How Fundamentalist Collectivism Empowers Hardliners Against the Wishes of Most Americans

Posted by Maphesdus 11 years, 3 months ago to Politics
209 comments | Share | Flag

From the article:
-------------------------
This is one reason that, no matter how often the courts try to kill it off, creationism ends up being presented again and again in classrooms as if it’s a scientific theory. The majority of Americans agree that evolution is how humans came to be. Despite this, as Slate recently reported, Texas students in charter schools are not only being incorrectly taught that evolution is a scientific “controversy” (it’s actually not controversial among scientists at all), but are being given religious instruction in the classroom. It’s not subtle, either, with one popular science workbook opening with a Bible quote, “In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.”

Only about 21 percent of Americans reject the label of Christian, which means that the majority of people who accept evolution is a fact are actually Christians. So, if there’s so much Christian support for the theory of evolution, why is this such a struggle? The problem is that the Christian right has successfully framed the issue as a matter of atheists and secular humanists against Christians. While some pro-science groups like the National Center for Science Education, try really hard to avoid talking at all about religion – except to say it should not be taught in science class – the truth of the matter is the pro-evolution side is strongly associated with atheism and secular humanism.

A lot of Christians actually believe that creationism is not true and should definitely not be taught in the classroom, but coming out and saying so can feel like you’re siding with the atheist team instead of the Christian one. Unsurprisingly, then, the notion that pro-evolution forces are atheist and secularist becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Nearly all the most prominent voices on the pro-science side of this issue are atheists or agnostics, because they, for obvious reasons, aren’t particularly worried about being perceived as not Christian. Once again, identity works to scare Christians into toeing the party line even if they privately disagree with what the leadership wants.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 4.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    So, by that criterion, the earth moving around the sun should never have been an hypothesis/theory before the invention of the telescope? Just because it is unprovable/untestable today doesn't mean it will always be so.
    Besides, your assertion that it is unprovable is itself already refuted. There is proof in the form of a person who died in a particularly horrific manner some 2000 years ago. Just because you don't want to accept that does not refute it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by rlewellen 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I understand I just wanted to point out that it is an opportunity. I saw something he posted where I thought he called someone dumb. I was wrong he didn't but, at the same time I made the point that it is unproductive. There are times when you reach a certain level of intelligence that you sound like you are talking down to people without intending to.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by rlewellen 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Where did they get the poll? Who paid for the poll? Did the test group contain an equal number of Evangelists, Baptists, Methodists etc? What is radical or fundamental?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 11 years, 3 months ago
    It's primarily an issue of the government at all levels being involved in particulars of individuals lives and citizenry's thoughts.

    Why do we allow these fools at any level to be allowed to interfere or even be involved in such matters?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years, 3 months ago
    I have yet to encounter a satisfactory definition of "creationism". Way before I became a Christian, I recognized that the universe was created.

    "Accept evolution as a fact"... again, we need to work on definitions. Macro evolution, micro evolution? Evolution happens; did it happen to people? Can it create new species? What time frames and environmental conditions are necessary? Is it reactive or proactive?
    There's lots of "wiggle room" with regard to questions such as "creationism" and "evolution", so "yes/no" binary polls are meaningless with regard to what people really believe.

    A lot of Christians believe creationism is true, but shouldn't be taught in the classroom, because that is no the place to teach it.
    Just as a lot of Christians and non-Christians don't believe the classroom is the place to teach about sex.

    It is bigoted in the extreme to put "science" on one end and "Christianity" at the other end of the spectrum, especially considering the history of science.

    I always find it amusing that among the "atheist" crowd, it's Christians who are the devil, not Moslems, Jews, Buddhists, Scientologists, Wiccans, Hindus, Greens or even Satanists.

    This is the reward for "tolerance".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Hiraghm 11 years, 3 months ago
    "The majority of Americans agree that evolution is how humans came to be."

    This is what Al Gore has given us; reality by consensus. It doesn't matter what the majority of Americans believe; after all, in the 19th century, the vast majority of Americans believed in Biblical creation. Why, what changed? High priests with strings of letters after their names to prove that they spent most of their young lives in the shelter of academia read the works of men who actually did research, jumped to conclusions, and declared those conclusions "reality". Trusting in the High priests of science, other academics in charge of educating children, in possession of religious beliefs contrary to those of most of the country (they are "scientists" after all, and the bedrock of science isn't faith, but doubt) and like any high priesthood enjoying the feeling of superiority and celebrity, decided to impose their beliefs on the impressionable minds of children and voila, the country's popular views change... not because of reasoned argument, but because of emotional coercion.

    "The science is settled"... "Most scientists agree"... and of course, if you don't agree, you're not *really* a scientist, or not the right kind of scientist.

    The religion has changed, but not the tactics.


    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by rlewellen 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There is a large spectrum of species. There are many species in one environment. That does not prove they have common decent. Just suppose for a moment there was intelligent design, wouldn't that intelligent designer use wheels off of a bicycle or a variation when he made the first car?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WillH 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There is no doubt that he is extremely intelligent. I concur with that 100%, and no, THIS comment was not offensive. It is the way that he has treated other people on the forum that I take issue with. His comments consist of talking down to others, being down right insulting, etc. There are plenty of very intelligent people here that I do not think it is necessary to engage with him in particular. If he were the only man of the mind in the room it would be a very different situation.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by rlewellen 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    He is a very smart person. look at it as an opportunity. I didn't see what he said that was rude though, I think he is reasonable if you address it with him.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by rlewellen 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The religion cannot accept a different point of view that is in conflict with it's basic beliefs and it's evidence just because a few find it unpopular. That would be the same as welcoming politics into religion. Iran seems to have embraced that idea.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WillH 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Where have you seen any transitional animals? You have to remember I do not mean a complete animal, I am talking about the conglomerate animals coming between two identifiable animals. The best known example of an alleged intermediate animal was the Archaeopteryx, until it was found to be out of the time line of "evolutional" history meaning that it looked half bird and half dinosaur, but lived at the wrong period of time. The current favorite example is the Tiktaalik roseae which has both fish and amphibian traits, but it also is a complete animal.

    If species evolution was ongoing then every single species in the fossil record would display traits of where they came from and where they were evolving to. The hard evidence in the fossil record shows that all these complete animals lived at one point of time or another. It does not prove the progression of one to another.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by rlewellen 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If I want to be free from freedom of expression can I mandate it across society or would I be inhibiting the freedom of expression? I think that your personal feelings against religion are clouding your judgement on this issue.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Not if those alternative theories are based on unprovable and untestable claims, they're not. Providing information about competing theories is fine, but only on the condition that all theories presented are testable and falsifiable or provable. Religious beliefs do not meet that requirement, and therefore should not be presented in a science class.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo