Monkey Business
Thanks to Oklahoma Political News Service and the Tulsa Beacon.
"The University of Oklahoma has planned a yearlong “celebration” of the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of his controversial theory of evolution.
Based on planned activities, it will be a one-sided presentation by faculty members who plan to discount or ignore other theories including Intelligent Design or Creationism from the Bible.
Unlike Creationism, Darwinism will be portrayed as science rather than a religion.
“This is an evangelistic meeting,” said Dr. G. Thomas Sharp said in an interview with the Tulsa Beacon. “There isn’t any genuine science behind this. This will be like a big Sunday School class.”
Sharp said Darwin’s flawed theory of evolution has been embraced by narrow-minded secularists who want to teach students that God doesn’t exist.
“The doctrine of Darwinian evolution gained the imagination of the college-set by the turn of the century, an event which ultimately culminated in the overthrow of America’s Hebrew-Christian culture by 1962-63,” Sharp wrote on his website, www.creationtruth.com. “From that time the moral decline in American society (church and all) is a sad matter of real history."
Labels: Conservatives came from God, Liberals came from Monkeys
posted by RD at 2:43 PM
AOL Sports Hottest Athlete
16 Comments:
I know you didn’t write this Red, but the statement “Unlike Creationism, Darwinism will be portrayed as science rather than a religion” is ridiculous. While Darwinism is flawed, it is based on observation and scientific research while Creationism is based completely on the Bible and theology. There is a world of difference between the two.
Let's see... Unlike Creationism,.... Darwinism will be (and is) portrayed as science (true so far) rather than a religion" (true, true and true).
What's the problem with that statement Dave?
True or false: Darwin's Theory of Evolution is portrayed as science rather than religion in most schools.
True.
Yet, it is only a "theory" as the title suggests... and should be open to discussion, debate and questioning... with alternative "theories" explored as well.. no?
Read what Ben Stein just had to say about this subject after being refused to let speak at a university because he might bring up creationism.
First off, the sentence is clearly worded in a way that is meant to degrade Darwinism. Second, there is nothing wrong at all with debate or exploring other possibilities, but as I have previously pointed out, Creationism is theology and not science. Why is this simple fact so hard for people to understand? Of course students shouldn’t get in trouble for asking questions in class and teachers in turn shouldn’t freak out over said questions, but in this case the point of the event is to celebrate Darwin and his contributions to science and not to partake in the never ending and mind numbering debate of Creationism vs. Darwinism (or evolution in general).
...right and Darwinism isn't proven science either... it's "theory".
So why is everyone so afraid of other possibilities ?
The statement (however worded) is completely accurate. I think you (the reader) are putting your own implication into the statement leading you to believe it degrades Darwinism. Maybe only in the eyes of the Darwinists, and if so, it's about time they looked at it objectively.
Dave, I actually find myself in disagreement with you.
You say that Creationism is not a science when in fact by definition it is.
First, the definition of science:
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation. -- Random House Dictionary 2006
It would appear to me that the idea that our world (our physical world) was created through (for lack of a better term) supernatural means and the observation of this (i hate to use the term) theory could be considered science.
In my opinion, a person does not have to be a theologian and in fact does not even necessarily need to be a religious person to hold the belief that our universe was created and not just some random spontaneous event.
ahh otter, I see where you're going.. creationism may fit the definition of science... I would agree with you for the most part, but you would also agree that creationism NOT considered "science" by many, including (sadly) our school systems... right?
Thus the rub. The Darwinists (mostly on the left)refuse to recognize that creationism could be the answer but demand that creationists recognize that Darwinism IS the only answer... which btw is typical of the left.
Same thing with global warming... according to the left there is no debate on the subject, all the data is in and we know the answer, which of course just isn't true.
Anyway.. I think we agree (partially) on how the universe was formed, hey that's a start!
Steve said: “In my opinion, a person does not have to be a theologian and in fact does not even necessarily need to be a religious person to hold the belief that our universe was created and not just some random spontaneous event.”
On this I agree 100%. And yes one could argue that based on the definition that you cited that Creationism is science, but that is a HUGE stretch IMHO.
Red said: “Thus the rub. The Darwinists (mostly on the left)refuse to recognize that creationism could be the answer but demand that creationists recognize that Darwinism IS the only answer... which btw is typical of the left.”
Pot…the kettle is calling. Seriously Red, did you really just say that with a straight face? How much of your blog is you telling the world that conservatives have all of the answers? I’ll tell you…damn near all of it.
The sad thing about this, is on the basics of the creation of the universe we all three agree that it was created by God. We are bickering over whether the events happened exactly as laid out in Genesis or if the happened in a manner closer to the theories of evolution and the big bang. WHO FREAKING CARES?!? They say the same bloody things!!! One is a metaphor and one is a science but at the end of the day they both have merit and can teach us a lot, yet people on both sides get on this insane soapboxes and try to tell the world why they (those speaking) are right and everyone else should and must follow suit. There is NO DIFFERENCE between the nut cases on either side of this debate. And honestly, the more the debate goes on, the less and less intelligent they all look.
absolutely I can say that dave.
I am clear to say that what I post here are my opinions (along with others) and thats all... of course I think I'm right, duh... there is a HUGE HUGE (you might say mammoth) difference between me saying I'm right on my blog that very few read and the entire education system forcing one theory down students throats while refusing to allow alternative views and theories to be presented with equal respect.
That analogy is laughable... so in that regard I don't have a straight face.
and... I thought we were bickering over whether equal and fair treatment is given to the opposing theories on the formation of the universe....
-red
The analogy is not laughable. You are upset because there are people telling other people what to think and yet turn around and tell people what you think they should think (on a smaller scale, but that is irrelevant). At the very least, there is some irony here.
I did a post on this topic probably a year ago. The basics of it are that science belongs in science class, but if a student asks a question then the teacher should be open to having that discussion and should have it in a respectful manner. That is common sense and reasonable, yet there are those on both sides that would think I am crazy. The Darwinists (for lack of a better term) wouldn’t want the question answered and the Creationists want their theology taught as if it were science. The best solution is the middle-ground (which I think that my idea falls into).
Any teacher that ridicules any student for asking any question should probably ask him/herself if they are really in the right line of work. The point of education is to teach people to think and to think freely. To look into a situation with as much objectivity as possible, gather as much information as possible, and then make decision or draw a conclusion. I truly believe that the majority of teachers want this. There are those who just want to push their own ideas down the students’ throats, but they are not the majority. Even with those types, one can learn a lot from anyone, even if it is what not to do.
lol.. I love ya' dave, but there is no irony, no analogy and no comparison between me telling people what my opinion is... then letting them comment in my comments section... to the left enforcing their opinions and theories on young minds by using the education system to build new voters for the future.
Not even close.
Now... when I start teaching in the the classroom, being paid with your tax dollars and I teach kids to mock the left, mock the term progressive, discredit liberals, call Democrats criminals in the classroom... then you can call me a hypocrite... say it's ironic and come up with a pithy analogy for sure.
Until then... how about turning your light of truth on 99% of the education system which is corrupted and infested with anti-Republcian, anti-conservative, anti-religion, leftists and socialist Democrats instead of criticizing the messenger?
There is irony and an analogy, but you refuse to see it and that’s okay. We all have different perspectives and that is a good thing.
It is statements like this – “Until then... how about turning your light of truth on 99% of the education system which is corrupted and infested with anti-Republcian, anti-conservative, anti-religion, leftists and socialist Democrats instead of criticizing the messenger?” that make you a polemic.
Did you not see the last paragraph of my response?
yes i did... but i certainly don't consider that one general statement to mean that you are actually holding any of them accountable... for example,
I don't see you holding Doc Hoc accountable... he is a local college professor that I have demonstrated (hell he doesn't hide it) clearly brings his politics into the classroom... he teaches a class on blogging using Okie Funk and Blue Oklahoma and the Daily Kos as the primary sources for information in the class for crying out loud... if you can't find irony in that and if you can't think of an analogy to that... and post it, then why should I think you hold these people accountable when the do step over the line?
Sweet mother of God Red!!!! I don't WASTE MY TIME reading Okie Funk. No offense to the guy or anything, but unless I see a headline from him on the LeftyBlog or BNN blogroll thing, I don't bother to go to his blog. I have a limited amount of time online and have a horribly crappy internet connection at home, thus I don't dilly dally when online. I go to the places that I like to frequent and check a few news sites (normally either Drudge or Yahoo News, even though both are painfully slow on my computer, especially Drudge). Heck, the only reason I have been as productive as I have been today is because I am at the library using their computers. The majority of the time that I am reading emails or surfing the web is when I am on my cell phone and if I see something worth while I make a note of it and then find it on my computer. Other than that, I do not waste my time with polemics like the Daily Kos or RedState.com. Also it is NOT MY JOB to call them out for every retard thing that they say. Both sites and others like them, on the left and right, are full of Kool Aid drinking, mindless fools who couldn’t find their way out of an open door. I interact with you and thus will hold you to a higher standard. If I happen to come across something that I think is lame of Okie Funk or anything other blog, I will call him/her on it too. I have done this before and will do it again but it will not be my life or my job.
Yet you seem to have no problem calling me out and chastising me for calling a spade a spade.
Take it as a compliment. ;-)
ahhhh dave... shucks.
You got me.
-red
Post a Comment
<< Home