Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Time For Class Proving Evolution

Merriam disagrees. Bold added by me.


Main Entry: re�li�gion
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back � more at rely
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
� re�li�gion�less adjective

You'll run with number 4, but it's fool's gold my friend. Fair warning.

Science is better served if theories were not taught as fact.

Science would be better served if data was just that, data.

Science would be better served if theories (hypothesis) remained in their part of the scientific method and not placed as the conclusion of the science.

Atheism is a religeon in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

So instead we are gonna TEACH CREATIONISM AS FACT?!

I've been taught a fair amount of scientific FACT in my day, by the way.

...and all debate would be better served if its participants knew the difference between an opinion, a belief, a hypothesis, a theory and a fact.

Best be careful we don't piss off Marduk.

I'm thinking it needs to be written into the textbooks as an equal alternative to, oh, entire disciplines of physical science.

Yes? No? Why not?


"Marduk Creates the World from the Spoils of Battle

����� In the beginning, neither heaven nor earth had names. Apsu, the god of fresh waters, and Tiamat, the goddess of the salt oceans, and Mummu, the god of the mist that rises from both of them, were still mingled as one. There were no mountans, there was no pasture land, and not even a reed-marsh could be found to break the surface of the waters.

����� It was then that Apsu and Tiamat parented two gods, and then two more who outgrew the first pair. These further parented gods, until Ea, who was the god of rivers and was Tiamat and Apsu's geat-grandson, was born. Ea was the cleverest of the gods, and with his magic Ea became the most powerful of the gods, ruling even his forebears.

����� Apsu and Tiamat's descendents became an unruly crowd. Eventually Apsu, in his frustration and inability to sleep with the clamor, went to Tiamat, and he proposed to her that he slay their noisy offspring. Tiamat was furious at his suggestion to kill their clan, but after leaving her Apsu resolved to proceed with his murderous plan. When the young gods heard of his plot against them, they were silent and fearful, but soon Ea was hatching a scheme. He cast a spell on Apsu, pulled Apsu's crown from his head, and slew him. Ea then built his palace on Apsu's waters, and it was there that, with the goddess Damkina, he fathered Marduk, the four-eared, four-eyed giant who was god of the rains and storms.

����� The other gods, however, went to Tiamat and complained of how Ea had slain her husband. Aroused, she collected an army of dragons and monsters, and at its head she placed the god Kingu, whom she gave magical powers as well. Even Ea was at a loss how to combat such a host, until he finally called on his son Marduk. Marduk gladly agreed to take on his father's battle, on the condition that he, Marduk, would rule the gods after achieving this victory. The other gods agreed, and at a banquet they gave him his royal robes and scepter.

����� Marduk armed himself with a bow and arrows, a club, and lightning, and he went in search of Tiamat's monstrous army. Rolling his thunder and storms in front him, he attacked, and Kingu's battle plan soon disintegrated. Tiamat was left alone to fight Marduk, and she howled as they closed for battle. They struggled as Marduk caught her in his nets. When she opened her mouth to devour him, he filled it with the evil wind that served him. She could not close her mouth with his gale blasting in it, and he shot an arrow down her throat. It split her heart, and she was slain.

����� After subduing the rest of her host, he took his club and split Tiamat's water-laden body in half like a clam shell. Half he put in the sky and made the heavens, and he posted guards there to make sure that Tiamat's salt waters could not escape. Across the heavens he made stations in the stars for the gods, and he made the moon and set it forth on its schedule across the heavens. From the other half of Tiamat's body he made the land, which he placed over Apsu's fresh waters, which now arise in wells and springs. From her eyes he made flow the Tigirs and Euphrates. Across this land he made the grains and herbs, the pastures and fields, the rains and the seeds, the cows and ewes, and the forests and the orchards.

����� Marduk set the vanquished gods who had supported Tiamat to a variety of tasks, including work in the fields and canals. Soon they complained of their work, however, and they rebeled by burning their spades and baskets. Marduk saw a solution to their labors, though, and proposed it to Ea. He had Kingu, Timat's general, brought forward from the ranks of the defeated gods, and Kingu was slain. With Kingu's blood, with clay from the earth, and with spittle from the other gods, Ea and the birth-goddess Nintu created humans. On them Ea imposed the labor previously assigned to the gods. Thus the humans were set to maintain the canals and boundary ditches, to hoe and to carry, to irrigate the land and to raise crops, to raise animals and fill the granaries, and to worship the gods at their regular festivals."

My bolds added.

Now, since using a word to define itself is never accepted in accademia, let us define "religious" and "religious faith".

Here is how Websters defines "religious"





Bold on the word "OR".

Since the word "belief" is used in all of these definitions, we need to look at that too.

The point is, Jeff, even these definitions support the idea that Humanism and Atheism are, in fact, Religions. The existance or lack there of of a diety does not itself define a Religion.

If that were the case, then Atheist would have zero claim against school prayer, as prayer would not step on their "beliefs", since they aren't a religion.

It is a theistic belief structure and therefore a religion.

Where did I say that?

I am just pointing out that by every deffinition out there, Secular Humanism is, in fact, a religion.

I would agree! Then maybe they would use them accordingly, instead of twist them to advance some sort of agenda.

Don't twist it. All along the discussion has been that creation and evolution are theories. NEITHER can be proven.

YOU said that "WE" teach the "facts" as "WE" understand them.

We'll, So I ask again. Who are the "WE" again?

Plenty of ph.D's who understand the sciences involved in the theories of origin I'd rather have teaching my children regarding origin than the public school system drones. But since they don't speak the language of the state religion, they are rejected.

Teach the science. That's what I'm suggesting.

Evolution isn't science so much as it is a contruct in which to explain the science, much like creationism and intelligent design are.

Exactly. Initially, evolution seems to make sense -over eons of time things change, and to some extent that is true, but animals don't become humans.

So not believing in unicorns is a religion too? Atheism is just a lack of belief in gods, not a belief that there isn't one.

At it's most fundamental level, the notion of "science" seeks facts, provable and replicatable facts. In pursuit of this, there's an entire system of how such knowledge is pursued, vetted, and assigned a degree of certainty.

At it's most fundamental level, religion seeks converts. In pursuit of them, there's an entire system of how such converts are to be converted, via fear, relief from suffering, and of course indoctrinated belief in blatantly non-factual mythology and doctrine.

The former has every reason to be presented in public-school classrooms.

The latter does not.

I don't know that evolution is being taught as a fact. Been out of school a while. It was taught to me as the most likely conclusion given the available evidence. That's how science should be taught. Scientists have done themselves no favors with the global warming crap for sure. Saying things like "the debate is settled" is absolutely contrary to how it's supposed to work and gives rise to all sorts of suspicions about other science. Physicist lay awake at night thinking of ways to poke holes in other physicist's theories and that's how it should be.

Critical thinking should be taught. Kids should be taught to look at the evidence, draw falsifiable conclusions based on the evidence, and adjust accordingly when new evidence is available. If they understand that, then it is a given that everything from evolution to quantum mechanics is subject to revision if contrary evidence presents itself.

Teaching creation is like teaching transubstantiation in that they are not falsifiable. Both are removed from the physical world and can't be proven or tested one way or another.

That's nonsense. But it's how state run religions operate.

And, by those remarks, seeking converts is precisely what you are trying to do.

Total hypocrisy

Except, it's not a State-run religion. Instead, it's an expression of scientific theory that happens to disagree with the creation myth of YOUR (and every other) religion. This upsets you and yours, and y'all pull every semantic and linguistic trick you can to try and equate two things that couldn't be much more different.

I'm sure there's a country somewhere you could move to that doesn't believe in secular schools, and believes in teaching creationism.

Genesis jibes pretty well with what science has to say about the origin of life on earth.