https://www.newsweek.com/florida-private-schools-teaching-students-humans-dinosaurs-roamed-earth-same-954612

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-montana-schools-lgbtq-discrimination_n_5e1f688ec5b674e44b91af5d

https://www.salon.com/2014/03/04/7_absurd_things_americas_kids_are_learning_thanks_to_conservatives_partner/

The following is a quote from an Abeka Publishing world history textbook commonly used in private Christian schools:

"Man has rebelled against God in many ways throughout the ages, but perhaps no more defiantly than in his denial of God's role as the Creator. In an attempt to escape their accountability to God, some people credit *evolution*, a fabled process of progressive change dependent on chance and time, with the origin of life on earth."

"Evolutionists claim that man 'evolved' from the animals. They promote their false philosophy under the guise of science but evolution is no science; it is a faith."

"Evolution attacks God's place as Creatgor and man's special position in creation as the only creature made in the image of God. It also destroys man's concept of the sancitity of life; if man is just an animal, then human life is of no more value than animal life."


####################################

If you want your child to get a so-called "Christian" education you might want to also think about what they need to get into college.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2020 07:30PM by anybody.

There are colleges that seek kids just like that.

It's a good thing. Really. It's good.

Magic denial is all the rage these days. At least someone is pushing back.

Hopefully that comedian that said "You can't fix stupid" was wrong.

The religious want to re-brand Evolution as a Faith because it is so easy to discredit faith---as they well know.

Discrediting science is a lot of work. In fact, you pretty much have to be a scientist to discredit any part or it.

Good points, Done & Done!

If religious fanatics stick to religious schools from preschool through "college" they never have exposure that might make them question. It's scary.

It's frustrating that they claim they have an education when applying for jobs. They actually have no clue what they missed.

I saw this on Twitter recently but can't find the source now: Religion is to ignorance as fuel is to fire.
Of course some religions further education and contribute in significant ways, but imagine where we could be if education didn't have to stay within the accepted teachings of religion.

"Religion is to ignorance as fuel is to fire.

COMMENT: First, religion is fundamentally an attempt to acquire knowledge, understanding, and meaning; not to avoid it. It is an attempt to understand what the nature of ultimate reality is, and how human beings fit into that reality. The fact that religion is often extravagant, dogmatic, and mistaken in its claims, is not based upon a commitment to ignorance; quite the contrary, it is an over-enthusiastic commitment to avoid it!

Second, when religion clashes with science it is often because science over-reaches its natural domain to encompass the non-overlapping "magisteria" of religious reality (Gould), or takes an established general principle, like biological evolution, and expands it into domains where it's application is questionable at best, e.g. evolutionary psychology.

Finally, keep in mind that both Ronald Fisher (1890–1962) and Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900–1975), the architects of the modern evolutionary synthesis, were Christians. Dobzhansky wrote the famous essay, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution," which was intended, by the use of the word "light," to support the idea of evolutionary creationism:

"I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's, method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way... Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts... the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness."

Not surprisingly, people like Richard Dawkins have misused this quote to suggest the false inference, "Since biology is everything, *nothing* makes sense except in the light of evolution."

Finally, when we cynically characterize and deride the "ignorance" of others, and pigeonhole such "ignorance" as applicable to our broad disfavored categories (religion), it might be well to first assess our own ignorance; particularly when it applies to some theory we claim to understand and hold dear.

YAWN. This is just a game to you.

Always throwing out a word like "cynical" or "naive" as a way to discredit. You only discredit yourself with such a transparent tactic.

No, this is not a game for me.

I have better things to do. That is why my posts are direct, pointed, and rare. What I offer, or what I try to offer, is perspective in the face of distorted or sometimes outright false narratives. There are many smart and educated people on the Board, including Dagny, who are capable of substantively pushing back, and who *do* push back from time to time, which is always welcome. And then there are those who have no clue as to how to respond, and so their only option is to make it about me personally.

Recovery, at least as I see it, is not ultimately about participation in rhetorical diatribes against Mormonism and religion, while engaging in feel-good group think. Part of recovery is looking to the future and establishing a coherent and consistent worldview that replaces what has been lost. You don't get that solely from hand-waving agreement that Mormonism is false in all the particulars, real or imagined. You get it from facts and perspective.

Don't confuse your inability to provide a substantive response, with a disingenuous motivation or "tactic" on my part that you cannot articulate, much less support. This is the basis for your "YAWN" and what is "transparent" in *your* response.

Interesting perspective, that evolution is part of the creation and has a place in explaining why things are. This could be true,
I just don't know of any evidence for it. The part of evolution that I find disagreeable is the blind faith that people have in accepting specie to specie evolution. We just don't have any evidence of a dog turning into a duck? Or moss turning into mites. Do we? But the establishment and government continues to teach this baloney to young impressionable minds.

Believing in pure Darwinism is like if this morning when I was making my eggs and if I cracked open a shell and found a kangaroo inside. Has that ever happened?

If someone can show an example I promise to become a believer!

The beauty in ignorance is that you can believe whatever you want. Facts just get in the way.

If you care, ask of google, who giveth liberally and upbraideth not, for evidence of speciation. You'll learn a lot--although you'll also lose the ability to believe some of the nonsense you seem to hold dear.

Your choice.

…but ghosts, Bigfoot, the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Abraham are totally believable.

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2276100,2276166#msg-2276166

<<We just don't have any evidence of a dog turning into a duck? Or moss turning into mites. Do we?>>

Of course not. That's not how evolution works.

<<But the establishment and government continues to teach this baloney to young impressionable minds.>>

Umm, no. No they don't. Only those ignorant of evolutionary science spew this crap.

macaRomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
We just don't have any
> evidence of a dog turning into a duck? Or moss
> turning into mites. Do we?

Where do you think dogs came from? Hint: 40,000 years ago there were no poodles.

> Believing in pure Darwinism is like if this
> morning when I was making my eggs and if I cracked
> open a shell and found a kangaroo inside. Has that
> ever happened?

No, believing in pure Darwinism is like if, over millions of years, billions of eggs were laid, and the eggs that hatched creatures that had attributes that were advantageous to their survival tended to have better reproductive success, and millions of years later the original species of animal that had originally been laying those eggs was now sufficiently different as it adapted to its environment to be called a new species by humans digging up its bones more millions of years later. In fact, that's exactly what it is.

> If someone can show an example I promise to become
> a believer!

10,000 years ago adult humans, like other mammals, could not digest lactose. Now, most of us can. Evolution.

Yeah, but can you show me how a dog turned into a duck?

As done by Monty Python (script only - the only video I could find was removed for copyright reasons)

http://www.montypython.net/scripts/terrier.php

The attempt and methods used by religion to acquire knowledge IS the ignorance I mean.

I'm not going to bother getting into a useless quagmire with you about how someone uses "light" or quotes intended to obfuscate religious symbolism. I don't care what Dawkins has to say about some quote you dug up.

All I'm saying is that religion perpetuates ignorance and provides justification for the ignorance, be it sex education, understanding genders, evolution, geology, etc.

I have hired people with "science" degrees from religious Bible colleges and been disappointed at what they apparently did not study.

When I went to BYU, my undergrad education in microbiology only briefly covered evolution. It took me a long time to realize how important it was to understand in my career.

Storytelling and myth are useful for some things, but for example, attempting to explain a volcano by telling stories about angering Pele is ignorance. Using faith is not a reliable way of obtaining knowledge. It is ignorance. Adding "God did this part" to anything is not knowledge. It is ignorance.

Angering Pele was always a mistake, particularly if you were an opposing soccer player.

“The attempt and methods used by religion to acquire knowledge IS the ignorance I mean.”

Only in the objective world. Mormons navigate the subjective world under the proposition that the body is the placenta of the soul. The proof is in the pudding, with no room for philosophy.

Joseph Smith invented a system of white magic called the Priesthood. Done right, with sufficient belief and faith, it works. Not because it’s Mormon, but because it’s magic. It’s a unique feature of Mormonism. He didn’t include it because he was ignorant or stupid. The answers aren’t easy in Mormonism. Where is the scientific explanation of magic, outside of outright denial?

In Mormonism, the objective world is secondary. I couldn’t live that way, and it seems you can’t either. Facts actually do matter. But do they?

Very well said, dagny. If you are going to function in the real world, learn it all-- arm yourself with all the information regardless of personal beliefs.

If you don't want to know science at all, then knock yourself out in the quagmire of religion where faith trumps fact and where lack of knowledge is a virtue even as you claim to know it all, cuz, Bible.

> Religion is to ignorance as fuel is to fire.

That strikes me as a bit off. Shouldn't it be

"Ignorance is to religion as fuel is to fire?"

I dunno. I can see it both ways.

Ignorance has a bigger scope than just religion so I would say ignorance correlates with fire. Religion is one fuel (a dominant one) that stokes the ignorance.

But then, it makes sense the other way too.

That strikes me as a bit off. Shouldn't it be

"Ignorance is to religion as fuel is to fire?"

COMMENT: I am fine with that: Ignorance fuels religion, rather than religion fueling ignorance. Notice, however, that ignorance fuels ALL inquiries into knowledge, whatever one's approach, including scientific inquiries. All scientific theories begin and are motivated by ignorance; i.e. unanswered questions about reality. So, in this case, religion is in good company, and the pejorative connotation falls flat.

Now, look back at the original quote, such that religion is claimed to fuel ignorance. How does that work? Does the falsity of religious conclusions, or claims to knowledge, "fuel" ignorance? Certainly it can if dogmatism prevails over honest inquiry. But this is *also* true of science. Dogmatic and rigid adherence to pet scientific theories stifles scientific progression, and thus "fuels" ignorance, so to speak, in the same way as religion can.

Speaking of biology and evolution--and religious myth, consider the following comment by biochemist Robert Shapiro, who, by the way, was not a fan of religious explanations:

"Statements such as "a proven scientific fact" have become common currency in advertising and arguments alike. This phrase does not reflect the nature of science but rather displays an unfulfilled hunger for mythology. We scientists share this hunger particularly when our own efforts are responsible for the production of the myth. We get excited and feel gratified when we have a flash of insight or some new effect turns up in our laboratory. When one or two bits of confirmation fall into place, our attitude firms up: we now have the Truth. This feeling then prejudices our future efforts. We cannot avoid this human tendency; the best we can do is to be aware of it, and guard against it when it appears." (Origins: a skeptics guide to the creation of life on earth, page 43)

"Men rode dinosaurs, just like we saw yesterday in our 'Flintstones' documentary. And one day, maybe one of you can grow up to become Vice President! Praise Jeezus!"

Henry Beamusup said, "religion is fundamentally an attempt to acquire knowledge, understanding, and meaning; not to avoid it."

I think you are fundamentally wrong in this assertion.

I see religion as always being a means, a method, for control of a population. The absolute first principle that must be put into practice is that the head of the religion is the final arbiter of is right and what is wrong. There may be a middle ground, but there will always be an "I am the light" statement as well as "This right here is wrong!"

Knowledge, understanding, and meaning that frustrate the goal(s) of the arbiter are never acknowledged as correct.

You screwed the pooch on this one, Oh Henry, my Henry.

I think religions start out well intentioned and then become corrupted over time. For example, Brigham Young using it to control his Pussy Galore empire probably wasn’t something Joe had in mind.

My problem with brushing off religion is that we live in a fallen world. Humanity had and lost the knowledge. There needs to be something in place to specifically counteract the negative effects of that. Maybe that’s why religion. What’s there going to be, nothing? Religion will always arise in some form because angels can’t resist a dark world.

> Humanity had and lost the
> knowledge.

What do you mean by that?

Wouldn’t that be nice to know? I’ll give you an example: The construction methods for the ancient Egyptian pyramids. Many assume that ancient aliens built them because they are beyond even modern technology. The alternative is that humans did it themselves using lost methods. My guess is psychokinesis. The power of the mind is slowly being rediscovered. Can the mind quarry and levitate gigantic blocks of stone? Could Jesus’s “faith can move mountains” saying be an inside joke?

Modern society has lost its connection to spirit. Maybe that’s more an art than a knowledge. The story of the fall is a fable because genetics doesn’t support it. That doesn’t stop it from being metaphorically true.

I was afraid you might say something like that.

A few months ago babyloncansuckit made the claim of knowing someone who could tell an object's history just by touching it:

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2246593,2246809#msg-2246809


I asked how the ability is demonstrated and I'm still waiting for a response.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2020 04:59PM by lurking in.

“I was afraid you might say something like that”

At least someone is witnessing my slow descent into insanity.

It’s obvious that we live in a world out of balance. The notion that it was always this way is a convenient crutch. It’s how we live with ourselves. Does it matter? If you’re my age, you were born in the time period of the TV show “Mad Men”. Back when Mormons were fighting tooth and nail against Civil Rights. Society has changed so much in only half a century. In another half a century, it will be unrecognizable to us. To address Human’s comment about evil, what if nothing bad ever happened? Would that be Heaven or Hell?

What if the 26000 year cycle of ages is real? That’s good news for us since we have enough recorded history to see that we’re on the upswing. The Kali Yuga is on it’s way out. Society is used to life as a caterpillar. Some day butterflies will be the norm.

What knowledge did we have exactly that we lost? Fallen from what?

Also, from your post higher up you said:
>Mormons navigate the subjective world under the proposition that the body is the placenta of the soul. The proof is in the pudding, with no room for philosophy.

I have no idea what that means. Maybe you are giving examples to show how "subjective" attempts are often pure gibberish.

The Holy Ghost is a mental construct that Mormons use to guide them through their subjective reality. It’s a way to navigate the unfolding of possibilities instead of simply leaving them to chance. Evolution is random, but with a future component. You might say the most optimal future pulls on the present the hardest if you are “in tune” and your present is repelled from it if you’re “out of tune”. I’m explaining why Mormonism works in principle. As usual, the devil is in the details.

What LW and dagny said.

Plus, Brigham using religion to control his Pussy Galore empire was PRECISELY what JS had in mind. Brigham was just more successful at it.

Love this point. Joseph dreamt it. Brigham did it. And boy did he do it. It's enough to make a modern day president jealous.

Natural selection is not random. How many times do I have to say it?

"Natural selection is not random. How many times do I have to say it?"

COMMENT: True. Natural selection is not random, since under the concept of natural selection what organisms are "selected" is dictated by the environment. However, evolution itself, in broad theoretical terms *is* random, in the sense that it is undirected. This is because, according to the modern synthesis (Neo-Darwinism), genetic variation occurs primarily through "random" (undirected) mutations. (See Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, pp. 304-307 for a discussion of what "random mutation" means in evolutionary theory.)

Thus, ultimately, again under Neo-Darwinism, evolution *is* random. This is further shown by the fact that given evolutionary theory, including the fact that mutations are random, undirected, events, there is no way to determine even in principle what organisms will emerge in evolutionary time from simple beginnings; for example, from a primordial cell.

Now, please don't misunderstand me. I am not supporting the quoted statements in the OP. I am only pointing out that the common rhetorical statement which you offer here, however true, is misleading because it doesn't encompass the entire evolutionary process. Moreover, since the OP was talking about evolution itself, not natural selection, your comment does not effectively rebut the statement that *evolution* is a process of "progressive change" that is "dependent on chance and time."

P.S. I enjoy your posts, and hope that, unlike others, you do not find this response offensive to your anti-religion sensibilities.

Anybody who rejects Evolution as the best explanation of human origins, should be denied treatment for impacted wisdom teeth and appendicitis, both of which are the restult of evolution.
No intelligent designer would design us with wisdom teeth that get impacted or an appendix that bursts and kills you.

>> "Evolution attacks God's place as Creator and man's special position in creation as the only creature made in the image of God. It also destroys man's concept of the sanctity of life; if man is just an animal, then human life is of no more value than animal life."

This say's it all. This is about human ego, not the observation and study of the world around them.

In fact, the last sentence about animal life makes me cringe in sadness.

+ a million. Human ego and religion. What a combo.

This is why nobody should speak for God. They say things that would make him facepalm.

Isn't it odd that many religious adherents have no problems with whole branches of science such as physics, but stick on these minor points of biology? They'll accept, no questions asked, an assertion such as, "Gravity is a conservative, inverse-square vector field," or, "Force is equal to the rate of change of momentum." But use the same logical principles that allowed humans to discover these things to demonstrate that the Earth is, in fact, billions of years old and that the life upon it has grown in that huge expanse of time from ancient single-celled organisms into the plethora of forms it exhibits today and they cry that it cannot be.

"Isn't it odd that many religious adherents have no problems with whole branches of science such as physics, but stick on these minor points of biology?"

COMMENT: When you say "religious adherents" are you talking about religious scientists, religious non-scientists, or both? What religious or non-religious scientist has "no problems with whole branches of science such as physics." After all science is about solving problems, so there is no such thing as a branch of science without problems. And what do you mean when you suggest that some religious scientists get stuck on "minor points in biology?" What minor points are you talking about?
_______________________________________________

"They'll accept, no questions asked, an assertion such as, "Gravity is a conservative, inverse-square vector field," or, "Force is equal to the rate of change of momentum."

COMMENT: This statement suggests that you are talking about scientists; or people who have a fairly sophisticated understanding of science. (I will leave the actual quotes aside for the moment.) But, even still, no scientists accept such statements "No questions asked." There are tons of questions loaded within these basic definitions.
______________________________________

"But use the same logical principles that allowed humans to discover these things to demonstrate that the Earth is, in fact, billions of years old and that the life upon it has grown in that huge expanse of time from ancient single-celled organisms into the plethora of forms it exhibits today and they cry that it cannot be."

COMMENT: I don't know of a single religious scientist that rejects evolution in the broad terms you state here. Not one! Can you provide an example? Even the prominent ID theorists accept evolution in this basic sense.

__________________________________________________

Finally, I will note in passing that your definitions of "gravity" and "force" are just pragmatic mathematical descriptions that serve the scientific community when constructing their physical theories. Neither tells us anything about what "gravity" is essentially outside of this definition; or what a force is as the cause of a change in momentum. In both cases quantum field theory, as providing an ultimate explanation, is currently unresolved. (See e.g. Smolin, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity)

So, my point is that even though you can provide a correct, scientific definition of terms like gravity and force (and numerous others) that does not imply that such things are without "problems," or that there is an established theory that is complete, verifiable, and generally accepted that explains such things at the quantum level. With respect to evolutionary theory there are similar unresolved issues ("problems") within biology, most fundamentally the details about the underlying mechanisms that drive evolution and result in biological complexity. The nature of these details have severely undermined Darwinism as the single explanatory theory of evolution; much to the chagrin of Neo-Darwinists.

Your point is well taken as far as I'm concerned, Anziano Young. I'll leave the semantic games for others. I'm fine if you don't provide me with examples. :)

The religious like to live "cafeteria style" when it comes to the sciences. They pick and choose what looks inviting to them for their plate and turn their nose up at the rest.

When they admit medical science is useful to enhance or save their lives they will still resort to giving God credit who is nowhere to be seen rather than the scientists and doctors and surgeons who were indeed present and hands on.

Filling your plate with the wrong choices at the buffet however can leave you very unhealthy.

To play devil’s advocate, isn’t God everywhere to be seen? It’s just our choice. Or is it a matter of polishing the mirror? Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. If I don’t see God, I know I’m not there yet. This pure in heart stuff is way too fleeting.

Isn’t medical science yet another manufactured belief system? Aside from the technology part, it relies on the placebo effect to make people well. Admittedly, it does a better job than religion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2020 11:09AM by babyloncansuckit.

Are you assuming I believe the Bible?

When I see a flower, a sunset, or a bird, then, I see, and feel and love---a flower, a sunset, and a bird.

That is all. That is enough.

If I see some God around anywhere I'll say hi from you. :)

Mormon God is a ridiculous fantasy. A lie conjured by Joseph Smith. God is the substrate of existence. God is the flower, you, me, in all things, is all things. Indistinguishable from matter and energy because that’s what those are made of. Pure compassion and love. God is not an emergent property, we are the emergent property. We come from God.

What if we could see through God’s eyes? If we aren’t looking through God’s eyes, what are we seeing?

babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What if we could see through God’s eyes? If we
> aren’t looking through God’s eyes, what are we
> seeing?

IT would be God's eye.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_Providence

It would lack depth. Both eyes are required for that.