Book warning labels
 

Since the Right Wing Nut jobs in the Red State of Georgia have succeeded in getting warning labels about evolution printed on science textbooks, it's a small leap to imagine the other textbook warning labels that will follow:

http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/

http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpu...isclaimers.jpg

When does the peanut warning label come out? Jimmy Carter was the biggest nut job of all time. Surely they have agriculture books too! Time changes, don't be bitter.

Let me add another

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1101860902.gif

The earth is round? Who came up with that cockamamie notion....everybody knows the earth is flat...I fallen off the edge lots of times....

Y'know, I think several things when I see fish on the back of peoples' cars. I expect Christians to display their views this way...because their belief is exciting, and also because they are specifically directed to share their joy with others.

But I what would motivate someone to place a Darwin fish on their car. Sure, maybe they're just argumentative *******s. Or maybe they are very very proud of their superior intellect, and want everyone to see how smart they are.

And the other thought I have is that, since science seems to be best defined as "that discipline or field of endeavor which is regularly and repeatedly and frequently so surprized by new discoveries that their belief systems need near-daily re-writes," I wonder what kinds of looks we'd see on their faces (the Darwin fish folks) when they find that there is substantial truth to the creation story. Sure, I also am confident that "natural selection" is a mechanism at work in nature. But "evolution" in the sense of a theory that negates creationism.....certainly steps way way outside the data. There is almost no question in my mind that some folks are going to have egg on their faces.

Flip side: What would motivate someone to put R-Gruppe and SCWDP stickers on their 911s? I really don't give it much thought. Everybody's different.

I wonder what kinds of looks we'd see on their faces (the creation folks) when they find that there is substantial truth to the Darwin story. I have a Darwin fish on my jeep just to pi** off the "blind faith" Christians, and I'm friends with many. I'm subjected daily to Jesus "facts" on billboards, bumperstickers, tv, etc., etc.. what's so bad about a little Darwin fish on my car? While I might be pleasantly surprised if or when I meet a God, Christians will be devastated if or when they find out there is no god. And I don't run down people that have different beliefs than mine, at least not in a public forum. Seems a lot of Christians talk the talk, but don't walk the walk.

You miss the point--they have rationalized away the possibilty of finding that there is substantial truth to the Darwin story. People like that have prepared arguments to bail them out when they find themselves in a logical corner. Remarkably similar to liberal democrats--oh the irony. :D

I live about 5 minutes from swarthmore.edu, FWIW. Picture a small liberal arts college that can't even keep a decent coffee shop in business.

I think this is funny. If we (Christians) are right, when an unbeliever dies and meets God, they'll spend an eternity suffering. If you are right, when I die I'm dead. No biggie...

You've managed to hit on one of my big pet peeves. "The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians ... who acknowledge Him with their lips, then walk out the door and deny Him with their lives. That is what an unbelieving world finds simply unbelievable." -Brennan Manning.


If people would quit using scripture to justify random acts of stupidity, it would be a lot easier for those of us who use the scripture in a logical and coherent fashion. Paul tells us that the fruits of the Spirit are love, joy, peace, kindness, patience, gentleness, etc., and that against these things there is no law. He's right, really.

(sigh)

Dan

The overall principles of science deduce to the same result: the earth is round, it is billions of years old, and man has evolved from an older being that resembled primates. Details change; not the overall A-to-B theory.

Conversely, where are your facts to the contrary (creationism)? Have you any as tangible as science itself? No, you don't except for fictionalized accounts by apostles and others - i.e. the bible.

I find it highly interesting that you stayed away from the threads that announced a newly-found but extinct humanoid species recently located in Java (I think). Did you fear this as just another step in the direction of evolution, and felt it best to sit that one out?

Is "fear" the key word in any of these discussions?

But more alarming is your attitude to people with Darwin fish on their bumpers and decklids. Appalling, it seems, that sight is to you. To me, you hint toward intolerance, and represent another indication of the inflexibility of religion, which to date has only served to perpetuate the instability (read: war)we have on our (round) earth today.

BTW: how can you be against Bush's war in Iraq, when one of the war's crowning desires is to influence the Muslim world with Christianity? After all, "God" told Bush to do this, so there has to be a Christain element in the Iraq campaign.

I was talking to a Rabbi very recently...he said to me that he would die for the opportunity of every christian to believe as they do. He would give his life so that they could worship the way they do. That's all he said...my continuation on that thought though was that while most americans feel the same way in general as christians that whole idea goes against their faith in their god.

Quite the quandry they are in there isn't it.

This almost killed me with laughter so I have stolen it.

Nanny nanny boo boo.

SmileWavy

Me Too, soon to be on sig or maybe I'll finally change my avatar.

I find the biggest problem in debates/discussions such as this, is that people are unable to be convinced of a point with logic and fact- their emotional connection to a side is far too strong. In case we've forgotten, with philosophical analysis, emotion=bad, logic=good. Thats not to say religion is akin to emotion, and science to logic, but some may (correctly) interpret it that way.

Galileo's Catholic church was quite positive the earth was the center of the universe.... who won that one?

I think some of you misunderstand my observation. But first....

I thought I did post on the new paleontology thing. At any rate, it is not my position to deny either creationism or evolution. No doubt, natural selection is a mechanism in nature, but "creationism" may be going too far to the degree that it asserts that humans are simply advanced apes. A closer look at the fossil record makes you wonder "what happened," in addition to the inference that we evolved from apes. In other words, "evolution" is not deductive. It is inductive. It infers something, but those who get inference confused with conclusive evidence are making their own leap of faith. And as I say, a close inspection of the fossil record leaves the true scientist scratching his (or her) head wondering "what else happened here?" Those of you who delete this step are not being as rational or logical as you think you are. Plenty of archeologists, paleontologists and anthropologist are christians, and many of them do not deny the biblical account of creation.

Creationism can co-exist with evolution. Except in the minds of the people I described above.

I think the Fish N Chips thing is very funny and I appreciate the advertisement. Folks should relax. get a sense of humor. But it seems to me that a sense of humor is not what folks are displaing with Darwin Fish. They are being either argumentative, or they are attempting to show off their towering intellect. Unless I am missing something. Or perhaps evolution is their religion. Why would someone who does not believe in God or religion, try to "convert" someone who does? Atheism is the absense of religion, it seems to me. It is the substitution of intellectual (and false, in my view) pride in place of religion.

Did I strike a nerve?

Oh, and I'd heartily agree that Christians generally do a piss poor job of communicating Jesus' teachings by their example. Very poor indeed.

Don, I hope you don't change your avatar.

George Bush and the rest of you who believe we should not help people using tax money are, in my humble view, pretend Christians. I'm sure you think you talk a good game, but I'm utterly confident that, if JC were with us today, he'd regard you as modern "Pharises." My view on this are outlined in the thread called "Conservative Christians?"

There is no Christian element in the Iraq decision. Bush is either lying, or having auditory hallucinations. God does not condone that violence any more than our earlier crusades.

If you guys want to understand the distinction between the things of man and the things of God, your best resource is Jesus' life. The thoughtful reader could never conclude that Jesus believed military tactics to be appropriate. His only violent actions were directed toward profiteering in the temple courtyard. And that should also make a republican pause.

No, I don't think I'm intolerant toward folks with Darwin Fish. I think the Darwin Fish folks here may have been a little stung by my observation, but I'm just noticing the two potential motives behind the decision to advertize one's denial of the potential that God's hand may be at work in the Universe. That's a very stupid position to take, for several reasons. Respectfully.