What a stupid thread!!

__________________
R.I.P. Molly, I miss you every day!!

Im a Tarte, what! you want some of this?


And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. Thomas Jefferson

And we'll be sure to keep it that way.

__________________
Two "no's" make a "yes". Can't argue with math.

I was asked if I could supply a reference citing the fact that Stalin disliked darwinian evolution. I saw it on a TV show on the history or science channel.

I am a bit cautious about putting links into these pages because I might get banned for spamming. They don't like lots of links to other sites on sites like this, still a simple Google for Stalin Lamarck finds lots of references on the web. Here is one.

"Curiously, the Soviet Union's parallel obsession with human perfectibility began from precisely the opposite intellectual conclusion. Stalin explicitly rejected Darwinism as early as 1906, when he wrote a pamphlet arguing instead for the theories of Lamarck, who insisted that acquired human traits, even physical characteristics, could be passed down from parents to children. In the 1930s, Stalin championed the cause of the Soviet pseudo-scientist Lysenko, whose faked experiments supported Lamarck's theses. Homo Sovieticus, he concluded, was to be created through education and propaganda, not through breeding."
http://www.powells.com/review/2004_12_23.html

Google shows 16,000 or so hits connecting Stalin to Lamarck, so documenting that fact does not represent any kind of a problem.

The second question is do I really support the use of public buildings for religious assembly. The answer is yes, let me explain why.

Public forums are available to virtually all organizations. To allow various organizations the use of public buildings to promote their beliefs and ideals and to deny that right to traditional religions is to make atheism and atheist belief systems the de facto state establishment of religion.

This violates the 'establishment of religion' clause of the Constitution.

The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It is not an accident that free exercise of religious belief falls into the same amendment as freedom of speech, press and assembly. It is clear that freedom of religious speech, religious press and religious assembly was the first exercise of these freedoms intended to be protected by this amendment.

This is because the US was formed in the aftermath of the Reformation, the period of vicious religious wars in Europe when freedom of religious speech, press and assembly were viciously suppressed by rival factions of belief.

You cannot deny Christians the right to use public buildings for assembly without abridging freedom of assembly and speech. The Government is too big and its resources represent too much of the available resources for assembly and speech.

To allow it to atheist belief systems and deny it to Christians is, again, to make atheism the de facto state establishment of religion and a very gross violation of the separation of Church and State by showing favoritism to one belief regarding the existence or non-existence of God over other systems of belief.

So, yes, I definitely do support the right of Christians to use Public Schools, rooms in government buildings, government premises, etc. to peacably assemble and practice their beliefs.

__________________
"Yankee-Do: The Way of the American" A book I wrote never published about 8 years ago.

This is the worst comparison ever. I do share your concern about Republicans and their use of religious beliefs over several of our rights afforded by our constitution. Just to comfort you, they won't accomplish anything on those issues. Anti-gay marriage and public prayer are losing battles.

I'd say reversing the abortion issue is their best chance and that won't happen in this administration. And it should not be considered a religious issue.

__________________
Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness ~Thomas Paine

I am going to try to explain why Creationism is wrong. This is not really simple. The difference requires a clear understanding of many issues, and nothing which is normally mentioned in the debates over Creationism and Evolution actually has anything to do with the issue.

Nothing which is normally mentioned in the debates over Creationism and Evolution has anything to do with the issue. This is true, and it reflects how little Creationists understand about the issues involved.

What happens is that Creationists attack Evolultion. Advocated of Evolution respond to the specific attacks of Creationists. This places the area of debate where the Creationists choose to place it. So Creationists control the debate, and since Creationists are blissfully ignorant of anything relevant to the real questions involved, it means that NOTHING which is normally mentioned in the debates over Creationism and Evolution has anything to do with the issue.

It is again worth googling Creation and 7 days to discover what is being talked about.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_world1.htm This is an excellent site which discusses the various diferent ways in which Christians reject evolution and attempt to defend the 'inerrancy' of the Bible.

Let us begin with this concept. The Bible is the 'Word of God' the first three books of the Bible were written by Moses, and the Bible is literally true and inerrant.

Evolution has nothing to do with proving or disproving any of these. Creationists reject evolution on the false belief that Evolution is the science which proves the Bible wrong.

The Bible proves the Bible wrong. You do not need Evolution to prove that the Bible is not literally true. There are two stories of Creation in the first two or three pages of the Bible and they contradict each other. One says man was created last, the other that man was created first. They cannot both be literally true. Right there you have to interpret the Bible and it is not Literally true.

Geology proves the Bible wrong. There is clear evidence in Geology that the Earth is more than 5000 years old.

Astronomy proves the Bible wrong. Everything in modern Astronomy clearly shows and is based on an age of the Universe far greater than 5000 years.

The Fossil record proves the Bible wrong. Evolution does not prove that speciation occurs. The fossil record proves that speciation occurs.

Evolution does not prove anything. Factual evidence proves things. Theories explain this evidence.

Evolution is a theory which explains the evidence presented by the Fossil Record and other sources.

In the absence of the theory of Evolution, the factual evidence proving the Bible is wrong and not literally true would still exist. Everyone working with that evidence in Astronomy, Geology, Geography, Climatology, Paleontology, Biology, etc. would still know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Bible was not literally true and inerrant in any literal sense.

You cannot teach science in any field without teaching some of the factual evidence which proves, beyond any doubt, to any reasonable person, that the Bible cannot, possibly be literally true. So even if teaching Evolution in school was made illegal tomorrow, every generation of students who learned anything about astronomy, geology, fossils, etc. would reinvent evolution or something very much like evolution to explain the evidence. You cannot hide the truth from the younger generation by lying about it. The truth would come out, no matter how much you attempted to hide and conceal it.

So, attacking Evolution does not defend the 'literal truth' and 'inerrancy' of the Bible. Even if Darwinian Evolution were proven wrong, beyond a shadow of a doubt, tomorrow, the factual evidence in Astronomy, Geology, the Fossil Record, etc. would still, beyond any reasonable doubt prove that the Bible is not literally true.

There is no rational, fact based, reason to associate these two issues. Yet all of the arguments of Creationists are based on the idea that they are defending the Bible by attacking Evolution. This is nonsense and shows that the entire debate and all arguments related to the debate are nonsense.

This is why Creationism is wrong. Creationism is based on complete ignorance of the actual issues involved. It is based on false beliefs and misunderstandings of the real situation. All Creationist arguments proceed from this area of false assumptions and beliefs into ever more abstruse areas of never-never land.

Many are clever, some are downright brilliant and all are total nonsense.


Evolution is not perfect, and evolution does not prove anything. Evolution is just the best theoretical explanation we have of the evidence available. Evolution works in a lot of ways and more and more, in fields outside biology, evolution is becoming a keystone concept for advanced work. This is especially true in computing. Read up on genetic algorithms, google it, to find out the many, many different ways that evolution is being applied in engineering and science today.

Evolution has become a keystone concept on which much possibly all of modern science is to one degree or another based. While some scientists may be ignorant of how much of what they do is based on evolutionary assumptions, it remains true that there is probably not a single scientist in the world today whose work is not, to some degree based on evolutionary assumptions. It is that useful and essential a concept.

__________________
"Yankee-Do: The Way of the American" A book I wrote never published about 8 years ago.

What is the harm in Creationism? What difference does it make if someone believes that the world was created in 7 days or in 7 trillion years? Surely the important thing is that people be taught to live good moral lives and deal fairly and justly with their fellow beings.

Well yes and no. If Creationists were not trying to violate the sanctity of the scientific method by having Creationism taught in science classes, I would not care.

I like traditional religions and I believe that they do great things for society, and I do not care in the least if the used car salesman, the plumber, the carpenter, or the local insurance salesman believes in Creationism.

Belief in Creationism is not important in determining how well a plumber does his job.

It is important in determinig how well a geologist does his job. Geologists need to locate deposits of oil, iron, copper, etc. In order to do this, they have to talk realistically about how long it takes for natural processes to create these deposits. That means that they have to talk and think in terms of millions and billions of years, and a person who believes that the world was created 5 thousand years ago will not be able to develop systems for locating new deposits of oil successfully.

It is important in determining how well medical researchers do their job. Diseases organisms are evolving resistance to penicillin and other anti-biotics. In order to understand and counter this, medical researchers have to accept evolution as fact. If evolution does not happen, diseases cannot evolve resistance to penicillin, and it will always work as well as it did 100 years ago. So, a doctor and especially, a medical researcher cannot do their job well unless they accept and believe in evolution.

We are undergoing global climate change. In order to discuss and understand what is happening, you have to talk about the climate history of the world, which means talking in terms of hundreds of millions and billions of years. You cannot model global climate change successfully without recognizing that the earth is a lot longer than a literal interpretation of the Bible would allow.

In literally hundred of thousands of ways, creationism is extremely dangerous, potentialy, catastrophically deadly to all of humanity.

As a matter of personal faith. I don't care. Keep it out of the science classrooms. Scientists and engineers have to deal with the real age of the world in order to help us meet the real challenges which the world offers.

Creationism is deadly dangerous and a threat to the lives and welfare of all humanity, if it ever gets into the science classroom. It will kill you and murder 99% of your children to the nth generation.

__________________
"Yankee-Do: The Way of the American" A book I wrote never published about 8 years ago.

It presents a massive problem. A little bit of knowledge and a lot of speculation will always take you on a wrong tangent. Stalin never rejected Darwin, he rejected genetics. It was officially declared a psudo-science in 1934, and finally outlawed in 1948. The reason for this was poltical. Genetics was seen as an upper class pursit and a major tool of fascism

Spend some time - look up Lysenkoism, very interesting reading

I remember reading that Lysenko convinced Stalin that his theory of genetics was concordant with dialectical materialism. It was rubbish of course.

http://skepdic.com/lysenko.html

The only point I would disagree in that article is Lysenko's rise to the top. That conference was more the pinnicle, he'd been influencing agricultural trends and methods since the early 30's

As a side light Kruschev was a huge supporter of him as well

I don't know all that much about him, I admit that. I do seem to remember reading somewhere that his wacky theories led to a famine due to harvest failure, I think (not sure) that it might have been in Ukraine.

I didn't know Kruschev was a supporter, I would have thought that he would have been a bit more rational and less dogmatic but there you go, how wrong can I be. Thanks for that info.