On ‘Darwin Day,’ many Americans beg to differ | csmonitor.com — There will be a lot of Darwin stuff going on for this anniversary.
This Thursday, celebrations are under way worldwide to mark Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday. From Argentina to Australia, people are gathering for film screenings, quiz contests, and museum exhibits on “Darwin Day” – along with at least one “survival of the fittest” cake-eating contest.
In the US, though, Darwin remains a controversial figure. Two centuries after the famed naturalist’s birth, more than 40 percent of Americans believe human beings were created by God in their present form, according to recent polls from Gallup and the Pew Research Center – a view impossible to reconcile with evolution propelled by natural selection.
Such creationist beliefs lack scientific merit, educators say, and in classrooms evolution reigns supreme.
You have to wonder what is wrong with this picture if evolution has been taught in the schools without complaint for 50 or more years, how only 60-percent think it is true and 40 go with creationism which is not taught at all.
Others born on Feb. 12 listed here include, oddly enough, Abe Lincoln and footballer Lincoln Kennedy.
I wonder how far the idea for a holiday would get?
137 Gary: Quite true, however one stark difference between science and religion is that most scientists don’t claim that science is the ultimate spring from which flows goodness and love, with morality so unquestionably high that its benefits should be evangelized to the world.
Oh really? Could have fooled me.
bobbo: Science is a process, indeed neutral. It is people who are evil==those with an agenda. That in the main is religion and politics.
Substute “Religion” for “Science” and I think you’ve got it. Add to your group a political atheist with an agenda. Now show me an atheist group that has built as many hospitals throughout the world as religious people. Have there been any? Atheists as a group, or individually, would rather bitch theoretical.
Very astute research there, bobbo.
Except: 15 for “before the big bang existed”
and 58,000,000 hits for Before God. That proves what, again? Fortunately this solid research is not needed since you, among us, are so open-minded.
Mis Scott. Feel free to check out Bobbo’s 630 entries followed by my 58 million hits cited above. Then answer the question “What is the number after the last number” to keep yourself amused about the nature of God.
Here are the types of discussions about “Before God” that have gone on for thousands of years longer than “before the BB.”
http://tinyurl.com/bq7jgt
Likewise, religion itself is neutral, but like science, it’s misuse sure ain’t.
RBG
RBG, misdirection like yours is amusing, but I was really looking for a more open display of pure insanity, hoping you’d attempt to defend some of the more vile actions of your deity. Instead, you merely try to vilify science and its practitioners in an apparent attempt to drag it down to the same moral level that your religion occupies.
I enjoyed the magic show, but you’ll do well in the future to hire a lovely assistant to better aid in your misdirection.
The magic is pointing out the hypocrisy of your own beliefs.
RBG
#141 – RBG,
Now show me an atheist group that has built as many hospitals throughout the world as religious people. Have there been any? Atheists as a group, or individually, would rather bitch theoretical.
Red Cross? UNICEF? WHO? AFAIK, none of these are religious in nature. Further, keep in mind when comparing the works of the religious to the non-religious that:
A) There are far fewer atheists than theists, limiting their work.
B) Atheism is not a group thing like religion. There are no meetings to go to. Atheists performing charitable acts would likely not do so in the name of atheism any more than atheist mass murderers commit their murders in the name of atheism. So, just as Stalin killed for an ideology (communism) rather than atheism, so too do atheists support charity in the name of a deeply held ideology rather than in the name of atheism. Therefore, this measure of the goodness or badness of atheism won’t wash. The problem is in defining people by what the disbelieve rather than what they believe.
Very astute research there, bobbo.
Except: 15 for “before the big bang existed”
and 58,000,000 hits for Before God. That proves what, again? Fortunately this solid research is not needed since you, among us, are so open-minded.
I don’t understand this from either side. Truth is not a popularity contest. Gravity keeps me from flying, which I would love. That does not make it false.
Mis Scott. Feel free to check out Bobbo’s 630 entries followed by my 58 million hits cited above. Then answer the question “What is the number after the last number” to keep yourself amused about the nature of God.
Not that the popularity contest means anything. However, I noticed that you didn’t do my search that returned 230K instead of bobbo’s that returned just 630. But, you still win. More hits for before god. As you said though, it proves nothing. At most it proves that more people believe in god than disbelieve.
Wait a minute!!
This just in. You searched for a two word phrase for “before god” and a far more restrictive five word phrase for “before the big bang existed” and compared those results. Now add that your two words are in the freakin’ ten commandments, the number one best selling work of fiction in all of history, and one should not be surprised by a large number of hits.
As a search term, before big bang
returned 8.5 million hits.
This is a meaningless discussion, IMNSHO, but does prove your bias if nothing else.
Here are the types of discussions about “Before God” that have gone on for thousands of years longer than “before the BB.”
http://tinyurl.com/bq7jgt
I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean either. Discussions existed before knowledge that the universe was expanding. Yes. This is knowledge from under 100 years ago.
By contrast, you are still repeating the same discussions from 2,000 years ago as if we’ve learned nothing. Do you also avoid using other knowledge that does not comes from the bible? Do you still use a horse and buggy? A sword to defend yourself? Candles by which to read your bible?
Since you are posting here, I’m betting that you make use of the fact that we have learned stuff that is not in your bible. So, what relevance does it have to state that people have been discussing god longer than the big bang other than to state that god is an archaic concept?
Likewise, religion itself is neutral, but like science, it’s misuse sure ain’t.
Actually, religion is sectarian. Let’s look at the word for a moment. It means that it divides people into sects. If Jews vs. Christians vs. Muslims is too few groups, we can further divide into Protestants and Catholics and Sunni and Shiite and Ashkenazi and Sephardim. And, when we’ve finished dividing into tiny groups, we will all find that it is always OK to kill members of some other group.
Religion is, by its very nature and purpose, divisive rather than unifying. This makes religion far from neutral.
Would we find reasons to kill each other without religion? Probably. But, religion adds not only reasons to kill, but vehemence and fervor to the killing rarely (though not never) found outside religion.
Oops, add Doctors Without Borders to the list of secular organizations helping people around the world.
Then, add most environmental organizations, which protect the habitat required for our very survival. To my knowledge most are non-sectarian as well.
We should probably add the life-saving services of Planned Parenthood as well, though, being a religious induhvidual, you are unlikely to think of their work preventing teen pregnancy and STDs as a positive thing.
Ditto for the protection of human rights by the ACLU.
#141–RBG==”Substute “Religion” for “Science” and I think you’ve got it.” // Whooo Boy. Let me substitute up for down, black for white, left for right and I’d have to say you have everything backwards.
Somehow I doubt Doctors Without Borders, UNICEF, Red Cross have anything to do with atheism. And likely to have as much association with religious people. I’m talking about a group that proclaims “We are atheists and we plan to build great things for the people of the world.” Just ain’t gonna happen.
RBG
#147 RBG, a lot of atheists have too much to lose to make any such proclamation of atheism. Look at how Oprah was attacked in blogs and on YouTube when she expressed views about religion that were simply inconsistent with Christianity. She didn’t even claim no faith in a creator, only that Christianity wasn’t the only true path, contradicting Christianity’s claim of exclusivity and upsetting a lot of people in the process.
So imagine the price a proclaimed atheist might have to pay. Christians aren’t especially known for their tolerance of people who openly disclaim Christianity, and Muslims are even less tolerant than Christians. So asking “where are the atheist do-gooders?” seems a little disingenuous, but perhaps you already knew that. And surely you’ve seen survey results that indicate that atheists are trusted by Americans even less than people who believe in the “wrong” god.
Ask philanthropists like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet if they believe in God, and you’ll get a very non-committal answer consistent with a person who knows just how much they have to lose if they phrase their answer the wrong way. But by dodging the question, they’re also dodging the opportunity that most believers would welcome to talk about their faith, so it doesn’t take a genius to draw a logical conclusion from even a vague answer.
# 147 RBG said, on February 19th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Somehow I doubt Doctors Without Borders, UNICEF, Red Cross have anything to do with atheism. And likely to have as much association with religious people. I’m talking about a group that proclaims “We are atheists and we plan to build great things for the people of the world.” Just ain’t gonna happen.
Just what kind of action are you looking for from a non-ideology? Atheism has no unifying principles. Atheists give to any organization that meets their goals for what they feel is important. Atheism defines people by what they are not, which leaves atheists with no organizations under which to provide explicitly atheistic services.
Many atheists don’t even like the term atheist. I, for one, prefer antitheist for myself because it defines my by a deeply held belief that religion is evil rather than by a non-belief.
In addition to being an atheist, I am an a-stamp-collector, an a-golfer, an a-sailor. None of these groups have organizations either. So, do you deride a-stamp-collectors for not creating hospitals in the name of a-stamp-collecting?
Atheism is a name given to those who do not believe in god by those who do believe in god.
I am also an environmentalist. As such, I give to a lot of environmental charities.
When you ask atheists what they do believe in and then look into whether they perform great things for those things, you will likely find that they do.