News Is Creationism Gaining Support in Congress?

[daveb]

What I want to know is what God was doing before he made the universe. Genesis says "In the beginning..," but God must have existed before the beginning in order that he could begin the beginning. So what was God supposed to have been doing before beginning the beginning?

It's the beginning. When a plan goes wrong, you go back to the beginning. So he's waiting for Vizzini.

 

[ImaLooser]

He calls evolution a lie from the "pit of hell", not to mention embryology and the Big Bang theory.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20121006/us-congressman-creationism/

If he doesn't like evolution, he doesn't have to participate.

 

[lisab]

If he doesn't like evolution, he doesn't have to participate.

+1

nice

 

[AlephZero]

I think the problem here is not so much that you don't like non-scentific congresspersons, but that you don't like representative democracy.

If about 40% of the population of a country believe in a literal interpretation of a holy book, then it seems entirely reasonable to me that 40% of thir elected representatives should believe the same as the people they represent

 

[Oltz]

Alpha +1

The desire to denigrate those you disagree with is always interesting to me and quite "anti-science" as we all know science is about disagreement and further research to better support ones hypothesis or create a better one.

For the record many Christians accept evolution as the tool used by god in creation. I personally have no idea how long a day is to god but understand the need to put it into terms humans would understand in a book made for out consumption. I currently see no scientific theory that is a contradiction of my faith or my profession as a geologist.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Alpha +1

The desire to denigrate those you disagree with is always interesting to me and quite "anti-science" as we all know science is about disagreement and further research to better support ones hypothesis or create a better one.

For the record many Christians accept evolution as the tool used by god in creation. I personally have no idea how long a day is to god but understand the need to put it into terms humans would understand in a book made for out consumption. I currently see no scientific theory that is a contradiction of my faith or my profession as a geologist.

I'm very specifically mocking the stated extreme anti-scientific views of this Congressman. This is a scientific forum and I will mock or disparage (within the rules of this forum) the publically stated irrational beliefs of those who are elected to govern us. That's my right as much as it is the right of those who would vote for such a person to vote as they choose.

 

[lisab]

I'm very specifically mocking the stated extreme anti-scientific views of this Congressman. This is a scientific forum and I will mock or disparage (within the rules of this forum) the publically stated irrational beliefs of those who are elected to govern us. That's my right as much as it is the right of those who would vote for such a person to vote as they choose.

Thanks for clarifying your stance, SW.

Disparaging beliefs or decisions is one thing - we can't make it personal, though. Remember, some may prefer reason-based decisions, others are quite comfortable with faith-based decisions. That's just reality.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I think the problem here is not so much that you don't like non-scentific congresspersons, but that you don't like representative democracy.

If about 40% of the population of a country believe in a literal interpretation of a holy book, then it seems entirely reasonable to me that 40% of thir elected representatives should believe the same as the people they represent

Two points: firstly criticism of elected government is not synonymous at all with criticism of the governmental system in question. Secondly you are confusing representative democracy with proportional representation voting which are very different things. The United States government is a representative democracy that utilises electoral district voting for elections. Because of this it is very unlikely that the proportion of votes for a party matches their proportion of the seats.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

You're mixing at least two different religions together (and maybe more) that don't necessarily have the same beliefs and at least one (Catholic) that doesn't apply to the Congressman.

I'm not exactly sure how his church views Mary, but the semi-deification of Mary was one of the reasons Protestants split away from the Catholic church. On the other hand, he would be more likely to take a literal view of the Bible than Catholics would.

Aside from that, even if there were an infinite number of universes, ours would be worth mentioning to us. It's only the others that wouldn't be worth mentioning. With over 6 billion people in the world, your life is hardly worth mentioning to the vast majority, but you probably find it worth mentioning to your friends family.

I agree. I should have been more precise and not given the impression of conflating the different faiths. The Roman Catholic stance is more progressive and does not deny evolution or the Big Bang. As regards embryology, the Vatican considers the human embryo as sacred and therefore opposes the use of oral contraceptives.

In my post, I did say we have a legitimate interest in the beginning of our universe, especially from a fundamentalist perspective which holds the beginning was quite recent compared to the evidence based scientific view.

 

[CAC1001]

I could proclaim: It's just a theory that you exist.

Substitute theory for: The best possible explanation provided by the current accumulation of evidence.

Except that you can know for a fact a person exists as you can actually see them.

You misunderstand the Big Bang theory. It is totally agnostic (has no comment about) how the universe BEGAN. It is all about what happened starting at one Plank time AFTER the singularity (whatever that was) occurred. You can argue all you want about what the singularity is (which is what I think your arguemnt really is about) but arguing against the Big Bang theory is just foolish.

Not arguing against it at all, I'm just pointing out that no one can say with 100% certainty that that is how things occurred. All the evidence we have points in that direction. But just because there aren't any logical alternatives doesn't mean an alternative doesn't exist, as not all of the universe functions according to logic. Look at the laws of physics. Some of it flat-out doesn't make sense and is almost mystical, and very illogical, but yet it is reality. There could be an alternative explanation regarding the universe that we can't even comprehend with our current brains.

Sure, based on what we know and can observe, the Big Bang makes great sense, but what if there are aspects about the universe that we cannot observe yet, that we cannot even comprehend, that change things around? It's like trying to visualize more than three dimensions. Just because the brain can't do it doesn't mean they don't exist.

I am not at all dismissing the Big Bang, but I think when talking about the state of the universe 13+ billion Earth years ago, that there's the slight chance we could be wrong about something. From what I understand, no astronomer or physicist claims the Big Bang theory is 100% accurate, just that it is the most accurate theory we have right now. The original Big Bang theory had some problems. One theory that was devised that seems to solve a lot of these problems is inflation. Andrei Linde, one of the experts on inflation, said about it, "Inflation hasn't won the race, but so far it's the only horse."

Your misconception about what "Big Bang" means is VERY widespread, since it certainly SOUNDS like it means an explosion that started everthing.

That's not a misconception I have, although I can see that I gave that impression from what I wrote. By "beginning of the universe," I meant the belief that the universe was very compressed in the past and then expanded outwards very quickly. But I am aware that the Big Bang doesn't deal with the beginning (as in the literal creation) of the universe itself.

 

[Evo]

We're completely missing the point of what the congressman said, he believes that everything was created in 6 days, as told in Genesis. That's the anti-science part that has been firmly debunked.

 

[phinds]

We're completely missing the point of what the congressman said, he believes that everything was created in 6 days, as told in Genesis. That's the anti-science part that has been firmly debunked.

Oh, this is going to shock a bunch of my relatives. Are you SURE about this ? They are going to be very disappointed.

 

[Evo]

Oh, this is going to shock a bunch of my relatives. Are you SURE about this ? They are going to be very disappointed.

Lol, I'm pretty sure.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

We're completely missing the point of what the congressman said, he believes that everything was created in 6 days, as told in Genesis. That's the anti-science part that has been firmly debunked.

I know that's what it says in Genesis, but why did it take an omnipotent God six days?

 

[Evo]

I know that's what it says in Genesis, but why did it take an omnipotent God six days?

Because that's how long it took in the earlier Mesopotamian myth that Genesis was copied from.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I know that's what it says in Genesis, but why did it take an omnipotent God six days?

I think it's more curious that he needed to rest.

 

[Alfi]

God is all powerful, everywhere, and all knowing.

I remember this being told to me when I was 7. ( grade 2 in a catholic school ) 1962


I consider that as the beginning of my science education. That was singular moment of time when I started to question what I was told.
My hands ( I was told to hold them up and out ) were beaten ten times on each hand with a strap just for asking.
I remember it very well.

since then ... I learned how 'gods' were the development by man to try to explain the nature of things observed. How power over others could be obtained by being the one to explain the mysteries of life and death.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I know that's what it says in Genesis, but why did it take an omnipotent God six days?

I'm not religious but the Cartesian perfections are a very modern addition to western theology and aren't unanimously adopted either. I've met many Christian priests that reject the idea that their deity is all powerful, all knowing etc. They're content with the idea that their deity is the most powerful/most powerful possible/prime mover etc.

 

[Angry Citizen]

I'm not religious but the Cartesian perfections are a very modern addition to western theology and aren't unanimously adopted either. I've met many Christian priests that reject the idea that their deity is all powerful, all knowing etc. They're content with the idea that their deity is the most powerful/most powerful possible/prime mover etc.

So the "experts" on God can't agree on any of God's attributes, even the most fundamental ones. I'd say that eliminates God from any serious, reasonable, or logical inquiry on the basis of self-inconsistency.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I feel we're drifting down a dead end path. The real issue here is religion and/or education in politics, discussions of religion themselves rarely end well on internet forums.

 

[phinds]

I feel we're drifting down a dead end path. The real issue here is religion and/or education in politics, discussions of religion themselves rarely end well on internet forums.

Yep, and I'd say we've already gotten there.

 

[Evo]

Yeah, the thread is going in circles now.