Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why?

They condemn it in public , however, where the rubber meets the road, they make it part of their dogma. Even the Catholics, in the words of Frank McOurt, were always too busy asking ther soldiers of Chrsits to "die for Mother Church". I was nicely infused with CAtholic dogma by some of the slickest bullshit artists next to auctioneers and (before I rejected its hokum as intellectually bankrupt) I had not EVER seen any "condemnation" of martyrdom.

So you are saying if it vanishes you will be disappointed ? I think I read you right.

I am in total agreement. Mormons doing door knocks and recruiting young single mums who suddenly see two young men in suits paying attention to her...I dont think God wants recruits at any cost and far too many of the means employed by churches are an embarrasement.

Whatever, dude.

If the wanker is done stroking himself in public, maybe someone can explain to me what his drivel has to do with the proposition that a theory of evolution might be a dangerous idea.

Well, I examine the ideas I encounter and come to conclusions about those ideas.

a. I have never ever read anything that proves scientifically that God does not exist.
b. I have read what is called scientific theory which strains my credulity. Some of these claims are almost impossible to comprehend-- such as--

During the picosecond a "quark" exists, it completes a trillion extremely tiny orbits.

Stephen Hawking has proposed a scenario in which the universe could have come into existence witout an original singularity. Hawking's proposal involves something called "imaginary time", a mathematical concept referring to the root of a negative number.

The existence of a singularity followed by the "Big Bang" which, of course, raises the question about the provenance of the singularity.

After pondering these questions, it is clear that since no one can prove that God does not exist and since there appear to be problems which the mind cannot handle, Agnosticism is far more logical and credible than Atheism.

Is there any place where sience has prooven that God is hurting more people than helping them?
Hardly - as belief in a 'God does not hurt people but how some religious people misuse their belief in hurting people. Certain sects do that.

Some people exchange their religion for political beliefs. Their political Guru can be good but also very bad for people. In countries where religion has been forbidden and you only should believe and trust in the political Guru things have gone really bad.
Sience is not always correct. Just think about contergan/thalidoman.
Trust in me your Sience does not always work.

"I believe" has a shadow side "I doubt". That certainly is allowed in religion and should be allowed when it comes to sience and politics as well.

Science is based on naturalism. Therefore, of course science does not concern itself with the supernatural.

So again and again, this thread demonstrates that the religiously motivated feel threatened by a theory of evolution, and possibly by just about any scientific theory, because they have deluded themselves into believing that science is "atheistic," and that it purports to "disprove" God.

We've gotten at least that much out of the constant stream of drivel which has been posted here.

Dont be shy **** for brains ...tell us who you are talking about. Not scared are you ? You do know there are psychiatrists who can help you, dont you ?

Your posts are getting stupider by the minute. Never heard of scientific attempts to disprove the supernatural ? Quite an education you have there, BUCKO.

Then you agree with me that science is agnostic ? Good.

Evolution is a dangerous idea because it undermines religious belief and the moral teaching that accompanies it and which is what it is for.

If the idea is promoted successfully, and Kant rightly said it ought to be to justify being promoted at all, it doesn't just undermine religious belief--it destroys it. Totally.

Then, evolutionary principles are all we have left to live by and, what is much more important, they are all the power elite have left to live by. And, as in evolution, the power elite, having no alternaive, will accept that anything goes in the service of maintaining itself. And thus Packard's "hidden persuaders" will get to work backed up by repressive control mechanisms and the result will be the permanent acceptance of whatever the power elite deems fit. And the "hidden persuaders" of today have much more advanced techniques at their disposal than was the case in Packard's day.

Such an outcome will inevitably cause the power elite to become nepotistic and complacent and to concern itself with internal power struggles. Like the dinosaurs it will have no predators. And the only alternative when it collapses internally from corruption and self indulgence will be anarchy and so it will be "too big to fail".

The promoters of evolution on this thread are dilettantes. Armchair evolutionists. They are actually promoting disaster. Which is why there are only a few of them in the general population as opposed to the self-selecting membership of A2K. And why they can only maintain their position by the comforting method of calling those who disagree with them "rubes", "wankers", "dipshits" and "Idiots" which tells us all we need to know about their interest in science and about how they will procede if ever they are allowed anywhere near the levers of power. The 90% who disagree with them, once defined as "rubes", "wankers", "dipshits" and "Idiots" are, as Dr Goebells discovered, easily dealt with. Label them first and then apply the appropriate techniques.

It is my settled belief that evolution is promoted for subjective reasons. Careers, control freakery, personal involvment in birth control, divorce, abortion and homosexuality and, dread word, feminism. The arch domina of feminism having recently appeared in the prints praising women who sling their husbands out after ripping the linings out of his pockets of course.

Oh--the utter simplicity of evolution theory is also very attractive to simpletons who think they can become thought scientific after reading an article about it in the dentist's waiting room or watching Prof. Dawkins go all around the houses in intellectual justification of being on his third wife.

Ethnic cleansing, eugenics, surgical interference with brains, chemical treatment of the water supply and suchlike will arrive as night follows day as all can be rationalised scientifically with a strictly controlled media and applying the evolutionary principle of the "weakest to the wall". Workers with four arms who can get to 40 eating grass and have thick fur requiring no central heating are quite a long way off admittedly. They will, of course, have been programmed to pop off as soon as they slow down. There are no limits to what a power elite can spend in its self adorations.

The promotion of evolution and the destruction of religion, is like bungee jumping in safety straps or acrobatics above a net. It looks daring but it's safer than driving a truck. And the safety net is religion.

It's for little girl types basically. Its gruff voice should not confuse anyone. In fact the assertion of such a voice points to the insecurity.

There's more evolution theory in the pas-de-deux of Swan Lake that will ever be seen on A2K.

I beg you reverence's pardons.

Good morning.

It was remiss of me to start Easter Sunday without greeting you all. I presume you are all on holiday. The power elite must be gnashing its teeth that we are all having a long weekend.

I used to have a hard on during Easter Sunday Mass what with all the girls looking so pretty and all and singing such beautiful songs to welcome the mating season.

I recall that harry Houdini engaged in a career of debunking supernatural phenomena and Kresgin offered rewards. I dont recall ANY real scientific efforts to disprove the existence of a GOD, where would you start?. On the contrary, "SCientific Creationism" (an oxymoron in itself) has been diligent intryi ng to generate data that agrees with the Christian Bible and have been totally unable to bring up any good examples of evidence. The IDers also have been trying (with funded research) to prove that the Universe is loaded with footprints of an Intelligent Designer. SO far all these efforts have been in vain and, I think, that the IDers have closed down their "Search for Intelligence"(at least their website doesnt show anything newer than 2005). I believe that the IDers big push has been thwarted by the Dover Pa case and they are busy regrouping and using their efforts to make sure that their position is well represented on school boards, where the obvious "danger" of an illiterate electorate is counted on by the likes of the great state of Texas, Louisiana, Kansas, and a few others .

Our recent history is a Brunswick Stew of true believers trying to undermine the science curricula of the public school systems of our nation)not , as aonus tries to assert that science is in a cabal to disprove god). This infiltration of our curricula with pixie-tales is the biggest , most recent example of the danger that seems to elude the mind of Aonus.

<Methodological naturalism and materialism is a foundation of the sciences and at present, the CReationists and IDers are busy trying to undermine this presumption by substiruting the doctrine of voodoo science, where it is imperative that all science begins with the phrase "let there be light"

If we cant evidence it, or we have no way of making predictions using the voodoo base , science just lets it lie there like phlogsyton, philosophers stones, krakons, and "vis plastica". (all of these had a basis in scripture also)

Im an atheist because, like set said, it means without religion. Also I can be agnoistic (2 different things) because I dont know whether a god exists or not and just dont give a rats ass. I choose my paths based upon what can be supported with evidence and (so far) no evidence has been raised to convince me that a god exists. The CReationists have tried mostly to make their argument by trying to find chinks in science AND theyve been ridiculously involved in efforts to "prove" that certain events in the Bibkle occured the way the Bible stated, Like The "Flood" (No evidence exists anywhere for a Universal flood, while there are examples of smaller regional floods at the close of the last Glaciation. Science concludes, by several lines of evidence that one local flood was the basis for the entire Biblical legend which is mostly legend, hyperbole, and metaphor.
Yet, Creation "scientists" had been busy actually trying to twist good geological science to convince the rubes that they have found an ark on Mt Ararat.

There is much danger in all of this because we have to take time to debunk it and, in the process, good science gets trashed because the voodoo guys are really good at obfuscation and lying. They dont have any evidence in their quivers, they only have ACTS of showmanship.

In PA, 4 years before Dover, the state adopted a comprehensive science curriculum base that was hashed out during several sessions of the legislatures comittee work. In the gestation period were all kinds of voodoo purveyors who spent real time in hearings trying to convince some committeeman from Ebensburg that these "atheistic, scientists were subverting the Inerrant Gospel". Ultimately the legislature wisely ignored the hairburning preahers and adopted a policy that leaned heavily upon the scientific method as the arbiter of what is teachable as science and any attempts at more voodooistic curricula would be met with diciplenary actions. This held firm for all of 6 months when the first bullshit storm occured at Dover and it wasnt until after the trial that the entire program got officially signed by the governor.

SO much wasted time, so much chasing pixies, and so much fraud in support of religion that, for most of us in the sciences here in PA, we wonder where the next "whackamole" of Creationsist and ID thought is gonna spring up to interfere with good education.

So again and again, this thread demonstrates that the religiously motivated feel threatened by a theory of evolution, and possibly by just about any scientific theory,

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is sweaping statement.
I have not one single time denied evolution.
I have never in my life met anybody including all church connected people who does not believe in evolution.
One can believe in a Creator as well as evolution.
That very small group exists who denies evolution is true, but don´t come up with a statement that everybody connected with religon does not except evolution.

And this is precisely how they operate, too. Balked on one front, they try to tart up their old whores with new make-up and dresses, and trot them out as though they were something new.

I think that "teach the controversy" is on life support. As Ken Miller said,"what Controversy?"

I think the Creationists are hoping for some relief from the present Supreme Court. I think somewhere in this great land lies a suppurating ID case just waiting to have a well funded sugar daddy to carry it through the appaels process after losing in the firt court. I actually heard that the Aamansons were interested in carrying Dover to the next loevel wjhen ALito was named to the court. I dont know whether thats true or not because I think that someone oin DOver would actually have to stand as the appelant and most of the "Give a ****"parties are either moved away fro embarrassment or else they jsut went to ground.

The IDjicy goes on with an entire conference based upon a bogus interpretation of a time event in the earths history WHen one presents an entire conference from a premise that is based upon false assumption and bogus conclusions, what's left to debate? ANy real scientist who feels that he can go into that pit with good solid evidence countering the conference pemise will probably have his )or her) clock cleaned by skillful animatronics , eisegesis of scientific literature and oh so careful misquoting .

Finding someone who has standing would be their problem. The best a fat cat supporter of the delusions could hope for would be to convince someone to challenge their state science standards, and especially to challenge any policy which excludes teaching creation myths in schools. The problem they will run into, even with this Court, is that they'd have to admit just about any (theoretically all) cosmogony, because otherwise, you're going to have the objection that biblically-based views respresent establishment if they can't be shown to be universally held interpretation. Even this Court full of intellectual hillbillies is unlikely to sign on with the Discovery Institute.

Then again, stranger things have happened. I sometimes think this Court is merely contrarian.

Remember, a loss in court is merely the first step to a successful appeal. Where Dover lucked out in that process was the deflation of the entire movement and the community"s wrath at having spent this money to fight science. HAd this been in another "flyover district" with a previously transfused war chest, Im not sure that it would have not gone to the USSC.
Fortunately, we in Pa, like all AMerica, will ultimately do the right thing after exhausting all other alternatives.

I think the creationists love the "Cambrian explosion" because it has dramatic appeal. They can preach to the choir and rely upon the dramatic effect of the word "explosion." They are unlikely to stress that the event took place over about 70 million years. Mendel demonstrated that willfully selected traits can be achieved in a generation or two, and for plants and many animals, a generation is only a year. Of course, for less complex organisms, a generation can be a matter of days or even of so many minutes. Seventy milli0n years can be many, many generations. In a relatively resource rich environment, the so-called "explosion" is not really that remarkable.