63% – Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution – Really? Seriously People. Really?

February 12, 2009 · Posted in Featured, Funny and Odd, Religion, Social Issues, Society · 1 Comment 
charles_darwin_01In the 150 years since he published his groundbreaking On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, and the 200 years since the date of his birth celebrated this week, Charles Darwin has failed to convince the majority of Americans of the validity of his theories; an August 2006 survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, found that 63% of Americans say they believe that humans and other animals have either always existed in their present form or have evolved over time under the guidance of a supreme being while only 26% say that life evolved solely through processes such as natural selection. A similar Pew Research Center poll, released in August 2005, found that 64% of Americans support teaching creationism alongside evolution in the classroom.
Here is the whole story as written by Pew Research.
Darwin Debated: Religion vs. Evolution

by David Masci, Senior Research Fellow, Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life
February 4, 2009

Almost 150 years after Charles Darwin published his groundbreaking work On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Americans are still fighting over evolution. If anything, the controversy has recently grown in both size and intensity. In the last five years alone, for example, debates over how evolution should be taught in public schools have been heard in school boards, town councils and legislatures in more than half the states.

Throughout much of the 20th century, opponents of evolution (many of them theologically conservative Protestants) either tried to eliminate the teaching of Darwin’s theory from public school science curricula or urged science instructors also to teach a version of the creation story found in the biblical book of Genesis. The famous 1925 Scopes “monkey” trial, for instance, involved a Tennessee law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in the state’s schools. (See The Social and Legal Dimensions of the Evolution Debate in the U.S.)

But beginning in the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a number of decisions that imposed severe restrictions on those state governments that opposed the teaching of evolution. As a result of these rulings, school boards, legislatures and government bodies are now barred from prohibiting the teaching of evolution. Teaching creation science, either along with evolutionary theory or in place of it, is also banned.

Partly in response to these court decisions, opposition to teaching evolution has itself evolved, with opponents changing their goals and tactics. In the last decade, some local and state school boards in Kansas, Pennsylvania and elsewhere have considered teaching what they contend are scientific alternatives to evolution — notably the concept of intelligent design, which posits that life is too complex to have developed without the intervention of an outside, possibly divine force. Other education officials have tried to require schools to teach critiques of evolution or to mandate that students listen to or read evolution disclaimers, such as one proposed a number of years ago in Cobb County, Ga. It read, in part, that evolution is “a theory, not a fact [and] … should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.” The Cobb County disclaimer and a number of other efforts have been withdrawn following successful court challenges by proponents of teaching evolution.

evolution-glossary-of-termsRecent public opinion polls indicate that challenges to Darwinian evolution have substantial support among the American people. According to an August 2006 survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 63 percent of Americans believe that humans and other animals have either always existed in their present form or have evolved over time under the guidance of a supreme being. Only 26 percent say that life evolved solely through processes such as natural selection. A similar Pew Research Center poll, released in August 2005, found that 64 percent of Americans support teaching creationism alongside evolution in the classroom.

This view is not shared by the nation’s scientists, most of whom contend that evolution is a well-established scientific theory that convincingly explains the origins and development of life on earth. Moreover, they say, a scientific theory is not a hunch or a guess but is instead an established explanation for a natural phenomenon, like gravity, that has repeatedly been tested through observation and experimentation. Indeed, most scientists argue that, for all practical purposes, evolution through natural selection is a fact. (See Darwin and His Theory of Evolution.) These scientists and others dismiss creation science as religion, not science, and describe intelligent design as little more than creationism dressed up in scientific jargon.

So if evolution is as established as the theory of gravity, why are people still arguing about it a century and a half after it was first proposed? (See Evolution: A Timeline.) The answer lies, in part, in the possible theological implications of evolutionary thinking. For many, the Darwinian view of life — a panorama of brutal struggle and constant change – goes beyond contradicting the biblical creation story and conflicts with the Judeo-Christian concept of an active and loving God who cares for his creation. (See Religious Groups’ Views on Evolution.) In addition, some evolution opponents argue that Darwin’s ideas have proven socially and politically dangerous. In particular, they say, the notion that more resilient animals survive and thrive (”survival of the fittest”) has been used by social thinkers, dictators and others to justify heinous crimes, from forced sterilization to mass genocide.

But while theologians, historians and others argue over evolution’s broader social impact, the larger and more intense debate still centers on what children in public schools learn about life’s origins and development. Indeed, the teaching of evolution has become a part of the nation’s culture wars, manifest most recently in the 2008 presidential campaign, particularly in the attention paid to Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s statements in favor of public schools teaching creation science or intelligent design along with evolution. And while evolution may not attain the same importance as such culture war issues as abortion or same-sex marriage, the topic is likely to have a place in national debates on values for many years to come.

pew-research-on-evolution

Tags: , , , , , , ,

What makes the Holocaust more important than other tragedies, or is it?

February 3, 2009 · Posted in Politics, Rant, Religion, Social Issues, Society, The World, Things to think about · 1 Comment 

pope-benedict-xviSeriously?  Today and throughout the month of January several papers across the globe carried a story about the growing number of organizations who are denouncing Pope Benedict XVI for lifting the excommunications on four bishops of the traditionalist Society of St Pius X, including the English Old Wykehamist Bishop Richard Williamson.  The problem revolves around the Society of St. Pius X stand that the Holocaust was exaggerated, or potentially simply did not happen.  My view/question, is why only denounce the Pope for this reason, and not the many other ignorance’s the Catholic Church supports? Additionally, I ask why stop at the Catholic Church? Governments, societies, social groups and world leaders ignore, deny or plead ignorance on numerous atrocities everyday, so why do we let them off the hook.  It seems at times unless these groups and leaders disparage the Holocaust when speaking of atrocities or ignoring atrocities we let them slide, or at a minimum the stories slide to the back page of the paper.  There are many issues in history and many issues taking place today that must be addressed, and any leader who refuses to discuss them daily or at least several times a week should be held under the spotlight with the same vigor as a Holocaust denier.

I will be the first to admit (on this blog anyway) the Holocaust was an atrocity committed against mankind, not just the Jews, but mankind.  It represents the worst in people. It represents how evil can exist in society when we use terms that divide us as a single “unit of people” on this earth.  However, it is but one example of this type of travesty, and I am not at all certain why other events in history, and for that matter current day are not receiving the same type of publicity and public outcry.

What makes the Holocaust more important than other significant events that have taken place over the last 200 years, or perhaps I should say, is it? For example, Native Americans being forced off their land, forced into captivity on strange land no one wanted and slaughtered by the tens of thousands, if not millions?  Or Africans being bought and sold to work as slaves, families ripped apart and social torture for several hundred years? Russia slaughtering millions of its own citizens in order to enforce one socialist rule?  These are just a handful of events that are seemingly equal in horror or exceed the level of horror in scale, yet we rarely hear about these events in the local or national media.

Let me stress I am not downplaying the Holocaust, but rather wondering why atrocities against mankind that are currently happening in the world are not attacked with the same type of vigor and hate that this one issue is?

Are the atrocities in Russia swept under the rug around the world, because Russia itself is not speaking of the events, and therefore its citizens are forced to be quite?  Have Native Americans been reduced in number and bread cross-culturally to such an extent that the numbers simply are not there to keep it “on the record”, and in the hearts and minds of the media?

Obviously, I am not answering any of these questions, not because I do not want to, but rather I simply do not have the answers.  I understand there is genocide taking place in Africa today, and it has been ongoing on that continent for decades.  I understand there are millions starving around the globe, and most people do nothing about it.  I believe I know that in the Middle East there is a growing hatred for the west, and religion separates entirely too many people in this world.  But what I do not know is how to solve these issues or how to educate us as a people on these issues without discussing our concerns and questions with friends, family and people who are experts on the subjects, and that is what I am attempting to do with this article.

Please feel free to respond and educate our readership on any of these issues, or for that matter any other issues you would like to discuss.  I would like to see this topic blossom into a string of subjects with the primary goal of spreading knowledge in an open and honest manner.  This is not a vehicle for spreading hate, or attacking atrocities.  It is simply a place to ask questions, some even uncomfortable in nature, and have others discuss them fairly and honestly all with the goal of educating and potentially answering some of the bigger questions about mankind.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Ted Haggard takes responsibility

January 29, 2009 · Posted in Entertainment, People in the news, Religion, Things to think about · Comment 

Up until the Good Morning America interview this morning, whenever hearing the name Ted Haggard, I would have rolled my eyes and hrmmphhed and said something about hypocritical Christians and how I hated that people like that were influencing followers by passing judgments while comitting the very sins against which they preached.

As a refresher, you’ll remember that Ted Haggard was a minister of a 12,000 member super church in Colorado where he often preached that homosexuality was a sin, but in 2006 was exposed by a former lover who claimed Haggard frequently paid him for sex and crystal meth.

At the time, Haggard fought it for a little bit trying to save face, but the evidence far out weighed this discredited minister’s claims. He was removed from his church, apparently rushed off to gay-rehab and little more was made of the situation, save several punchlines to a few gay minister-hires-male-prosititute jokes.

So this morning when watching Good Morning America, I was skeptical and was about to change the channel, but before I had a chance, they showed a glimpse into his life, post rehab. The news of yet another young man surfaced earlier this week, alleging that Haggard exposed himself and preyed upon the man’s young vulnerabilities. It is alleged that the mega-church paid off the man, not to keep him quiet, but more to help him start a new life, go to college and get a good footing in life. Not sure who judges that claim.

But this morning on GMA Haggard and his wife were accountable, apologetic and owned up to his past. I was floored and intrigued. Tonight there is a documentary on HBO called “The Trials of Ted Haggard” which promises to show how Haggard and his wife are trying to move forward. They have bounced from borrowed house to cheap motel, worked several laborious jobs and seem to really be taking the steps to move forward.

In his interview, he flat out told Robin Roberts that he was sorry, that yes he was irresponsible and did take advantage of young worshipers and that it was his actions and he own up to it. HUH? Yep, I was shocked as well. There he was with his whitened veneers, sitting straight up and rather than blaming others, he looked Roberts right in the eye and was…..dare I say….accountable?

When she asked if he planned to return to the pulpit, he said absolutely not – he has too much baggage to haul up there to the pulpit. He said he’s happy just selling insurance for right now.

If you have HBO, I would suggest watching the documentary tonight or catch a repeat when you can. I think it looks to be a very interesting insight into how someone struggling with so many demons has found rock bottom, accepted it and is pulling himself up.

Follow up – I think I need to follow up and reiterate something here as well – I think what Ted Haggard did was inexcusable.   His actions, most specifically with young members of his church,  were awful and probably scarring to those young men.  I am absolutely not condoning his actions or how he let his urges overtake right from wrong.

My point here is that I think it is refreshing for someone like Haggard to admit his actions, say ‘yes what I did was wrong and I am trying to be better’ and do his best to become more responsible.

Read more about his past indescretions and his go-forward plan on CNN also.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Gay marriage goes down in flames again, what is new…

November 7, 2008 · Posted in Political Issues, Politics, Religion, Social Change, Social Issues, Society, Things to think about, Topic Blogs · 3 Comments 

Oh goodie – I’m in the mood for an editorial now.  This issue as far as I am concerned is a waste of the state politicians time and our money.  As you know, the California government just amended their constitution and banned gay marriage with the passing of Prop 8.    This was after thousands of gay couples consecrated their civil unions in the state over the last year. 

Whoa – cool down your socially charged engines for a second.  When I say waste, I don’t mean the issue of gay couples marrying is a waste, rather the constant legislative debates and law changes is a waste.  Your nostrils flared a little bit didn’t they?  Allow me to spout off on how utterly confused I am…

OK, gay marriage runs deep into the moral, religious, personal, and political values of those who either oppose or defend it.  I know this and you know this.  I tend to ride the viewpoint fence because I’m not gay, but I can empathize with those couples who are directly impacted by the constant flip flop of decisions.   In fact, like others, I know some same sex couples. 

Lifestyle choice or biological pre-disposition, I don’t know which is fact or fiction – frankly I don’t care.  What I do care about is how the issue is becoming a merry-go-round process which drains the state governments of their ability to interpret the law, enforce it, pose it to the voters, and finally uphold their individual state constitutions as they are written…or re-written.   

The concept of a civil union has been in the books for a long time, it’s called a domestic partnership, or common-law marriage.   But, the government does not officially recognize a ”same sex” common-law marriage or what the media refers to as the “gay civil union.”  (It’s nothing more than “shacking up” with the same sex)  It’s an incredibly ambiguious interpretation left to the states and that’s where the fun begins.

The blanket definition of marriage makes no specific inference that it’s strictly a union of a man and a woman, in fact, it actually contains a small blurb about a same sex relationship.  I’m rather confident that same sex relationship references were probably added within the last decade or two, just a hunch.  (Noah Webster, he may be an old school lexicographer however this guy has been stirring the pot since the 1840’s, what a maverick.)  I could be over analyzing this…but where does the “traditional” definition really come from?  The marriage tribunal of course.

Oh yeah – there is also a document called the Universal Declaration of Human rights (apparently this document was spearheaded by Lord Dark Helmet) and it states that “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.  (You’ll notice in Article 16 it does not actually state “men marrying women“)

The Proposition 8 proponents stated that “the vote would re-affirm the state’s traditional definition of marriage”.  Just for fun, I’m going to revert back to the original “traditional” definition of marriage in California, which was a statute written in 1850 and reads:  “No license may be issued authorizing the marriage of a white person with a Negro, mulatto, Mongolian or member of the Malay race.”  Interesting.

What also seems ironic to me is when people take keen interest in a presidential candidate’s view on the subject.  Well, you should be more concerned with what your state thinks.  There is no formal federal stance, so essentially when canididates express their views on it, it’s a voter enticement statement.  They don’t have a powerful, political trident to appease one side or the other.  Obama’s view is actually pretty vague and for the most part supports the way it’s works now.  Again, the states hold the cards.  I’m very excited for the change that is about to sweep across the country, but sadly, it ain’t going to be in the arena of gay marriage for a long, long time.   Maybe I’ll be proved wrong and it can be put to bed.   

This is the quite the firepit I’ve jumped into which is accelerated by the parallel topics of raising kids, health insurance coverage, etc.   The positive spin is that it truly highlights how spirited, social change and those long, entrenched societal norms do not walk hand in hand.  There is now a much fuzzier line between what is and what has always been.  (Those are my final thoughts)

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Sarah Palin, who would make it illegal for your raped 13 year old daughter to terminate her pregnancy, is calling out Obama for his “extreme views on abortion”

October 12, 2008 · Posted in Politics, Religion · Comment 

What’s really nice about the whole abortion thing, is it gives us all a chance to sit down and discuss family friendly topics with our children. So how was your day at school? Did you do well on the math test? How do you feel about killing little unborn babies?

Honestly who the hell supports abortion? No one supports it. People support a woman’s right to have the procedure, if the circumstances determine it appropriate, but no one jumps up and down with joy at the thought of doing it. So maybe we can just change the topic of this post to say, Palin does not support a woman’s right to think and act for herself, and Obama never has to think about it, so his opinion does not matter, because he will never have to face the circumstance.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/11/campaign.wrap/index.html?palin=0

Tags: no tags

Amen, Sister!

October 4, 2008 · Posted in Religion · 1 Comment 

OK, I am religious – sometimes, and most so called “good Christians” would probably not consider me a good Christian.  Yes, I believe the fundamentals of the protestant faith.  On this I may disagree with She and They, but what we do agree on:  Bill O’Reilly is the world’s most obnoxious person and I do not want to judge him, but I do not see anything in his remarks, attitude, etc. that would make me think he is a man of faith.  He needs to get a “WWJD” bracelet and try living by it.

Tags: no tags

The humility taught by Christian religions?

October 3, 2008 · Posted in Religion, Things to think about · 1 Comment 

I am going to preface this by saying that I absolutely understand peoples’ need for a religion. What I do not understand nor agree with is people who use religion as an excuse or authority to judge  – as if belonging to a particular religion makes you better than others.

Oh yeah, and I competely disagree with damn near everything Bill O’Reilly has ever said or thought. Mostly because he’s a hypocrite.

In his latest book ” A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity” (oh yes, I think he is indeed referring to himself) he writes:

Next time you meet an atheist, tell him or her that you know a bold, fresh guy, a barbarian who was raised in a working-class home and retains the lessons he learned there.

Then mention to that atheist that this guy is now watched and listened to, on a daily basis, by millions of people all over the world and, to boot, sells millions of books.

Then, while the non-believer is digesting all that, ask him or her if they still don’t believe there’s a God!

In his self-involved life, he honestly sees that his existence and success in his industry is proof that God exists.  Does Christianity not preach humility? I am not a practicing Christian. I am not a practicing anything, except human. I try to do whats right for my family and my world – not based on ideals and ‘rules’ created by men trying to explain the world away.  But from what I understand being humble is a core trait.

I’m not an atheist, I reckon I’m more of a deist than anything.  I would like to think that God shows his existence in better ways than lining Bill O’Reilly’s pockets. Or the pockets of anyone, really. To blame God for his success, and use himself as an excuse that God exists is blasphemy in my opinion.

I personally don’t ask a lot from my God. I’d rather he spend his time looking after the refugees in Darfur or soothing the soul of a child who has lost a parent. If i need him, he knows.  The God that I believe in doesn’t need to prove his existence. And he would not choose to show it off through O’Reilly’s narcissism.

Tags: no tags