Geological Time: A Republican Explains

[Kulindahr]

someone gets it.

It is hilarious that either team tries to claim intellectual superiority. Each side calls the other dumb. "look at the dumb things that they believe." Reality? Both parties are filled with morons. Religious hooey is no better our worse than fears about islands capsizing (look that one up, kids).

Yeah -- that was a particularly embarrassing moment for the Republic. I pity the poor general who had to sit there and maintain his composure in the face of what had to be the most bizzarely ignorant "concern" he'd ever faced.

[Kulindahr]

The trouble is there is no controversy. The arguments amongst theologians have nothing to do with it. It's like watching an argument between two electricians about how to do the plumbing. Their dispute was rendered obsolete by a couple of centuries of scientific observation.

Would the Senator feel equally ill-prepared to talk about gravity on earth being 9.81 m/s² or any other kinds of general knowledge questions?

This isn't an issue about controversy. It is an issue about whether someone is ignorant or not.

It is really about glorifying and elevating ignorance over facts.

I'm going to go with this without even addressing the scientific issue.

It's been most of a generation since scholars discovered the royal chronicle literary type in ancient near eastern literature. Shortly thereafter it was established that the first creation account in Genesis not only falls into that type but is a superb example of it. Yet most Christians have never heard of this, and when fundamentalist types do, they reject it "because I can read it with my eyes". That's quite like saying that the kitchen dishrag must be sanitary because they can't see the germs with their own eyes.

Making that claim would be simply calling all bacterial scientists frauds -- and insisting that Genesis 1 is history written in English just for them is calling God a fraud. So indeed it is an exaltation of ignorance, because it's making a refusal to think into a virtue.

[EastMed]

The Senator indicates that he is not qualified to render an absolute answer to this controversial issue. He seems to favor an approach that accommodates a variety of different viewpoints, while suggesting that the mystery of the Earth’s creation is not particularly relevant to his role as a senator.

As an infant, the senator was originally baptized as a Catholic. Prior to adulthood, he was later baptized as a Mormon and then reverted back to Catholicism.

As an adult, Rubio became married in a Catholic church and his children were baptized under the auspices of that same religion. Though he has regularly attended a Southern Baptist church, he considers himself to be a practicing Catholic.

From what I have read online, it appears that the Catholic Church is not particularly concerned about the timeline relating to the appearance of life on Earth, but indicates that to the extent evolution may have played a role, that development occurred under the guidance of God. The Catholic Church specifically denounces any belief in atheistic evolution and holds a special reverence for what it describes as “the human soul.”

In much the same way that Senator Rubio described how the age of the Earth lacks relevance to the role of a senator, the Catholic Church appears to indicate that sacred writings are not intended to provide a scientific exposition of nature, but rather to address matters relating to salvation. Is this the concept you intended to reference by mention of a justification through epistemic relativism?

Opinterph, the actual age of the earth is not controversial - and it is not a viewpoint.
Mr Rubio appears to think it is a mystery. So be it.

Your description of Catholic teaching seems correct. In my second question, I was reflecting more generally on the status of knowledge and evidence and the implications arising from Mr Rubio's answer.
I imagine Mr Rubio is best placed to address these implications, should he care to do so.

[Jack Springer]

Oh nonsense. He did not answere the question the same way as Rubio.

Both men said basically the same thing. You just can't accept it.

[rareboy]

Both men said basically the same thing. You just can't accept it.

No they didn't.

You just can't understand it.

[Rolyo85]

^^^^^

Obama answered the question the same way.

If you can't treat him the same way - your opinion means nothing.

Obama did not say both religious theories and scientific theories are equally viable to be taught to children AT SCHOOLS.

HE DID NOT SAY BOTH SHOULD BE TAUGHT AT SCHOOLS.

OBAMA DOES NOT THINK CREATIONISM SHOULD BE TAUGHT AT SCHOOLS.



Seriously, are you blind, trolling or just cognitively impaired?

[opinterph]

Would the Senator feel equally ill-prepared to talk about gravity on earth being 9.81 m/s² or any other kinds of general knowledge questions?

When I studied physics the force of Earth’s gravity was 32.2 ft/s². When did it change?

This isn't an issue about controversy. It is an issue about whether someone is ignorant or not.

[rareboy]

^ Lol

For most of the world it has been 9.81 m/s2 since Napoleon.

How quaint.

[GiancarloC]

You did it again -- saying that a minority cannot be a republican or conservative. You're saying they have to be a liberal or democrat.

I do not understand your logic.

Why not look beyond ethnicity and background and accept people as people.

... looks like you just did what you accuse republicans of -- you kicked him out because he didn't fit your form of a latino.

What a pile of steaming bullshit... a minority can't be because republicans don't serve the best interests of minorities. The republican party is all about hating and throwing mud... how can any minority be part of that? People would have to be incredibly self hating to be part of that political party. Marco Rubio is a stupid moron and he looks and talks more like a rich white guy... end of story.

[GiancarloC]

Obama did not say both religious theories and scientific theories are equally viable to be taught to children AT SCHOOLS.

HE DID NOT SAY BOTH SHOULD BE TAUGHT AT SCHOOLS.

OBAMA DOES NOT THINK CREATIONISM SHOULD BE TAUGHT AT SCHOOLS.



Seriously, are you blind, trolling or just cognitively impaired?

He's just trolling. What else is new? Desperate nonsense... that's all I read... someone grabbing at the straws when their version of reality is falling apart around them.

[bankside]

When I studied physics the force of Earth’s gravity was 32.2 ft/s². When did it change?

Shit man, how long ago did you study gravity?

The scientists changed the gravity of the planet at least 30 years ago, right before they went on to make global warming.

[Jack Springer]

Obama did not say both religious theories and scientific theories are equally viable to be taught to children AT SCHOOLS.

HE DID NOT SAY BOTH SHOULD BE TAUGHT AT SCHOOLS.

OBAMA DOES NOT THINK CREATIONISM SHOULD BE TAUGHT AT SCHOOLS.



Seriously, are you blind, trolling or just cognitively impaired?

Seriously, why not just say you were mistaken and go on. Everyone makes mistakes. Both politicians said basically the same thing.

Here's a quote from Slate . . .

How do these quotes stack up? It seems to me that they're exactly in agreement on four crucial and dismaying points:

1) Both senators refuse to give an honest answer to the question. Neither deigns to mention that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old.

2) They both go so far as to disqualify themselves from even pronouncing an opinion. I'm not a scientist, says Rubio. I don’t presume to know, says Obama.

3) That's because they both agree that the question is a tough one, and subject to vigorous debate. I think there are multiple theories out there on how this universe was created, says Rubio. I think it's a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I'm a part, says Obama.

4) Finally they both profess confusion over whether the Bible should be taken literally. Maybe the "days" in Genesis were actual eras, says Rubio. They might not have been standard 24-hour days, says Obama.

In light of these concordances, to call Rubio a liar or a fool would be to call our nation's president the same, along with every other politician who might like to occupy the Oval Office. If a reporter asks a candidate to name the age of Earth, there's only one acceptable response: Well, you know, that's a complicated issue … and who am I to say?

BTW: Rubio did not say that creationism should be taught in schools.

[TX-Beau]

SOoooooooo.......

TELL US Jack, do YOU believe in Creationism? DO YOU think it should be taught in schools?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Kulindahr]

BTW: Rubio did not say that creationism should be taught in schools.

He may not have said it flat out, but that's what his indication that it should be taught will mean to his target audience.

[opinterph]

Rubio did not say that creationism should be taught in schools.

He may not have said [creationism should be taught in schools] flat out, but that's what his indication that it should be taught will mean to his target audience.

Minimally paraphrased remarks from Senator Rubio’s GQ interview (see opening post):

At the end of the day,

• I think there are multiple theories to explain how the universe was created.

• I think people in the United States should have the opportunity to teach all the theories that explain how the universe was created.

• I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says about how the universe was created.

• I think parents should be able to teach their kids what science says about how the universe was created.

[Rolyo85]

Thank you, opinterph. He very clearly said that it should be taught together with science.

Jack, I am also dying to know the answer to TX-beau's question.

And no need to apologize for your mistake. Not that I expect you to ^_^

[Jack Springer]

SOoooooooo.......

TELL US Jack, do YOU believe in Creationism? DO YOU think it should be taught in schools?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Yes, I believe God created the world. I have faith. To me it's not really that important how God created the world -- the discussion is mostly used to separate people and cause division -- something we don't need more of.

I see nothing wrong with teaching that God created the earth along with evolution in school There are problems that some people will have with both.

If you believe in evolution -- you have to have faith in it too. There are a lot of unexplained issues

[rareboy]

There is a problem with teaching that God created the earth in science class versus teaching a spectrum of creation myths in a comparative religion class.

The reality is that the religious right wingers in the US want it to be restricted to the Mosiac interpretation. But the Hopi, the Hindu and L. Ron Hubbard's doctrinal teaching on the subject should all have equal weight if people want to establish prima facie limitations on the origins and the development of the universe. It used to be so easy. Just say that God did it and you can keep an entire civilization under the control of absolute temporal and spiritual rulers. Let in the science and facts and the idea that any person can unlock and understand the nature of the universe and you lose that control.

And when it comes to evolution? The only faith you have to have is that the the factual record will keep unfolding at the same rate as it has for the last 150 years. The evidence is more than overwhelming to prove the concept. Those who cling desperately to the notion that the early people of Israel were the only iron age tribes to be handed the literal word of Jaweh love those so called 'holes' in the evolutionary record.

The limited thinkers need these 'unexplained issues' in order to reassure them that one of the fundamental precepts of their beliefs still stands, albeit on increasingly wobbly legs.

When I was in Grade nine, I was so insulted that our Biology teacher was required by the school board to mention the Judaic creation theory in class as an equal and credible alternative to what she was going to be teaching us that I immediately selected evolution as my project topic and made my own religious family sit through the evidence...based in part on selective breeding in agriculture.

The southern Baptists, mostly, it seems with a poor education, have to yield control on this.

Let them believe what they want personally. Let them teach their creation mythology in Sunday School. But make them stop turning yet another generation into close minded dunces who only keep hanging on to the literalism of poetics because their personal faith is so weak.

[palemale]

From what I have read online, it appears that the Catholic Church is not particularly concerned about the timeline relating to the appearance of life on Earth, but indicates that to the extent evolution may have played a role, that development occurred under the guidance of God. The Catholic Church specifically denounces any belief in atheistic evolution and holds a special reverence for what it describes as “the human soul.”

I'm a product of Catholic schools. We studied evolution, and were taught that it was the truth. Yes, we were also taught that it was part of God's plan, but that evolution was scientific truth. The Catholic Church teaches that the bible should not be read literally. The truths in the bible are not scientific truths. The Church teaches that the bible is essentially divinely inspired literature, with a liberal use of metaphor and poetic license.

Rubio just doesn't have the balls to say anything that will hurt him with the base of the Republican Party. He doesn't have the balls to acknowledge either scientific truth or to even assert his own religious beliefs. What a disgrace. No wonder the GOP is so fucked up.

[bankside]

Yes, I believe God created the world. I have faith. To me it's not really that important how God created the world -- the discussion is mostly used to separate people and cause division -- something we don't need more of.

I see nothing wrong with teaching that God created the earth along with evolution in school There are problems that some people will have with both.

If you believe in evolution -- you have to have faith in it too. There are a lot of unexplained issues

Your approach is what might be called the "Agree to disagree approach" where if some people disagree with evolutionary theory, and some people disagree with creationist theory, then it's only fair to look past that and teach children both.

The trouble is, this is not a disagreement between reasonable people. This is a disagreement between people who have looked into the matter, and people who are completely ignorant of science and fearful of changing their beliefs. It is wrong to tell children that both theories are equal. And it is wrong to tell children that creationism is even a theory. It is only a hypothesis or hunch. It can't be taught in a science class any more than teaching children how to cure cancer; we can't teach them what we don't know. And while creationism may be hoped for, or wished for, or may fit well with a gut instinct, it just isn't science, and to call it science would be to lie to children.

[Rolyo85]

Absolutely. Not to mention we have carbon dating and other ways of figuring out the age of things, and we KNOW that the earth is several hundred million times older than what Creationism claims.

Teach it in bible class. Teach it in Religions class TOGETHER WITH ALL OTHER CREATION MYTHS. But NOT in science classes.

[Kulindahr]

Yes, I believe God created the world. I have faith. To me it's not really that important how God created the world -- the discussion is mostly used to separate people and cause division -- something we don't need more of.

I see nothing wrong with teaching that God created the earth along with evolution in school There are problems that some people will have with both.

If you believe in evolution -- you have to have faith in it too. There are a lot of unexplained issues

The only thing that should be taught on that matter is that a majority of the world's people believe that God created it all, but that they hardly agree on the details, and for more go to the library and look it up.

[Kulindahr]

It used to be so easy. Just say that God did it and you can keep an entire civilization under the control of absolute temporal and spiritual rulers. Let in the science and facts and the idea that any person can unlock and understand the nature of the universe and you lose that control.

In other words, for the most part they've had to pervert their own religion to enforce their power, keeping people ignorant not only of anything else but of the truth of what their holy books say.


Which is why it was so much tidier for those in power to have a religion without any holy books, without any objective reference point open to anyone to read.

[Kulindahr]

Your approach is what might be called the "Agree to disagree approach" where if some people disagree with evolutionary theory, and some people disagree with creationist theory, then it's only fair to look past that and teach children both.

The trouble is, this is not a disagreement between reasonable people. This is a disagreement between people who have looked into the matter, and people who are completely ignorant of science and fearful of changing their beliefs. It is wrong to tell children that both theories are equal. And it is wrong to tell children that creationism is even a theory. It is only a hypothesis or hunch. It can't be taught in a science class any more than teaching children how to cure cancer; we can't teach them what we don't know. And while creationism may be hoped for, or wished for, or may fit well with a gut instinct, it just isn't science, and to call it science would be to lie to children.

More: it's a disagreement between people who want to be ignorant by choice of both science and the Bible.

BTW, creationism, especially young earth creationism, doesn't even rise to the level of a hypothesis. In scientific terms, it's merely a conjecture, and will remain so until it's used to make unique predictions.

[eastofeden]

The only thing that should be taught on that matter is that a majority of the world's people believe that God created it all, but that they hardly agree on the details, and for more go to the library and look it up.

^^^This^^^

[TX-Beau]

Yes, I believe God created the world. I have faith. To me it's not really that important how God created the world -- the discussion is mostly used to separate people and cause division -- something we don't need more of.

I see nothing wrong with teaching that God created the earth along with evolution in school There are problems that some people will have with both.

If you believe in evolution -- you have to have faith in it too. There are a lot of unexplained issues

...sidestep...

Didn't answer the question. Do you believe in CREATIONISM and think it should BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS.

And yes, I know you are quibbling because you know Creationism is utter shit and stupidity and only the ignorant or deluded want anything to do with it.

[TX-Beau]

Oh and by the way what are all these unexplained issues you speak of? Enlighten is with your scholarship.

Ten to one folks that he actually knows nothing about either subject other than what he can hastily Google.

[GiancarloC]

Yes, I believe God created the world. I have faith. To me it's not really that important how God created the world -- the discussion is mostly used to separate people and cause division -- something we don't need more of.

I see nothing wrong with teaching that God created the earth along with evolution in school There are problems that some people will have with both.

If you believe in evolution -- you have to have faith in it too. There are a lot of unexplained issues

Oh puh-leaze. People don't believe in evolution. Evolution explains the adaption and changes in life. I'm not a scientist, but evolution is about how life changes in the world, and it has substantial evidence. Creationism is a belief... one is free to believe in whatever religion they want, but don't start painting the two on the same level.

God has no place in a public school classroom, and certainly not a science classroom. The only way I would make an exception is if other religions are discussed too, and no agenda is pushed.

[TX-Beau]

I know, isn't it the function of a church to teach all those good little Baptists stupidity like Creationism?

Evidently the churches are failing so miserably that now we have to force it into schools to give it authority.

[xbuzzerx]

Oh puh-leaze. People don't believe in evolution. Evolution explains the adaption and changes in life. I'm not a scientist, but evolution is about how life changes in the world, and it has substantial evidence. Creationism is a belief... one is free to believe in whatever religion they want, but don't start painting the two on the same level.

God has no place in a public school classroom, and certainly not a science classroom. The only way I would make an exception is if other religions are discussed too, and no agenda is pushed.

I have a Jehovah's Witness coworker and I always ask him if there's no evolution, how does the flu come back. I'm still waiting for an answer. So far he just said "God can change it."

[Nishin]

Im so fortunate that religion isnt even mentioned here in politics, including the campaigning period. People simply dont give a shit and dont want politicians to preach religion.

In 2008 when the crash happened here our prime minister ended his speech by asking God to bless the country. It was one of the most talked about events for weeks because such a thing had never happened before and most people thought it was a really inappropriate thing to say.

I would totally freak out if that happened in my country as well... not even mentioning an in god my trust on my bank notes ...

[JayHawk]

"In God we trust, everyone else pays cash"

[Jack Springer]

...sidestep...

Didn't answer the question. Do you believe in CREATIONISM and think it should BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS.

And yes, I know you are quibbling because you know Creationism is utter shit and stupidity and only the ignorant or deluded want anything to do with it.

Yes along with other ideas.

[Jack Springer]

Your approach is what might be called the "Agree to disagree approach" where if some people disagree with evolutionary theory, and some people disagree with creationist theory, then it's only fair to look past that and teach children both.

The trouble is, this is not a disagreement between reasonable people. This is a disagreement between people who have looked into the matter, and people who are completely ignorant of science and fearful of changing their beliefs. It is wrong to tell children that both theories are equal. And it is wrong to tell children that creationism is even a theory. It is only a hypothesis or hunch. It can't be taught in a science class any more than teaching children how to cure cancer; we can't teach them what we don't know. And while creationism may be hoped for, or wished for, or may fit well with a gut instinct, it just isn't science, and to call it science would be to lie to children.

How do you tell a child that people, plants, and things just appeared? How do you tell a child that if you leave minerals and water alone for millions of years those components will make a human being or a tree?

Science is an evolving process -- all the answers are not there yet and never will be.

[GiancarloC]

How do you tell a child that people, plants, and things just appeared? How do you tell a child that if you leave minerals and water alone for millions of years those components will make a human being or a tree?

Science is an evolving process -- all the answers are not there yet and never will be.

So the god excuse works? Since when? How does one tell a child that? Big bang theory. As far as the processes of life on this planet that's explained by evolution.

Science is an evolving process and the answers will never be there? What does that mean? Just another cheap shot to dismiss science... honestly. Science has produced answers backed up with evidence. What does the god excuse have?

[Rolyo85]

Um, in point of fact, in my country nobody has difficulty explaining science to kids. There are kids' encyclopedias, science can be dumbed down infinitely depending on who needs to know. Sadly, religious concepts are rarely smartened up...

And let me add another question just for clarification - in which class should creationism be taught in schools?

[centexfarmer]

The only thing that should be taught on that matter is that a majority of the world's people believe that God created it all, but that they hardly agree on the details, and for more go to the library and look it up.

Or "google it."

There is such a far richer tapestry, throughout a multitude of cultures that don't cling to the Judea/Christian/Islamic model; Hindu, Buddhists, Native Cultures, and others for example.

Why should American Public Schools cling to only the two ideas of "creationism v. evolution?"

Oh! Because one is supposed to be steeped in science, and the others in "cultural myths."

[xbuzzerx]

How do you tell a child that people, plants, and things just appeared? How do you tell a child that if you leave minerals and water alone for millions of years those components will make a human being or a tree?

Science is an evolving process -- all the answers are not there yet and never will be.

The solution to that fact is to encourage an interest in science and a curiosity about the natural world. Not telling people "stop asking questions, it's easy enough to simply understand that God did it, why research things?"

[Jack Springer]

Um, in point of fact, in my country nobody has difficulty explaining science to kids. There are kids' encyclopedias, science can be dumbed down infinitely depending on who needs to know. Sadly, religious concepts are rarely smartened up...

And let me add another question just for clarification - in which class should creationism be taught in schools?

The same class where you would tell kids if they put a bunch of rocks in a box and shook it around for a million years that a Lexus would magically appear.

[GiancarloC]

The same class where you would tell kids if they put a bunch of rocks in a box and shook it around for a million years that a Lexus would magically appear.

Oh yes... the incredibly ridiculous irreducable complexity argument... one that has never had a single shred of proof.

[Rolyo85]

Excuse me, have you gone to school? I mean, you have obviously never talked to children, never even remotely interacted with them, but are you aware of basic scientific facts? I kinda need some context here, because I'm beginning to think we're not coming from the same place knowledge-wise.

Let's try that again without the snark - WHAT CLASS SHOULD CREATIONISM BE TAUGHT AT IN SCHOOLS?

[dutchmaster]

I've never understood why god, however that might look, and evolution can't coexist? why is it one of the other?

[xbuzzerx]

I've never understood why god, however that might look, and evolution can't coexist? why is it one of the other?

They can. Nothing stops someone from getting a public education from going to church and sunday school classes and Bible study.

It's the fact that religious people believe that their beliefs need to be taught in a science class, alongside and as an alternate to science, in a classroom full of people from every background and every persuasion of belief. And of course these people want the Christian creation story told-- the topic goes pretty quiet when you start asking what about Islam or other religions and if they should be taught in the classroom too.

It's all a moot point anyway because a public school teaching one (or any) religion's theology as part of its curriculum would be state sponsorship of a religion, and is inherently against our Constitution. So it's a pipedream and something for them to get angry and worked up about when it's never going to happen and the people supporting creationism aren't very good at directing their energy towards something practical or productive and instead spend most of it being divisive and perpetuating this notion that Christians are oppressed in the United States because they don't have the free hand to push their beliefs and views on everyone in every public venue.

[Jack Springer]

^^

That type of attitude with me and others here doesn't deserve anything but a "snarky" reply.


In a million years ... a new car? new type of human being? a flower? a new universe perhaps?

[GiancarloC]

^^

That type of attitude with me and others here doesn't deserve anything but a "snarky" reply.


In a million years ... a new car? new type of human being? a flower? a new universe perhaps?

So god had to do it?

[Jack Springer]

I'm new here but I'm yet to see that you are CAPABLE of anything but a snarky reply. You've been asked several questions here and your response is to post a box of rocks. You are very lacking as an advocate of whatever cause you are supporting.

You might start by reading the entire thread. I've answered the questions given me and been called names.

My opinion and beliefs are not respected by some of the posters. They going to find fault in anything I say.

BTW -- stop trying to be a moderator -- there are paid professionals at JUB CEP that do that 24/7.

[Rolyo85]

^^

That type of attitude with me and others here doesn't deserve anything but a "snarky" reply.


In a million years ... a new car? new type of human being? a flower? a new universe perhaps?

A coward's response, and a pathetic attempt at avoiding a very straightforward question. Refer buzzer's response to this.

What question would a child even ask that you would need to explain... whatever you're mocking here (it's really very unclear)? Do you have any notion of the questions children ask?

[xbuzzerx]

You might start by reading the entire thread. I've answered the questions given me and been called names.

My opinion and beliefs are not respected by some of the posters. They going to find fault in anything I say.

BTW -- stop trying to be a moderator -- there are paid professionals at JUB CEP that do that 24/7.

Why don't you stop trying to be Sarah Palin? She's a paid professional too.

[Jack Springer]

^^^^

Ahhhhh ... now the personal attacks start. Typical liberal.

[Rolyo85]

You might start by reading the entire thread. I've answered the questions given me and been called names.

My opinion and beliefs are not respected by some of the posters. They going to find fault in anything I say.

BTW -- stop trying to be a moderator -- there are paid professionals at JUB CEP that do that 24/7.

Btw, he has an opinion you don't like. He is not trying to be a moderator. Perhaps YOU should stop trying to tell people how to behave.

And you have it in reverse. We don't respect your opinion and beliefs BECAUSE we find fault in a lot of what you say. You have no focus in this thread, you avoid direct answers to questions because you know those would be laughable, and instead you resort to flaccid attempts at sarcasm, which ALSO fail to hit any particular point, thus derailing the thread with blurry irrelevance. Get a grip.