I am so sick and tired of hearing this from religious wingnuts. I was reading my hometown newspaper and came across this letter to the editor Centers can’t defend films that use evolution
For example, in the same edition, there is an article about some T. rex dinosaur bones dug up in Montana a few years ago (“Broken fossil reveals a bit of real dinosaur,” New York Times article). These bones contain flexible blood vessels, blood cells and soft tissue that should not be there if the bones are really 70 million years old, as evolutionists claim. The “long age” paradigm, i.e. that Earth is millions of years old (instead of thousands of years old, as the Bible says), is the dominant belief of evolutionists. It has blinded researchers to the possibility of finding unfossilized soft tissue, as they clearly have found in the Montana dinosaur bones.
People should wake up and be alarmed that what is being taught in the schools and popularized in the media about evolution being factual is neither defendable nor based on sound scientific principles. – PATRICIA A. KNOOP, Rockbridge
O.K. then, I am awake and I am alarmed. For many years, I would read an opinion like this and laugh with my husband about how stupid people are. It’s not funny anymore. I am reading more articles of how teachers are afraid to even approach the topic of evolution. Extremely wealthy people (Richard DeVos, Richard Viguerie, etc.) are trying to grab more power and wealth by keeping the working middle class uneducated and uninformed through false religion. They are extremely organized and work through groups like the The Council for National Policy and the Foundation.
They are paying huge sums of money not just for presidential elections, but for local judges, school boards, etc. During the election of 2004, I received no less than 10 pieces of mail from republican organizations asking me to vote for specific judges. Some were disguised as to make you think that they were not republican. No party affiliation was mentioned. One piece of mail had:
If you look at their picture, you would think that they were Democrats. Two white guys on each end with a black guy in the middle all looking cordial and benign with
The only reason I know that they were Republicans is because another piece of mail that I received had “Vote the Republican Slate” and had their names on them. FYI – I registered as an independent and received zero pieces of mail from the Democratic party.
I am sorry to go on but this is really upsetting me. We are the middle working class and we do not have the financial backing to fight this onslaught. It is becoming more and more apparent that the Democratic party doesn’t have the organization to fight this either. I am hoping Dean can change that but until then, we can fight back by spending five minutes a day writing back to our local newspapers when we see letters like this. We have got to fight every battle. Even the little ones like this letter. Please write the Columbus Dispatch a letter or send them an email. You can write them at
They do NOT accept e-mail attachments. You can also contact them by phone at 614-461-5000. Now – I am going to start writing that letter. I will let you know what I write.
Dear Editor,
This is in response to Patricia Knoop’s April 1 letter to the editor in response to the article “Centers can’t defend films that use evolution”. I am alarmed at her ignorance on evolution. It appears that the Christian fundamentalists are now lodging a frontal attack on the theory of evolution. Because evolution is “just” a theory, does not mean evolution does not exist. Many facts have been gathered to show enough proof that the earth is billions of years old, people did not exist with dinosaurs, etc. Remember, gravity is also just a theory but enough facts about gravity have been gathered so that we know if you jump from the Empire State Building, the probability of you falling to your death is rather high.
Like you I used to come across these ideas about evolution being a ‘theory’ and wrong and would laugh at the absurdity of of what I thought was a minescule group of people. I’m no longer laughing either.
While people like us were laughing or ignoring most of this for the last 20 years or so the right wing fundies/religious whack jobs were busy building christian law schools, started the homeschooling craze to indoctrinate kids, christian journalism and so on.
This is one of my biggest concerns for this country that the american taliban is taking over. This all ties into my belief that starving the education system in this country is a purposeful plan of the right wings agenda…which seems to be trying to lead this country in some semblence of an american ‘dark ages’ mindset. Very very scary.
I will send off an email sometime today. Thanks for the address.
I am hoping that many more people will respond to that letter. It looks like scientists are under another attack at NIH. See New Ethics Rules Cost NIH Another Top Researcher by Michael S. Rosenwald and Rick Weiss
Thanks for the link. After 8 years of bush’s assualt on all things and agencies scientific it will be a wonder if anyone left or newly hired will be in any way qualified in scientific endeavors.
And the irony, of course, is that evolution is a fact – not a theory. The theory is natural selection – and that is a theory to explain biodiversity and speciation, not “evolution.” Evolution is an observed fact. As is speciation. The theory of natural selection explains how these two facts relate, and allows for predictions and greater understanding for how and why these facts exist.
Science education is crucial – as a well-educated person in science cannot fail to see what is fact, what is theory, and how theory is not conjecture or “educated guess.”
Just to make sure I knew exactly what comprised ‘scientific theory’ I looked it up and religioustolerance.org had a good short explanation. You’d think even the wingnuts would understand that explanation. I just wanted to know exactly for sending my email.
I was looking at the Religious Tolerance website and found that there is 44% public support for Young Earth Creation Science. YIKES! Some more polls can be found here.
Well, it took me a day to get to it but I did send off a letter to the editor today. So guess I got one thing accomplished today anyway so far.
I wish I read your comment and chocolate ink’s link before I sent my letter. I could have worded it much better. I hope you send an email to the Columbus Dispatch and I will check the paper daily and post any rebuttal to this woman’s letter.
Really the only way we can make things change is by having the educated among us donate our time. We can never match their funding which they use very successfully to block education which perversely gives them their voting block. If we don’t spend this time I wouldn’t be surprised if sometime down the road we voted in a feudal system in exchange for a religious state.
Once again the Fundy Mentalists (sp. non compus mentis) commit the fallacy of equivocation — changing the widely accepted meaning of a word in the middle of a discussion (about scientific notions) to mean something that it is not intended when properly used within the context of that subject (scientific notions).
Theory in science — as Theory of Evolution — means the most plausible, satisfactory, agreed upon explanation of a phenomenon in Nature that can be synthesized after testing.
To be polite, this woman is confused. She misuses the word “theory” when she should use “hypothesis.” That is the word that fits her intent when the subject is scientific notions, but she is mentally incapable of discenrment. To be honest, she can’t use “hypothesis” because she doesn’t know that word.
In addition, she doesn’t know her derriere from a sticky bun.
I am stepping into the discussion (warily) to add my thought’s and perhaps lay out a suggestion that the two positions,evolution and creationism, are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
My suggested premise is a little difficult to state clearly, so I hope it makes sense.
If you are taking creation out of the equasion regarding evolution, then how do you account for human beings relationship with God. In other words if all(life) was an accident or the result of chemical brews bringing forth life and then continuing to evolve, without benefit of an outside hand, then what exactly is our specific relationship to God, and from what does it arise.
If he did not create us or life,then why do we care about him and how did we get connected to the whole “God” belief system in the first place. Don’t we base Christian and Judeo belief on the bases that God created us, guides us and he is our Father, therefore we worship him. Did God see a world (Earth) and say “I am going to go there and have a little talk with them, give them sone guide lines and maybe set up a whole belief system that will prevail for thousands of years. Lucky I found them, they surely needed it.” What would be our connection with God then, mere chance.
Creation can be true if you allow the evolving thereafter. “God created Earth and then allowed it to evolve,” for example.
This is a hard position for me to state with perfect clarity, so I hope I have made sense. But to me this is a troubling factor that maybe should be taken into consideration in the debate.
This subject appears to me to be creating a further divide in this country. I remember when evolution was not allowed to be taught in schools,period. It was in my lifetime that a court case (Scopes trial I believe) was fought and won allowing Evolution to be taught in schools. So here we are now trying, to prevent Creationism from being taught. Ironic, huh.
I say let’s let it all be taught and one can decide for themselves, just as I have.
After writing the above comment I looked this up and found the following the Scopes trial was in 1925, I was not alive then to clear up a bit of a misstatement above, but here is the reference to the trials that did take place during my lifetime. And a further correction, evolution ‘was’ taught when I attended school, or at least in my school, I just had jumbled this up when I was trying to recall the cases below. Sorry about that.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/evolution.htm
Amendment permitted states to ban teaching of a theory that contradicted religious beliefs. Not until 1968 did the Supreme Court rule in Epperson vs. Arkansas that such bans contravene the Establishment Clause because their primary purpose is religious. The Court used the same rationale in 1987 in Edwards vs Aguillard to strike down a Louisiana law that required biology teachers who taught the theory of evolution to also discuss evidence supporting the theory called “creation science.”
I am not sure if I can really address this issue. I am an atheist so for me, evolution was not a subject I had to wrestle with in trying to figure out how creationism and evolution fit together. There is a link posted above to a website that does address this issue.
I am against creationism being taught in public schools not because I am against religion but that creationism is based on faith and not facts. This is an issue that should be addressed in ones place of worship. I think parents should have the right to raise their children according to their faith. If you start mixing religion with school, a parent loses that right to raise their children according to their faith.
I appreciate your comment because it forced me to think of how evolution can be controversial for those who do have a problem of reconciling evolution with creation science. On the other hand, I know many scientists that are religious and have no problems with evolution. Perhaps they have a stronger faith than others.
to your comment about atheist was that maybe in a sense “evolution” IS your religion. I am saying this in the sense of this is something you believe in.
I don’t really personally care if creationism is taught in schools or not, I think that is the least of our worries about the whole school system.
Frankly I would rather see courses taught on how to manage in life; life skills, marriage skills, family skills, among others.
I would also like to see more attention paid to art and music which is fast disappearing from our schools here in Cal. More time for recess and exercise would be good addition, in our schools here they have cut back recesses excessively due to the new requirements to graduate, pressure is on students to perform in areas that may be difficult for some and which perhaps should be directed into more vocational areas.
I just had a further thought as to the two; evolution and creationism being taught, perhaps evolution taught by itself does ‘suggest accident’ as perceived currently and those of us who are religious or Christian do not like to consider themselves and thus their faith by extension, a result of an ‘accident of nature. It is after all an ‘alternative theory’, is it not? Should alternative theories be presented?
Just throwing that out there. Would love to hear your thoughts on this.
Interesting discussion though, ‘methinks’.
looking at it a different way.
You don’t have to look at the emergence of human beings as an accident. You could look at it as an inevitability, arising from the laws of nature.
That point of view would be controversial concerning human beings, but much less so for life in general.
I would recommend Stuart Kauffman’s “<u>At Home in the Universe</u>”, as a good primer for those not familiar with auto-catalytic set theory.
Basically, Kaufmann makes a compelling case that the universe is so-structured that live will arise spontaneously and inevitably wherever conditions are right.
In our solar system, the conditions are not right except on one or two outer moons, Earth, and perhaps, Mars.
But in vast expanse of space, there are probably many places where the conditions are right, or were right, or will be right.
If you want to think about a Creator/father figure, think about Him as being the designer of such a universe, where life is inevitable, and built into the very structure of the whole.
Of course, this kind of God is the God of the Deists: Franklin and Jefferson, and not of your typical Christian, Jew, or Muslim.
He sets the universe in motion, but he does not need to intervene any further.
Still, it keeps you from being a mere accident.
one small comment on the Creator/father figure…the ‘father figure’ belief has apparently evolved itself from what many scholars believe was the Creator as the ‘mother figure’ which died out only after thousands and thousands of years.
and Joseph Campbell’s books are a good primer on that history.
I have one of his books-‘the power of myth’ with Bill Moyers. I think it was a 8 part series on PBS which I got to see. They rerun that every once in awhile..all 8 or so hours at one time. Really fascinating and certainly makes you think.
filmed shortly before Campbell’s death. His grasp of the subject was breathtaking.
Breathtaking is just the word for his thinking. I remember thinking that my mind was certainly very puny in thinking compared to his and wished that many more people would become aware of him.
I was just entranced with that whole series.
I too… that was one series I was content to sit through the endless pledge drives for. I didn’t get the books or the dvd, but I’d like to one day, and just sit and watch/read without interruption. The legends and myths of so many cultures and how they sometimes echoed each other was also a very cool part of it.
I took a class on this, and had serious problems.
To follow that kind of thinking, one must assume that religion is a logical evolutionary process of thought and discovery.
But if you believe that God is God, then you can’t approach it in this scholarly fashion. There is a clear distinction between the idea that Christianity grew out of judaism and the religions that came first, and the idea that Christianity was revealed to us by God in human form.
that God is neither male or female but rather a combination of both. I think it has been man that has made God into either a he or a she, depending time or place or whether it was a matriarchy or patriarchy, (this spelling is killing me). and to me that makes the most sense that God is both.
I’m at the place where I’m agnostic and I would agree that any Creator would be a spirit with combination of both male/female. But then that is again a projection of my human mind wanting that to be so.
both male and female, how would there be life at all unless there was male and female of every species.
I would suggest God is the composite or prime example of all the universe together, therefore how could ‘he’not hold both sides within ‘his’ own spirituality. Not a one or the other, but an “all that is, was and ever will be.” Non gender specific.
I think I worded that poorly as I agree with you that God would be non gender specific.
Yes you did, I was just expanding on your words.
“the ‘father figure’ belief has apparently evolved itself from what many scholars believe was the Creator as the ‘mother figure’ which died out only after thousands and thousands of years.”
And for many pagans and wiccans she never died out at all-we like that old time religion.
Excellent summation, and that is my belief, God the creator of the Universe and Life can arise based on that, but does that obviate the question of: Why were we founded under the priciples of God the creator (of all), and then not allowed the basis of that foundation to be taught in schools.
Is that hypocritical or not, just asking. I am pretty sure that when I attended school in the 50’s we were taught creationism but it was not called that, it was called Creation, without the ism. and we were perfectly fine as students with reconciling the two.
No one made any assertations as to the days or the years, just that it was, we felt free to interpretthe first 7 days as a thousand years if we wished it was not dogmatic,. There was never a problem or discussion with this. that may have been as a result of the Scopes trial, but then in the 1987 cases it became an issue whether it was ok to ban the teaching of evolution.
I do think the term Diest applied more to the fact that they were not particulariy aligned with a denomination.
One thing I know for sure is that the ‘evolution’ of the school system has made this an thorny issue, no pun intended, well maybe.
“Moses had either not believed in a future state of existence, or had not thought it essential to be explicitly taught to the people.” (Works, Vol. iv., p. 326.)
“I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies” (Letter to Dr. Woods).
“It is not so in the districts where Presbyterianism prevails undividedly. Their ambition and tyranny would tolerate no rival if they had power. Systematical in grasping at an ascendancy over all other sects, they aim, like the Jesuits, at engrossing the education of the country, are hostile to every institution they do not direct, and jealous at seeing others begin to attend at all to that object.”
“I had no idea, however, that in Pennsylvania, the cradle of toleration and freedom of religion, it [fanaticism] could have arisen to the height you describe. This must be owing to the growth of Presbyterianism. The blasphemy of the five points of Calvin, and the impossibility of defending them, render their advocates impatient of reasoning, irritable, and prone to denunciation” (Works, Vol. iv, p. 358).
“The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ leveled to every understanding, and too plain to need explanation, saw in the mysticisms of Plato materials with which they might build up an artificial system, which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order and introduce it to profit, power and pre-eminence” (Ibid, p. 242).
But this constitutes the craft, the power, and profits of the priests. Sweep away their gossamer fabrics of fictitious religion, and they would catch no more flies” (Ibid, p. 205).
“The Athanasian paradox that one is three and three but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea? He who thinks he does, only deceives himself He proves, also, that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck.”
“The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God, like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs” (Works, Vol. iv., p. 360).
“Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Corypheus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus” (Ibid.).
In regard to Jesus believing himself inspired he interposes the plea of mild insanity. He says:
“This belief carried no more personal imputation than the belief of Socrates that he was under the care and admonition of a guardian demon. And how many of our wisest men still believe in the reality of these inspirations while perfectly sane on all other subjects” (Works, Vol. iv, p. 327).
“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter” (Works, Vol. iv, p. 365).
“If we could believe that he [Jesus] really countenanced the follies, the falsehoods, and the charlatanism which his biographers [Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,] father on him, and admit the misconstructions, interpolations, and theorizations of the fathers of the early, and the fanatics of the latter ages, the conclusion would be irresistible by every sound mind that he was an impostor” (Ibid..).
In his “Notes on Virginia,” the following caustic allusion to Christianity occurs:
“Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites.”
In his letter to Dr. Cooper, prayer meetings and revivals receive this cruel thrust from his pen:
“In our Richmond there is much fanaticism, but chiefly among the women. They have their night meetings and praying parties, where, attended by their priests, and sometimes by a henpecked husband, they pour forth the effusions of their love to Jesus in terms as amatory and carnal as their modesty would permit to a merely earthly lover” (Works, Vol. iv., p. 358).
“On the basis of sensation we may erect the fabric of all the certainties we can have or need. I can conceive thought to be an action of matter or magnetism of loadstone. When he who denies to the Creator the power of endowing matter with the mode of motion called thinking shall show how he could endow the sun with the mode of action called attraction, which reins the planets in their orbits, or how an absence of matter can have a will, and by that will put matter into motion, then the Materialist may be lawfully required to explain the process by which matter exercises the faculty of thinking. When once we quit the basis of sensation, all is in the wind. To talk of immaterial existences, is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, God, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no God, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise. But I believe that I am supported in my creed of Materialism by the Lockes, the Tracys, and the Stewarts.”
“Moses had either not believed in a future state of existence, or had not thought it essential to be explicitly taught to the people.” (Works, Vol. iv., p. 326.)
“The serious enemies are the priests of the different religious sects to whose spells on the human mind its improvement is ominous” (Works, Vol. iv., p. 322).
“We have most unwisely committed to the hierophants of our particular superstition the direction of public opinion — that lord of the universe. We have given them stated and privileged days to collect and catechise us, opportunities of delivering their oracles to the people in mass, and of molding their minds as wax in the hollow of their hands.” (Ibid.).
To John Adams he writes as following regarding disestablishment in New England:
“I join you, therefore, in sincere congratulations that this den of the priesthood is at length broken up, and that a Protestant Popedom is no longer to disgrace the American history and character.” (Works, Vol. iv., p. 301).
“If anybody thinks that kings, nobles and priests, are good conservators of the public happiness, send him here [Paris]. It is the best school in the universe to cure him of that folly. He will see here with his own eyes that these descriptions of men are an abandoned confederacy against the happiness of the mass of the people.”
“The Presbyterian clergy are the loudest, the most intolerant of all sects; the most tyrannical and ambitious, ready at the word of the law-giver, if such a word could now be obtained, to put their torch to the pile, and to rekindle in this virgin hemisphere the flame in which their oracle, Calvin, consumed the poor Servetus, because he could not subscribe to the proposition of Calvin, that magistrates have a right to exterminate all heretics to the Calvinistic creed! They pant to re-establish by law that holy inquisition which they can now only infuse into public opinion” (Works, Vol. iv., p. 322).
“If no capital execution [of Quakers) took place here it was not owing to the moderation of the church.” (Notes on Virginia, p. 262.)
“By our own act of Assembly of 1705, c. 30, if a person brought up in the Christian religion denies the being of God, or the Trinity, or asserts there are more gods than one, or denies the Christian religion to be true, or the Scriptures to be of divine authority, he is punishable on the first offense by incapacity to hold any office or employment, ecclesiastical, civil, or military; on the second, by disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy, to be guardian, executor, or administrator, and by three years’ imprisonment without bail. A fathers right to the custody of his own children being founded in law on his right of guardianship, this being taken away, they may of course be severed from him, and put by the authority of the court, into more orthodox hands. This is a summary view of that religious slavery under which a people have been willing to remain, who have lavished their lives and fortunes for the establishment of civil freedom.”
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. Constraint may make him worse by making him a hypocrite, but it will never make him a truer man.”
“Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these free inquiry must be indulged; how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse it ourselves? But every state, says an inquisitor, has established some religion. No two, say I, have established the same. Is this a proof of the infallibility of establishments?”
“It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”
Jefferson’s Presidential administration was probably the most purely secular this country has ever had. During his eight years’ incumbency of the office not a single religious proclamation was issued. Referring to his action in this matter, he says:
“I know it will give great offense to the clergy, but the advocate of religious freedom is to expect neither peace nor forgiveness from them.”
In answer to a communication from the Rev. Mr. Miller relative to this subject, he writes as follows:
“I consider the Government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from meddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting and praying. That is, I should indirectly assume to the United States an authority over religious exercises, which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. … Every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.”
The Fourth of July, 1826, was the fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration of American Independence. The people of Washington had decided to celebrate the memorable occasion in a fitting manner, and Mr. Weightman was deputed to invite the illustrious author of the Declaration to attend. On the 24th of June Jefferson wrote a letter declining, on account of his infirmities, to be present. In this letter a new Declaration of Independence is proclaimed. Bravely he writes:
“All eyes are opened or opening to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.”
Those were the last words Jefferson penned. Ten days later — on the day that he had contributed so much to make immortal — the Sage of Monticello breathed his last
Writing to Jefferson on the 5th of May, 1817, Adams, giving expression to the matured conviction of eighty-two eventful years, declares.
“This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it.”
To this radical declaration Jefferson replied:
“If by religion, we are to understand sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your exclamation on that hypothesis is just, ‘that this would be the best of worlds if there were no religion in it’ ” (Works, Vol. iv., p. 301).
When Jefferson’s works were first published, the New York Observer, then the leading Christian journal of this country, gave them the following notice:
“Mr. Jefferson, it is well known, was never suspected of being very friendly to orthodox religion, but these volumes prove not only that he was a disbeliever, but a scoffer of the very lowest class.”
John S.C. Abbot, the panegyrist of Napoleon Bonaparte, in his “Lives of the Presidents” (p. 142), referring to one of Jefferson’s most distinguished efforts in behalf of religious liberty, says:
“He devoted much attention to the establishment of the University at Charlottesville. Having no religious faith which he was willing to avow, he was not willing that any religious faith whatever should be taught in the University as a part of its course of instruction. This establishment, in a Christian land, of an institution for the education of youth, where the relation existing between man and his Maker was entirely ignored, raised a general cry of disapproval throughout the whole country. It left a stigma upon the reputation of Mr. Jefferson, in the minds of Christian people, which can never be effaced.”
The noted divine, Dr. Wilson, in his celebrated sermon on “The Religion of the Presidents,” has this to say of Jefferson:
“Whatever difference of opinion there may have been as to his religious faith at the time [of his election to the Presidency], it is now rendered certain that he was a Deist. That fact after his ‘Notes on Virginia’ ought never to have been doubted by any reasonable man. That work itself contains sufficient evidence of the fact, and I believe the influence of his example and name has done more for the extension of Infidelity than that of any other man. Since his death, and the publication of Randolph, [Jefferson’s Works,] there remains not the shadow of doubt of his Infidel principles. If any man thinks there is, let him look at the book itself. I do not recommend the purchase of it to any man, for it is one of the most wicked and dangerous books extant.”
Dr. Moncure D. Conway, who made a study of Washington’s life and character, who had access to his private papers, and who was employed to edit a volume of his letters, has written a monograph on “The Religion of Washington,” from which I take the following:
“In editing a volume of Washington’s private letters for the Long Island Historical Society, I have been much impressed by indications that this great historic personality represented the Liberal religious tendency of his tune. That tendency was to respect religious organizations as part of the social order, which required some minister to visit the sick, bury the dead, and perform marriages. It was considered in nowise inconsistent with disbelief of the clergyman’s doctrines to contribute to his support, or even to be a vestryman in his church.”
“In his many letters to his adopted nephew and young relatives, he admonishes them about their manners and morals, but in no case have I been able to discover any suggestion that they should read the Bible, keep the Sabbath, go to church, or any warning against Infidelity.”
“Washington had in his library the writings of Paine, Priestley, Voltaire, Frederick the Great, and other heretical works.”
In a contribution to the New York Times Dr. Conway says:
“Augustine Washington, like most scholarly Virginians of his time, was a Deist. … Contemporary evidence shows that in mature life Washington was a Deist, and did not commune, which is quite consistent with his being a vestryman. In England, where vestries have secular functions, it is not unusual for Unitarians to be vestrymen, there being no doctrinal subscription required for that office. Washington’s letters during the Revolution occasionally indicate his recognition of the hand of Providence in notable public events, but in the thousands of his letters I have never been able to find the name of Christ or any reference to him.”
He did not, like most pious churchmen, believe that Christian servants are better than others. When on one occasion he needed servants, he wrote:
“If they are good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa, or Europe; they may be Mahomedans, Jews, or Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists.”
“I just had a further thought as to the two; evolution and creationism being taught, perhaps evolution taught by itself does ‘suggest accident’ as perceived currently and those of us who are religious or Christian do not like to consider themselves and thus their faith by extension, a result of an ‘accident of nature.”
This comment caught my eye, and it seems to reflect the beliefs of some religious relatives that are fiercely against the teaching of evolution-and not to sound insulting but it always seems as though it’s a matter of whether people want to see the universe as human centered or not.They’re also very keen on the whole “dominion over the earth” view, it seems as if they think that if everything wasn’t planned exclusively for them,human beings, that it knocks them down a peg or something. I may be putting this badly but why does it matter if life began as an accident or was planned? If it’s an accident, how wonderful! How serendipitous! I can’t see for myself that it cheapens life in any. And to be part of a whole interrelated system of life appeals to me, if people want to believe that some god put the system into motion that’s fine with me. I do resist the teaching of religion in school though, unless it’s a religious private school or it’s in the context of teaching comparative religions. Actually, comparative religions would be a grand idea,I think.
Just to prevent confusion, the “they” in the comment above was pertaining to the relatives in question…need a lot more coffee before I make much sense.
It does matter, quite significantly for religious people like myself. (Note: I am not claiming to speak for all religious people, I am claiming to speak to religious people who think the way I do. In this context, it is entirely possible that I am the only one who fits into that group.)
I believe quite strongly that God continues to have direct involvement on this planet—that He has been here all along. I make many, many choices in my life based on this idea. I act because I know He’s watching, and steering me to some extent.
If I suddenly open myself to the possibility that it’s all a big accident, all of that goes out the window. The idea that this is an accident (glorious though it may be) is directly at odds with (and mutually exclusive to) large portions of my faith.
Does that make any sense?
I have a distant cousin who is religious and I remember her making a comment that people who are not taught religion, would not have any morals. I was completely dumbfounded. When you say that you make many choices based on the idea that someone is watching you, what do you mean by that exactly. Can you give me an example? I couldn’t help but think of my cousin when you said that.
that he’s “watching,” you know in the “Santa knows so you’d better be good” kind of thinking.
It’s that I believe God is still intimately involved in everyday life. I believe He has a plan for us all, and that some of us choose to abide by it, and some of us do not.
Some choose to do so without even knowing, and I believe that moral acts are always in line with His will, whether you do it because of Him or not. (Corollated: those who act immorally are insulting His will.)
But there is a step beyond this, too, which is actively listening and trying to distill what, specifically God asks of us. One does not have to be Mother Theresa to be moral—Mother Theresa, I think all would agree, had reached a plane higher than simple morallity.
When I say I act a certain way because God is around, I mean that I am trying to act specifically within His will, rather than simply acting morally by not going directly against it.
Make sense?
I understood you perfectly and very well said. You expressed my thoughts better than I ever could. Thank you.
I think you have created a very interesting discussion. I am sorry I didn’t get back to you sooner. I couldn’t agree more on the topic that art and music should be taught in schools. I actually took a personal finance course in high school and it was very useful.
On your comment:
Please keep in mind when I write this that although I am an atheist, I try to be sensitive to other people’s religious beliefs. I am open minded and liberal – but just not as liberal as Jesus. I don’t see evolution as an alternative theory of how we came into being but as a fact. I don’t feel comfortable with teaching children alternative creation theories as if they are intellectually equivalent. On the other hand, I can see the dilemma people of faith would have in having only one side presented. I hope I don’t come across as – It’s my way or the highway – like some of the Christian Right. People are raised in many different religions. I think that is why it is important that if parents feel strongly in raising their children in a certain faith, they should do so at home and in their place of worship. When I say that, I don’t mean that their religion is threatening to me in anyway but so that the parents can have control of what religion is being taught to their children. I hope I said that right.
An idea off the top of my head, perhaps evolution should be a topic categorized like sex education. Maybe the parents who are uncomfortable with science can have the option of not having the subject taught to their children. I think it would be sad for the children but maybe by being banned from learning it, it will peak their interest and they can sneak a peek at a “Scientific American” while at the library.
I don’t agree with banning almost anything. Learning to think in a logical manner, will allow all learning to pass the computer in our heads and be reduced in the manner that most fits our belief sets resulting in our own particular views.. that is if we can think logically which I think should be a primary course all through school year. A fount from which all knowledge can flow.
Many of our problems with our current world situation comes from a lack of the ability to think in a logical manner, (witness our Pres.)
Teach logic, and then teach everything that anyone has a desire to know, then let them come to their own conclusions and be accepted for those conclusions.
My own comments today on this dairy was contrary to a lot of popular views, but it was possible to present those views to others; to add to, make their own assessments and come to their own conclusions which is the way it should be.
What are we afraid of, knowledge? Knowledge is the key, as much as we can get and muster up and consume is what I’m for. But knowledge applied with logical thinking.
Anyway, I love this discussion.
BTW Haufrau, I find you very sensitive to this subject, no problems there. You are merely saying what you think, and perhaps ‘evolving’ a little as this discussion on creationism goes on, just as I am..
hey I love that idea of banning evolution as then maybe kids would want to sneak peaks at Scientific American, ha. Although I know you weren’t trying to be funny it just struck me as amusing and subversive.
This could be a reverse psychology moment for evolutionists …if we team up with the creationists to ban evolution being taught then maybe that would mean more and more kids would actually be for it? Doesn’t banning something always ensure that people especially kids will then really want to find out about the subject?
I was trying to be funny and serious in the same breath. To tell you the truth, I HATED science but I am married to a scientist. When the evolution bashing came about, I started reading my husband’s magazines. Well, actually, magazine – Scientific American. I still can’t read his papers because I can’t understand what the hell he is talking about.
When I thought of the banning evolution idea (like sex education), I just couldn’t help but think about young boys reading National Geographic. Even though I am fascinated with animals, my brothers know more about Lemurs than I do.
Well… creationism is a religious belief (and various religions have their own creation stories, not sure which one would be taught?). A persons relationship to their deity, how the deity came about, or how their deity brought about their existence, also belongs in the religious category. I too think it’s something that should be taught and discussed at home, and in the various houses of worship too… not in a public school setting and certainly not in a science class.
A ‘scientific theory’, as sort explained in posting above, is different from an ‘opinion theory’. One has to stand up to rigorous testing and proof, the other depends only on belief. Should religious beliefs in the origin of man (or anything else) be introduced into that sort of setting, and subject to testing and debate and so on (and not just taught as in… ‘this is what it says, okay let’s move on) then I have no doubt you’d see howls of protest from the religious. Because there is nothing to test… it’s a belief. And a perfectly fine one, for those who are religious.
Still, as hausfrau said, there are many scientists and others who are religious who see no conflict between the science of evolution, and their religious beliefs.
This thought just came to my mind, “In this discussion of Creationism/Evolution, I find my views creatively evolving.”
Thought 2. If this country was created under the aegis of ‘God the divine creator of us all’, as we were ‘endowed by our Creator’ with …..how can we then say, the subject of the original creation of that Creator, cannot be discussed in schools. Perhaps Creationism should not be presented as a counter to evolution but evolution as an extension of creationism.
Please note; I am leaving the ‘practice’ of religion out of the equation, as the country was not founded with a specific religion, as the founders were deists (sp.
Religion is another whole topic.
Not saying, just thinking, very difficult subject to articulate.
I have a question; how many religions do not use God or a God, (which I think must be the same one for all), as a basis for their religion, are there any? Wondering!
Why is it that most of the topics we discuss have to have such long words in them that one has to type over and over in one comment, I get to the point I can’t spell anything, so forgive any spelling errors..
is the most famous example of a religion without a god.
Could you expound on that a little, what is the basis of their religion. Very unfamiliar with Buddists philosophy.
What is Buddhism?
Buddhism is a path of practice and spiritual development leading to Insight into the true nature of life. Buddhist practices such as meditation are means of changing oneself in order to develop the qualities of awareness, kindness, and wisdom. The experience developed within the Buddhist tradition over thousands of years has created an incomparable resource for all those who wish to follow a path – a path which ultimately culminates in Enlightenment or Buddhahood.
Because Buddhism does not include the idea of worshipping a creator God, some people do not see it as a religion in the normal, Western sense. The basic tenets of Buddhist teaching are straightforward and practical: nothing is fixed or permanent; actions have consequences; change is possible. Thus Buddhism addresses itself to all people irrespective of race, nationality, or gender. It teaches practical methods (such as meditation) which enable people to realise and utilise its teachings in order to transform their experience, to be fully responsible for their lives and to develop the qualities of Wisdom and Compassion.
There are around 350 million Buddhists and a growing number of them are Westerners. They follow many different forms of Buddhism, but all traditions are characterised by non-violence, lack of dogma, tolerance of differences, and, usually, by the practice of meditation .
Thanks for that, I had a Buddist Dentist once and he asked me why I was wearing a cross and said that he didn’t understand why we would want to represent Christ’s death in that way.
Diane-
I think, because of your experience with your dentist, that you will find this article very, ahem, enlightening.
I would think that a course in Creationism would be fine if it were taught in the context of a religion course, just not as part of a science curriculum.
I’m not sure just how you could teach a religious belief without involving religion, seems a bit awkward to me.
As to religions without a god do you mean with no deity? Or with many like polytheism? Or pantheism or panentheism? I gather pantheism is a belief that the divine is one with natural forces/nature while panentheism means that the divine is part of nature but not limited to nature.
Or religions with a goddess as the supreme deity?
It’s a large and convoluted subject, or at least my post is convoluted…. sorry about that.
I believe that what Diane was saying is extremely nuanced, and therefore easy to miss. Her point, though, is important.
A large portion of the founders (including Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, and Washington) were deists. Common during the Enlightenment, deists believe(d) that God created the world and then left. It’s the watchmaker theory of religion.
But they believed very strongly in a divine creationist theory. Whether you want to include evolution or not, they thought the whole thing was kicked off by God.
What Diane is advocating, I think, is the idea that these theories can be discussed (even in a science class) without stating them as fact. If the Founders believed this so strongly, and we trust their actions in so many other regards throughout our government and society, why are we so afraid of teaching our children what they believed in other contexts?
Thanks for the help! I’m a bit muddled today, sorry.
I can’t say I agree but at least I see the point clearly now.
There isn’t enough time devoted to science in schools that any of it should be spent discussing religion.
Science:
A little history (of science) is appropriate, but no discussion of religion, which throughout human history has been used to blunt experimentation and discovery, is a proper use of time or resources when focus should be on proper curriculum.
The only appropriate mention of Intelligent Design in a science class would be in a discussion of what the scientific method is, and what it is not. If you’re worried about getting your beliefs taught, find an appropriate venue. Biology class ain’t it.
that when I was taught evolution, we learned about Lamarck. If we are only taught things that are known to be possible according to scientific knowledge, then we shouldn’t have learned about Lamarck, as his theories have been almost entirely disproved.
The teaching of evolution, contrary to much liberal proclamation, is not strictly scientific—it is historical as well.
In that context, I have no problem with a science teacher spending a few minutes explaining that some people believe that God created everything as is, or that God had a hand in the evolution. The teacher need not go into specifics, and can offer research materials if the students want to learn more about these things (there are books that talk about all of the different possiblilities without focusing on one religion over another), without favoring one or another.
I see no harm in giving that little nod to other interpretations.
I, for one, am an evolutionist who believes in God’s hand in creation. The two are not mutually exclusive, and I think part of the problem is that the anti-religious left is so threatened by the mention of religion in a public atmosphere that they tried to wipe it out. In response, the christian right has overreacted as well, and is trying to force indoctrination. We end up in a viscious cycle with no way out.
Instead, let’s all agree that both can be mentioned without any harm being done.
“”I, for one, am an evolutionist who believes in God’s hand in creation. The two are not mutually exclusive, and I think part of the problem is that the anti-religious left is so threatened by the mention of religion in a public atmosphere that they tried to wipe it out. In response, the christian right has overreacted as well, and is trying to force indoctrination. We end up in a viscious cycle with no way out.””
We have so branded the Rep. side as being religionists, and our side is branded the opposite, so we condemn anything they do of that nature. While in all reality there are all types of views on this in both parties.
I agree totally with your comment, and we do neod to get over this for ‘heavens sake’. So see at least one conservative and one liberal can agree on some of this.
and the issue gets taken into court, and complaints must be resolved an explicit way, it gets problematic. What I mean by that is, where does one draw the line about how much reference to religion is permissible in state-sponsored school, or in other state-sponsored context? Reasonable people can disagree about this, but the idea of ceremonial deism being permissible seems like a good compromise to me. This would permit “under god” in the pledge of allegiance, for example. I think also that mention of creationism without endorsement by the teacher is OK.
What about endorsement of the theory of evolution? Many scientists, myself included, would say it makes as much sense not to endorse evolution as it does not to endorse relativity; they are both theories with broad evidential support and predictive power. A lot of people would disagree with me, though… I think endorsement of evolution should be permitted and encouraged, but I haven’t a clue how to deal with the creationist legal challenges.
One last thing: scientists (currently and for the forseeable future) have no way of investigating the idea that evolution was shaped by God’s hand, and so that question properly remains in the realm of religion, IMHO.
and the fact we have a forum to discuss this without being troll rated.
You bring up a lot of good points and I am drawing my attention to whatever can we do about it, perhaps this is it, that we should separate out God, from ‘any’ religion. since he is not indigenous to any one religion.
He is our creator or he is not, why can’t it simply be said that many of us believe God is the Creator of all mankind and ‘all that is’ which is really my name for God and since the foundation of this country was based on that principle, it should not be an issue IMHO. Believe it or not as you choose, just as everything else, but it is merely a part of our history and the preponderance of our collective thought and therefore be presented.
Additionally, how can we discuss the Declaration of INdep. without discussing God.????
More thoughts to ponder, for me.
It is obvious that some kind of compromise must come into play here reg. this issue so perhaps this could be the point of that compromise. What do you think?
It seems pretty reasonable to me. I am pretty cynical about many of the proponents of “alternatives to evolution” in the classroom though–I think it is not uncommon for them to have banning the teaching of evolution as their ultimate goal. However, if a compromise were to be negotiated in good faith, something along the lines of what you say would be pretty good.
See my comment somewhere else on this thread regaring banning inparticular. I am not in favor of banning anything, neither one or the other.
That said, I do thing it is slighty preposterous to even think that evolution would ever be banned, too firmly entrenched.
Question I have raised before, why should anything be banned, in school in particular except pornography, thatis the only one I can think of. the study of it perhaps, I will have to ponder that one, maybe it would only be in higher levels of education.
One of my points of starting this line of discussion was to try to come to conclusions and compromises that could lead to a resolution of these conflicts and to build on that with some form of action.
The popular political rhetoric on both sides is going nowhere, IMHO.
I don’t think Creation is necessary to account for “human beings relationship with God” — also keep in mind that many do not feel they are in any relationship with any god.
When the first humans walked upon the land, I think they were so at loss to explain and understand the world around them that the idea of gods and goddesses and magical entities was an easy and comforting way to ease and structure their lives. With time, this basic set of beliefs evolved into monotheism (sometimes) and the several major religions we know of today.
Saying that Creation is an indication of the existence of God is vice of reasoning: since Creation is the creation of the world by God, you’d be saying the creation of the world by God is an indication that God exists.
Anyway you look at it, religiosity has largely waned in the last century. I don’t have to pray or make sacrifices to a god for the monsoon to arrive; I know of climate and weather systems and patterns. I don’t have to repent and pray for our souls when a comet is spotted; I know of celestial mechanics and the Oort cloud. I don’t have to believe that God created men and women; I know of Evolution, and the scientific elements supporting it are overwhelming.
There was a study in the 1980’s that showed and negative correlation between religious fanaticism and the level of industrialization. There were two anomalies on the curve: Canada and most of all the US, which showed a religiosity level comparable to Iran or Bangladesh. Interesting, isn’t it?
If some people are believers and creationists, that’s fine with me. But they cannot expect to see their personal faith taught in public schools or considered as a basis for political action. They cannot force their belief onto non-believers. On the other hand, Evolution is scientifically proved and therefore, like gravity, like electricity, like nuclear physics, is to be taught.
My 2 cents.
Typo: “…religiosity has largely waned in the last centuries“.
Halios’s comment:
”’When the first humans walked upon the land, I think they were so at loss to explain and understand the world around them that the idea of gods and goddesses and magical entities was an easy and comforting way to ease and structure their lives. With time, this basic set of beliefs evolved into monotheism (sometimes) and the several major religions we know of today.”’
To explore that comment a little “idea of gods and goddesses, does not account for the Bible’s and other religious documents, assertation that God directly made his presence known or by emmisary, not as a result of people searching for something to believe in. In other words, searching for something to believe would not lead in a direct line to God, so the question then remains did we find God, did he find us, or did he create us and then guide us.
“To explore that comment a little “idea of gods and goddesses, does not account for the Bible’s and other religious documents, assertation that God directly made his presence known or by emmisary, not as a result of people searching for something to believe in. In other words, searching for something to believe would not lead in a direct line to God, so the question then remains did we find God, did he find us, or did he create us and then guide us. “
Most religions, or a good many of them at least to my limited knowledge, assert that the god or goddess or gods and goddesses made her/their presence known directly. I don’t think that means that all of them are literally true accounts. Although some days I do…
I always fear that I will sound insulting when discussing religion and so I hope I don’t, I don’t mean to, I’m just finding the conversation interesting.
Well, it just took me 20 minutes to write a post to answer yours, with nice quote-box and all, and somehow I lost it, argh… I’m sorry, I don’t feel like re-writing it now :/
I was just saying that yes, everything of what you evoke can be accounted for (some in my previous post actually), and I think, if you ask me, that we created god; for millennia all there was to explain the world was the idea of the divine.
A little short I know, but… Gosh, why did I close that window so quick?!
Really, it took me a while to figure out what you were saying, but I think I finally got it.
We created God, out of our desire to have meaning, I think you are saying. I don’t know about that, creating a divine being out of nothing. Then that would seem to leave us believers in a pretty poor place indeed.
Worshiping a God that we created. It would strip all meaning out of our faith, (not to mention many important stories such as Moses) would it not. We do have an historical record (the Bible and other important writings) that have to lend some credence to our lives. Also how do you account for the various cultures that have the oral and written history of these times as mentioned in the first Testament.
I have had those posting problems myself and its just so hard to re-say something, isn’t it? What I want is a spell checker that tells you the correct spelling, hate having to go to another source.
Sorry if my writing is unclear sometimes; thank you for taking the time to try and make sense of it.
Agreed about the spell checker. I use an extension for Firefox: I select a word and then right-click “dictionary search” and it opens a new tab in my browser with the word. Pretty good.
From my point of view, externally, yes it does. But that doesn’t diminish your faith of course. Also, there is a good chance that you, IMHO, personally, have not created your god (at least if you’re a follower of a large and well established religion), you just, embraced beliefs that were there before you came.
I can’t help but wonder: let’s assume Suse is a white British woman; she’s a believer, Anglican Church. If Suse was born in Mexico, what are the chances she would still have been a christian, Anglican Church? I think she might have been Catholic instead. If she was born in South Africa, there’s a good chance she wouldn’t have been Buddhist. In Iran, a good chance she would have been Muslim.
What I mean is it’s all so relative (to your birth place, your culture, your parents). The differences is the various religious beliefs are so huge, not only on god(s) but also about what he wants from us, his laws, principles. If I know my religion is not the true religion (because if I was born in Iran, I would probably be Muslim and not Christian), I conclude that religions, with their sets of rules and rites, are artificial constructs. Now, the general sentiment of religiosity is something else (cf before).
That doesn’t make certain values preached by some religions undesirable in our society. Solidarity is good, but not because it is taught by a religion; it is good per se. The general story of Moses may teach us something valuable, but as far as I am concerned it could presented in a book of total fiction, that would not make it less valuable.
The times mentioned in the Old Testament did exist historically (not in every detail as presented in the Bible though), so it is only natural that these times are mentioned in several cultures. If you think about the great flood, for instance, how hard is it to imagine such a thing anyway? How hard is it to think that from the experience of a terrible flood, and with the time passing (history became legend, legend became myth, you know that kind of things…), the great flood story could be derived? Also, cultures copied parts of their lore between each other.
There was a study in the 1980’s that found a negative correlation between religious fanaticism and the level of industrialization. There was two anomalies on the curve: Canada and above all the US, with a religious index comparable to Iran’s or Bangladesh’s. I find that pretty interesting.
Damn, I realize that I’m rambling now! Between what I already wrote and what I wrote that vanished in the other post, I got confused. 🙂
I will go to bed now.
When you mention that a person’s religion is also based on their location, culture, etc., it reminded my how some Christians have not only a problem with the teaching of evolution but also of other religions. I always cringe when I hear of a Christian Fundamentalist saying that a person who doesn’t accept Christ as their Lord and Savior will burn in hell. For the life of me, I couldn’t understand why they would have a problem with the concept that people have different religions. Perhaps it is because of the fact that one’s religion is based on where they were born, their parents religion, their culture, etc. The Christian (and other) Fundamentalists cannot explain this phenomenom of why people are receiving a different message just like they can’t accept evolution because it conflicts with their view of how and why we were created. They feel that other religions and evolution undermines their own religion.
My little ramble.
http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/titania.htm There are so many flood stories in any given civilization before the christian bible that it seems a fairly universal theme. This is a fun link for flood stories but also has creation stories from Africa to Native American Indians to Norway I believe. So which one is right or are they all right?
Probably the most famous flood story before Noah’s would be the Gilgamesh. It seems as if Noah’s story is directly lifted from the Gilgamesh flood story.
Plenty of those around, in various cultures (with the virgin or supernatural birth, etc), pre -Bible relating of events.
Just because we can’t think of a way to investigate it means there is no way.
The very people who developped the scientific method also did much “scientific” research into the possible existence of God…
This was in response to Booman’s “True enough” post.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html Another good link with dozens of links for all kinds of information.
No matter how you look at it ‘creationism’ is an belief based on one particular religious book so to my way of thinking that means it should not be used in schools, especially in a science class.
Now if school curriculums want to add to say their Social Studies classes the religious beliefs of ten or twenty creation stories from various religions then that would be ok. Without endorsing any and making sure kids with various beliefs know that not one belief is to be considered above the other or you’ll end up with problems dividing the class possibly. And I can already envision angry parents etc getting into the act on this whole scenario.
As other posters here have said trying to write your own ideas on this subject can sometimes lose a bit in the translation of your ideas on this subject.
I guess my main point is that I believe evolution can be taught in science class as it is science(duh) and creationism can not be as it is not science but a specific religious viewpoint of how the world and humans were made.
Here’s a short explanation of what exactly that means: http://home.comcast.net/~fsteiger/theory.htm