Jack

Mike does have a good point and it is aggravating.

Supposedly 83% of Americans identify with some religious denomination. 60 to 76% identify themselves as Christians. Playing the odds with the collective gathering, only a complete idiot would identify himself as an atheist.

I know personal belief wasn't the topic during the evolution hearings. But, had the group of anti theists identified themselves as such with their interpretations of science the whole group would have more than likely been thrown in the street along with the proposed science standards.

DagnyWener

Depending on how you chose to spin it, there is little difference all.

The science standards and the people who wrote and supported them were not "anti theistic". The majority of the people involved were religious believers of some sort, but their support for the standards was neither because of beliefs for or against religion - they were just for defending mainstream science as what should be taught to students in the public schools. The IDists were trying to claim that evolution, and the science standards, were atheistic beliefs. That is wrong, and in many venues we argued that it was wrong, and we explained why it was wrong.

Or in other words, unless it was his wife who bought the shirt for him, showing up at the hearing wearing this would right away indicate something beyond science and cladistics was in the message being sent:



Whether humans are apes or not seems a good one for showing how science related opinions are easily biased by how sides divide up on issues, which do not always go Richard Dawkins' way either.

Even though I'm one of the first to get annoyed by too much talking religion in what's supposed to be a science forum, it's still part of the issue the forum exists to discuss, so I too have to accept that it exists, try to make the best of it.

Jack

I'm not familiar with Kansas science standards but evolution is an atheist belief regardless of the science. And that belief is forced on students and the population as a whole. Through education, television, government parks and other sources. That's the problem.

Interesting, ABO. So, Scott Roeder, who killed Tiller is a Follower of Christ? Or he was a Christianist? Or Christian terrorist? Christian Fundamentalist?

Wiki has an entry on Christian terrorism, maybe you can find some spin on how Followers of Christ/ Christians end up as Christianists? Good luck spinning it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

Like I said depending on how YOU spin it.

ABO, I know we've been around this before, but millions of Christians (and other religious people) accept the scientific theory of evolution. What do you say to the Christian that accepts evolution - do you tell him he's not really a Christian, or what?

It is a fact that atheists and many Christians agree about the science of evolution (although not the metaphysics). It's also a fact that millions of Christians disagree with other Christians about both evolution and many other aspects of science (for instance, a young earth, a six day creation, etc.)

It's possible to be a Christian and be wrong or deceived. That fact that thousands of Christians and atheist believe in evolution in part or with all of it's suppositions does not negate the fact that it is a religious doctrine. A doctrine utilized by religious humanist. A doctrine even many atheist call religious.

The young earth and 6 day creation has no more to do with evolution, than beheading infidels has to do with drinking koolaid. I still don't understand why someone would want be a Christian and disagree with the bulk of the belief. Either they don't understand it or they don't believe it in the first place.

Jack, what is a Christian?

I think you need to get back to the science basics, where there is here a relatively simple theory that when modeled gives us the "genetic algorithm" that can also make better fan blades for industry and all that. Is even child's play that when you don't let something go a certain direction then it cannot go in that direction.

The problem is not knowing where to end with that line of reasoning. Are soon into cosmic evolution and long list of others to confuse matters to the point of being an annoying analogy as though rocks should have genes too, no real explanatory power in such comparisons.

Although it is not as well known yet there is another much more realistic way to model living things, science is not limited to a "natural selection" driven GA anymore, it's now possible to begin to model the systems level behavior which is of course intelligent and makes all its own decisions. With all said the theory that led to the word "evolution" is not anything at all ABO really needs to worry about. Problem is not properly explaining where the science ends and religion (any) begins.

Roeder certainly was acting inconsistently with the ethics of Jesus Christ.

On the other hand Lenin, Trotsy, Sartre, the Columbine Killers and many other atheists were not acting inconsistently with their atheism, since atheism implies no moral standard except, perhaps, Relativism.

In fact, entire countries try to push it on people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

I'm surprised this thread has gone so well considering how it started out.

I'll reply in here to everyone as soon as I have some more time. But so far, thanks to the people who shared those personal stories in the thread. It's right in line with why I created this thread in the first place.

"Not acting inconsistently" Why the double negative? Why don't you just say, "acting consistently?" Do you think the Columbine Killers were "acting consistently" with their atheism?

If atheism is defined as "a lack of belief in God" then what did Lenin, Trotsky, Sartre, the Columbine Killers or even Dr. Kevorkian do that was inconsistent, as contrasted with someone who claims to "love their neighbor" and proceeds to steal from their neighbor?