The "In God We Trust" was first proposed in the 1860s and ended up on a few coins. It wasn't until 1955 under the Eisenhower administration that it was made a law that "In God We Trust" was to be printed on all of our money. Additionally, in 1954, the same administration added the "Under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance.
As far as the laws go, many of the premises behind our government are based on Locke's Second Treatise of Government, not the Bible. The idea that killing is wrong is definitely in the Bible, but is generally accepted as a universal human value, something found in basically every culture, not just Christian-influenced Western ones.
The first (US) doccument ever states:
Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
The bible is the single most influential book ever written. You actually think Locke's Second Treatise of Government, is an original thought? Of course not, not just the 10 commandments, I am speaking of all religion. All government is derived from religion. After all religion was the first government.
Religion and government are not as seperate as everyone would like to think.
Of course the Second Treatise isn't an original thought. I just think that it was inaccurate for you to say "This Country was founed on God". I 100% agree with the statement that all government is derived from religion, but that doesn't mean that we need to let it govern our ways now.
And Gene, there's no need to be an *** to me. I'd like to keep personal attacks out of this.
__________________
It's time to make a difference. Stand up and fight for your rights and your country. Write your representatives, vote, organize rallies, do whatever is necessary to bring back the America our Founding Fathers intended, not the dictatorial sham of a democracy we have now. There is still hope!
The bible is the single most influential book ever written. You actually think Locke's Second Treatise of Government, is an original thought? Of course not, not just the 10 commandments, I am speaking of all religion. All government is derived from religion. After all religion was the first government.
Religion and government are not as seperate as everyone would like to think.
EDIT:
For all of you that don’t know the true history of religion, here it is in a nutshell:
One-day way early in time there was chaos, cavemen were like animals. Then something happened, an eclipse or a huge earthquake. One of the smarter cavemen saw an opportunity to organize and create a society. So he told all the other cavemen that the eclipse or whatever happened because the creator was angry, and that he had the ability to talk to the creator. And that they needed to live under the rules of the creator (which he cleverly crafted), and that they must worship the creator. The rest of the cavemen followed this, they organized, and their lives got better. Hence the creation of religion and government together.
Except of course for those who were sacrificed to appease the God(s).
Religion has been used for manipulation since the beginning of time. When someone figured out how to use it to control others and it has never stopped. I don't see it ever stopping.
Religion is not the basis for the moral compass though - before government tribes had leaders and they lived (more or less) peacfully. Those who hurt others, were hurt back. The golden rule existed without the need for religion. But, religion doesn't give people their moral compass - their parents and friends do. This basis may have some religious backings, but a parent that teaches the Bible but beats (talkin' actual abuse here) will not likely have a peaceful well adjusted adult come of it. They learn more from parents, then from books. Likewise, this is why the teaching of evolution vs. creationism can be left to the home and the church.
Of course the Second Treatise isn't an original thought. I just think that it was inaccurate for you to say "This Country was founed on God". I 100% agree with the statement that all government is derived from religion, but that doesn't mean that we need to let it govern our ways now.
And Gene, there's no need to be an *** to me. I'd like to keep personal attacks out of this.
BTW I got some feedback from my brother Dr. Dominick DellaSala who is a well respected Biologist working for WWF. Here are his comments.
Quote:
Evolution - as defined - change in gene frequencies over time for a particular species - anyone taking a beginning genetics class will tell you that if you take fruit flies and culture them for a few generations (few weeks) you will get changes in genetic alleles rather quickly. By definition, the fruit fly is experiencing evolutionary changes (at the genetic level) in a test tube experienced in just two generations. The main issue here is the time scale involved. We can see changes in gene frequencies for short lived and highly fecund species through a matter of a couple of generations - however, to see humans evolve from a branch on the primate tree to today's Homo sapiens takes digging up fossils (looking back through time) with morphological changes expressed over thousands, if not, millions of years - evolution is slow to act on us (we're long lived, low fecund species with long time periods intergenerational), except when punctuated by stochastic environmental influences that trigger changes to gene frequencies expressed through morphological changes (as evident from fossil records and genetic sequencing work). By the way, mutations are a mechanism for triggering changes to gene frequencies and most of these are neutral, some are deleterious, and others are adaptive - this is the blueprint of evolution and noone discounts mutations!
In addition, if disbelievers in evolution were to contract dysentery or any other harmful bacterium, why don't they take the same drugs that were administered to treat the bacterium 4-5 decades ago? Point being - these species have experienced a change in gene frequencies expressed through resistance to drugs that once killed them but now have no deleterious effect. If the disbelievers think evolution doesn't happen, then if something like this harmful bacterium were to be experienced, ask the doctors to treat them with the same drugs used 50 years ago and then roll the dice!
Moreover, many species of bacterium are rapidly evolving (changing gene frequencies) in response to anti-biotics - humanity's dependence on these drugs is triggering adaptive changes (resistance) to those drugs through evolutionary mechanisms. Another example is the H5N1 virus (commonly referred to as bird flu) - concerns are the species (short "lived" rapid multigenerational) may "jump" species (from birds) to humans - jumping across species takes a change in gene frequencies, which is an evolutionary response. Governments around the world are developing predictive models concerning this species based on the possibility of this evolutionary jump.
Incidentally, Steve J. Gould has written tons on evolution for many different species (bacterium to primates) - its amazing to me that people still challenge it they way they did when Darwin and Wallace advanced the theory (and now a law of nature) over a century ago! I guess some people never made it out of the dark ages! Just because we don't have every fossil is an absurd way to challenge a law of nature.
By the way, there is no inherent reason why evolution and spirituality cannot coexist. A truly enlightened person recognizes both without feeling threatened by either!
Incidentally, there are examples of "transitional" forms in the fossil record - Archaeopteryx was transitional from reptile to bird (a reptile with wings - not the reverse by the way - birds didn't turn into lizards!). Evolution of "higher life forms" (beyond the bacterial examples I gave earlier) is punctuated - species go on for long periods with no observable changes but due to environmental stochastic events (e.g., major climatic shifts, other environmental stimuli - even mustard gas can trigger mutations!) can make dramatic leaps to something quite different mainly due to the expression of adaptive traits. Since most mutations are neutral and many others are deleterious these traits don't show up in the population and do not increase in expression (i.e. they're eliminated) - its mainly when something is adaptive that it catches on quickly and the species "jumps." A lot of this is being revealed without the need for fossils through genetic sequencing that can tell how closely related species are and therefore based on inferential and deductive reasoning match this with other aspects of speciation (such as behavioral differences, morphological differences, special adaptations, reproductive isolation, etc). Consequently, the mechanisms for speciation are very well defined - they include pre and post-zygotic mechanisms (prevent reproduction), reproductive isolation, and other mechanisms that result in speciation events - although hybrids do occur often in nature in closely related species where such mechanisms are less of a barrier -- however, its clear that elephants and giraffs don't mate because of speciation events (things don't fit!) that took place over millenium as a result of the mechanisms described above!
This is good science not faith!
__________________
Gene DellaSala
President, Audioholics Pursuing the truth in audio & video...
BTW I got some feedback from my brother Dr. Dominick DellaSala who is a well respected Biologist working for WWF. Here are his comments.
I thought of asking my good friend, Dr. Jacques Gauthier, Chair of Herpetology at Yale University to respond directly, but he has more pressing matters. Basically, he laughs at the ignoble effort of I.D. and accusations that evolution is bunk.
Gene, you didn't do anything. Jaxvon thought you bashed him when it was indeed, MacManmn. Macmanmn bashed Jaxvon thinking he was Furrycute. So everyone is confused and Macmanmn once again goes to arguement ad hominum.
Life is interesting, yes?!
__________________
I'm not a complete idiot. Parts of me are missing.
Feedback from Peter Dunkelberg from one of the articles I referenced earlier on Irreducible Complexity
Quote:
Hi, I just learned of this discussion. It's much more thoughtful and reasonable than many discussions on the subject of evo vs creo. Right at the start there is a statement that there is hardly any evidence for the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs. (the word 'lizards' is used; there is a big difference, and I'm not referring to size) Then this view is revised! So few people will revise anything they say, I have to be impressed. However there is now lots of fossil evidence for this transition. The big technical problem is figuring out where to draw an arbitrary line saying '"Birds start here". There is no clear divide, and there may well have been some small feathered flying theropods that were
not on the line to birds as we know them, as well as others that were.
Evolution is so little taught, yet you hear so much about it in the news, that most of what people think they know about the subject is false or misleading or so oversimplified that it is easily taken advantage of by antievolutionists. Quotations play a large part , so it helps to know something about:
What about IDC (or DIC - Disc. Institute Creationism, since it is the DI that advertises this brand)? You don't know nuthin til you know The Wedge: http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
Why not teach 'both theories'? To teach something in science class, you must have some actual valid content to put into science lesson plans. Creationism including DIC hasn't any and there is not even a theory of IDesign. Leading Designists admit this. Is evolution a fact of natural history, or a theory? Yes, both. As with gravity - think about it. By the way, that the earth is at least millions of years old was worked out by Christian geologists before they had heard of evolution. http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/..._not_fact.html
The well funded DICs have been very very good at antiscience propaganda. Their famous 'irreducible complexity' (IC ) provides an illustration. Think about 'parts' of organisms, from large body parts down to proteins. Evolution naturally leads to co-adapted parts. Now, from the observer's point of view, specify a 'function' of an organism. Next, designate a 'system', or overall part of the organism that accomplishes the function. Finally, divide the 'system' into parts, and don't include any extra parts. If evolution has been at work, there surely are situations where this can be done. But according to leading Designist Behe:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Behe, _Darwin's Black Box_ p 39
"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system
composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that
contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one
of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
[emphasis in original]
and this just couldn't have evolved.
As I know now, the idea (but not the clever name for it) came from a major work of creationism:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morris, _Scientific Creationism_ 2nd edition p 59
This issue can actually be attacked quantitatively, using
simple principles of mathematical probability. The problem
is simply whether a complex system, in which many com-
ponents function unitedly together, and in which each com-
ponent is uniquely necessary to the efficient functioning of
the whole, could ever arise by random processes.
Absurd, but powerful propaganda. By the way, note the last two words in the quote: 'random processes'. Creationists have been told hundreds of times that natural selection is not random. Most pay no attention. Perhaps it's easier to reject evolution if you think it's random period. In general, talking about the 'probability' of anything apart from the process leading to it is nonsense. Think of a fluffy white cloud in a blue sky.
The big big deal in evo/creo just now is the Kitzmiller trial stemming from the actions of the Dover, PA school board. The trial lasted for about six weeks, and then it was about that long again until the Judge's decision came out yesterday. There was extensive testimony from scientists and citizens, IDists and school board members, a philosopher, a theologian and an expert on science education. The trial was extensively covered at The Panda's Thumb, and there were several posts yesterday on the decision. http://www.pandasthumb.org
Bad Religion and I don't mean the rock group
Upon looking into it, most people can figure out that 'scientific creationism' is a misnomer and relabeling it doesn't change this. What is often overlooked is that it's bad religion too. It is the Designer (formerly known as God) of the gaps - the idea that God is to be found in gaps in human knowledge. This is made worse by the fact that they essentially make up the gaps, whether in fossils or in molecules. There is also the principle of more gaps: every new data point means that one gap turns into two. Let's not use public schools to push crackpot theology. http://www.evolvingcode.net/recon.php
Part of a recent news article:
Baylor vice-president Randall O'Brien (where
evolution is taught) said, "At Baylor, we believe Jesus came to take away our sins, not our minds."
Students bridge science, faith at Christian colleges Intelligent design not taught at Baylor University
By LISA ANDERSON
Chicago Tribune
BOURBONNAIS, Ill. As the battle over the teaching of biological evolution buffets public high schools, a more delicate challenge faces many of the nation's Christian colleges and universities: helping students bridge the growing gap between modern science and fundamentalist faith.
With the increase in evangelical Christians and the rise in home schooling for religious reasons, Christian schools of all types find that many of their students come from a creationist tradition. "Young Earth" creationists take the Bible's Genesis account of creation literally while "old Earth" adherents believe the planet is older than 10,000 years. Both consider Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and particularly its assertion of the common ancestry of all life and the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection to be evil, faith-threatening concepts.
Some extremely conservative colleges and universities, such as Patrick Henry College in Virginia and Bob Jones University in South Carolina, approach all studies from a strict biblical perspective. While biology classes may cover neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, creationism, often including an Earth age of less than 10,000 years, is presented as the best explanation for the development of humans and the universe.
But many, more moderate "Christ-centered" institutions have firmly distanced themselves from the less-rigorous academic stereotype of the "Bible college" and have invested in cutting-edge science programs and facilities comparable to those at highly rated secular schools.
The intersection of Bible and biology lab, however, seems more like a collision course for some students.
"Imagine telling a very devout creationist that evolution is real, but it doesn't endanger their faith," said Richard Colling, a professor of biology at Olivet Nazarene University, affiliated with the Church of the Nazarene, in Bourbonnais, south of Chicago. "That's exactly the journey many of our college students begin when they come into my biology class."
Toni Moran, 21, a senior biology major from Decatur, Ill., has taken that journey.
"Personally, I think there's such a divide among Christians that we're forced to choose evolution or creationism. I think so many Christians are afraid that if they even look at the scientific evidence, they'll lose their faith," she said, noting that "'evolution' is a taboo word in my church and in my home."
Moran said she has come to accept evolution as compatible with her faith but thinks intelligent design should be included in science classes. Intelligent design, or ID, presents itself as a scientific theory positing that some complex aspects of the natural world, yet unexplained by evolution, best are attributed to an unnamed and unseen intelligent designer, whom many ID proponents believe is God. Nearly universally rejected by scientists, ID is considered by many to be a high-tech name for creationism.
Colling vigorously opposes ID, calling it "a God of the gaps" concept without scientific merit that uses God to fill gaps in scientific understanding.
"Intelligent design ensures that God will be pushed into an ever- diminishing corner and ultimately be viewed as obsolete. Every time science makes a new discovery, God is erased," Colling said.
__________________
Gene DellaSala
President, Audioholics Pursuing the truth in audio & video...
__________________
It's time to make a difference. Stand up and fight for your rights and your country. Write your representatives, vote, organize rallies, do whatever is necessary to bring back the America our Founding Fathers intended, not the dictatorial sham of a democracy we have now. There is still hope!
"Science will undeniably advance, and if we hold onto this creationist thought, I fear that Christians will be left behind," said Suzi Supernant, 21, a senior biology major from Bourbonnais. She said she and her twin sister, Stephanie, also a biology major at Olivet Nazarene, were "radical creationists" until they got to college.
Said Stephanie, "I teach Bible studies to high school students, and I tell them, 'I'm a Christian and I believe in evolution.'" But several of the students said that Christians who support evolution are sometimes derided as being weak in faith and bound for hell.
For creationist or other very conservative Christian students, the initial exposure to modern biology and neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory can be akin to "culture shock," said Randall O'Brien, provost and vice president for academic affairs at Baylor University, a moderate Baptist General Convention of Texas school in Waco.
"For many young people, college is the first time in which their own perspective on the world is being challenged," said Ron Mahurin, vice president for professional development and research at the 105-member Council for Christian Colleges & Universities.
"If you ask me what do we teach here at Baylor, we're really as much about interrogation of faith and learning as we are about integration of faith and learning," O'Brien said. "At Baylor, we believe Jesus came to take away our sins, not our minds."
An even simpler way to look at it, not depending on any particular religion, is: You don't honor the creator by stubbornly refusing to believe the creation.
I agree there should be open discussion. Unfortunately this is not typically the case as almost no criticism of evolutional theory or its difficulties are taught in schools - hence the desire of many to include a discussion of intelligent design. Including Intelligent Design is seemingly the only way to get any sort of criticism of evolution and alternative theory - it simply isn't taught or discussed otherwise. And it more closely matches the latest evidence at hand, as revealed by microbiology and paleontology. I have met hundreds of people in my time that believe evolution is simply fact - and that's what they learned in school.
If you step back, what you will see is a very deliberate attempt to silence any criticism of evolution - since evolutionists will not self-critique themselves - at least not in public school texts (I have spoken with several evolutionists who admit to the incredible amount of missing information and dubious assumptions, but this is usually not taught in schools as no one wants to admit that the theory has such significant flaws - especially if they have no "designer-free" options to put in its place).
rjbudz: I appreciate your discussion here - thanks for jumping in (and correcting my flip on lizards). What you are talking about is Punctuatued Equilibrium - essentially the theory of "hopeful monsters". The problem with Punctuated Equilibrium is that there is very little evidence for it (to the contrary there is a wealth of information on how mutations - dramatic or not - are almost always detrimental, not beneficial to a species or organism.
Punctuated Equilibrium takes much more faith than does religion as you have to believe in millions and millions of spontaneous, dramatic mutations to achieve the ends needed by evolutionists to maintain the current theory.
And just for everyone's clarity - just as there are different flavors of Christianity and beliefs, there are also differeing views and flavors of evolution.
This is a cool discussion and in an appropriate place... As long as there are no personal attacks I dont' see any reason to limit it...
/comment
starting with this:
"Unfortunately this is not typically the case as almost no criticism of evolutional theory or its difficulties are taught in schools"
Actually much of this criticism is taught by teachers who favor creationism. But the reason not to 'Teach the controversy", another creationist slogan, is the 'weaknesses' of biology that creationists advocate are generally false and misleading antiscience propaganda.
You can go through the rest of the comment, look things up in the Index to Creationist Claims, and answer with links to items in the index. It saves a lot of time. The key to creationist debate is that they have a large store of false claims that they can repeat with no effort. It takes another person lots of time to research each one.
__________________
Gene DellaSala
President, Audioholics Pursuing the truth in audio & video...
Linear Mode
