November 30, 2005

"JEWS" VS. CREATION:

64 Percent Say Religion 'Under Attack': Creationism Should Be Taught In Science, 56 Percent Say (AP, November 22, 2005)

Of the 800 adults polled...56 percent wanted creationism taught alongside evolution... [...]

ADL national director Abraham Foxman said the findings "highlight the challenge that we face in this country in trying to maintain the pluralistic, inclusive, tolerant society that has been good for religion, for minorities and in particular for the Jewish community."

The survey comes at a time when ADL has begun questioning the role of some on the religious right in what the group sees as an effort to impose their beliefs in the public square.


Even if you let the ADL cook the poll it's still an overwhelming majority.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 30, 2005 2:40 PM
Comments

The idea of creation is in the Jewish Bible. I guess Mr. Foxman rejects the Bible. Is he still Jewish?

Posted by: jdkelly at November 30, 2005 2:52 PM

jd:

the New and Approved ADL Bible starts with the Book of Descartes.

Posted by: oj at November 30, 2005 2:59 PM

Foxman must be paid very well to be this self-destructively stupid.

Posted by: Luciferous at November 30, 2005 3:14 PM

I think he and Barry Lynn are an item.

Posted by: ratbert at November 30, 2005 3:36 PM

As a former agnostic Jew, I know how uncomfortable it is for these people to reconcile their non-belief in anything in the bible with the fact that they consider themselves fully Jewish.

They believe that society will naturally progress past the point of believing in any religion as knowledge increases, and any attempts to re-godify society must be the work of retrograde (white) men looking to take us back to a previous barbaric time, like Jim Crow, the Crusades, or possibly even Nazi Germany.

Because they acknowledge that somebody like Karl Rove is so smart (like them), they think he must be cynically encouraging religious morons to further his own ends, which are undoubtedly evil (if it existed) since no smart person would ally himself with those type of dimbulbs for any other reason.

The president's proclivity for ridiculous public-speaking soundbites only enforces this belief that being deeply religious is proof positive of a lack of knowledge. Bush's sense of humor about his own average grades further reinforces the belief that Bush has willfully kept himself ignorant.

Basically, the attempt by people in society to reintroduce religion into America does not fit the plan. It's okay for blacks and recent immigrants maybe, who would be more dangerous otherwise, but requiring suburban kids of enlightened parents to learn about creation is dangerous, because if "real" people were taught about those things, then religion would be making inroads with people who matter because they're the real future of America.

Posted by: Matt Cohen at November 30, 2005 4:02 PM

the Greeks believed gods sat on Mt. Olympus...anyone think the earth was created there?

Religions come and religions go... we as human species have been on this earth longer than all of today's current groups of religions. Isn't it time we concentrated on teaching subjects we have some way of evaluating, measuring and examining and leave the spiritual study for the shamen, myth makers and priests?

Posted by: oldkayaker at December 1, 2005 1:54 AM

Seems that lots 'a folks are under the impression that teaching Creationism as science is going to turn on a lot of the next generation to religion.

Heh.

Posted by: Barry Meislin at December 1, 2005 2:02 AM

"Even if you let the ADL cook the poll it's still an overwhelming majority."

And even the ADL didn't ask whether Creationism should be taught as science, leaving you to fall for the misleading headline.

When actually asked whether Creationism should be taught as science in a science classroom, almost 70% are against it, preferring either to have Creationism mentioned as a belief in a science classroom, to have Creationism discussed in non-science classes, or to have Creationism not taught at all.

This would be compatible with the view that a plurality or majority want Creationism taught in public schools.

Posted by: creeper at December 1, 2005 5:04 AM

Funny how one moment Judeo-Christians are in the overwhelming majority, and the next they are poor little victims who desperately need following generations to be 'turned on' to religion.

Posted by: creeper at December 1, 2005 5:07 AM

creeper:

Yes, we're 95% believers even with the Darwinist monopoly.

Posted by: oj at December 1, 2005 7:30 AM

creeper:

56 percent wanted creationism taught alongside evolution

Posted by: oj at December 1, 2005 7:31 AM

Jeff:

But less than Jews.

Posted by: oj at December 1, 2005 7:35 AM

ok:

Certainly the mos sensible option is to not teach any of the three theories of evolution, since none meet your scientific standard.

Posted by: oj at December 1, 2005 7:37 AM

"Yes, we're 95% believers even with the Darwinist monopoly."

If you think that is true, then you should also take on board the inevitable conclusion that your obsession with 'Darwinism' is misguided. Obviously accepting the scientific theory of evolution doesn't clash with believing in God for somewhere around 40-45% of those 95%, and 'Darwinism' represents no threat whatsoever to Judeo-Christianity. So there's really no need about painting some demonic strawman called 'Darwinism' and foolishly rejecting science or (I'm assuming purposely) misrepresenting it, as you so often do.

"56 percent wanted creationism taught alongside evolution"

As science? Doesn't say. Wasn't asked. Hence my response above:

When actually asked whether Creationism should be taught as science in a science classroom, almost 70% are against it, preferring either to have Creationism mentioned as a belief in a science classroom, to have Creationism discussed in non-science classes, or to have Creationism not taught at all.

This would be compatible with the view that a plurality or majority want Creationism taught in public schools.

Your quote does not contradict or challenge what I said.

"Certainly the most sensible option is to not teach any of the three theories of evolution, since none meet your scientific standard."

There is only one scientific theory of evolution.

Posted by: creeper at December 1, 2005 9:11 AM

creeper:

No one rejects science. We don't want an ideology that serves evil taught in our science classes. If they won't take it out then we want the countervailing ideology that serves good taught with it.

Posted by: oj at December 1, 2005 10:52 AM

OJ:

Naturalistic evolution is not an ideology, and it does not serve evil.

Nazism is your sine qua non in this regard. Unfortunately, history contradicts your thesis. Murderous anti-Semitism long predated Hitler, or, for that matter, Darwin. As such, the Holocaust was a product of German tribal nationalism and centuries long anti-Semitism, and has nothing to do with reason.

Nazism is no more an indictment of reason, or Darwin, than is one chimpanzee clubbing another over the head with a dinosaur thighbone.

What's more, you should note that naturalistic evolution is completely consistent with conservatism.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at December 1, 2005 11:40 AM

Jeff:

Of course it is, it just happens to be your ideology. No sweat, you need something to try and fill the God-sized hole in your heart.

Posted by: oj at December 1, 2005 11:43 AM

"No one rejects science."

Literal creationists do, in abundance.

"We don't want an ideology that serves evil taught in our science classes."

There is no one-to-one correlation between the scientific theory of evolution (which is what is taught in our science classes) and any particular ideology. You may draw particular conclusions, but those conclusions are not taught in the science classes, merely the theory that best explains and is confirmed by observations in nature.

"If they won't take it out then we want the countervailing ideology that serves good taught with it."

So you do want ideology taught in science classes? Why? Why not take any such concerns into a philosophy or social studies class?


You use the term 'Darwinism' quite flexibly, sometimes referring to the theory of evolution, sometimes referring to atheism, sometimes referring to other things. You're welcome to it, but where this ties you in knots is when you start believing it and lose track of contexts. What is taught in science classes is not the ideology you see as 'Darwinism'; what is taught in science classes is the scientific theory of evolution. Its philosophical ramifications are not explored in that context, and so there is no need to drag any other philosophical matters into the science class, though they can be covered at length elsewhere at your leisure.

If the ideology of 'Darwinism' is such a threat, why not lobby to expose and explore its evil consequences in an appropriate class in public schools, in comparison with Judeo-Christianity etc.?

Posted by: creeper at December 1, 2005 11:53 AM

creeper:

Of course there's a correlation--the Anglo-American premise is that Man derives dignity from his Creation by God and is endowed with certain inalienable rights requiring that all men be treated equally.

Darwinism denies every element of that and is inherently evil.

The American ideology should be taught in school because that's why we have public schools.

Posted by: oj at December 1, 2005 12:01 PM

Orrin,

What I said was:

"There is no one-to-one correlation between the scientific theory of evolution (which is what is taught in our science classes) and any particular ideology."

You're free to draw a correlation, but that does not amount to acceptance the scientific theory of evolution only allowing one possible ideology, and it certainly doesn't automatically need to lead to evil.

'Darwinism' as you use it here is your own construct, but you should be clear that this demonized strawman mishmash of ideology and religion is not what is currently taught in science classes.

"the Anglo-American premise is that Man derives dignity from his Creation by God and is endowed with certain inalienable rights requiring that all men be treated equally"

In what way is God giving man dignity in a way incompatible with the theory of evolution a prerequisite for God's existence? Or for man having dignity?

Why is the incompatibility with the theory of evolution such a sticking point for you? Since we do not know by which mechanism God created man, why could it not have been via evolution as science observes it? If God created all of nature, then what is so evil about observing and describing nature as it is?

"The American ideology should be taught in school because that's why we have public schools."

That may well be, and if you wish that ideology can be taught in the appropriate place within the public school - but the scientific theory of evolution is not an ideology, but the current state of scientific understanding on the subject, which science classes in public schools should reflect.

Posted by: creeper at December 1, 2005 12:53 PM

creeper:

Yes, the denial of human dignity is in and of itself evil, as is the insistence that no two men are equal, as is the belief that there are no absolute rights or morality, etc.

all Darwinism is at the end of the day is an ideology, unrelated to science.

Posted by: oj at December 1, 2005 1:31 PM

Orrin,

"Yes, the denial of human dignity is in and of itself evil, as is the insistence that no two men are equal, as is the belief that there are no absolute rights or morality, etc."

The theory of evolution is neutral on the subject of human dignity, and in order to assert that 'Darwinism' denies human dignity, you would have to show that God could only give man dignity in a way incompatible with the theory of evolution. Barring that, you are asserting with no basis whatsoever that God giving man dignity (by some undefined process) and man evolving are mutually incompatible, which faulty assertion yields you either the (imagined) claim that man has no dignity or the claim (unsupported by scientific evidence) that man burst into existence in his present form.

In the absence of any clue at all about how God gave man dignity or how God created man, it is not possible to positively make any such assertion. What it boils down to is that you are attaching a few ideological strawmen to the acceptance of the theory of evolution. Is it really that hard to admit that you don't know how God made man and gave him dignity?

As for "the insistence that no two men are equal", it refers to man's rights and dignity, and the theory of evolution is completely neutral on this - the same goes for absolute rights and morality.

"all Darwinism is at the end of the day is an ideology, unrelated to science."

That may well be, because 'Darwinism' is your own strawman, and your strawman is of course very much unrelated to science. This has nothing whatsoever to do with what is being taught in science classroom, which is the theory of evolution (not your whipping boy, the strawman 'Darwinism), and which is of course anything but "an ideology, unrelated to science".

Posted by: creeper at December 1, 2005 2:33 PM

No, it isn't. It says man is just another species produced by chance. It says every member of a species has tiny variations making some fitter than others. etc.

Darwinism can not be squared with God, morality, decency, or the American Founding. It is evil and doesn't belong in American classrooms. It should be in secular European classrooms though.

I admire that you, like Brit, are eager to disavow the outcomes of your ideology at the expense of coherence. Now you just need to work back from moral coherence and dump the evil ideology.

Posted by: oj at December 1, 2005 2:40 PM

Whooa.....did I get that right?..... OJ wants creationism taught in our public schools?... wow.. I knew there was something weird about you!

Posted by: oldkayaker at December 1, 2005 2:44 PM

ok:

What is it you think public schools exist for?

Posted by: oj at December 1, 2005 3:54 PM

OJ:

You are missing Creeper's point entire.

You absolutely cannot discard the possibility that naturalistic evolution describes the process by which God created humans and gave them individual dignity.

Because you can't do so, your blanket statement that "[naturalistic evolution] cannot be squared with God, morality, decency or the American Founding" is not only baseless, it may very well repudiate the God you insist you worship.

For a mere human, you seem awfully eager to put limits upon what God may do, and how God may do it.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at December 1, 2005 4:55 PM

Jeff:

No, I take that point. You can rescue the morality you want if God guides evolution. But you lose Darwinism.

N.B. It doesn't limit God to take Him at His word.

Posted by: oj at December 1, 2005 4:59 PM

Sorry, you don't take the point.

If God set up evolution to work naturalistically, then evolutionary theory is a coherent description of how God established a system that would eventually produce beings with a moral sense. All without God investing Himself in every tittle and jot of natural history.

You, or any book, claiming to speak for God does not mean that is God's word.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at December 1, 2005 5:29 PM

Jeff:

So Darwinism is a planned, deterministic tool of an intelligent being?

Posted by: oj at December 1, 2005 5:32 PM

OJ... not for your nonsense!

Posted by: oldkayaker at December 1, 2005 5:34 PM

ok;

Yes, but why do we have public schools?

Posted by: oj at December 1, 2005 5:40 PM

OJ
1. Public education in America means: a free education for all students

2. Public education in America means: the promise of equal educational opportunities no matter race, religion or ability

3. Public education in America means: high standards

4. Public education in America means: public accountability

5. Public education in America means: a benefit to society by teaching democratic principles and common values

Posted by: oldkayaker at December 1, 2005 6:34 PM

ok,
1. Maybe
2-5. No

Posted by: jdkelly at December 1, 2005 6:57 PM

Public K-12 education in the United States is a tool to promote and enforce social conformity.

Posted by: David Cohen at December 1, 2005 7:20 PM

FWIW, here's Jefferson (boldface mine):

"The objects of... primary education [which] determine its character and limits [are]: To give to every citizen the information he needs for the transaction of his own business; to enable him to calculate for himself, and to express and preserve his ideas, his contracts and accounts in writing; to improve, by reading, his morals and faculties; to understand his duties to his neighbors and country, and to discharge with competence the functions confided to him by either; to know his rights; to exercise with order and justice those he retains, to choose with discretion the fiduciary of those he delegates; and to notice their conduct with diligence, with candor and judgment; and in general, to observe with intelligence and faithfulness all the social relations under which he shall be placed." --Thomas Jefferson: Report for University of Virginia, 1818.


Posted by: joe shropshire at December 1, 2005 7:49 PM

Yes, and it's the 'conformity to what' part that causes all the problems. Things have changed a bit since the 1950s.

Posted by: jim hamlen at December 1, 2005 7:50 PM

Don't see any basis for religious creationism to be included in public tax supported education do you?

Posted by: oldkayaker at December 1, 2005 8:20 PM

ok:

Yes, #5 is exactly the purpose of the public school system and it requires Creationism.

Posted by: oj at December 1, 2005 8:43 PM

Not on my buck... OJ... NEVER gonna happen!

Posted by: oldkayaker at December 1, 2005 8:46 PM

ok:

Bet? It was standard until the 60s and will be back shortly.

Posted by: oj at December 1, 2005 8:47 PM

jim:

Why's that a problem--the Founders were quite explicit about what we have to conform to.


In conformity with the principles of our Constitution, which
places all sects of religion on an equal footing, with the jealousies of
the different sects in guarding that equality from encroachment and
surprise, and with the sentiments of the Legislature in favor of freedom
of religion, manifested on former occasions, we have proposed no
professor of divinity; and the rather as the proofs of the being of a
God, the creator, preserver, and supreme ruler of the universe, the
author of all the relations of morality, and of the laws and obligations
these infer, will be within the province of the professor of ethics; to
which adding the developments of these moral obligations, of those in
which all sects agree, with a knowledge of the languages, Hebrew, Greek,
and Latin, a basis will be formed common to all sects. Proceeding thus
far without offense to the Constitution, we have thought it proper at
this point to leave every sect to provide, as they think fittest, the
means of further instruction in their own peculiar tenets.
-Thomas Jefferson, href="http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/JefRock.html">Report
of the Commissioners for the University of Virginia

Posted by: oj at December 1, 2005 8:49 PM

Garbage IN Garbage OUT...OJ...simple as that. You want to teach creationism in your church schools funded by your money... go right ahead. You want to put that nonsense in schools funded by my tax dollars you will be STOPPED!

Its that simple.

Posted by: oldkayaker at December 1, 2005 9:10 PM

Bet? Darwinism is already gone from many Red State schools. In a democracy you can't force a theory that only 13% believe in down everyones' throats.


http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/2005/02/brave_new_world_2.html

Posted by: oj at December 1, 2005 9:16 PM

Religions have tried to stop science before and every time we learn more and more about the hypocracy, prejudice, bigotry that comes with religions. Your religion has stood in the way of science and lost every time.

Posted by: oldkayaker at December 1, 2005 9:41 PM

To the contrary, the sciences eventually just confirm what Judeo-Christianity always taught every time. They just take a roundabout way of getting there.

Posted by: oj at December 1, 2005 10:27 PM

It's a problem because the educational elite hasn't believed what Jefferson wrote since probably the 1890s, and gave up any pretense of following it between 1930 and 1950. Once the Court endorsed their point of view, the slope was sliding away. Sure, the Red states are trying to fight back (on a district-by-district basis, or even statewide, like KS), but it is a death match.

Even in a Red state like NC, the larger districts are all solid Blue-brained, and are usually nothing more than political laboratories or holding pens.

And Jefferson's phrase "Proceeding thus far without offense to the Constitution," - well, today's leftists take offense at the gnat and wave the snorting camels right on through, don't they? Especially in education and academia.

Posted by: jim hamlen at December 1, 2005 11:03 PM

OJ... studies of spirtuality probably rightfully belong in the relm of the shamen, spritualists, myth makers, priests, etc; but, scientific reasoning is based on evidence that can be validated.

And maybe, creationism belongs in the relm of spirtuality; but, creationism has no place in the relm of science and neither does it have a place in schools financed by public tax dollars.

Religion has tried hard over the ages to suppress scientific reasoning through intimidation, prejudice, torture, bigotry, hate and as is now happening through political pressure; but, mature level headed thinking people will prevail, we always have ;o).

Posted by: oldkayaker at December 2, 2005 1:01 AM

ok:

Quite right, which is why Darwinism doesn't belong in a science class.

The American Republic isn't based on Reason, but Faith.

Posted by: oj at December 2, 2005 7:40 AM

ok:

Just put it in a poll question and you'll get a majority in agreement.

Posted by: oj at December 2, 2005 12:10 PM

"...Darwinism doesn't belong in a science class."

Orrin Judd

Wow... OJ... should we put that quote on your birthday cake or tombstone?

The other Creationism board has closed... too bad..OJ's quote deserves to be repeated...

Posted by: oldkayaker at December 2, 2005 12:14 PM

A poll of this forum or in the real world?

Posted by: oldkayaker at December 2, 2005 12:25 PM

I know this is expected and blindingly obvious, but Orrin's link doesn't back up his claim.

Posted by: creeper at December 2, 2005 12:46 PM
« BUT HE EMANCIPATED WOMEN!: | Main | IS THERE ANY GREAT LIBERAL AUTHOR WHOSE BEST BOOK ISN'T ACCIDENTALLY CONSERVATIVE?: »