Once upon a time, the middle east was the center of learning and science

Our enemy has no reality based beliefs and can change their spiritual beliefs in a heart beat. When everyone realized the Bible is bullshit it went from the word of God and the bedrock of belief to the nice book of stories.

I’m confused by your statements. Those who think that the Bible is bullshit, and a nice book of stories? Wouldn’t that class of people by definition exclude the Chrisitian Fundamentalists that the OP is referring to?

A literal interpretation of the Bible is a requirement of Christian Fundamentalism.

Well they got the Kansas curriculum changed, there was an uproar and rational people took control back, but I think it has slipped back into their hands lately.

Texas narrowly avoided losing evolution in its public schools a couple weeks ago, by 1 vote, but as the link states some anti science still got through.

How pervasive is this? I have never even heard of it. For the record, I don’t agree with it. I don’t want any religious agenda being pushed in school. There is a time and a place for that (home, church). Besides, the way things are going, it might be the Muslims trying to push to get their stuff into the schools. So… a big no to all of them.

Back to your original point. You aren’t seriously equating this with Muslim fundamentalism in the middle east, right?

No, not equating.

But it is fundamentalism, and it is screwing up education in our country. A lot of people get very defensive because these people happen to be Christians, and so obviously most Americans will be tempted to identify with them and be suspicious of anyone who is against them.

But, it remains that these people are screwing up education in America, and that is bad. But this isn’t just a small band of evildoers, these people have plenty of public support, that is what worries me.

Back to your original point. You aren’t seriously equating this with Muslim fundamentalism in the middle east, right?

The trend is not their friend so rest assured that Christian influence in America waning.

Maybe you are right, maybe it is just polarizing into extreme camps on either side. I don’t know.

The trend is not their friend so rest assured that Christian influence in America waning.

“A literal interpretation of the Bible is a requirement of Christian Fundamentalism.”

I thought it was a requirement for Christians period but after a pretty lengthy and heated debate on this forum I learned that a lot of Christians believe the Bible is nothing more then a lot of stories. Put me in the weird situation as an atheist defending the Bible. It got weird.

Mr Tibbs,

have you located a mountaintop hideout for our freedom nation yet?

Yeah there is a mountain about a mile from me that will work fine. Bring porn.

i was just gonna bring the fiancee’

but she is just for me
.

Sadly in Texas it isn’t paranoia right now, because they are really out to get us!
Well Jack, you’ll have to carry on the battle for reason in TX without me. I’m headed into an even hotter furnace in 10 days- Kansas. How do I end up in these places?

Sadly in Texas it isn’t paranoia right now, because they are really out to get us!

Move to NM… much more reasonable here.

A good article, and you raise some good questions.

I was pleased to see that the article mentioned “big bounce” theory as well as the older “big bang” theory, since the former seems to be acquiring growing acceptance among physicists. One point of clarification: The article states that “despite the questions that do exist about the origination of the universe, there is very little debate about its age.” The term “universe” is here being used in a somewhat narrow sense. Under “big bounce” theory, it allows for not just one universe, but a series of them, and the phrase “age of the universe” would refer to the particular universe in which we are now happily posting. Potentially (although it’s far from established), the series could stretch indefinitely into the past as well as indefinitely into the future. (So much for the ex nihilo nihil fit argument.)

“How can we combat this? How do you combat people who will not listen to rational argument? What answers are there short of violence?”

If extreme fundamentalists (or anyone else) resort to violence, then I think you have to resist force with force, if it comes to that. Short of that, though, I think the best you can do is to present a more rational world-view as dispassionately as possible, always being honest and straightforward but no more confrontational than necessary. You can’t compel people to listen to reason, because compulsion and reason don’t mix, so there are no guarantees. But until defensive force becomes necessary, reason is the best tool available.

The big problem here is that it isn’t just the fundamentalists.

I spent a thread debate the very subject of evolution and what we know about it, or rather what conclusions have been drawn. The debate can be found here for any who are interested on exactly the type of reasoning we face:

http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=33468

I would love to post specific comments, but my IP has been banned. It happened to me once before a couple of years ago when I questioned how Noah could fill a boat with 2 million animals. I think I calculated that a minute per animal to locate, transport, board, and make all arangements for food, shelter, etc. would take him 4 years if he worked non-stop 24/7. I got banned, though I had admitted that I was an atheist. This time I posed as a christian who believes in evolution…this time the tough question that couldn’t be answered was if the Theory of Evolution is not science, why is it consiered to be so by the academies of science.

Nevertheless, the purpose of the web site is to show how God and science work in harmony, which I don’t have a problem with as a know many St’ers (like Slowguy and Tripple Threat) are Christians who, for the most part, have a pretty grounded view of Science and the physical world but also believe in a supernatural creator (God) who sent Jesus…etc. I had originally thought that this website was full of similar Christians and had originally returned there as TWO of my coworkers…wait…make that THREE coworkers have now told me that they found human footprints among dinosaur fossils.

Let me reiterate that. I work in an engineering company outside of Philadelphia and I had a an engineer with 27 years of experience at Boeing, a 40 something man with a degree in physics, and a 30 y.o. technician all tell me that we had found fosilized human footprints among dinosaur fossils and that they believe that it was either possible or even likely that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time. I then questioned why the 65 million year error and also wanted to know what their theory was as to why news as big as this never reached my ears. Supposedly they think its a big giant conspiracy by the powerful evolutionist scientists to suppress such information.

As I did some further research I came to find out that in 1986 in a Texas dig, there were tracks that sorta looked like human prints, but it was later determined that the stride length was way too big and that there were clear claw marks on the ground. It didn’t matter that the scientists imediately laid the rumor to rest, it was soon circulated through fundie churches across the country.

Back to the real issue here, in the debate on evolution, every which way you turn, the religious folk will deny any conclusions drawn by the scientists. Its one thing to be skeptical, but something else to believe that they are wrong and to do so based entirely in ignorance. The hardest thing to do in these debates is to get them to separate the subjects: The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, Evolution, and Atheism. All 4 are completely different subjects and though one might lead into the other, they are completely unrelated. The arguments follow that until we can create life fron non-living chemicals, we have no basis for Evolution (Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life) or that until we see speciation occur within a single generation, we have no basis for Evolution (a genetic impossibility). In short, the Theory of Evolution is “a world view” and NOT science…despite the fact that the academies of science accept it as a scientific theory.

Yes, that is one side of the argument. However, if you get them onto a different thread or even read through their articles posted on the site, though they will argue that a field with 1000s of pieces of evidence supporting the theory without a single shred of evidence refuting it is NOT sceince…guess what they think IS science. That’s right, Intelligent Design. Allow me to quote Phd Greg Krukonis on the matter:

“ID proponents identify complex biological structures and then state that these structures could not have been the product of natural selection and, therefore, are evidence of the designer. Yet they don’t have any testable hypotheses. Their arguments aren’t scientific - regardless of the scientific terms and language they use - but theological, aliens and time travelers notwithstanding. They can’t say, exactly, what it is that allows them to conclude that one structure shows the hand of the designer and another one doesn’t. They just seem to know it when they see it. Many books are written on the subject of ID, but none of them share the methodology that would allow a student of ID to learn how these decisions are reached.”

A good book was written, 40 Days and 40 Nights, on the Dover, PA trial to have ID removed from the science classroom in their public high school. Among other findings, Of Pandas and People had been discovered to be a creationsim book in disguise. The supoenaed earlier drafts of the book and found they they had done a simple find and replace to change the word “creation” to “Intelligent Design” in the book…which was important as it had already ruled in previous cases that creation cannot be taught in schools. FYI, the lawyer found a new term that the ID/Creation crowd started throwing around (can’t remember it) and warned of trials in the furture when they intend to sell exactly the same concepts wrapped in new packaging.

At the end og the trial, it was discovered that in every way, shape, and form, the Discovery Institute had intentionally tried to deceive the public in their attempts to push God into the classroom. The quote I gave above was exemplified in the testimonies given by the “scientists” who came in support of Intelligent Design. I’m pretty certain that, to date, ID doesn’t have a single peer review article published in a scientific journal.

I hope that LTin83 is correct in that this kind of influence is waning, but every now and then you see what kind of nut jobs get into office. Whether you liked GWB or not, or whether you hated Gore, Kerry, or Obama, the fact remains that the evangelicals were a very powerful base of support for him and are largely a part of the reason why Sarah Palin was a VP nominee. They are still WAY too powerful for this country’s own good. It scares me to think that an Obama fuck up could pave the way for yet another religious nut job to take the helm.

man, you need to get a life. we get it you’re an atheist. But the thousands and thousands of never ending posts on this site and others, goodness gracious! how much time do you spend on internet sites trying to convince christians how crazy they all are and how bad all religions are? That is time you could be spending with your family, on your career, training or something else. check your priorities man.

Back to the real issue here, in the debate on evolution, every which way you turn, the religious folk will deny any conclusions drawn by the scientists. Its one thing to be skeptical, but something else to believe that they are wrong and to do so based entirely in ignorance. The hardest thing to do in these debates is to get them to separate the subjects: The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, Evolution, and Atheism. All 4 are completely different subjects and though one might lead into the other, they are completely unrelated. The arguments follow that until we can create life fron non-living chemicals, we have no basis for Evolution (Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life) or that until we see speciation occur within a single generation, we have no basis for Evolution (a genetic impossibility). In short, the Theory of Evolution is “a world view” and NOT science…despite the fact that the academies of science accept it as a scientific theory.

Good post Barry.

In my mind, the equating of evolution to a worldview cuts both ways. Many atheists will promote a naturalistic worldview by taking the scientific data supporting evolution and saying that it tells us that since there is a natural explanation for the development of various species that there is a natural explanation for everything (i.e. big bang, abiogeneis). I think when most evangelicals face these arguements they decide that if evolution is true than their whole worldview falls apart so they hit the panic button and try (unscuccessfully IMO) to tear down the data supporting evolution rather than addressing the philosopical assumptions of the atheist.

“man, you need to get a life. we get it you’re an atheist.”

Maybe, maybe not. What’s interesting is that you could only draw that conclusion from that particular post if you made one of the very same invalid logical leaps that the post was talking about.

Rob, you lost me. The fact that he is an atheist was derived from his own claim within his original post. Then my opinion that he needs to get a life is derived from the fact that someone who has literally typed over a million+ words of cummulative crap into this forum is probably missing something else in his life. It does not seem healthy to me. Arguing with anonymous people till your blue in the face is not normal behavior. But then again I am not a doctor.

“The fact that he is an atheist was derived from his own claim within his original post.”

Barry has once posted once to this thread, and I’ve read through it three times. He made no such claim. The only legitimate conclusion about that you could draw from the post is that he isn’t a Christian (since he said something about “posing” as a Christian), but he did not say that he was an atheist. You merely drew that inference from his post, which merely confirms Barry’s very point about people’s illogical leaps–e. g., from evolution to atheism.

Note that I have NOT said that Barry isn’t an atheist. I merely pointed out that you can’t logically derive that conclusion from that post.

EDIT TO ADD: Do you know what the word “literally” means?

“Barry has once posted once to this thread, and I’ve read through it three times. He made no such claim.”

Not for nothing, but this is right from Barry’s post - “…though I had admitted that I was an atheist.”