Green | January 22, 2009 | 132 comments

Antievolution legislation in Mississippi

Image
justright
House Bill 25, introduced in the Mississippi House of Representatives by Representative Gary Chism (R-District 37) on January 6, 2009, and referred to two committees, Education and Judiciary A, would, if enacted, mandate the state board of education to require every textbook that discusses evolution to include a disclaimer describing evolution as "a controversial theory." In full, the proposed disclaimer reads:
The word "theory" has many meanings, including: systematically organized knowledge; abstract reasoning; a speculative idea or plan; or a systematic statement of principles. Scientific theories are based on both observations of the natural world and assumptions about the natural world. They are always subject to change in view of new and confirmed observations.
This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory.
Evolution refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced living things. There are many topics with unanswered questions about the origin of life which are not mentioned in your textbook, including: the sudden appearance of the major groups of animals in the fossil record (known as the Cambrian Explosion); the lack of new major groups of other living things appearing in the fossil record; the lack of transitional forms of major groups of plants and animals in the fossil record; and the complete and complex set of instructions for building a living body possessed by all living things.

More Here:
http://ncseweb.org/news/2009/01/antievolution-legislation-mississippi-003688
  1. groups:
    News and Politics,   Politics,   Green,   Earth and Science,   2 more
  2. tags:
    News and Politics Politics Green Current TV 9 more
  3.     
    |

132 comments // Antievolution legislation in Mississippi

  • geturheadfed
    • 0
      geturheadfed  
    • Does this mean every bible gets a sticker?

      "Possibly a hoax and can impair judgement of all living things"

      oh Wait that would involve church with state
      waitttt a minuteeeeeeee

    • 2 years ago
  • brittsebastian
  • Mudboy16
    • 0
      Mudboy16  
    • And I quote, "No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory."
      That would make creationism a theory too. The religious institutions should just back off.

    • 2 years ago
  • dariusvons
    • 0
      dariusvons  
    • Mudboy16:

      ...the difference between the current scientific threories and any religous theory is that science has evidence, religion just has hearsay and authority...

      also, saying something like "No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory." is like looking at dog tracks in the sand and saying that nobody actually saw the dog, therefore only in 'theory' did a dog walked through here... and we DO have 'dog tracks' of sorts that tell us a great deal about the origins of life.

    • 2 years ago
  • ace_ofgabriel
  • Nettle
  • justright
  • ThePrince1986
  • ThePrince1986
  • dariusvons
  • RCS
    • 0
      RCS  
    • One thing that the United States Congress could do that would help our country move forward again in terms of science and technology would be to require that scientific education in this country be based on science. Creationism and Intelligent Design should be banned from being taught as science, by law, until its proponents can bring forward some genuine, empirical, scientific evidence to back those two theories up.

    • 3 years ago
  • k8_hj
    • 0
      k8_hj  
    • Isn't this the same state that reported the highest teen birth rate in the country. Seems to me like they need to take a serious look at their education system. And teaching fact as theory doesn't help anyone.
      Jesus was a philosopher, which was great (Im all about the philosophy), and the corrupt church turned him into a figure which they used to suppress people and get money. Look, its great to believe in something like that but take the bible as what it is, a bunch of camp fire stories to draw morals from. Not something to take literally word for word. Personally, I can't believe in the teachings of something that doesn't view all people as equal. Also, if this guy really believes there should be a disclaimer in evolution textbooks then they definitely should be in the bible too.

    • 3 years ago
  • Pattyhax
    • 0
      Pattyhax  
    • Maybe they should put disclaimers in front of bibles and other religious texts that declare they are "controversial theories."

      ...just trying to apply the same reasoning elsewhere.

    • 3 years ago
  • diabolical44
    • 0
      diabolical44  
    • this is ironic that a state such as Mississippi would outlaw the teaching of evolution because a majority of that state's residents are actually evolving in reverse anyway.

    • 3 years ago
  • reneelikeshugs
  • JohnA
  • TopScruffy
  • numinant
    • 0
      numinant  
    • TopScruffy:

      really, it's just relegating the answers to an imaginary intermediary, because you can attribute everything to god's will, but then god himself is inexplicable. might as well just embrace the unknown and cut out the middleman.

    • 3 years ago
  • numinant
    • 0
      numinant  
    • evolution isn't a theory in the colloquial sense, it's an observable fact. natural selection is the scientific theory which explains evolution, which also happens to be factual. it's been refined somewhat since darwin published it, because that's how science functions, through scrutiny and repeated testing to make sure every aspect is rigorously verified.

      imagine if religion espoused such high standards of veracity. actually, that's called buddhism.

    • 3 years ago
  • erikherron
    • 0
      erikherron  
    • How different is this? I'm curious whether people think there is a difference here. I always try think through other people's perspectives, but it's hard for me to understand sometimes...

    • 3 years ago
  • GiantBees
    • 0
      GiantBees  
    • Wow I thought this was old news, I remember hearing about this same issue about 4 years ago but it was in Georgia. I mean hey, at least they are still PRESENTING evolution. It seems like the disclaimer is to placate those who disagree with it or may feel uncomfortable with the idea. That way maybe they will feel more comfortable with accepting it. Also a moment to chastise those with such negative comments about us southerners, you guys are sounding worse than the most closeminded dixie stereotype you are imagining.

    • 3 years ago
  • darkhorsejim
  • JohnA
    • 0
      JohnA  
    • darkhorsejim:

      The University of Mississippi's accountancy program is number 15 in the country, thank you. We have plenty of books. Ever heard of William Faulkner, Willie Morris, Larry Brown, John Grissom? We have plenty of books.

    • 3 years ago
  • hoboninja54
  • ghostbar
    • 0
      ghostbar  
    • Then they should put a disclaimer about religion creation of the world: "Disclaimer: This was write by people under the effect of several drugs and everything was write about this creationism is totally incoherent and is not based in any real fact"

    • 3 years ago
  • opit
    • 0
      opit  
    • Evolution is basic to an understanding of the biological sciences.
      Our current misuse of planetary resources are leading to losses of biodiversity and viability of Earth to sustain human life if taken to its extreme : a path that it does not seem that we are avoiding.
      Empire thrives on static conditions including culture and knowledge.
      Monopoly is a basic tool to enforce power.
      Secrecy leaves people vulnerable to surprise attack.
      http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/
      Media are owned and controlled by a few corporations.
      Am I alone in seeing a troubling pattern?

    • 3 years ago
  • NoGodsNoMasters
    • 0
      NoGodsNoMasters  
    • And here I thought when Bush left the white house the age of american unreason would come to an end. But then there is Mississippi.......You know it is only in the non-scientific community that evolution is considered just a theory. 99.9% of all scientists call it the Law of Evolution. And all that disclaimer does is pretty much say "Stop! Before you learn this I just want to let you know that we think it is false." What's the point of education if you are going to strip it of it's credibility before it is even taught? Hopefully the Mississippi state legislature has enough common sense to not pass this. Then again, it is Mississippi. Fun word to spell though, I'll give it that.

    • 3 years ago
  • PlatoTacius
    • 0
      PlatoTacius  
    • The big question here seems to be whether it's logical, reasonable or practical for anyone, especially a right-wing whack job, to be even attempting to impose their religious agenda on their constituents by proposing such a preposterous scheme as this in their local legislature.

      The 'holier than thou' is getting out of hand...the children aren't as ignorant as this 'so called' pillar of society would deem them to be...

    • 3 years ago
  • Taiora
    • 0
      Taiora  
    • Well it is a theory haha
      you guys are bashing religion all u want but remmber this Darwinisem (i can;t spell) is a theroy whose creator in the end didn;t even believe think about that

    • 3 years ago
  • justright
  • 4saken
    • 0
      4saken  
    • That is very sad, kicking science education in the nuts for a religious reason. If that passes it should make any parent with a brain want to move out of the state.

    • 3 years ago
  • butterfly48
    • 0
      butterfly48  
    • What is it about religion bashing that liberals and the left love so much?

      All of you need to get off your high horse and pretending like you have all the answers, especially the 'scientific' ones.

      All of these kids in school deserve to hear both sides of evolution and creationism and decide for themselves what they want to believe.

      Religion teaches people to be better human beings and gives people faith, what is so wrong with that?

      I love watching National Geographic and Animal Planet, too, but what is so wrong with believing that maybe we aren't little tadpoles that learned to walk and think on our own??

      Leave religion alone and find something better to do with your time.

    • 3 years ago
  • agreeablestatistic
    • 0
      agreeablestatistic  
    • butterfly48:

      well it looks like mississippi legislators are bashing what i believe in so i am bashing what they believe in.

      i think kids in sunday schools, churches, synagogues and mosques need the other side of the story too. that's why the teachers and preachers need to tell their mindless followers that their religion is a "hypothesis" and there is actually no proof that there's a invisible dude in the sky.

    • 3 years ago
  • unimatrix0
  • justright
  • donkeyfly69
  • Nephwrack
    • 0
      Nephwrack  
    • butterfly48:

      wrong. you righties have got us wron again . it's not necessarily your faith or god that we're bashing, many of us liburrulls are very spiritual beings, it's the institution of religion itself that we disagree with. man should not impose his spiritual beleifs on his fellow man. i say impose because organized religion inevitably leads to bigotry and violence.

    • 3 years ago
  • noxidereus
    • 0
      noxidereus  
    • butterfly48:

      Leave education alone.

      This (teaching creationism in school) is an example of why 'liberals' complain. I don't have a problem with religious people. However, it isn't right for religious people to try to push their faith on everyone else. Intelligent design is not a scientific alternative to evolution.

      There really is no question in the scientific world about whether or not evolution is true. It is considered fact. The theory is about the mechanism of evolution. If you don't accept that, it's fine, but it is because of your religion.

      If you favor teaching a creation myth in school instead of reality, which religion's creation myth should we teach? Yours? Why - because your religion is the correct one? Prove it. If it is to be taught in school, then prove it first. Why is your creation myth true, but not native Americans' creation myth for example?

      According to some native american myths Gukumatz, a feathered serpent, and the god Huracan created man. There are countless other creation myths. None of them are science. Keep ignorance in the churches and out of our schools. Do you also think the world is flat and the center of the universe? Real science has replaced those myths with facts, and the same is true with creationism. Some people just won't admit reality because it conflicts with their myths.

      It is not right to try to teach these myths to children in public schools. Not everyone is christian. No problem teaching it in catholic schools - if catholics want their kids to grow up in ignorance, then fine.

    • 3 years ago
  • agreeablestatistic
    • 0
      agreeablestatistic  
    • they should put the same disclaimer on bibles. and other religious documents.

      since, y'know, nobody alive today was alive when it was written so everything in it is basically unreliable and unproven information.

    • 3 years ago
  • wowxwill
    • 0
      wowxwill  
    • Actually humanity grew because of religion, I’m not a religious person but I recognize that the earliest civilizations created their first writing, art, and monuments due to their various religions as early as 10,000B.C. Also when the Roman Empire collapsed after the barbarian invasions in 476 A.D. it was The Church of Rome and its pope that kept the last bits of civilization together. Even the first university was built by the church in 1110 A.D. All these facts can be proven if you would like to research them for yourself. Whether they had a bill passed or not the majority of teachers say this out loud anyways has csmonut said. I’m only 16 and I come from the south, in tiny town called LeFLore Oklahoma to be exact, would you say I’m slow or stupid?

    • 3 years ago
  • donkeyfly69
  • k8_hj
  • roachsd13
    • 0
      roachsd13  
    • If science textbooks need a disclaimer for the word theory in Theory of Evolution, the Bible should be right next to Asop's Fables with a huge "fiction" stamp on the spine

    • 3 years ago
  • poptart_invasion
    • 0
      poptart_invasion  
    • even religious scientists tend to resist teaching "intellegent design", because it has nothing to do with the scientific process. its a philosophical/theological stance. belongs nowhere nere biology. if you're gonna teach creationism in school, why not teach the belief that lighting is generated by MJOLNIR (spelling?) as thor beats down upon giants from the clouds, or that some love-sick nymph, not soundwaves bouncing off objects, is the cause of echos?

    • 3 years ago
  • k8_hj
  • petarro
  • roachsd13
    • 0
      roachsd13  
    • How do religious people justify a disclaimer about evolution, when they portray the oldest book of fairytales in the world as absolute fact? This drives me nuts.

    • 3 years ago
  • remanns
  • IMMININT
    • 0
      IMMININT  
    • Just playing a game on Xbox Live w/ anyone from Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi will tell you exactly how far behind this area of the United States is with the rest of the world.

    • 3 years ago
  • joaarias
    • 0
      joaarias  
    • My response to this would be that there would need to be an exact disclaimer on every single bible printed and every time someone attends church...because those "theories" are as unproven, and "fantastical" for that matter, as the way this dude is describing evolution. I wonder if his district is actually pushing for this or if they are even aware of what he is focusing on??

    • 3 years ago
  • cztheday
    • 0
      cztheday  
    • This debate in Mississippi about how to present the Theory of Evolution is getting all of the press, as usual, but I wonder what OTHER interesting things Mississippi schools are teaching their children that DON'T get this kind of press. At a minimum, I am guessing that the school libraries in my state have a much broader selection of books. That is one of the foremost problems with this kind of policymaking. It is insidious. I have this image in my mind of ignorance in the form of a dense fog, slowly enveloping and permeating everything it encounters. We see the tiniest bit of it and recoil, but the true extent of it would absolutely horrify us.

      Or not -- after all, it's just a "theory."

      cztheday

    • 3 years ago
  • acolchad
    • 0
      acolchad  
    • This has absolutely nothing to do with Religion! Get that out of you way and you'll see the many flaws that Evolution has and that it's unfair to teach this in our public schools as fact! After all our aim to teach our students to think and make decisions on their own, force feeding them the THEORY of Evolution as fact is impeding any progress!

    • 3 years ago
  • IMMININT
    • 0
      IMMININT  
    • acolchad:

      If what facts are taught lead the child to believe in evolution is it any different?

      There are significant numbers of FACTS that are PROVEN that DO prove evolution.

    • 3 years ago
  • justright
  • Jenkins
    • 0
      Jenkins  
    • Shouldn't science books just teach what the word theory means? I have no qualms with explaining the word theory, but singling out the theory of evolution seems like a promotion of religion.

    • 3 years ago
  • AreOh
  • chillmonkey5000
    • 0
      chillmonkey5000  
    • Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting the theory of evolution is inaccurate. I believe it's the best interpretation we have of all the data, and most likely true.

      I was only saying in regards to HUMAN evolution, there are some weird questions I've yet to get my head around- NOT THAT RELIGION HAS THE ANSWER!

      I also don't see why theories of an "intelligent designer" (of the cosmos) and evolution need to be mutually exclusive. Only religionists or dogmatic atheists would think so- certainly not true scientists.

    • 3 years ago
  • unimatrix0
  • chillmonkey5000
    • 0
      chillmonkey5000  
    • chillmonkey5000:

      i have no hope either way, lol.

      you pegged me wrong- i'm inclined not to believe in a "cosmic intelligence", though i don't dismiss the possibility with the ease i could dismiss a jesus or jehovah. but to claim that absence of evidence is equal to evidence of absence is not rational. there are many "facts" for which there once lacked evidence, but the lack of evidence did not make them any less true. whatever the answer might be, there is only one true answer. until we find it, i'll let both reason and intuition be my guide.

      there are some scientists with no religious motives whatsoever who would say there is indeed "evidence" of an intelligent designer, or at least "evidence" that the theory cannot be dismissed. we must keep looking for the answers, not assume we have them when clearly we do not.

      quantum theory has shown a very real and difficult to understand relationship between the "observed" and the "observer". one seems not to exist without the other. since this is true of everything we perceive as reality, are we left but to wonder in awe and amazement, or keep looking for answers?

      my personal opinion is that the answers lie within ourselves, in our consciousness, and as we learn more about the relationship between consciousness, energy, and matter- we'll discover things beyond our wildest imaginations.

      i agree that we must act out our lives on what we know more so than what we don't, but we should also be guided by an admission that we "know" very little, that what we "know" now is likely to change, and a reasoned, scientific drive to keep "knowing" more.

      we shouldn't move forward as if there is nothing. we should move forward admitting we do not know certain things and maybe even never will. but we should always ask the questions and seek answers where we may find them. in the search lies our hope.

      would you prefer give up the quest?

    • 3 years ago
  • donkeyfly69
    • 0
      donkeyfly69  
    • chillmonkey5000:

      there might be unanswered question but to answer them with a theory that has no evidence is not science.

      last time i checked, quantum physisists don't teach middle school there ideas that they don't have evidence for.

    • 3 years ago
  • chillmonkey5000
    • 0
      chillmonkey5000  
    • chillmonkey5000:

      @donkeyfly- i would never suggest teaching something as science for which there is no evidence. i don't know why you think that from what i've written. my point is only that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. certainly we should only teach as "fact" those theories backed up by hard and consistent evidence.

      you're wrong about something else, too- much of science is taught in the arena of "theories", not "facts". scientists than try to prove or disprove a theory to the exclusion of other explanations. if science were stuck with only "facts" and no theories, it would never progress and evolve, as it must.

    • 3 years ago
  • donkeyfly69
    • 0
      donkeyfly69  
    • chillmonkey5000:

      science progress in the scientific realm, not in education.

      once there are peer-reviewed published finding on creationism or intelligent design then it can trickle down the line to be taught in schools. you don't teach it to students then let scientists figure out if it has enough evidence. that's ass backwards.

      i have a question: should teachers continue to teach that "theory" of gravity? or should you also bring up the fact that i've seen pixies hold everything down on earth?

    • 3 years ago
  • ras_menelik
  • donkeyfly69
  • justright
  • chillmonkey5000
    • 0
      chillmonkey5000  
    • "There are no facts, only interpretations" - Nietzsche

      First off, I'm extremely pro-science and anti-religion so don't get me wrong here. I am not saying that evolution and creationism should be on equal ground in a classroom or anywhere else. But...

      There are reasons not to shudder at the questioning of evolution or the suggestion of "intelligent design". Though the theory of "intelligent design" is often used by bible-thumping god-mongers in a contemptible effort to force religion down our throats, we shouldn't throw out the idea just because some of the people pushing it have bad motives. All theories must withstand constant scrutiny and challenges, and they should never be considered complete or factual when our understanding of any subject will always be limited by our very finite nature.

      Neither classical nor quantum physics have provided a theory that explains creation or the precision of cosmological mathematics without at least considering the possibility of an intelligent creative force behind it all. A true believer in science fears neither the absence or existence of an intelligent designer. We should only keep our minds open and seek the truth.

      While there is a consensus among scientists that evolution is the best explanation of all the data we've accumulated about life on Earth thus far, it is still accurate to say it is only a "theory". The theory is not "controversial", but neither is it absolute or complete. It does leave room for as yet unanswered questions.

      For example, the process of evolution is extremely slow. Human evolution from "apes" began nearly 5 million years ago at a snails pace. There was in fact very little difference, physically or otherwise (tools), over this long, slow adaptation over millions of years.

      Yet 300,000 years ago, quite suddenly and in the blink of an eye by evolutionary timetables, modern humans appear- quite distinct from even the most similar primates. After a couple hundred thousand years as hunter-gatherers in the wild, we suddenly establish civilization and within a mere 15,000 years, we are where we are today.

      The sudden "jump" in our evolution is very difficult to explain, even by the most ardent Darwinists.

      I've also always wondered about this: if the point of mutation, adaptation, and evolution is the survival of a species, why are there still other "primitive" primates like apes? Shouldn't we have replaced them by now? And why haven't we seen any massive "jumps" in the evolution of other species? Just some things I've yet to learn, oh well...

      My point is there are always unanswered questions. While modern religion has long outlived it's purpose (IMO), science tells us that "maybe" is the way to the truth.

    • 3 years ago
  • markragunton
  • bfcooper
  • noxidereus
  • Alex_French
  • Alex_French
  • retran
    • 0
      retran  
    • Evolutionary theory doesn't pose that "random" forces direct life. Hardly random at all, the strongest the forces at work are natural selection responding to the environment (among others).

      But hey, that's a damn funny picture.

    • 3 years ago
  • Ediblehearts
    • 0
      Ediblehearts  
    • I think it would be good to knock evolution down a notch. I would like to see Intelligent Design talked more about or even just PRESENTED at all.

      Intelligent Design is a theory that even scientists unassociated with any "religious" beliefs have started to give thought to. I think it's just as valid.

      The best theory evolution has for how the non living became living is crystals. Pretty sad. Science is furthered when people think outside the box, but now we have this evolutionary box and anyone who dares think outside of it gets crushed. I just don't think that's right.

    • 3 years ago
  • retran
    • 0
      retran  
    • Ediblehearts:

      Care to name any of these non-religious scientists that are supporting and coming up with evidence for "Intelligent Design" (which is just another word for Creationism)?? Care to name some of their peer-reviewed published work?

    • 3 years ago
  • unimatrix0
    • 0
      unimatrix0  
    • Ediblehearts:

      Intelligent design is not thinking outside the box - it is just thinking inside the bible. Intelligent design/creationism is religious propaganda. To teach it to children is child abuse.

    • 3 years ago
  • chillmonkey5000
    • 0
      chillmonkey5000  
    • Ediblehearts:

      not true at all. intelligent design is merely the theory that behind all the laws and mathematics governing the cosmos, which seem so precise- there might be an intelligent designer. given a bit of time i could produce the names of countless non-religious scientists who acknowledge this ID theory cannot be ruled out. in fact, there are many non-religious scientists who believe it is the most likely answer. it's not about "god" for them. they don't claim to know what the intelligent designer is, in fact some say it might even be us, or a collective consciousness of some sort, but certainly true science has made NO conclusions on the deepest questions of all. to claim such knowledge is the epitome of foolishness!

      uni- i'm telling you, agnosticism rather than atheism is the path to enlightenment- join me!

    • 3 years ago
  • unimatrix0
  • chillmonkey5000
    • 0
      chillmonkey5000  
    • Ediblehearts:

      hehehe... richard dawkins would be proud of you, calling my agnosticism cowardly! naturally i beg to differ, and isn't it ironic we both claim it is our "reason" that dictates our respective positions!

      you claim the absence of evidence equal to evidence of absence? certainly you know this is a logical falsity!

      you have no proof to disprove ID- therefore your certainty of denial is both illogical and foolhardy (in the nicest possible way).

      watch the link, and all parts please- surely you will enjoy it as i did!!!

    • 3 years ago
  • bfcooper
  • unimatrix0
    • 0
      unimatrix0  
    • Ediblehearts:

      a bit of sophistry to be sure; chill monkey.

      the fallacy is to try and prove a negative. The atheist is required to produce proof of nothing - they accept the world as it is. The deist must produce proof for the magic dude in the sky. The agnostic lives life as an atheist but is to cautious/cowardly to say it out loud.

      If we are to be technical we are all solipsists as far as absolute certainty goes - which is what the agnostic seems to want or need.

    • 3 years ago
  • chillmonkey5000
    • 0
      chillmonkey5000  
    • Ediblehearts:

      nonsense. it is the agnostic who needs prove nothing!

      are we talking about how we choose to lead our lives or are we talking about facts and logic? if we are talking about how we lead our lives, you lead yours with as much faith as any deist. while a deist places their faith in the assumption of a deity, you place yours in the assumption that we have nothing left to discover and the matter can be concluded as decided. guided by agnosticism, i can acknowledge that our data set is too limited to make any definite conclusions at this time (on ID).

      if we are talking about facts and logic, i am not demanding that you disprove a negative. i am hoping you will acknowledge the possibility that the evidence at hand does not warrant a final verdict. we have enough information to toss out our current religious dogmas, but not enough to throw out the possibility of an intelligent design. only after time and the analysis of much more data will we be in a position to "know" such things, if ever...

    • 3 years ago
  • noxidereus
    • 0
      noxidereus  
    • Ediblehearts:

      Chillmonkey. I am an atheist. That doesn't mean that I claim to know 100% that there is no God. Only that the prospect of it is so unlikely that I will live my life as if there is none. I do not believe in a God.

      Are you agnostic to the invisible pink unicorn god who follows me around granting my wishes? You can't disprove it, because he's magical and exists outside of science. I'm assuming you are atheist with respect to 'pinky' even though you can't 100% scientifically prove it does not exist. Your intelligence tells you that it is so unlikely to be true that you shouldn't accept my claims.

      The same is with any god. The claim that there is a god requires proof. Without that proof I see no reason to believe in it. No god claim is any less ridiculous than any other. The more you look at facts and human nature and question things, the closer you will come to atheism.

    • 3 years ago
  • chillmonkey5000
    • 0
      chillmonkey5000  
    • Ediblehearts:

      i agree almost entirely. a good question is what makes an atheist or theist? is it what they "believe" or how they lead their lives that matters most? if it's how we lead our lives that matter, i suggest a large majority of those that claim membership in a religion are actually living as atheists, with no regard to the eternal consequences their respective faiths dictate they should be consumed with. and certainly many agnostics live their lives more similarly to atheists, but i don't think that's what matters. it's about the ideas and ideals we hold, not whether we live up to them that matters most. but it's very interesting...

      i am not agnostic in regards to the magic unicorn or pixies that follow you around, lol. the absence of any supporting evidence whatsoever is enough for me to make a pretty safe conclusion. my claim is that scientifically, the theory of intelligent design is not without supporting data and therefore different than the pixies. there IS scientific data which makes the theory of an intelligent design a feasible one, and it's impossible to dismiss at this time. i refuse to be forced to jump to a conclusion when i know that the evidence is open for multiple interpretations.

      the fine-tuning of the laws of our universe, presumably set at the big-bang, are so precise to allow for our existence. change the laws that govern electrons or gravity just a hair and our existence becomes completely impossible.

      for example, the math behind the "cosmological constant" is so precise that some (not me) would claim it "proves" the fact that the laws of our universe could not be random or accidental. there is only one scientific theory to counter that conclusion- the elegantly simple theory of infinite, multiple universes, each with their own sets of laws different than our own. if one believes in that, then there is no need to believe in a "design" for our universe just to allow us to exist- we are just one of many and therefore the fact that there is a universe with such precise laws to allow for our existence does not prove any "design" and could still be random. it's a good theory, and i hope one day it can somehow be proven. but right now, it is nothing more than an abstract theory, just like that of a "design".

      the theory of multiple universes with multiple laws (which i like better than that of a "design") requires as much of a leap of faith as belief in a "design". as of yet, we have no means to prove or disprove either the theory of "design" or the theory of a "multiverse". both theories are completely abstract and lack any "hard" evidence. both require a leap of faith to "believe". therefore, i withhold my judgment- and rightfully so. there's no harm in waiting for more information before jumping the gun.

      i am merely suggesting that until we have enough data, bias or prejudice should not allow us to promote one theory over the other, scientifically, at this point in time, they are both equally plausible theories based on the current data set and nothing more.

      my whole point is that science should never throw away an idea or theory because they don't like where it might take them. that is the way of fear and dogmatism, and there is quite a bit of it amongst theists and atheists alike.

      live your lives as you see fit, but we don't know yet.

    • 3 years ago
  • Eleganza
    • 0
      Eleganza  
    • If you look at the states such as Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama...you get a very clear picture of what a society looks like that uses a 2000 year old book of Jewish mythology as a model. As Carl Sagan said " science is a candle burning in the darkness" and there are those who would extinguish that candle because it exposes them for the frauds that they are.

    • 3 years ago
  • noxidereus
    • 0
      noxidereus  
    • Evolution is absolutely NOT controversial. Well maybe it is, but only to stupid people. The fossil, DNA, etc, etc evidence backs it up, and disproves creationism utterly. There should be no consideration whatsoever in our schools for any primitive, magical, made-up explanations as real alternatives to actual science..

    • 3 years ago
  • navider
  • TopScruffy
  • csmonut
  • Auberella
    • 0
      Auberella  
    • Evolution is a science theory, therefor it is taught in science classes. It is a subject that should be addressed just the same as "What is in the center of the Earth like". There is now way we can prove it and we look twords our religion for answers.

    • 3 years ago
  • bfcooper
  • FallenMorgan
  • GuaranteeVictory
    • 0
      GuaranteeVictory  
    • Religion some how install basic moral principles in our lives. Where seem to me that science is great but it some how lessen our moral principles. Sorry for lack of explanation for my theory. Just wanna get it out there. So religion is not soooo bad. It has its good, and some time when is use right, is great.

    • 3 years ago
  • unimatrix0
  • bfcooper
  • peterhaas
    • 0
      peterhaas  
    • And just when I thought,that part of the Islamic world was stuck in the middle ages,I read this story about Missississippi.Apparently,Islam and Christianity have more in common than I thought.

    • 3 years ago
  • eldamon
    • 0
      eldamon  
    • Really? This is the most pressing issue in the Mississippi House of Representatives right now? I can see why things are a little "slower" down south.

    • 3 years ago
  • AndreaKnoll
  • FallenMorgan
    • 0
      FallenMorgan  
    • This is pure stupidity. The religious right has a problem with keeping their faith to themselves instead of trying to push it on everyone else.

    • 3 years ago
  • anikhanj
    • 0
      anikhanj  
    • I'd like to see a world where science is forgotten and religion is the only thing people have...say Medieval times? Things were great back then when religion determined everything!

    • 3 years ago
  • abazaba0599
1 - 100 of 132
more from Green:

top videos