Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership | k5 store

[P]
(Christianity vs. Islam) vs. (Fundamentalism vs. Rationality) (Science)

By Shimmer
Sun Oct 16th, 2005 at 04:04:40 AM EST

Culture

New Scientist is a publication out of the UK that has an interesting take on current events here in the US and around the world. The Oct. 8-14 issue has a special report on religious fundamentalism -- a topic that they admit is outside their normal purview. Their coverage is quite clear-eyed, and I believe their motivation borders on panic at what they see happening across the pond in the US. As they put it, "the irony of a science magazine reporting on a movement that would ultimately destroy science has not been lost on us". Know thy enemy, right?

(Subscription required to read the articles online. Or you can just read the paper edition like I did.)


In "End of the Enlightenment", they make a point that is both obvious (once you hear it) and profound: Islamic and Christian fundamentalism, which are "often portrayed as being on opposite sides in a 'cosmic struggle' of good against evil," are actually two sides of the same coin. Both are threatened by modernity, especially in the form of secular humanism. The myriad successes of rationalism over the past several hundred years have resulted in a surprising backlash. "Almost everywhere you look -- with the possible exception of western Europe -- fundamentalist religions are on the march." These religions foster an Us-against-Them mentality that we see playing itself out every day in the news.

For anyone trying to resist terrorism-induced paranoia, the reformulation of the struggle as one between Fundamentalism and Rationality, rather than between Christianity and Islam, is extremely refreshing. Just as the red ant colony wants to kill the black ant colony (and vice versa), there is no doubt that fundamentalist Muslims would gladly kill millions of us in the West and fundamentalist Christians would happily "invade [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity". But does that mean that everyone has to be a solidier ant? Is it true, as President Bush has said, that "you are either with us or against us"?

While we are distracted and terrified by the war, the fundamentalists are busy undermining the pillars of secular society. As New Scientist bluntly says in "Enemy at the gates", "their aim is to destroy science" via a wedge strategy that starts with an attack on Darwinian evolution in the form of the "theory" of Intelligent Design. Every scientific theory that touches on man's place in the universe will likely be attacked: the Big Bang, the age of the Earth, etc. Anything that contradicts Holy Writ is blasphemy to fundamentalists. In the end, they seek nothing less that the complete overthrow of the "materialist worldview" that is the very basis of modern civilzation.

The West must eliminate al Qaeda and other violent extremists. But in doing so, we must be careful not to succor Christian extremists who would reshape the world just as radically. In America, we've recently seen that being a born-again Christian is an important qualification for nomination to the Supreme Court. A Bush aide dismisses the "reality-based community". A General says "George Bush was not elected by a majority of voters in the United States. He was appointed by God."

Our way of life is under attack, but not just by terrorists.

Sponsors
Voxel dot net
o Managed Servers
o Managed Clusters
o Virtual Hosting


www.johncompanies.com
www.johncompanies.com

Looking for a hosted server? We provide Dedicated, Managed and Virtual servers with unparalleled tech support and world-class network connections.

Starting as low as $15/month
o Linux and FreeBSD
o No set-up fees and no hidden costs
o Tier-one provider bandwidth connections

Login
Make a new account
Username:
Password:

Note: You must accept a cookie to log in.

Related Links
o New Scientist
o Oct. 8-14 issue
o "End of the Enlightenment"
o secular humanism
o "invade [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity"
o "you are either with us or against us"
o "Enemy at the gates"
o wedge strategy
o Big Bang
o the age of the Earth
o important qualification
o "reality-based community"
o says
o More on Culture
o Also by Shimmer


View: Display: Sort:
(Christianity vs. Islam) vs. (Fundamentalism vs. Rationality) | 313 comments (298 topical, 15 editorial, 1 hidden)
The end of the Enlightenment (none / 0) (#310)
by BlickyBloc on Fri Oct 21st, 2005 at 10:11:33 PM EST

I was thinking of this today - there is really no more atheism.

There is a struggle over theology. You do not have to be a "Bible Believing Christian" to fall for the Intelligent Design argument. You do not have to be a humanist to accept and live in a context of a slow deliberate evolution to our existence followed by the inevitable extinction of our race.

What we are marching toward and what is really inflaming this debate is the inevitable realization that our intelligence is not that special - we will create before to long intelligence that is more creative and intelligent than us and this is what will really create resentment against science and profound self worth problems for a lot of Nobel laureates.

Rather than look at the harm that religious fundamentalists will do lets look at what science that accepts our intelligence as a god to be obeyed will do for us. Better access to porn, really nice anti-wrinkle creams, alternate realities, medicine by statistic, dehumanization, genocide.

Killing off all the priests and imams has been tried before it did not work that well, however we do have a nice record of a whole scientific liberal open culture killed off and shackled by fundamentalism.

Puttering Pornification of America

No! Pizza! (none / 0) (#304)
by csmiller on Thu Oct 20th, 2005 at 06:58:40 PM EST

Infidel! May your false god be rent asunder beneath Her holy hooves, may they never be shod! :-/

The Wrath of God (none / 0) (#257)
by projectpaperclip on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 02:46:35 PM EST

I would only like to suggest further reading on the topic that I have found extremely enlightening:

A History of God

The Battle for God

Both by Karen Armstrong, both extremely well written, interesting to follow, takes you step by step through the history of the formation of the religions in question, the development of lines of reasoning in those religions, and a clear illustration that "fundamentalism" is not fundamental to anything, but is rather a radical departure from anything fundamental to the roots of any of the religions involved... we might as well be talking about scientology & the flying spaghetti monster when talking about "fundamental" islam or christianity.

Christian fundamentalist..? well, isnt that Jesus? (none / 0) (#239)
by gizzlon on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 03:04:04 AM EST

and he didnt go arround and kill everyone did he?

there is no doubt that fundamentalist Muslims would gladly kill millions of us in the West and fundamentalist Christians would happily "invade [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity".
Its just dumb to think that "all fundamentalist muslims want us dead" and even worse to say that fundamentalist christians want to invade muslims countries.. again, cant remembr Jesus doing that

g
No mention of post-modernity? (1.00 / 3) (#199)
by issachar on Sun Oct 16th, 2005 at 05:50:35 PM EST
(andrew_Remove_at_gorman.cc) http://gorman.cc

The New Scientist article, talks about attacks on modernity without mentioning post-modernism. This makes the article quite weak. It seems that the authors are caught up in the whole religion vs. science war that is popular with many secular humanists. Ignoring post-modernism in a discussion on modernity smacks of ignorance.
---
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Humanitarians scare me.
Diary? I do a blog.
The whole New Scientist article can be read (none / 1) (#197)
by shinshin on Sun Oct 16th, 2005 at 05:16:19 PM EST
(shinshin)

at http://www.fencing.net/forums/328829-1-post.html (weirdly enough). I agree with other posters that it is a tad superficial, but interesting reading nonetheless.
________
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
  To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
  Pro patria mori. --Owen

Anthem (none / 0) (#175)
by Metasquares on Sun Oct 16th, 2005 at 10:25:07 AM EST
http://www.metasquares.com

A perfect example of the end result of this kind of thinking can be seen in Ayn Rand's Anthem. It's a short and easy read that can be finished in about an hour, but a good deal of the story touches upon what happens to society when a dogmatic devotion to social identity (which includes religion) overcomes rationalism.

The problem with science... (none / 1) (#169)
by kurtmweber on Sun Oct 16th, 2005 at 09:32:42 AM EST
(kmw@armory.com) http://www.armory.com/~kmw

The problem with science is that, as a means of determining how the Universe really is and works and as a means of determining how to live, it is just as useless as religion.  Religion is based on blind faith, science is based on subjective empiricism.

Science is good for one thing and one thing only--discovering reproducible models of how the world works (which may not be the same as the way things really work) to build useful devices that increase man's power over nature.  If you want to know how the world really does work, then you need philosophy, which is based on reason--the only objective epistemology.

Kurt Weber
Any field of study can be considered 'complex' when it starts using Hebrew letters for symbols.--me

-1 reluctantly (none / 1) (#145)
by t1ber on Sat Oct 15th, 2005 at 11:35:04 PM EST
(josh_at_knarrnia_dot_com) http://www.knarrnia.com

I reluctantly gave this a -1. It spoke to me as an Atheist.

If Bush has invaded countries or made laws or what have you simply because they were the basis of his religion, I might have agreed. Bush hasn't really passed anything (besides not legalizing homosexual marriage) simply because "It's in the Bible". This is a stark contrast to the Muslim communities who constantly are making headlines for suggesting wife beating and killing homosexuals. While this does happen sometimes in the Christian Community, it's a lot more common in Islam. Choosing between the two evils, I'd much rather throw my hat in the ring with a leader who isn't afraid to take the gloves off an invade a country and happens to be Christian instead of a leader who is a Muslim and makes sure I am too.

I voted for your article, but... (none / 1) (#132)
by modelnine on Sat Oct 15th, 2005 at 05:04:15 PM EST
(modelnine<at>bit-bukket<dot>org)

now I am not so positive about it as I was when I first read it.

Basically, I get the notion that what you are propagating is not freedom but rather the pseudo-religion of science. Attacking this pseudo-religion (you don't call it that way, but I do) is the attack on western life-style, as I understand your argument.

But, I must digress here. Attacking western life-style isn't about an attack by religion and fundamentalism (science is fundamentalist as are most religions, it builds a rather strict fundament on which you base your view of the world), but rather about the current attacks on personal freedom.

There are many parties who do this, including the religious fundamentalist and scientists, but if we are to remain a "western society" (whatever that term might mean to you, I'm heavily influenced by 80's Germany), we have to make sure that what we try to keep up is the will to respect the freedom of thought of everybody around us.

There's a famous german saying, which roughly goes:

"Freedom is the different person's freedom."

And that's what we should keep up.

ID (your example) is debatable, it's something that I did debate in school (in philosophy), and that I don't consider something I can accept for myself.

But: if somebody else thinks differently, I have to respect that. And: that's what we have to keep up, that's what "Enlightenment" (to which scientists keep referring to shut up ID) is about.

+1FP, actually important and relevant (none / 0) (#118)
by Patrick Chalmers on Sat Oct 15th, 2005 at 12:19:00 PM EST



A few questions (2.42 / 7) (#82)
by godix on Sat Oct 15th, 2005 at 05:58:51 AM EST
(buggeroff@goaway.screwoff)

If I asked you to explain how evolution works, in detail, could you? Do you know if the current theories of evolution are identical to Darwins evolution theory? Can you tell me what observations caused chages to the theory or, if there has been no change, what observations were correctly predicted by the theory? Can you actually answer the common question of how can a complex system (IE eyes or flight), which is worse than useless if not fully functional, come about? Do you know what the evolutionary theory has to say about the original origin of life? Can you name a few prominent scientist studying evolution and how they agree/disagree with each others work? How did the very first organism that became sexually reproducing instead of asexual find something to fuck and pass on it's genes?

These questions have answers but that really isn't my point. Instead I'm just wondering how many of you actually understand the science and how many are blindly worshipping the theory. If a guy in a white coat tells you something do you know enough to accurately judge if he's making shit up or not? How many on K5 who hate 'fundamentalist' pray at the alter of pseudoscience?

Some religions which were better engineered, (none / 1) (#69)
by Sesquipundalian on Sat Oct 15th, 2005 at 01:13:28 AM EST
(garfle@microsoft.com) http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/default.asp

are adapting quite well to the presence of the "experimental rigor" meme in the local infocology. The Jesuit sect of the Roman Catholic church is an excellent example of this, also Judeaism and Mormonism.

Mormonism and Scientology are both an absolute riot. These guys actually have a science fiction premise for their religions! I could absolutely die howling. They obviously aren't getting enough pasta and meatballs in their diet.

I think it's called being syncretic.


Did you know that gullible is not actually an english word?
You sir should look further at that issue. (1.75 / 4) (#64)
by richarj on Sat Oct 15th, 2005 at 12:02:23 AM EST

Blind faith in science
Scientific fundamentalism is the belief that the world is accessible to and ultimately controllable by human reason...a profoundly unscientific idea

You wouldn't happen to be a "Scientific Fundamentalist" would you?



"if you are uncool, don't worry, K5 is still the place for you!" -- rusty
End of the Enlightenment? Good riddance. (1.50 / 2) (#47)
by gzt on Fri Oct 14th, 2005 at 06:21:03 PM EST
(somethingorother@ucichago.edu)

You do realize that Baptists and other essentially American Christian movements are spawn of the Enlightenment, right? Well, Baptists predate the Enlightenment, but they're heavily-influenced by it.

i've been saying this for ages (1.44 / 18) (#46)
by circletimessquare on Fri Oct 14th, 2005 at 05:50:38 PM EST
(at gmail dot com)

now for all you brainiacs out there:

now that you've identified the problem (took you awhile), you need an effective weapon against fundamentalism

so out with it brainiacs, the clock is ticking: how do you defeat sunni wahabbists and southern baptists?

i mean REALLY defeat them

small hint: standing there and lecturing them drily on brainiac level bullshit about memes and historical momentum and the supposed inevitability of how everything in the world will work out the way you see it does not count as defeating them

do you have a backbone?

i mean really: do all of you much self-esteemed humanists have enough backbone to actually fight that which would destroy you?

or does getting dirty destroy your much vaunted principles?

such that you would rather the world enter a new era of stagnation and backwardness to rival the middle ages in europe for centuries?

not getting your hands dirty is preferable to fucking FIGHTING these assholes as they chip away at liberal government in the usa and suicide bomb thousands in the middle east?

humanists sitting around, discussing their impending doom, and none of you fuckers actually DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT

fucking pathetic

the fundamentalists win if they are the only ones to get down and dirty

why will humanists lose?

BECAUSE THEY LIVE IN A FUCKING IVORY TOWER, LOOKING DOWN ON POOR SUFFERING HUMANITY AND DO NOTHING BUT DRAW PRONOUNCEMENTS FROM THEIR SAFE RICH WESTERN HIGH AND MIGHTY COCCOON

heaven forbid any of you fuckers actually go down in the mud and HELP humanity actually progress

i mean REALLY help: FUCKING KILL THE FUNDAMENTALIST ASSHOLES

just KILL THEM

no, that's inconfuckingcievable, that would mean you were as HUMAN as the rest

so you sit in your ivory tower, and you bemoan the coming new middle ages

not like you are doing anything about it

you humanists get what you deserve: you're so shocked and outraged at the essential ugliness of the human condition, that it isn't the rise of fundamentalism that REALLY bothers you, it is the fact that humanity itself struggles with what you have arrived at with such ease in your smug little hermetically sealed antiseptic western coccoon of money

you get what you deserve, useless rich western chattering classes

you get what you deserve

the fundamentalists SPEAK to the masses of what they want and need, they speak to their ugly side, and the masses listen

meanwhile, you lecture them of the need to preserve YOUR status quo

you're so fucking doomed

you fucking rich western assholes who won't FIGHT THE GREATEST EVIL IN THE WORLD TODAY: fundamentalism

you know it, but you are helpless to do anything about it, because of your own shortcomings at understanding the truly ugly side of human nature

you are helpless because you recognize the enemy, but you are unwilling to meet the enemy

you're fucking doomed unless you WAKE THE FUCK UP

assholes bomb the fucking underground in london AND YOU FUCKING FRET ABOUT THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF DENYING THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROPAGATE THE EVIL THAT MADE YOUNG MEN BOMB

asshoels fly airplanes into office towers in new york AND YOU FUCKING FRET ABOUT THE DUE PROCESS OF MOSTLY TERRORIST ASSHOLES IN GUANTANAMO

you're so fucking USELESS

you don't understand your relationship with money

money allows you to think and act the way you do

but the way you think and act DOES NOT SPREAD THE WEALTH TO THOSE WHO ARE NOT RICH

meanwhile, fundamentalists pursue agendas which keep the poor in poverty on one hand, and with the other hand, tell the poor their way is the way to salvation

it's self-propagating

for you, to make more people rich, and therefore to make them think the same wonderfully disconnected from reality daydreams of how the world should function that you think, you need to SPREAD THE WEALTH

but how do you spread the wealth when fundamentalists work to entrench poverty?

YOU FUCKING FIGHT THE FUNDAMENTALISTS

YOU JAIL THEM, YOU KILL THEM, YOU SHUT DOWN THEIR ORGANIZATIONS

YOU DEVELOP SOME FUCKING TEETH

and THEN you can spread the wealth, but you cannot spread the wealth if you will not recognize that all of your efforts are being SQUANDERED BY A COMPETING AGENDA FOR THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF THE POOR PASSES

and in todays world, THEY ARE WINNING

you develop some fucking understanding of how the ugliness of human nature REALLY WORKS

you don't stand on YOUR humanist pulpit and deliver self-ennobling lectures about how it SHOULD work based on your idealistic dreams, and then hold out against anyone who would actually FIGHT fudnamentalists!

you don't fucking lecture the world about how your hermitically sealed climate controlled rich western coccoon is so high and mighty and superior and how the world should work, and then stand against those who work to maintain your coccoon!

YOU DON'T FUCKING AFFORD HUMANIST PROTECTIONS TO ENEMIES OF HUMANISM!!!

DO YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND YOU RICH SHELTERED WESTERN CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DO YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND!!!!!!!!!!!!

human nature is UGLY

progress is not an easy waltz, it is a desperate messy hardcore struggle, two steps forward, one step back

you have to get DIRTY, you have to FIGHT an enemy YOU have already identified!

or in your pigheaded stubborn refusal to replace idealism with an acceptance of reality, you would rather see a coming dark age of anti-science and poverty and fundamentalist atrocities and lack of human rights

the ancient greeks of science and reason went the way of the dodo, the arab world of science and reason in the middle ages went the way of the great auk, and now it is YOUR turn to fade into history... BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT FIGHT!!!!!!!!!

simply because, in your safe bubble wrapped rich western coccoon, you will not take what your brain perceives: fundamentalism is your enemy, and take that to your hand, and actually FIGHT THEM, KILL THEM, JAIL THEM, DESTROY THEM

if you don't fight them, your extinction is what you deserve

FUCKING

PATHETIC

WESTERN

CHILDREN

WAKE

THE

FUCK

UP

here come the new dark ages, and all of you standing around delivering useless platitudes about how the world SHOULD work rather than how it DOES work are complicit in the defeat of this age of science and reason

you're all fucking useless


He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence.
- William Blake


I suggest universists as an antidote (2.33 / 3) (#38)
by Fen on Fri Oct 14th, 2005 at 03:25:12 PM EST

Universism.com has a forum and principles that to me seemed to directly oppose the article I read in New Scientist. Uncertainty to replace the certainty.
----Transcend humanity.
I saw some talking head on TV who had a good point (2.66 / 3) (#36)
by lostincali on Fri Oct 14th, 2005 at 03:04:48 PM EST

She referenced the US Constitution of all things, Specifically Article VI:

"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office"

Just something to think about when you're talking about how horrible it is that Bush is nominating a (OH MY GOD) Christian to the Supreme Court.

Science is not an ideology that needs defense (2.66 / 9) (#35)
by LilDebbie on Fri Oct 14th, 2005 at 02:51:31 PM EST
http://astropulp.blogspot.com

It is quite capable of defending itself, purely through evolutionarily memetic means. It is not science you must worry about, but rather the nations that abandon science.

Under that evil, cynical, dream-crushing exterior, LilDebbie's got the heart of the Dalai Lama.
- Russell Dovey -
Evidence versus belief (2.50 / 2) (#34)
by dollyknot on Fri Oct 14th, 2005 at 02:51:17 PM EST
http://dollyknot.com

Most religions are about politics/culture not about evidence. Evidence gets in the way of mind control.


They call it an elephant's trunk, whereas it is in fact an elephant's nose - a nose by any other name would smell as sweetly.

Double false dichotomies (2.75 / 8) (#25)
by michaelmalak on Fri Oct 14th, 2005 at 12:46:22 PM EST

What a mess we have to untangle here.
  • You seem to be saying that all devout Christians and Muslims favor war. Please see my kuro5hin story Chuck Baldwin, prominent Baptist pastor: "The Religious Right Scares Me".
  • You seem to be saying that fundamentalism (Christian and Islam) is using the Intelligent Design debate as a wedge to wage war. Please see my kuro5hin comment Separation of school and state for my proposal to end the Intelligent Design debate. If you consider the abolition of public schools (and the corresponding abolition of $400/month per household tax to pay for them) to threaten "the very basis of modern civilization", then so be it. But educational policy has nothing to do with war policy, except to the extent, as I wrote in another kuro5hin comment that the public education system created dimwits who supported the war.
Not only is Christianity vs. Islam a false dichotomy as you correctly assert (there are also the secular humanists), but "fundamentalism vs. rationalism" is also a false dichotomy. Most notably, the Vatican opposes both the Iraq invasion and irreligious public education.

I see at least six populations coming out of your article: peaceful Christians, Christian warmongers, peaceful Muslims, Muslim warmongers, peaceful secular humanists, and secular humanist warmongers.

And, sorry, I can't stop myself: "Holy double false dichotomies, Batman!"

--
UnderReported.com  Surprising stories from the media and primary sources

Important Questions, Superficial Article (2.50 / 8) (#22)
by OldCoder on Fri Oct 14th, 2005 at 12:00:20 PM EST

Haven't read the New Scientist version, but I expect them to be ignorant on issues outside of their expertise.

Christian fundamentalism is not currently imbued with a neo-Imperialist philosophy, although it is more interventionist than the European Left. Islamism is imbued with a neo-imperialistic philosophy. This difference is very important.

The importance of Islamic Terrorism is based on the possibility of nuclear terrorism down the road. For example, Iran is working on nukes and also supports Hizbullah and Hamas. Both Hizbullah and Hamas are responding to the pressure on Iran to stop building nukes by becoming tamer and more electoral in their policies. Is this just a ruse while waiting to get nukes from Iran?

Paranoid version: the earthquake in Pakistan was a result of an al-Queda nuclear test: Well, not yet, anyway. Hey, where is Osama -- under the rubble?

The ID (anti-evolution) movement is self-consciously a movement to encourage conversion. They don't really believe that ID is science. This stunning cynicism is justified in Christian scripture undoubtedly by St. Paul, who said that when he preached the Jews he came as a Jew, when he preached to the Syrians he came as a Syrian (or was that a Roman?) and so on. After all, if you create generations of followers does it really matter how sincere the initial conversion was?

Extremely refreshing
I don't care how refreshing it is. The question is, is it accurate? I think the phenomenon of the resurgence of religiousity is a question that needs to be answered. The original article doesn't do any better than the Biblical prophecy of the war between Gog and Magog, however.

Materialistic philosophy is seen to be failing the task of social control, and the super-freedom that is seen as leading to AIDS and drug addiction is seen as a symptom of godlessness. Can you top that as an explanation?

The Christian Fundamentalists are trying to exploit the war against Islamism as a selling point for their religion -- can you blame them?

Calling Muslims and Christians the same just insults both parties without adding any new information, adding heat without adding light. Try to do better next time.

--
By reading this signature, you have agreed.
Copyright © 2004 OldCoder

The first... (2.75 / 12) (#9)
by Znork on Fri Oct 14th, 2005 at 08:59:50 AM EST

... thing you need to realize is that there is no real Islamic fundamentalist threat against the west. They cant even outdo accidental inhalation of objects as a yearly cause of death when they try their hardest. Almost as many die falling down stairs or off beds and chairs per year. As far as threats go, well, I'm not about to start padding the floors just yet.

There is no threat beyond what press and politicians deem fit to create themselves for their own purposes.

"Our way of life is under attack, but not just by terrorists."

The terrorists cant do jack against the sheer momentum of the civilized world. The attacks against our way of life comes entirely from elsewhere, the terrorists are just used as excuses when appropriate.

is it really all that ahrd to believe (2.62 / 8) (#5)
by dimaq on Fri Oct 14th, 2005 at 06:58:25 AM EST
(nobody@dev.null.org)

that abrahamic religions would suffer from same disorders? or is it just too hard for everyone to figure it out themselves? nothing new to me really.

As one who is supposedly attacking science (1.47 / 19) (#1)
by SaintPort on Fri Oct 14th, 2005 at 04:54:59 AM EST
(webmaster%40saintport%2Ecom) http://www.SaintPort.com

I'd just like to say that...

I do not fear science. It does not threaten my life or belief system.

However, I will argue against 'scientists' who evangelize faith in unproven theories that become a philosophy or a type of religion. Once you can show me how life can come from non-life and how one species mutates into another self-sustaining higher order species, then your evolutionary theory is science. Until then, let us just teach that mutations occur as they are observed.

In other words, if Evolutionists don't teach that men evolved from apes, then Creationists won't be in such a frenzy to insert the Intelligent Designer.

And, just because we have the technology to 'do something' does not mean we will use the proper wisdom in its use. Beware forgetting the sanctity of life.

It is sad how all sides in these culture wars are given to such polarizing propaganda.  This particular piece is as paranoid and ridiculus as the most backword of snake-handling xian sermons.

Please get a grip.

 

--
Search the Scriptures
Start with some cheap grace...Got Life?

(Christianity vs. Islam) vs. (Fundamentalism vs. Rationality) | 313 comments (298 topical, 15 editorial, 1 hidden)
View: Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - 2005 Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
If you can read this, you are sitting too close to your screen.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories! K5 Store by Jinx Hackwear Syndication Supported by NewsIsFree