I lean heavily on the conservative side, but like you, I go for Darwin too. And I also don't support some of the other wacko themes of typical repubs such as interfering with a woman's body, what I can look at on the web (but I am against child porn), and I'm against the Robin Hood approach to distribution of wealth.
Which do you choose ? As an Atheist/Empiricist, I'll cast my lot with Darwin over "Biblical fairy tales" any day. Also, keep in mind that "creation science" is the ultimate oxymoron.
I would assume that some of the more educated conservatives would go with Darwin because even they can see that listeners/viewers of Limbaugh/Fox News have descended from apes-------
Thoughts ?
-- Modified on 2/12/2010 7:02:28 AM
I lean heavily on the conservative side, but like you, I go for Darwin too. And I also don't support some of the other wacko themes of typical repubs such as interfering with a woman's body, what I can look at on the web (but I am against child porn), and I'm against the Robin Hood approach to distribution of wealth.
I had mostly Nuns as teachers and they taught me much that a good parent would teach their children,such as the difference between right and wrong and good and bad, along with a lot of trivia I tended to question to their disdain.
A question I asked many times is what does God look like to which the same reply..."You can not see God but when you feel him in your heart you will know he is there"..
When I was 12 I put it all together and figured out that God is the Earth and the apostles were the wind..
Originally there were 360 apostles but most of them became mired into North South East and West.
but hey, lets look at the "faith" that scientists hold.
1) they understand evolution. Do they? really? Still can't "create" life de novo in a test tube, no matter how we rig the experiment - it has been tried ad naseum... the closest we can come is a few studies in which we have created a few complex bio-molecules, and these have "catalyzed" reactions.... including some rudimentary duplication.
2) For the most part, I am amazed that the two - creationism and evolution - cannot co-exist... but, what's that you say, Science cannot have two theories co-exist.... uh-huh.... wave and particle theory of light.... well.... guess we can't have that either. or hey, how about the Schroedinger cat mystique??? The cat exists as both dead and alive... until you make the observation.
3) For the most part, I believe in the "Big Bang" theory of the creation of the universe, but while that explains "how" it does not explain "why" help me here... Why???
4) Do I believe in evolution? yes, no doubt about it... no question that there is a "gradual" (well, there are those sudden "Bursts of new forms of life") over mellinea progression of life. but I also view evolution as a tool, much as particle physics are a tool to accomplish things. Don't be confused as to "how" things are accomplished with the "reason" that they are accomplished.
I've been astonished by the number of high quality scientists I have known in my life, who do believe in God. Ok, maybe not the god who "Demands" sacrifice in the form of killing a person or child, but a god who governs the universe.... and permits the rules of physics to enable the universe to operate.
I know, you'd much rather have it be due to "random chance" - but have you ever questioned why (for all practical purposes) amino acids used in life on the earth are "left-handed." While sugars are 'right-handed?"
Ponder that, cause I have no idea (hypothesis have been offered, but none totally convincing).
So you see, I can accept both, much as I can accept light as a particle and a wave, a dead/alive cat in an unopened box.... and many many other things.
And like you, mostly I see limbaugh, hannity and others of their ilk as very narrow minded individuals who cannot understand the duality of much of what actually makes the world work....
hope that the libs really do have open minds, but I find that oft, their minds are just as closed as the right wingers.
"What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world." --Albert Einstein
-- Modified on 2/12/2010 9:32:24 AM
-- Modified on 2/12/2010 9:43:52 AM
-- Modified on 2/12/2010 10:06:25 AM
-- Modified on 2/12/2010 10:07:37 AM
Well thought out post.
I don't find the "open minded liberals" the slightest bit more open minded than the religious nuts.
It must be comforting to be a partisan, or religious, or a member of any group that can do your thinking for you. Unfortunately I don't belong to any of those groups and I have to muddle through life without knowing the answers to many of these questions. Sure beats putting your head in the sand and pretending to have all the answers.
As presently defined by the people who MADE UP the title; Yes, Evolution and belief in God can and does co-exist, and many people, including scientists, believe in God.
However, Creation Scoiece in it's current form cannot exist along side of science because the very nature of Creationism, as it is currently defined, refutes science; for example, the way the religious right defines creationism is that the earth is no older than 6000 years.
Creation "Science", along with "Intelligent Design" are prime examples of how extreme right-wing conservatives invent new definitions to make their positions seem more reasonable, like calling the Estate Tax a "Death" tax.
It's nothing but marketing...
-- Modified on 2/13/2010 9:19:27 AM
does NOT set a 6000 yr old time clock... in fact, they acknowledge that to an everlasting and omnipresent "GOD" time has no meaning (check relativity for that one....).
Truth is, Science and Religion have much in common... heck, they derived from the same heirarchical constructs in prehistoric times.... as the chief priest was oft the "keeper of all tribal knowledge" How this is missed by so many baffles me. It is a rivalry of "not quite equals" depending on the epoch you live in... Middle Ages, clearly the church won, from 1900 on, clearly the scientists win.
really, it is interesting the perception of what it is that "scientists" "do." They have faith in the tools they use, observations they make, the logic they apply, and the reasoning they use to reach conclusions... and while some of you tout the "logic" and resoning that they use as opposed to the total faith model, I would offer that the only difference is that a scientists faith is a bit further upstream. no more, no less.
But what I would ask in discourse is that you not refer to the minority extreme right wing.... cause as you point out, they are "Extreme."
as to the political example of "estate tax" vs. "Death Tax" I would ask the following... if a dude accumulates wealth through saving his earnings (on which he paid taxes), and interest and dividends on his investments (on which he paid taxes)... you are saying that you support a 2nd tax on that income??? Just curious, do you support taxing the same money multiple times through an estate tax????
I'm not debating pros or cons of the Estate Tax, I'm referring to the conservative's ability (which I'm admit to begrudgingly admire), to coin terms like "Death Tax", "Enhanced interrogation techniques", "Death Panals and "Islamofacists" to incite the uninformed masses.
Let's face it, to most Americans they'll never have to worry about an Estate Tax... there's a $1,000,000 exemption on assets, and several loopholes to protect much of the estate value after that one million dollars. The facts are that VERY few people end up paying estate taxes, and of those that do, the average amount paid is about 1/5 the value of the estate.
But call it a "Death Tax", and suddenly Joe Public, whose average income is around
$50,000 and who rarely has an estate that come anywhere near that million bucks, is ranting and raving against it.
Brilliant...
The same thing goes for Creation "Science"... It used to be called "believing in God", or "having faith"; but now, by calling it Intelligent Design or Creation Science, it makes it seem more reasonable that it should be taught in schools alongside of Biology and Physics, which is TOTALLY contrary to the Constitution.
You said, "to most Americans they'll never have to worry about an Estate Tax".
This comes from the guy who severely chastised phil for not criticizing the Patriot Act because it was not affecting him personally.
Granted, not quite the same thing, so you may think different rules apply between economics and personal freedoms. Well economics, when it gets right down to it, is about personal freedom.
C'mon... There's a BIG difference about not caring about the usurping of the fundamental basis of our Constitution and not caring about whether the top 1% of Americans have to pay an estate tax.
And while there's no denying that the Patriot Act has at the very least limited some of our supposedly "guaranteed" rights, the validity of the Estate Tax is open to debate, whereas the Bill of Rights shouldn't be.
"Not quite the same thing" is a gross understatement!
Quoting from the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities...
"MYTH 4: THE ESTATE TAX CONSTITUATES 'DOUBLE TAXATION' BECAUSE IT APPLIES TO ASSETS THAT ALREADY HAVE BEEN TAXED ONCE AS INCOME
Reality: Large estates are comprised to a large degree of "unrealized" capital gains that have never been taxed; the estate tax is the only means of taxing this income.
Income taxes on the appreciation of assets, such as real estate or an art collection, are paid only when the asset is sold. Therefore, the increase in the value of an asset is never subject to income tax if the asset is held until a person dies. These "unrealized" capital gains can make up a significant share of an estate’s total value(http://www.cbpp.org/6-17-05tax.htm), especially among large estates — the ones likely to owe estate tax."
For the whole article, "The Estate Tax: Myths and Realities", follow the link below...
We came from monkeys and not created by God. You it is not possible, right?
Darwin talks about evolution which took millions of years. Why would God wait for millions of years when, he can solve the problem in 7 days?
Well, the Christian answer to that question would be "God works in mysterious ways"...
BTW, according to the Bible, God rested on the 7th day... it only took him six to create the universe.
The common, or popular translation, is that God did his handiwork in 7 days. If you research the correct language, the translation reverts to 7 periods of time, not 7 days.
Be that as it may, my questions for evolution theorists and big bangers is....Where did all the matter come from to get the universe started, and when did the first living organism assume life? Is the universe finite, or infinite? Science still can't prove shit, one way or the other. New theories continually arise debunking previous ones, as new data is gathered. There is no doubt about evolution over millions of years, but if we are descendents of homo erectus, why didn't our cousins come along with us? Environment perhaps?
Where did all the matter come from to get the universe started? That IS the really big question, isn't it?
The answer? Beats the fuck outta me!
It "Beats the fuck outta me" as well, as it should everyone on this planet.
That just doesn't seem to be an acceptable answer for billions of people. They would rather swallow a load of bullshit, and allow others to rule their lives, than admit that no one truly knows, and no one is likely to anytime soon.
it is far less than millions of years of evolution. Still way more efficient, isn't it.
I am no scholar on the Bible or Christianity, help me understand and correct my sinful ways so, I can be saved.
"Correct your sinful ways"? You're on your own there. I've got my own sinful problems to deal with. LOL.
Last time I read a bible was in my religion class in Catholic high school. That was over 50 years ago, but I can still recall some of it. I was even going to join the priesthood, but my mother talked me out of it. Thank you mom, thank you, thank you.......please, no altar boy/pedophile comments.