open-minded - traveling for one. These same people probably couldn't pass an eighth grade math test, let alone teach ANY HS curriculum to their own children.

Are you kidding?! They can't even build a Mosque in a neighboring town. I actually wish they'd teach all sorts of religions in school so we can gain some tolerance. OY! They make me worry, those who cry against building a mosque. What are they so worried about? I just don't know.

Nope, it's just that the question presupposes that there would be "something" life came from. Why?

Life came from ... life.

I will state, emphatically, once again that this shows how little you know about the theory of evolution and how this is crucial to the study and application of biological sciences.

I think of my uncle, no longer with us, when questions arise here and only one answer is possible out of a choice of only two. I would be presumptuous to think I understood Ted but I had the impression that my questions were more important than a definitive answer.

What happened to a sense of wonder
On yonder hillside, getting dim
Why didn't they leave us, alone
Why couldn't we just be ourselves
We could dream, and keep bees
And live on Honey Street

van Morrison

and your inability to answer my question shows what?

..and hopefully we lived happily ever after...

Makes a lot of sense to me, besides providing some humor.

Hard work the non glamorous kind digging up old junk yards & trash heaps not great treasures piecing together the cultures that once inhabited a place.
Here we have a problem with YEC some of the YEC crowd accept that things look older but claim the creator only made everything appear to be 4.5 Billion years old.
It's a denial of no science but whole branches of science & their individual disciplines.

Corals are marine organisms that slowly deposit and grow upon the residues of their calcareous remains. These corals and residues gradually become structures known as coral reefs. This process of growth and deposition is extremely slow, and some of the larger reefs have been "growing" for hundreds of thousands of years. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority estimates that corals have been growing on the Great Barrier Reef for 25 million years, and that coral reef structures have existed on the Great Barrier Reef for at least 600,000 years.
Nah nah nah can't be that way Rev said it's 6000 years old & he wan't this taught in school.

I don't know.

So what does that prove one way or another?

Nothing.

When you have some EVIDENCE to offer one way or another, let me know. I'll look it over and see if it yields any valid conclusions. However, please spare me the cliches creationists repeat over and over again--as though repetition was a form of EVIDENCE that proved something. I've heard all those cliches--they prove nothing. Anything brand new?

In the meantime, I'm not going to get in a sweat and start arguing with posters about any of it.

Kate

In other words, it has, functionally, nothing to do with it.

I believe all life came from the Big Bang.

Wonder how many will fib and say that is okay with them, when they were really thinking of just Christianity being taught. Yeah instructions in Islam will go over real well in some neighborhoods ... especially those that will not even allow a Mosque to be built.

I don't think there's enough time in one public school day to cover all the necessary subjects, plus those of every religion. Religion belongs in church, or in the home... not within the public realm.

It's really quite a simple idea.

Plus... on the one hand, we're trying to teach our children NOT to bully... and yet there are fundamentalist churches that would teach the opposite, picketing funerals of lgbt community members...

There's a bit too much hypocrisy for me.

labrea, I too read dictionaries and old encyclopedias. Daddy sounds a lot like your uncle. I will miss him when he's gone. He grows weaker every day. Until then, I love to get my boy and him talking. You'd love their discussions. They are heavy on philosophical, but they are based on a lot of other things you think about it.

Jodik, I thought an education of some sort might keep them from bullying. People only fear what they don't undertsand. Don't they?
:)

You and Nancy laid out the basic principles of biological sciences and the long history of and importance of evolutionary theory and research in advancing modern sciences of many kinds. Good enough and irrelevant to belief in Creationism.

BTW, I never took biology in HS, just the hard sciences and math. Even in chemistry class, we hardly covered organic chemistry at all. What I learned about the natural sciences, including evolutionary theory, I picked up from the library and from actually spending time in nature and wondering about "stuff".

College studies really opened the natural world for me, starting with geology but morphing into biological sciences.

PRINCETON, NJ -- Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question. About a third of Americans believe that humans evolved, but with God's guidance; 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process.

By that definition, I don't think any Christian here would be considered to hold the "creationist" view. You guys are in the 1/3 of Americans that believe God helped evolution.

"I have a major crush on Neil deGrasse Tyson, the astrophysicist. In one video that I watched, he was telling why he felt the arguments in favor of "Intelligent Design" were false. He said, "what intelligent designer would design a recreational area right next to a sewage outlet?"

I don't understand how creationists can deny that humans evolved - our physiology is so messed up for an organism that walks on two legs. I mean, in order to stand upright our backs had to develop an "S" curve which in turn causes backache in much of the population. If not backache, how about chronic knee problems? And childbirth!! Our offspring have such huge heads that they have to be born while still way underdeveloped compared to other mammals AND they pass in a messy and convoluted way through the birth canal and female pelvis that is a dangerous compromise for upright posture.

If there were a "God" designing us, he seriously messed up.

Heaven help us!

I don't understand how creationists can deny that humans evolved - our physiology is so messed up for an organism that walks on two legs. I mean, in order to stand upright our backs had to develop an "S" curve which in turn causes backache in much of the population. If not backache, how about chronic knee problems? And childbirth!! Our offspring have such huge heads that they have to be born while still way underdeveloped compared to other mammals AND they pass in a messy and convoluted way through the birth canal and female pelvis that is a dangerous compromise for upright posture.

Where do you get your information?

I'm not an astrophysicist, I'm an aquatic biologist who specialized in fish husbandry along with all the associated aquatic environmental stuff. Those are two different disciplines, to put it mildly.

I do know that there is overwhelming evidence that the universe is rapidly expanding, identical to an explosion - they can track/measure that - and the logical conclusion that an ever-wideing universe began somewhere far more concentrated. So they call it the "Big Bang Theory". (Also an hilarious tv sitcom, worth getting from netflix) And it is the working 'theory' for all the research in astronomy and associated disciplines.

I'll let Marshall answer for hi'sef.

It is from a very interesting article in National Geographic:

"We humans are odd creatures: tailless bipeds with sinuous spines, long limbs, arched feet, agile hands, and enormous brains. Our bodies are a mosaic of features shaped by natural selection over vast periods of time��"both exquisitely capable and deeply flawed. We can stand, walk, and run with grace and endurance, but we suffer aching feet and knee injuries; we can twist and torque our spines, and yet most of us are plagued by back trouble at some point in our lives; we can give birth to babies with big brains, but only through great pain and risk. Scientists have long sought to answer the question of how our bodies came to be the way they are. Now, using new methods from a variety of disciplines, they are discovering that many of the flaws in our "design" have a common theme: They arise primarily from evolutionary compromises that came about when our ancestors stood upright��"the first step in the long path to becoming human"

We are but a speck in time and in the universe so what makes us think we are so important?

Star Size Comparison HD ytube

Thinking out of the box in a big way is a possible answer. We have discovered

Black holes wiki

where every thing gets pulled in including light, how big can they get? We have discovered

White holes wiki

that seem to create matter. And we have discovered

Dark matter wiki

that seems to fill in all the spaces we thought were empty. We are even creating

Digital Molecular Matter wiki

as a new concept.Add the concept called time

WHAT IS TIME? WHAT CAUSES TIME? mkhan@timephysics.com

and things go into different dimensions and realities.

If there was a black hole big enough it may have taken what was then the universe in and that matter

came out from a white hole known as the big bang.

That brings us back to time of which Albert Einstein said, referring to the passing of

a friend,

"Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me.

That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction

between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."

So the man that defined time and space thinks of it as naught. Yet he was a religious man saying,

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

But how can religion be the answer to existence?

Religion religious tolerance.org

is a man made idea and comes in many forms. Back to our ultimate scientist, Albert said

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."

We are just embryos compared to the universe, what gives us the right to say we know who and how it was made?

Theories are just that theories and we all have them.

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." (yup our good friend Albert again).

And this, "A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space.

He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of

optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us

to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to

free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures

and the whole of nature in its beauty."

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."

(Sign hanging in Einstein's office at Princeton)

Where did you get that? I intentionally didn't state what I "believe" - Yes or No.

I just stated that astrophysicists have measured an ever-expanding universe, entirely consistent with what one would expect with an explosion.