Juju, I think she's saying that Faith, defined as "confident belief in the truth of an idea", applies if you believe in God or not.
The confusion is between faith and religon, which are not the same. Having faith is not the same as having a faith.
Damn English.:)

That's not at all how she is writing it though, Bruce. She has even said that evolution is a religion. How much more ridiculous can you get?

juju, let me put this in words that you can understand:

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." :)

<tt>
#!/usr/bin/perl

########################
# onyx-responses.pl
#
# prints bullshit response after
# bullshit response.
#
########################

@courses=("Cooking","Reading","English","Spanish","Math","Literature");
foreach $course (@courses) {
&nbsp;&nbsp;print("$course is a religion.\n\nTherefore shouldn't be taught in public school.");
}
</tt>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; All right, I wrote a long and thoughtful response to this thread and then promptly lost it when I tried to post. So, I'm doing it again and not as well 'cause now I'm tired. Screw it.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; First off, what I read from OC is that she has a problem with evolution being taught as fact. Not a problem with if it occurred or not. Also, I think what she was calling evolution was specifically the origin of the human race through evolution. Not evolution in general.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; So, I'm running with that idea. My text books always said "theory" right in the title. This meant the following section was the theory being presented. It would be distracting and annoying to have continuously reiterate that it's a theory. So it's stated in simpler terms. My six year old might not know that the word "theory" in the title means it's a theory, not a fact, but my ten year old definitely would. In other words, if a kid isn't smart enough to know what the word "theory" means, then the rest of it won't make any sense anyway.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Now for the part I actually had an issue with.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Since I'm a person you are telling me I have "a religious faith of some kind." I like you OC so I'm not going to take that as an insult. Instead I'm asking you to back it up. How do I have religious faith?
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Let me restate my position on god and the afterlife. I don't give a rat's ass. It's a fun topic for fireside chats, but I consider it meaningless to me personally. If I was to assign a specific emotion to it, I'd choose to describe my feeling as indifference.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; How is that faith?

Well, I don't have a problem with any of it in principle. I don't know if that's how it happened or not. I specifically am not putting my personal belief here because it's not relevant to the point I'm trying to make (which doesn't seem to be coming across.)



Well, the textbooks say theory one time and then act like it's the law of gravity, irrefutable.

I'm not saying I want all of you to throw the Theory out the window as bullshit, or even that I want you to "consider God." I don't. I'm NOT one of those "pushy christians." All I'm trying to get across is that if you're going to teach one non provable theory of creation, you need to teach all of them.


I like you too, Whit, we generally see eye to eye on most issues. I wasn't trying to insult anyone. That's not my style.

But, like Dave posted, not making a choice is, in fact, making a choice. Your stance on religion, whether it's important in your life or not, (although not relevant to this discussion) is your belief system. You have a belief system. EVERYONE does. What that belief system is could be anything. But it is there. And faith is a form of belief. See all the semantics posts Bruce and I engaged in.

What you believe in doesn't matter. They are teaching nonobservable ideas as FACT and it's wrong. I keep repeating the same "bullshit" (:p @ Dave) because everyone (generally) seems to be thinking I'm against Evolution. I'm not. It's a great idea. But (for the millionth time) is not a FACT or a LAW of science. It's an IDEA presented as fact. And that is my only problem with it. Get it out of science class. Can you teach gravity? Yup. Physics? yup. Chemistry? Definetly. It doesn't hurt science to take Evolution out, does it? Biology is still the same. Nothing changes if you don't mention primordial soup, does it? That's because those subjects ARE science, backed by observable, duplicatable facts. Is anyone seeing the fundamental difference here?

I would like to just add my 2 cents to this. I think that Onyxcougar has a very valid arguement. I have spent a small amount of time looking into this arguement. Neither side creation or evolution has a single shred of proof, both are based on ideas. Just because one is taught in a church and one is taught in a science classroom doesn't give either more credibility than the other. If you argue that point on either side, I say you're brainwashed, plain and simple. The only real difference is that one is tax funded and I think it's a crock. Understand first of all it's not a matter of what you choose to believe, it's the fact that you try to make someone pay for what you believe. Many brave people have fought and died in wars to protect our freedoms. One of them is the freedom of choice. When you trick a child into believing that he evolved from a monkey and that there is no god and drill it in their head for years, you effectivly remove the freedom of choice. The only real proof that they have for this theory is that it hasn't been proven wrong. Hmmm. For over 100 years they have been trying to prove it right and thats the best they can come up with? On the other hand, for that same amount of time, they have been trying to prove god wrong and can't. Hmmm. Sounds to me like god won that one if not being able to prove it wrong if is your best evidence. Now don't get me wrong, I could care less about either one, but I really hate lies and bullshit, especially when it threatens children and my freedom.
By the way it really is interesting when you look at all the arguments and realize that neither one has any proof whatsoever. I don't know why it's so hard for scientists to just admit that at this point we just don't know. I call it arrogance myself.

A theory IS provable. It's included in the definition. Theories are treated as if they had been proven over and over and over because they HAVE been proven over and over and over. Scientists don't call something a theory unless they have a great deal of empirical evidence. This is the definition of theory: Something that has been shown to be true over and over and over.

What about the fossil finds of Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus aethiopicus, Australopithecus boisei, Australopithecus robustus, Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, and Homo neanderthalensis?

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Not to nitpic, but you specified religious faith. You've dropped the religion here.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Also, while I agree that faith is a form of belief, not all belief is faith. I believe the earth is round for example. I believe it because not only do I have it on good authority, I've seen it demonstrated.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Anyway, you say it's not important to this discussion. If I were to casually throw out the idea that everyone here has purple hair would it not divert the discussion a bit? You said we all have religious faith. Your response when here was about beliefs with no religion mentioned. So, again, back up your statement. How do I have religious faith?

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; As far as evolution is school goes, I repeat, "theory" is in the title. If a kid thinks that means that it is a fact then that child is stupid. Blame the parents. The school gave the child a word and defined it. It's the parents job to inspire the child to translate that to understanding.

Evolution does not encompass the whole "big bang"/"primordial soup" deal. Evolution is just that - an evolution of a species. Big bang is a whole different theory. Primordial soup is a whole different theory. And they are taught as such.

I think the point that she is trying to make about it being a religion is that they have a theory about our origin that is not provable. It's not about the earth being round it's about where we came from and where we are going I would personally call it a religion. Do some research with an open mind. Fossils are not evidence for evolution when you find a bone in the ground you don't know what it's parents look like, or if it had children, all you know is that it died. Also look up the difference between micro and macro evolution, one is provable and demonstratable, it is science. The other is not provable, nor demonstratable, and has never been observed. You have to take it on faith that it happened, and for some reason stopped happening.

It hasn't stopped happening.

And what you describe isn't religion.

"There sure are a lot of one-day-old duck turds in this field."

"That means there were a lot of ducks in this field yesterday."

"I didn't observe it, so if I now believe that there were ducks here, it is faith."

No! It is inductive reasoning. The turds are *proof* of the ducks without you ever seeing the ducks.

Juju, I know you made a reference to this earlier in the thread, but remember...there is no proof in science.

A friend of mine who was pre-med for 3 years has reverted to creationistic tendencies. He was telling me how a lot of what the creationists say makes sense. Of course, he didn't tell me what these creationists are saying, and quite frankly, I think he's somewhat nuts, but...

I've looked at both sides of the coin. While there are some issues with evolution, as a whole, there's strong scientific support for it. I think part of the problem that some folks have with evolution is that they don't want to believe that they might have come from monkeys.

I always did like Oparin's Theory...that used to fascinate the shit out of me...still does.

So elaborate on Oparin's Theory. Don't make us lazy-assed bastards google it ...

That's _deductive_ reasoning, though the principles involved are unstated.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Here ya go Wolf. From this site: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...955/origin.htm

Thanks, Sycamore. :) I'm going on about 3 hours sleep now, so I was a little out of it when I wrote that.

It should also be clarified that <i>no</i> scientist believes humans evolved from monkeys or apes. They instead believe that we had a common ancestor.

geraldo?

Inductive reasoning would tell us that this is the type of field ducks like to frequent.

That is so true, it's not funny. It's actually quite lamentable. Pittsburgh, where I've spent most of my time, is the most Protestant city north of the Mason-Dixon line, and the mentality of the Catholic churches, mostly that of the parishoners, reflect this - especially in the suburbs. The church I attended for quite awhile was like amateur Catholicism. The people in the crowd just treated the faith like a quirky offshoot of the other churches around, so much so that it made me sick. I would watch movies and read accounts of what the Catholic church was like in Europe, go to my church on Sunday, and sit there staring at the patterns in the carpet asking myself "What the hell happened?"

My stance is as follows - there IS a God, He does have some kind of blueprint for this Marx Brothers meets Three Stooges extravaganza we call existence, but it does not hurt to question it. If you're sitting there having trouble seeing how the pieces fit, ask Him to show you the front of the box, see how it's supposed to work. People that fall into the "You can't dare question the Almighty" column are people too insecure in THEIR faith, so much so that they don't want to know if they can sustain the boat getting tossed around a little. They know what's expected of them, they play their role in the community, and that's that, end of discussion. Forget them. Christians that go off at the mouth about how they're the elect, they're the saved, they can do no wrong are as representative of the faith as are people who drive a bomb into a building in the name of Allah, they just do their damage with words. Loud, frequent, obnoxious words.

Look, man, I'm no prophet or missionary. I didn't feel called here to "save you" or anything like that. I saw an interesting thread and just wanted to throw my spare change into the pool. Should you change your mind from where you were at the beginning of this thread, okay. And if not, okay too. Essentially, before this became creationism vs. evolution, I saw a lot of good folk like myself being painted with the same brush as people like Falwell and Robertson, and felt I needed to step up. Don't debunk the whole faith because of a few fried-chicken-chompin' nitwits.

~Mike

PS: I'd chime in on the evolution thing, but what I believe pisses both sides off equally, so I'll just stay in the stands. Fight on, all.