danw@oliven.UUCP (danw) (11/29/84)
[] Subject: Creationists are not stupid Ok creationists are not stupid. At least not in a way that can be measured with something as crude as a Stanford-Binet I.Q. test. The question i would like to see addressed is: Are they dangerous? ( Did the dark ages just happen? Did many of these well meaning, but frightened, individuals knowingly help further the development of this ideological holocaust ? Could thinking people haved stopped it? Could it happen again? ) danw >Your questions are provoking. Would you please expand on them a bit so I more clearly see the direction of your argument? In what way do you see creationists as directly responsible for the dark ages? Yes, I know that the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and its hierarchy were creationists and promulgated the Inquisition which was in large part the cause of the dark ages. However, it was not that they believed that God created the universe that motivated any of that (misguided) endeavor. The prime motivation behind the repression of the budding scientific community was their fear of loss of control over the community at large, which has since happened. The problem was caused by power politics (God save us from all theocracies!) practiced by a group (the church) that should never have gotten into that area of human endeavor. I believe that a little thought will show that conditions today are sufficiently different to render your argument unsupportable. I look forward to reading your reply (presumably to the contrary). > Blessed Be, > Xxxx Xxxx ======================================================================= Granted , the creationists were no more directly responsible for the dark ages, than the hitler youth was directly responsible for the holocaust. This does not mean we should encourage the hitler youths of the future. My point is the creationists ,while individually peaceful, are part of a larger movement that holds the greatest threat to personal liberties and civilization that can possibly be imagined. Contemplating the possible emergence of a technological based THEOCRACY has got to be the ultimate libertarian nightmare. This is not the benign and comic philosophy of say the Flat Earth Society. The efforts of these people to force their will via the legislatures, and school boards MUST be opposed at all costs. The cost of freedom is eternal vigilantes. Those that believe " a little thought will show that conditions today are sufficiently different to render your argument unsupportable." Are doomed to repeat the histories of Germany , Spain and Iran. A return to the dark ages is possible when enough people are , apathetic , don't think it's possible , or work to make it possible. (We have plenty of the former and the later. It is to those who don't think it isn't possible that i make my appeal) People laughed at the hitler youth. People laughed at the Iatola Kolmanie (sp) People are laughing at the creationists. For g*ds sake, take these people seriously, they deserve to be taken seriously. danw
esk@wucs.UUCP (Eric Kaylor) (12/01/84)
[] > ( Did the dark ages just happen? > Did many of these well meaning, but frightened, individuals knowingly > help further the development of this ideological holocaust ? > Could thinking people haved stopped it? > Could it happen again? ) > danw > > I know that the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and its hierarchy were > creationists and promulgated the Inquisition which was in large part > the cause of the dark ages. However, it was not that they believed > that God created the universe that motivated any of that (misguided) > endeavor. > ???? > > Granted , the creationists were no more directly responsible for the > dark ages, than the hitler youth was directly responsible for > the holocaust. > danw Just a historical note here. At least in my history books, the dark ages are referred to as the time from the fall of Rome to the early medeival period, i.e. 500-1200. Far from having 'caused' the dark ages, the church was probably one of the few factors that saved much of civilization during this time of turmoil. The inquisition was mostly a factor during the late medeival and rennaissance periods. Although organized religion has been responsible for many problems, the dark ages are not one of them. Eric Kaylor ihnp4!wucs!esk
scott@normac.UUCP (Scott Bryan) (12/01/84)
In article <> danw@oliven.UUCP (danw) writes: > > > Subject: Creationists are not stupid > The question i would like to see addressed is: > Are they dangerous? > ( Did the dark ages just happen? > Did many of these well meaning, but frightened, individuals knowingly > help further the development of this ideological holocaust ? > Could thinking people haved stopped it? > Could it happen again? ) > danw > >Your questions are provoking. Would you please expand on them a bit >so I more clearly see the direction of your argument? In what way do >you see creationists as directly responsible for the dark ages? YOU WANT EXAMPLES ... How about India TODAY! Or are we restricted to talking about YOUR religion. No religion isn't killing anyone directly, but somehow a whole hell of a lot of people have died in it's name, and that's close enough for me to wonder why a personal belief (that noone can take away from you anyway) is worth dying, killing, or even arguing about? Can't religious people understand that its insulting for other religious people to be told about the wonders of their religion. It's like being called an idiot for not seeing a wonderful beautiful thing right in front of you and for believing in blasphemy. If I were religious that would probably be grounds for hating someone. In liu of this and the fact that religion is an incredibly personal experience in any case, I fail to see why the truly religious person wouldn't consider the most reasonable position to be to keep their religious beliefs a secret or something to be shared between close friends. Scott Bryan
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (12/02/84)
In article <wucs.528> esk@wucs.UUCP (Eric Kaylor) writes: >Just a historical note here. At least in my history books, the dark ages >are referred to as the time from the fall of Rome to the early medeival >period, i.e. 500-1200. Far from having 'caused' the dark ages, the church >was probably one of the few factors that saved much of civilization during >this time of turmoil. The inquisition was mostly a factor during the late >medeival and rennaissance periods. Although organized religion has been >responsible for many problems, the dark ages are not one of them. Agreed, the Roman Church didn't 'cause' the dark ages, the sources of that long period of human stagnation are too complex to lay on one component of civilization. It can, in fact, be said to have 'saved' civilization -- if by that you mean locked up and threw away the key. The Church was simply more interested in spreading Christianity than knowledge. While much was maintained in monastary libraries, it was generally inaccessible to any but certain of the church heirarchy. If any group can be said to have saved civilization for a time, it is the Moslems (notably the Abassiaean Caliphs) who maintained and expanded on Greek philosophy, developed algebra, and built the foundations for what we now know as science. Unfortunately, we can also hold the Caliph of Egypt responsible for the burning of the library at Alexandria, clearly one of the great losses in history. Both cases are illustrative of the problem when religious forces take complete control of the educational system. Knowledge gets somehow divided into to categories -- heretical and orthodox. To paraphrase the rationale behind the burning of the Alexandrian library, "if it isn't in the inerrant-book-of-your-choice, it's heretical. If it is in the interrant-book-of-your-choice, it's redundant." One has to be very careful in pointing to creationism as the possible precursor to a 'new Dark Ages' (which is, I think, what we're talking about here.) I've seen little evidence that creationists actually want to destroy knowledge by burning books (though there is some, which frightens me.) The real danger of the creationist goal, the teching of creationism side-by-side with evolution in the school, is the dilution of discipline in scientific inquiry. More than a collection of hypotheses, facts and relationships, the conduct of science is a way of thinking about the natural world which requires self-discipline in proceeding from a set of stated assumptions to a set of tentatively drawn conclusions. Along the way there are lots of hurdles, pitfalls, shortcuts and reasonably subtle traps which one needs to become aware of and avoid. My experience has been that most creationists and many evolutionists are really unaware of scientific conduct and its implications. I attribute this to massive failures already in the educational system in teaching science as a way of thinking. Were the conduct of science well-taught in schools then I would have absolutely no objection to the teaching of creationist principles. Unfortunately it is not and that, more than any notion of competition between science and religion, theories and non-theories, bodes ill for the development of civilization. -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (12/03/84)
This stuff is purely religious. Get it out of here. Go to net.religion
if you want to discuss it, please.
--
Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois