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.

The idea that Christ is a tax and spend Democrat is not supported by scripture. When Christ does come again, he will not be putting atheists in charge of distributing tithes and offerings.

The government will be funded by and run by worthy, humble, compassionate men and women who live the law of consecration. And yes, many of them will be Democrats! But politcal affiliation will not be considered.

The law of consecration is basically that you voluntarily give everything to your fellow man - especially those who need it most. It doesn't mean that the government takes it (taxes) and redistributes it. Meaning that Hillary wont be participating in a meaningful way.

And another thing - God does not shy away from dropping the hammer when He gets ready. Military force is a viable tool. Also floods! Remember He wiped the slate clean, save for Noah and family, and started over again when man got too "sophisticated".

And "learned men of science" are also hillarious. These mental giants equate God and spirituality with witchcraft and fairy tales. Hell, these geniuses can't even tell us if eggs and dairy products are good for you.

And yes the church tried to hold onto that idea that the earth was the center of the universe and flat. But that same church was burning witches and running a nice inquisition! It's hard to make the argument that THAT church was what the Savior has in mind.

For all of our scientific advances - DVD's, computers, microwaves, and the ability to pixilate a woman's bare breasts - Heavenly Father is not impressed with how clever we've become, but He loves us still.

Craig, first of all, if you are confusing liberals with atheists, then no wonder you sound so confused.

"Consecration" sounds like a wonderful idea, and it seems to be roughly the opposite of what I see conservatives doing. And spare me the "government should not be charitable, that is up to people' hooey. First of all, government is not "them." Government is "us." Second, removing a billion dollars in government programs is simply not going to cause tw billion in personal charitable contributions to suddenly appear. People do not want tax cuts so they can give more to poor people. They want to KEEP that money. Give me a break.

I'm real real tired of being characterized as an atheist. I am a practicing Catholic, Eucharistic minister and CCD (religious education) teacher among other things. Keep your stereotypes to yourself if they make you feel real justified. I've also lost my patience with conservatives who call themselves "Christians" but who throw out this litany of excuses why they should get to make more money, and keep more of it, and why aid to poor people should be withdrawn as some kind of favor to them. "Teach them to fish" is a cute excuse that allows greedy people to keep their money and also feel righteous.

"Tax and spend" is another cute little term that helps you pretend that charity should not be required of us. Your so-called "president" is the biggest spender in WORLD HISTORY, and his tax cuts for the wealthy are simply going to need to be paid by us anyway, some time in the future. You're giving him credit for taxing less, when really he's just taking out loans. Yes, there is scripture on point, and you probably know what it is. Christ had no problem with taxes. "Give to Ceasar what is Caesar's." His agenda was full-on charity. His little organization was non-political, and immensely socialist. All shared, all received, according to need. He hated money, except as a tool to give to others and help others.

Yeah, it'd be nice if everyone (or eve 1% of folks) would act like Christ, say, 10% of the time. But that seems to be too much to ask. And frankly, I see WAY WAY WAY WAY more Christian behavior from my pagan friends than I do from my Christian ones.

I have to agree, Craig with those last three paragraphs. But I'm not going to let you get away with the first one. If there is one thing we have been specifically directed not to do, it is judging. Yes, God sends floods, fire, etc. That's His job. Not ours. Our job is simple, yet we won't see it. He asked us to love Him, and love each other. Without judging. If you think he's authorized us to render judgement on others, and carry out that judgement using military means, then you do not understand the COLOSSAL difference between Him and us, his creation.

I don't think I was clear in my interpretation of the Rabbi. He said the the reason he would be willing to sacrifice himself in such a way was because it was the jewish thing to do - no mention of patriotism was made. Just wanted to clear that up.

Supe, I certainly owe you an apology if I implied that you were an athiest. I believe I did say that political affiliation would not be a consideration when Christ does come again to administer the government.

As far as taxing and spending - I do blame Bush for the horrible spending that has taken place on his watch, but I applaud his tax cuts. $2 trillion plus is a lot of money for the government to have access to.

Once again, I did not mean you specifically when I mentioned athiests. The law of consecration can only work when everyone is completely bought in to giving up all for the benefit of all. It collapses when a person is compelled (taxed) to contribute.

And I apologize if I came on too strong. Sometimes I do. But I'd also say this: I'm just as candid in my face-to-face meetings. It seems that mature men and women can describe their actual interests and perceptions, respectfully, even if it sounds harsh, and a productive meeting is just about guaranteed. It's cool.

I also thank you for reminding me of your position (and mine) that Christianity and charitable behavior cannot be mandated. That is an important part of my position on abortion and other acts and propensities that my conservative friends are attempting to legislate away. Evil is not rejected by statute. It is a personal decision.

And yes, God will overlook silly stuff like political affiliation. He will look inside us for stuff like humility and love for others. And there will be surprizes.

Well, I made a mess of things with my first response. When you said "if JC were with us today" I just wanted to point out that there would be no need to tax as there would be tithes instead - tithes being voluntary.

And I want to make it clear that I believe Democrats are God fearing, church going, partiotic citizens as a rule! But my perception is that your message is being blurred, just as the GOP message of self-reliance and limited government is being perceived as greed and racism.

The democratic "ideal" of taxing those who have in order to help those in need is a noble cause, one that the GOP agrees with to a degree. It's a matter of how much should we give up for the betterment of society.

How much should we give? Christ would say "all your wordly possesions". That is a difficult standard to meet.

Oh, and one other thing. I don't mean to imply that athiests are the bad guys here. There are many wonderful, intelligent, church-going, God-fearing athiests out there (except for the church-going, God-fearing part).

Here we go again.

Does not believing in the US based fundamentalist flavour of conservative Christian conviction still give me an automatic atheist tag and a free pass to hell?

I might ask my Jesus and not yours this time.

What’s that, father? What's better a WRX or a 911? Not sure I'll check with your disciples on the PP BBS.

I can't believe there's still confusion on this fundamental issue!!

It's the 911!

And there's one thing you can take to the bank - anything goes in the US. You can be a pagan, an athiest, a fundamental Christian or one of those freaks who think a space ship is coming for you, but you commit suicide before it gets there (I never understood that one).

Actually, I'm surprised at the limited amount of flaming that goes on on this BB given the sensitive subjects that are discussed here.

Jim - everything you wrote involving creationism is inferred and subjective. Evolution is not inferred; it is scientific, it is deductive, it happened and continues to happen today. Explain off as some master plan of an almighty how humans have grown in width and height exponentially within the last two-hundred years. If we were created, why do we "evolve?" It can't be a combination of both because Christian doctrine does not allow such. "Create" as a defined word, suggests finites. Creations "exist" but don't evolve, yet we are evolving.

Needless to say, despite clarifying your point, I still perceive in your words that you look down on those who place fish with anything but a cross inside the outline on the rear-ends of their cars. That's bad polarized Christian practice. You know why? Because you're saying that practioners of Darwinism refute God entirely. But then you side-step that to say many scientists are Christians. Hence, I don't know what you're saying, really. Your argument isn't adding up.

Oh, and no one's going to tell me Bush and Christianity aren't fond bedfellows intent on pushing agenda in the world. Too distinctly I remember the words: "You're either with us, or against us." Now why shouldn't any Christian, knowing their president is of the same religious ilk, choose to not believe God spoke to him and said: "Dubya, go take over the world and push me through to the forefront?" You'd be against what your president has told you is "the word of God," and in that, against God himself?

Or did Bush consult some other God who isn't the principle Christian God? If so, I think GW's breaking a commandment; which is punishable by...what? Burning? Dunking? Stoning?

I believe we evolved.

I also believe that when we die we will evolve to a higher form of existence.

Back when we all lived in tribes we had that one person who was really tuned into the natural world, witch doctor, shaman, high priest etc...

I believe that all people have the ability to communicate with the natural world, some are better at it than others.

Various animals species exhibit an ability to interact with the world, they sense earthquakes coming, storms and other natural dangers.

Migratory birds and marine life use the earths magnetic fields to navigate.

I think our "advances" have limited our natural ability to "hear" the world. TV, radio, satellite communications, noise pollution have all added up to white noise that is drowning out what our natural environment is telling us.

So I don't really believe in "a one true god". I think there is another plane that we ascend, or descend into after we die. Could it be that some of the "gods" that man worshipped in the past were entities from these other planes that we were once capable of communicating with.

Are we their children? Those of you who have kids would agree that you explain things to a 4 year old differently than you explain them to a 14 or 40 year old. You dumb it down to stave off the barrage of "but why".

At the time of Jesus was mankind so juvenile in our development that the explanations of the world were kept to a level that we could comprehend and accept?

We believed in Santa as a kid and even though we grew up and discovered that Santa is not real we still celebrate anyway.

Is this what has happened with religion?

OK, now let's really go crazy.

We all know you can not create or destroy matter, it just changes form. Can't have good without evil, no life without death.

Basically the world maintains balance.

So, could some really bright person work up an equation that calculates the finite number of life forms on the planet, what was the population of humans 20,000 years ago. What was the population of every other lifeform 20,000 years ago.

Can we figure out if the population decline in some lifeforms corresponds 1-1 to the increase in population of other lifeforms?

For example do birds die and come back as people or maybe even cats?

Then there is the whole question of what is a lifeform, is a single cell organism a life form? If so I may need to readdress my position on Roe v. Wade.

What does any of this have to do with the original topic of this thread?

I don't know, my kids woke up early and I started on this while half asleep.

Note to self, stay away from the computer till you have had your coffee.

I need to go find some cool aid.

Scott

Evolution That would need to be proven by finding fossil with a developing eyes.

They have not found one yet.


Even with Hubble they have yet to find another Blue planet.

God help me, but I'm in agreement with Steve.

dd, you've always seemed like a smart person, so I must be misunderstanding you. Not only is evolution inductive as opposed to deductive....so is all of science, frankly. And many are the instances when science has felt absolutely secure in a conclusion, only to have that conclusion washed away by new evidence. There have been many instances where a scientific conclusion seemed absolutely certain, only to be overturned. Evolutionists are taking certain positions these days that are FAR FAR less justified than those 'proven' conclusions that have been overturned. If you look carefully at the fossil record, you find that it's a major stretch to assert conclusively that we evolved from apes by natural forces with no outside intervention. Maybe we did, but the fossil record is actually terribly 'circumstantial' if you will. Steve points to just one example: If we evolved from apes, then someone still needs to explain the massively dramatic changes that occurred in just the last couple of hundred thousand years, and I think it's more like probably less than 100,000 years. In that time, natural selection would normally cause some changes/improvements, but nothing in the fossil record of any species of any kind, shows the breathtaking acceleration of this process, on just our species, in the last nanosecond (in "evolutionary" years.) Now, I have heard some theories, like the language thing. But that does not explain the physical changes. Heck, apes are hairy everywhere except their faces. I'm just the opposite. If you look at the evidence and you're not scratching your head, then you're jumping to conclusions.

Christians believe we are different from other creatures in the eyes of God. If a Christian is going to believe that we evolved from apes, then when exactly did God separate us from apes in the way he has? There's an interesting question.

Oh, and I appreciate your assertion that folks with Darwin Fish on their trunk lids are not dismissing God entirely. Okay. But I'm still wondering what message I should be receiving when I see those fish. Tell me. Are you guys trying to offer me a science lesson? Why don't you paste something on your car regarding the various glues I wish I understood and what glue is best in which applications? Well, it looks to me like the answer is that Darwin Fish are meant to be either:

1) Argumentative and/or
2) Showing me how cerebral you think you are.

No, I don't criticize fish without crosses. Some fish are hilarious. Fish N Chips. The fishbones one is cool too. But I think I'm supposed to be getting a more serious message from the Darwin Fish and it seems to me that message is one or the other of the two above. Unless you can inform me better.

So I guess, in twisting this discussion back toward its original topic, I'd say that book warning labels need to respect both the notion that we may have evolved from apes, and also the potential that we did not evolve from apes due to natural processes with no outside intervention. The fact is we really do not know. And science should be aware of its history of changing conclusions because new data nearly always upsets our current theories. We're probably not helping students learn critical thought when we viciously take positions, both the evolutionists and the creationists, that are completely partisan and seem to leave no room for either a "in-between" or "both are true" conclusion, or the very real possibility that our current theory (pick any one) is likely to be overturned sooner or later.

So, I'd say the smugness of all you brilliant and intolerant evolutionists is just as distasteful and ignorant as the indignance of evolution-denying bible-thumpers.

So there. Take that.

Sup - with all due respect - maybe you're just taking yourself a bit seriously. These people with the darwin fish are no more trying to specifically insult you than someone with a GWB bumper sticker is.

some might be - but likely the majority are simply expressing support for their opinion.

Fish with "Darwin" written inside their outline should be no more or less offensive than listening to presidents and would-be presidents say, "...and God bless America." Or seeing athletes point their overpaid limbs skyward after making a touchdown, hitting a homerun or shooting a three-pointer. The lesson of the Darwin fish is subjective as is an athlete celebrating their talent as God-given, etc.

In as much as evolution vs. creationism, I really must apologize, as I haven't - at least at this moment - the patience to discuss the issue ad nauseum. I already feel myself brewing with the anger that ends with calling someone "ignorant," "close-minded," and "gullible" which is not at all fair, and leans toward the emotional, which is a sure-fire way to destroy a debate.

I'll only say this:

There are stories out there - great epic volumes that show the Universe and its history and this Earth's history - then, there is the bible and all of what it says.

But in the end, both are stories.

Good form. :rolleyes:

BTW: no one says anyone evolved from "apes." How can we evolve from something that is currently behind bars in a zoo?

The scientifically deductive truth is human and apes evolved from the same primative source, they just split paths along the way.

Another BTW that can support evolution: did you know that in some cases, ape and chimpanzee blood has been used in humans who have rare blood types. Why? Because it was determined, medically, that the DNA chain is 99.9% similar, and that we are similarly evolved.

Pretend Christians, that pretty much sums up 99.45% of all the Jesus freaks I've met. They download porn on Saturday, go to church on Sunday, smoke pot Monday, cuss tuesday, blame libs wednesday, hate their neighbor Thursday for not pulling their weeds, get drunk Friday.

Would Jesus bomb Fallujah? Would Jesus lie to his people to invade a country?

Anyway. I think the tetonic plates is BS. We haven't even got close to going thru the crust. That theory holds no more water than Noah's Ark.

Same goes for anti-matter, black holes, worm holes, 99% of all the matter in space is invisible, SETI. Its all junk science if you ask me. But its excepted as real because of government funding and its written in science journals. If you as a teacher or scientist don't accept these wild ideas. You are ridiculed and shunning from advancing up the ladder.

This is science by social peer pressure and no better than fire and brimstone fear mongers taught to little kids.

I do agree with the orginal post that all this 'science' is just a theory and should be taken with a grain of salt.

Let me ask you this. Is it safe to drink milk?

Nobody knows, milk and eggs, potatoes used to be safe, now they can kill you. Facts are only facts to those in powerful and rich.