It seems pretty clear that those who favor teaching Intelligent Design in public schools don't understand what science is. Science deals with the natural world and natural processes. Science works by sifting through evidence, proposing theories, and gathering more evidence to either support or reject the original hypothesis. Intelligent Design offers no verifiable proof and is unwilling to alter its position based on new evidence.
By definition, any Creator would have to have worked through supernatural activities. Science will never prove whether God exists or not and science cannot confirm Intelligent Design. The two areas are mutually exclusive. Science may eventually fill in all of the gaps in evolutionary theory, but it still doesn't mean Intelligent Design is incorrect. Or science may never get a rock solid handle on evolution, but that doesn't mean Intelligent Design is correct.
There is no science in Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design simply assumes that because science cannot currently answer all of the questions, that the universe is beyond our ability to understand because a "god" created it. It assumes that we mere mortals are incapable of putting together the pieces and solving this puzzle. What if we had gone along with this in the past and decided to give up on certain aspects of science? We would still think that the universe orbits the flat earth and that flies spontaneously appear in roadkill. We would have ignored progress in all fields of science and medicine because the problems appeared to intractable at the time.
Intelligent Design supporters simply say that if we can't give an answer NOW, then they must be right. That's like me asking a five year old to explain how a microwave works and when they can't tell me, I insist that my explanation (i.e., invisible radioactive hamsters on a treadmill) MUST be the right one. I have no proof (after all they're invisible), but they can't give me a provable answer NOW. It's not that they won't eventually be capable of understanding microwave radiation, rotational modes in water molecules, and other aspects of the process, its just that they currently don't have the necessary tools (education in this case) to discover the truth.
I don't believe in Intelligent Design, but I'm willing to accept that it could be correct; it's just not science and doesn't belong in a science classroom. I do believe in some form of evolution, but it could ultimately prove to be totally unlike the process that we currently accept. If another theory proves to be more in line with reality I will accept it. Are those who support Intelligent Design willing to be as open minded? So far, the evidence seems slim.
Let's leave science in the science classroom and religion (veiled as science) in the religion and philosophy classrooms.
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Pat Robertson
As an atheist, I don't believe in heaven and hell; but if I'm wrong, I'm pretty sure I'll have a nice, warm room in hell awaiting me. Not that I'm a wild sinner, but it seems that God is more interested in worship and praise than actions. But there is one comforting thought; if I'm going to hell, I'm certain that Pat Robertson will be there making me laugh. Some things never change even in hell.
Sunday, May 29, 2005
What Happened to Freedom of Religion?
A Marion County, Indiana judge's unusual order prohibits a divorced couple from exposing their child to "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals." The parents are Wiccans, members of a neo-pagan religion that emphasizes a balance in nature and reverence for the earth.
It's unbelieveable that in the 21st Century, a court can decide what religious exposure is best for a child despite the agreement of both parents on what it should be.
Hopefully, the appeal will be reviewed by a judge without a personal agenda and this blatantly unconstitutional decision will be reversed.
It's unbelieveable that in the 21st Century, a court can decide what religious exposure is best for a child despite the agreement of both parents on what it should be.
Hopefully, the appeal will be reviewed by a judge without a personal agenda and this blatantly unconstitutional decision will be reversed.
Saturday, May 28, 2005
Rev. Lovelace Should Be Flushed
Rev. Creighton Lovelace, minister of the Danieltown Baptist Church in Forest City, North Carolina, put up a sign at his church that states "The Koran needs to be flushed." I submit that it is Mr. Lovelace who needs to be flushed --- flushed from his church by his congregation.
We live in a country with religious freedom. You don't have to agree with or follow another person's religion, but you should at least show it and them some modicum of respect. As a non-Christian, the Bible is no more than "just another book" to me. How would Mr. Lovelace respond to a sign in my yard saying that the Bible should be flushed? I doubt he would be as tolerant of that behavior.
Mr. Lovelace is showing ignorance and intolerance of a level which is inexcusable as a church leader. Instead of promoting a positive message on his church signboard, he has to resort to bashing another religion. These are the tactics of those who can't defend their own religion on its own merits.
Obviously, Mr. Lovelace's congregation can do as it pleases, but if that kind of behavior was going on at a church I attended, I'd move to have him fired.
We live in a country with religious freedom. You don't have to agree with or follow another person's religion, but you should at least show it and them some modicum of respect. As a non-Christian, the Bible is no more than "just another book" to me. How would Mr. Lovelace respond to a sign in my yard saying that the Bible should be flushed? I doubt he would be as tolerant of that behavior.
Mr. Lovelace is showing ignorance and intolerance of a level which is inexcusable as a church leader. Instead of promoting a positive message on his church signboard, he has to resort to bashing another religion. These are the tactics of those who can't defend their own religion on its own merits.
Obviously, Mr. Lovelace's congregation can do as it pleases, but if that kind of behavior was going on at a church I attended, I'd move to have him fired.
Sunday, February 27, 2005
Ten Commandments
In March, the Supreme Court will be taking up cases concerning the public display of the Ten Commandments. Many of those who support the displays state that they are the foundation of our laws. In my opinion, if the Ten Commandments were truly the foundation of our country's law, then our laws should reflect most, if not all, of the commandments. But if we review the Ten Commandments, we find that only a few are actually codified as law.
Four of the commandments are clearly purely religious and would conflict with the 1st Amendment if enacted as law:
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images.
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
As for the rest:
Honour thy father and thy mother.
There are no laws against being a smartmouth to your parents.
Thou shalt not kill.
Yes, illegal.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Not illegal, but detrimental to your marriage and divorce case.
Thou shalt not steal.
Yes, illegal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness ...
It's only illegal to lie in court. You tell your wife you love her new hairdo or clothes even if you don't.
Thou shalt not covet ...
You can covet away all you want. It's only illegal if you act on it.
As you can see only 2 or 3 of these commandments are actually in our law. Hardly a case for being the foundation of our legal system. Additionally, several aspects are missing such as rape, assault, public drunkenness, and child molestation to name a few. Apparently these weren't important enough to include in the Ten Commandments. I think that time would be better spent if politicians and judges spent more time enacting better laws and effectively implemented them, rather than trying to convince us of the falsehood that this country was founded on the Ten Commandments.
Four of the commandments are clearly purely religious and would conflict with the 1st Amendment if enacted as law:
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images.
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
As for the rest:
Honour thy father and thy mother.
There are no laws against being a smartmouth to your parents.
Thou shalt not kill.
Yes, illegal.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Not illegal, but detrimental to your marriage and divorce case.
Thou shalt not steal.
Yes, illegal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness ...
It's only illegal to lie in court. You tell your wife you love her new hairdo or clothes even if you don't.
Thou shalt not covet ...
You can covet away all you want. It's only illegal if you act on it.
As you can see only 2 or 3 of these commandments are actually in our law. Hardly a case for being the foundation of our legal system. Additionally, several aspects are missing such as rape, assault, public drunkenness, and child molestation to name a few. Apparently these weren't important enough to include in the Ten Commandments. I think that time would be better spent if politicians and judges spent more time enacting better laws and effectively implemented them, rather than trying to convince us of the falsehood that this country was founded on the Ten Commandments.
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Are We The Martians?
With the recent news about potential evidence of life on Mars and previous conjecture about the presence of life in Antarctic Martian meteorites, one can only wonder if we are the Martians?
Is it possible that life on Earth was seeded by life giving meteorites from Mars?
If and when the presence of life on Mars is confirmed, it is going to open up a big can of worms both scientifically and theologically.
I can't wait!
Is it possible that life on Earth was seeded by life giving meteorites from Mars?
If and when the presence of life on Mars is confirmed, it is going to open up a big can of worms both scientifically and theologically.
I can't wait!
Friday, December 10, 2004
Non-Christion Morality
Recent letters in the local newspaper have implied that morality only comes from God, that one cannot be moral without God, and that our elected officials must be believers in order to be acceptable. The implication is that those of us that are nonbelievers are by definition immoral with no absolute moral foundation. We are also blamed for the ills of the country, and deemed unfit to serve it in any leadership role.
The numbers of prisoners in U.S. jails, the number of abortions, unfaithful spouses, and abusive parents are too high to be the sole responsibility of nonbelievers. Moreover, what about the heinous acts of obvious believers like those caught in the highly publicized Catholic Church scandal? How can you blame atheists for that? Human history is filled with believers committing immoral acts like slavery, devastation of Native Americans, the Crusades, and of course 9/11.
I am a nontheistic Buddhist, a nonbeliever. I don’t believe in lying, stealing, abortion on demand, or the death penalty. I do believe in respect for others, compassion, understanding, and tolerance. I am willing to put my morality up against any Christian or other believer.
My morality is based on solid principles, but the situation must be taken into account to determine the proper action. All moral actions are situational, even Christian ones. The Ten Commandments tells us not to kill, and yet God ordered the destruction of the Midianites in the Old Testament. Christians kill in self-defense, in war, and some believe in the death penalty. Despite what we are told, there are no absolutes.
A relatively small, but highly vocal group of Christian extremists views these issues in black and white. If you don’t agree with them, you must be wrong and immoral. They are blind to the immorality of their own actions in trying to force their religion down our throats. They still dwell in the false belief that the United States is a Christian nation. While it is true that the founders of the country were primarily Christians and that those values had a significant role in shaping the nation, the country was founded on religious freedom, not Christianity.
Unfortunately, there is also a similar group on the far left that wants to completely remove any trace of public religious expression. While these individuals do have some valid points with relationship to the involvement of religion in government, they push them too far. They want to deny that religion has played any role in the history of the country.
Both of these views are currently at the fringes of public opinion, but they are getting attention, influencing others, and gaining momentum. The Right wants to put prayer back in the schools and teach creationism as science. The Left wants to keep public school teachers from wearing symbols of their faith and rewrite the basis for public holidays like Christmas. It’s a battle of extremes and the rest of us are caught in the middle, expected to choose sides. Rather than choosing either of these views, we should embrace another position, a position of understanding and tolerance. We need to realize that despite what may be in our Pledge of Allegiance, we are not one nation under God; we are one nation with religious freedom. That freedom allows us to believe in one God, in many gods, no god at all, or something in between. There is no proof that any one religious vision is any truer than any other. We live in a country whose Constitution guarantees us the right to hold these varied beliefs, and to express them freely without government interference. If we are to avoid further religious polarization of our country, we need to turn away from the intolerant extremists and return to the true foundation of this country, religious freedom.
The numbers of prisoners in U.S. jails, the number of abortions, unfaithful spouses, and abusive parents are too high to be the sole responsibility of nonbelievers. Moreover, what about the heinous acts of obvious believers like those caught in the highly publicized Catholic Church scandal? How can you blame atheists for that? Human history is filled with believers committing immoral acts like slavery, devastation of Native Americans, the Crusades, and of course 9/11.
I am a nontheistic Buddhist, a nonbeliever. I don’t believe in lying, stealing, abortion on demand, or the death penalty. I do believe in respect for others, compassion, understanding, and tolerance. I am willing to put my morality up against any Christian or other believer.
My morality is based on solid principles, but the situation must be taken into account to determine the proper action. All moral actions are situational, even Christian ones. The Ten Commandments tells us not to kill, and yet God ordered the destruction of the Midianites in the Old Testament. Christians kill in self-defense, in war, and some believe in the death penalty. Despite what we are told, there are no absolutes.
A relatively small, but highly vocal group of Christian extremists views these issues in black and white. If you don’t agree with them, you must be wrong and immoral. They are blind to the immorality of their own actions in trying to force their religion down our throats. They still dwell in the false belief that the United States is a Christian nation. While it is true that the founders of the country were primarily Christians and that those values had a significant role in shaping the nation, the country was founded on religious freedom, not Christianity.
Unfortunately, there is also a similar group on the far left that wants to completely remove any trace of public religious expression. While these individuals do have some valid points with relationship to the involvement of religion in government, they push them too far. They want to deny that religion has played any role in the history of the country.
Both of these views are currently at the fringes of public opinion, but they are getting attention, influencing others, and gaining momentum. The Right wants to put prayer back in the schools and teach creationism as science. The Left wants to keep public school teachers from wearing symbols of their faith and rewrite the basis for public holidays like Christmas. It’s a battle of extremes and the rest of us are caught in the middle, expected to choose sides. Rather than choosing either of these views, we should embrace another position, a position of understanding and tolerance. We need to realize that despite what may be in our Pledge of Allegiance, we are not one nation under God; we are one nation with religious freedom. That freedom allows us to believe in one God, in many gods, no god at all, or something in between. There is no proof that any one religious vision is any truer than any other. We live in a country whose Constitution guarantees us the right to hold these varied beliefs, and to express them freely without government interference. If we are to avoid further religious polarization of our country, we need to turn away from the intolerant extremists and return to the true foundation of this country, religious freedom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
