Matt Damon and Looney Liberal Paranoia About Creationists

[Btodd]

I am AG, a certified minister and I am not a YEC. Palin is but I am in no way one, I am a OEC somewhat, science doesn't disturb my faith at all.

Thanks for speaking up, Godzman.

Does that mean you are a Pentecostal who doesn't believe in a literal Bible? I am encouraged, so please don't take that as a trap.


Btodd

 

[Godzman]

Thanks for speaking up, Godzman.

Does that mean you are a Pentecostal who doesn't believe in a literal Bible? I am encouraged, so please don't take that as a trap.


Btodd

define literal, there are parts of the bible that should be taken literal and there are others that are metaphors and stories. Revelation is definitly one of them and you also have to take the context the stories were written in and the people they were written to.

 

[Btodd]

define literal, there are parts of the bible that should be taken literal and there are others that are metaphors and stories. Revelation is definitly one of them and you also have to take the context the stories were written in and the people they were written to.

For example, when Genesis speaks of days (as in 7 day creation), do you think it meant a different period of time than we do? What definition are you using that allows you to synthesize your belief with a 4.5 billion-year Earth?


Btodd

 

[NotreDame]

You appear to be comparing making an honest one-off mistake with (perceived) wilful ignorance. Also, one would hope a potential VPOTUS would minimise slipups like this.

Edit: And wilful ignorance too, obviously.

Yeah...easier claimed than demonstrated. Pray do tell, how do you know Sara Palin is guilty of wilfull ignorance?

Yet, I am not so sure this makes a difference. Have you actually convinced yourself only those adhering to religion are guilty of wilful ignorance, whereas secularists have never engaged in wilful ignorance? I think it is VERY LIKELY most if not all human beings are guilty, at one point or another, of wilful ignorance. Ergo, once again, if this is your standard, good luck finding a human being suitable for the presidency.

 

[Cabal]

Yeah...easier claimed than demonstrated. Pray do tell, how do you know Sara Palin is guilty of wilfull ignorance?

Yet, I am not so sure this makes a difference. Have you actually convinced yourself only those adhering to religion are guilty of wilful ignorance, whereas secularists have never engaged in wilful ignorance? I think it is VERY LIKELY most if not all human beings are guilty, at one point or another, of wilful ignorance. Ergo, once again, if this is your standard, good luck finding a human being suitable for the presidency.

Sorry, I think I must have misunderstood the original point of your post, and I wasn't intending to get into a slanging match about Sarah Palin's views on this as it still seems unclear (that's why I said perceived wilful ignorance).

That aside, I think this "only human" approach goes so far. One must look at the possible consequences of acting on this belief regardless of truth of it. I think if the US continues to go down the "teach the controversy" route, for right or wrong, it's going to negatively affect the quality of your science education, and given enough time, your scientific industry. Returning to the topic in hand, however, being in control of nuclear weapons is likely to not be related to teaching ID. I don't think you need to be an evolutionary biologist to appreciate how serious the nuclear option is.

That, and the "only human" remark seems wonderful for covering a multitude of one candidate's sins yet can often be strangely inapplicable to another candidate....oh partisan politics.

 

[NotreDame]

I think its pretty important for a candidate to have some knowledge of how science works and what the prevailing scientific understanding of our world is.

In fact, I wish we knew more about all of our candidates scientific literacy.

Well, it may be important but why is it so for the office of the presidency? Did JFK really need to know or have some rudimentary knowledge of quantum physics in dealing with Khruschev? Was knowledge and understanding of the "Origins of Species" going to guide him to a peaceful resolution of the Cuban missile crisis? Is there something equivalent to the idea of a "Bible Code" in scientific claims which, if decyphered, will provide infallible wisdom and guidance when dealing with terrorists, the Cuban missile crisis, and so forth? I seriously doubt it.

The Office of the Presidency of the United States is first and foremost a political office, dealing exclusively with foreign and domestic affairs. The Office of the Presidency is not one in which the president invites heads of state to D.C. so they can determine whether the God-particle exists, how it can be found, why it has eluded our detection thus far, whether the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) atom smasher in Europe will locate it, the various fields of existence, a mass field, electron field, how E=mc2 means the energy in existence at the beginning has to be equivalent to the energy in existence now, and so forth. The Office of the Presidency is not the equivalent to being a member of the Manhattan Project or a member of the scientific community.

The Office of the Presidency is a political office, not a scientific one, and consequently, I want to know how and why this knowledge, I concur is important, is so essential to being a good president? I wonder how many of our presidents were largely ignorant of science? I wonder how much science Pres. Lincoln knew, FDR, Teddy, JFK, Wilson, McKinley, and the others considered "good" or "great" executives?

Why is scientific literacy a litmus or the litmus test? I can conceive of more important knowledge, such as analytic and critical thinking skills, a good grasp of U.S. history and world history, economics, both globally, domestically, and their interrelationship, law, domestic and international law, along with diplomacy skills, temperment, and so forth.

If they are generally bright, smart, and intelligent in these areas, then I am willing and it is easier to dismiss those areas of obstinance where they do not accept some proposition as true, despite the prevailing evidence in support of it.

I think Sara Palin satisfies this nicely. She has been a small business owner and we have not yet heard of her making any crazy, insane, or nuts decisions while mayor or governor in Alaska. Maybe such reports have yet to be dissemminated, reports where the only sense to be made of her decision was because of her devotion to God, the Bible, or some religious belief but in the absence of such evidence, I think we can justifiably assume she will not be some cazed leader, like Nero or Caligula.

 

[NotreDame]

For those who think it's paranoia for me (or any other person) to assume that Palin is a YEC, she was a member of Assemblies of God (Pentecostals) for almost 30 years. From their website:

"Assemblies of God believers hold that the Genesis account should be taken literally."

You can read the entire explanation here:

http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/gendoct_15_creationism.cfm


Btodd

It is illogical and an exercise in fallacious reasoning to assume an individual member of an organization possesses X characteristic because others do or on the basis of the organization stating what they SHOULD believe. Nice try. You have just disqualified yourself from the office of the presidency/vice president as well.

 

[Cabal]

Well, it may be important but why is it so for the office of the presidency? Did JFK really need to know or have some rudimentary knowledge of quantum physics in dealing with Khruschev? Was knowledge and understanding of the "Origins of Species" going to guide him to a peaceful resolution of the Cuban missile crisis? Is there something equivalent to the idea of a "Bible Code" in scientific claims which, if decyphered, will provide infallible wisdom and guidance when dealing with terrorists, the Cuban missile crisis, and so forth? I seriously doubt it.

No, but that's not the issue here - the "teach the controversy" thing is yet another meaningless issue politics issue that some voters are going to over-prioritise. Also, in principle if one dissents from a consensus on any subject, then one has to have good reason for it. With ID, many people don't see good reason in it. It sets a potentially troubling precedent.

The Office of the Presidency of the United States is first and foremost a political office, dealing exclusively with foreign and domestic affairs. The Office of the Presidency is not one in which the president invites heads of state to D.C. so they can determine whether the God-particle exists, how it can be found, why it has eluded our detection thus far, whether the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) atom smasher in Europe will locate it, the various fields of existence, a mass field, electron field, how E=mc2 means the energy in existence at the beginning has to be equivalent to the energy in existence now, and so forth. The Office of the Presidency is not the equivalent to being a member of the Manhattan Project or a member of the scientific community.

Given how much funding the US government provides to science, her attitude to it is important. Sorry, but after the last budget nearly shafted US science for good, please don't understate the presidential role in this. Evolution has other applications besides origins theory, and hopefully Palin would know better than to undermine that.

It is illogical and an exercise in fallacious reasoning to assume an individual member of an organization possesses X characteristic because others do or on the basis of the organization stating what they SHOULD believe. Nice try. You have just disqualified yourself from the office of the presidency/vice president as well.

So presumably by this line of argument, Obama being in the same church as Jeremiah Wright is no problem at all. Cheers.

 

[Btodd]

It is illogical and an exercise in fallacious reasoning to assume an individual member of an organization possesses X characteristic because others do or on the basis of the organization stating what they SHOULD believe. Nice try. You have just disqualified yourself from the office of the presidency/vice president as well.

Baloney. I would agree that it's possible that she doesn't share that belief, but not the most likely option.

Let me put it this way....if you were forced to bet on what her stance is regarding Creationism, or any other Pentecostal for that matter, what would you bet on? I dare you to act as if you wouldn't expect a Pentecostal to be a YEC. That's why I agree with what Matt Damon said.....we need to know the answer. Until we hear it, I think the most likely option is that she's a YEC.

If I hear someone is a member of Al-Qaeda, am I being unfair for assuming they share the ideals of the organization? I doubt you'll answer this in the same way you do on the Palin question. It's kind of pointless to belong to an organization if you don't share their ideals.


Btodd

 

[Verv]

I just want to throw out there there is some extraordinarily loony people out there. And I do not mean creationists.

I have now met a lot of people raised in secular homes who have no idea what Christians believe and what we are about.

Maybe 2-3% of Christians in America believe in this sort of wacky views of the planet and evolution, and somehow this makes it so we are now suddenly all subject to this stereotype.

And it is hard to even combat these idiots who say i tis what we all believe because they are not interested in discussing it but only interested in trying to take jabs at us.

 

[JoshuaW]

The Office of the Presidency is a political office, not a scientific one, and consequently, I want to know how and why this knowledge, I concur is important, is so essential to being a good president?

Just for starters, George Bush's religious beliefs led him to place a ban on stem cel research, with the result that the US now lags behind other nations in making the important medical discoveries that will provide breakthroughs in health care.

 

[Btodd]

I just want to throw out there there is some extraordinarily loony people out there. And I do not mean creationists.

I have now met a lot of people raised in secular homes who have no idea what Christians believe and what we are about.

Maybe 2-3% of Christians in America believe in this sort of wacky views of the planet and evolution, and somehow this makes it so we are now suddenly all subject to this stereotype.

And it is hard to even combat these idiots who say i tis what we all believe because they are not interested in discussing it but only interested in trying to take jabs at us.

I don't think the majority of Christians believe in Creationism or YEC....but we're talking about someone who was a Pentecostal for almost 30 years.

I invite you to answer the question I previously posed....if you had to bet on what a Pentecostal believes about the age of the Earth, what would you bet on? Be honest. It's hard to imagine that a church that believes in speaking in tongues and individual prophecy, is suddenly 'enlightened' on the issue of the age of the Earth. I don't think it's outlandish to expect her to be YEC, and their website does nothing but support my suspicion. It's the answer that is most likely.

Have you ever been to a Pentecostal church? I have. Scary stuff. Not the type of people I want in charge of decisions about the Holy Lands and other religions' claims to it. If you would like, I can let you watch her church sing, "This world has nothing for me, I will follow you". That's not an idea I want a world leader subscribing to. This world matters, because it just may be the only life we ever get.


Btodd

 

[keith99]

I don't think the majority of Christians believe in Creationism or YEC....but we're talking about someone who was a Pentecostal for almost 30 years.

I invite you to answer the question I previously posed....if you had to bet on what a Pentecostal believes about the age of the Earth, what would you bet on? Be honest. It's hard to imagine that a church that believes in speaking in tongues and individual prophecy, is suddenly 'enlightened' on the issue of the age of the Earth. I don't think it's outlandish to expect her to be YEC, and their website does nothing but support my suspicion. It's the answer that is most likely.

Have you ever been to a Pentecostal church? I have. Scary stuff. Not the type of people I want in charge of decisions about the Holy Lands and other religions' claims to it. If you would like, I can let you watch her church sing, "This world has nothing for me, I will follow you". That's not an idea I want a world leader subscribing to. This world matters, because it just may be the only life we ever get.


Btodd

I have and it was far from scarry. Been in others that do not use the term and are scarry.

The one Pentecostal Church I was in was just after the last Watts Riots. Went down to donate some food and the Church getting all the news coverage disgusted me. The next was worse in many ways. Found this little Church that was really helping people and stayed and came back. I didn't find out it was Pentecostal (and yes I have major problems with Pentecostal theology) until I was talking to one of the few other males there who turned out to be a deacon of the Church. In that conversation two things came out:

1) They did NOT think you need to speak in tongues to be saved
2) Speaking in tongues in services or situations where outsiders were present was strongly discouraged. Or put differently they read and understood Paul's words.

Those 2 things may be a significant dividing line for scarriness (or sanity) when it comes to Pentecostal churches.

EDIT: My involvement was helping with food distribution and the like, not as a member. One thing I found very noteworthy about this one church in hindsight was that when I loaned my swiss army knives out because no one else had anything like a box cutter to open boxes of goods I did not have to ask for them back or go hunting. The Church Ladies hunted me down to make sure I got them back. Saddly this seems rare.

 

[NotreDame]

don't think you need to be an evolutionary biologist to appreciate how serious the nuclear option is.
.

Right...and believing the earth is young, and dinosaurs roamed it 4,000 years ago, does not mean one cannot appreciate how serious the nuclear option is, despite Mat Damon's remote suggestion to the contrary (he would be incorrect if in fact he thinks so).

 

[NotreDame]

Just for starters, George Bush's religious beliefs led him to place a ban on stem cel research, with the result that the US now lags behind other nations in making the important medical discoveries that will provide breakthroughs in health care.

No, it is alleged breakthroughs in health care! They want stem cell access to conduct research and experiments in the hopes of finding health care breakthroughs. You treat as "fact" important medical discoveries will be made.

Furthermore, this is not a good reason to disqualify Bush or anyone else from the office of the presidency. If so, then assuming President Lincoln was opposed to slavery for religious purposes, then by the logic you have espoused here, he should not be president. But the fact a president may object to some course of action based on their religious belief is not a good reason in and of itself to disqualify them or should disqualify them from the office of the presidency.

 

[tulc]

Right...and believing the earth is young, and dinosaurs roamed it 4,000 years ago, does not mean one cannot appreciate how serious the nuclear option is, despite Mat Damon's remote suggestion to the contrary (he would be incorrect if in fact he thinks so).

Again, it's a question Matt Damon has, why do people seem to have a problem with him asking questions?
tulc(isn't saying you (NotreDame) are having a problem but it does seem odd)

 

[NotreDame]

I would agree that it's possible that she doesn't share that belief, but not the most likely option.

Let me put it this way....if you were forced to bet on what her stance is regarding Creationism, or any other Pentecostal for that matter, what would you bet on? I dare you to act as if you wouldn't expect a Pentecostal to be a YEC. That's why I agree with what Matt Damon said.....we need to know the answer. Until we hear it, I think the most likely option is that she's a YEC.

If I hear someone is a member of Al-Qaeda, am I being unfair for assuming they share the ideals of the organization? I doubt you'll answer this in the same way you do on the Palin question. It's kind of pointless to belong to an organization if you don't share their ideals.


Btodd

Baloney.

Then you need to consult a critical thinking or logical reasoning book. It is nothing short of fallacious and flawed reasoning to argue since a club, organizaton, group of people, nation, etcetera, possess X characteristic, then an individual who belongs to them also possesses X characteristic. This is a well documented logical reasoning fallacy and the fact you not only made this fallacious argument but actually have the audacity to contest it is, well, tantamount to contesting the validity of evolution. So in a way, you are in the same boat with, apparently, Sara Palin, but for different reasons.

If I hear someone is a member of Al-Qaeda, am I being unfair for assuming they share the ideals of the organization? I doubt you'll answer this in the same way you do on the Palin question. It's kind of pointless to belong to an organization if you don't share their ideals.

Not even remotely close to being a parallel argument to the one you made. To be parallel to the flawed argument you made, it would have to proceed as follows. Al Qaeda has X belief, stating its members should believe in it. Therefore, individual member Y of Al Qaeda has X belief.

 

[Cabal]

Right...and believing the earth is young, and dinosaurs roamed it 4,000 years ago, does not mean one cannot appreciate how serious the nuclear option is, despite Mat Damon's remote suggestion to the contrary (he would be incorrect if in fact he thinks so).

Yes, as regards the OP, I agree with you. The "nuclear codes" remark, while maybe meant as a cliched remark, was poorly used and is a non sequitur. However, my post still contains other reasons for why a candidate who dissents from this particular theory is a worrying thing.

Also, I'm still curious as to whether your arguments work both ways or if they magically apply only to the right-wing candidates.

 

[NotreDame]

Given how much funding the US government provides to science, her attitude to it is important. Sorry, but after the last budget nearly shafted US science for good, please don't understate the presidential role in this. Evolution has other applications besides origins theory, and hopefully Palin would know better than to undermine that.

Her attitude about evolution provides no indication as to her disposition about properly funding science and the scientific community. You are stretching here.

 

[Cabal]

Again, it's a question Matt Damon has, why do people seem to have a problem with him asking questions?
tulc(isn't saying you (NotreDame) are having a problem but it does seem odd)

Obviously it's because he's a celebrity, and celebrities are all lefty hippy commies who don't deserve to be listened to. And any candidate who canvasses to them is automatically "out of touch."

(even though they're as much a citizen of the US as any "small town values" voter )