Evolution/Creationism on the Simpsons

[GoSeminoles!]

I like the constitution just fine. What it "promotes" is that the government keeps it's nose out of religion, which is just the opposite of what is being done.

But creationists' proposals would have the government put its nose in religion. Including Biblical creationism (or any variant of it) in a public school science class is nothing less than government involvement in religious affairs. Sure, doing so would please Christian fundamentalists, but it would displease other Christian sects who don't interpret Genesis as a science book, to say nothing of how it would displease non-Christians. Creationism is by definition a religious doctrine, so using government to teach it is an unwarranted entanglement of government and religion -- ergo, it is unconstitutional.

 

[Elduran]

I like the constitution just fine. What it "promotes" is that the government keeps it's nose out of religion, which is just the opposite of what is being done.

Bill of Rights
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Allowing the teaching of creationism (a religion with no scientific backing) in schools would be the establishment of a state-sanctioned religion, and therefore unconstitutional.

This much I've been able to work out from these discussions, and I don't even live in the USA!

 

[caravelair]

edit: someone already said what i was gonna say, so nevermind...

 

[Split Rock]

I like the constitution just fine. What it "promotes" is that the government keeps it's nose out of religion, which is just the opposite of what is being done.

In what way is the opposite being done?

 

[livingword26]

In what way is the opposite being done?

If a city or a town or a community, wants to teach creationism, either by itself, or along side evolution, or even if this entity wishes to point out the fact that evolution is only a theory, or even if they want to mention that there could possibly be mistakes in this theory, the federal government, usually by the request of the aclu or similar organizations puts a stop to it, under the rouge that the alternative is religion. The same thing is happening to prayer, and even little phrases such as "under God". The school system was not designed to be regulated by the federal government, nor should it be. It is and always has been a state function. No one wants a theocracy, that is the main reason this country was founded, to escape theocracy. But having the federal government regulating what can and cannot be done in schools is precisely the type of thing that the amendment in question is there for. For most of the 225 years of our country, children prayed, and read out of the bible in schools. They were taught biblical principals, and family values. Christians are not trying to get these things put in where they never were. We are trying to keep them from continuing to root out God from public life. Look at the decline in our society since these things have begun to be removed. It would be a stunning coincidence. If the generation of children that is comming of age does not scare you, you are not looking at what is on the streets out there.

 

[rjw]

Not as much as it is going to "sucK" to be thrown into the lake of fire. You always have to look at the alternative.

Rev. 21:8
"But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

Hi JohnR7,

It is one thing to quote another as a means of calling your opponents all sorts of dastardly names, but what makes you think that the author of Rev 21:8 had we evolutionists in mind when he talked about:-

“cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars”?

I am curious - can you provide evidence that he had us in mind – or did he have someone else?


Regards, Roland

 

[KerrMetric]

The school system was not designed to be regulated by the federal government, nor should it be. It is and always has been a state function.

But it should not be run by parents on a local level either.

Look at the decline in our society since these things have begun to be removed. It would be a stunning coincidence. If the generation of children that is comming of age does not scare you, you are not looking at what is on the streets out there.

This is rubbish. The violent crime rate was far worse 80 years ago than it is today. And kids have always been having sex and people have always been scamming their neighbours too.

 

[chaoschristian]

If a city or a town or a community, wants to teach creationism, either by itself, or along side evolution, or even if this entity wishes to point out the fact that evolution is only a theory, or even if they want to mention that there could possibly be mistakes in this theory, the federal government, usually by the request of the aclu or similar organizations puts a stop to it, under the rouge that the alternative is religion.

This is something of a mischaracterization, isn't it?

What really happens is that private citizens, who assert that their rights have been abridged by state agents, file suit in court to have the matter resolved. That private citizens also have the right to associate together in organizations such as the ACLU in order to have the resources to defend their rights is not a matter that can detract from their case.

The same thing is happening to prayer, and even little phrases such as "under God". The school system was not designed to be regulated by the federal government, nor should it be.It is and always has been a state function.

Indeed, institutionalized puplic education may not have been designed or intended to be regulated by the Federal governtment, but we live in a dynamic society in which the relationships between various institutions changes as the needs of the society change.

Children are provided a modicum of rights and responsibilities, one of which is access to education. In order to enforce that the Federal government can use its powers to ensure access when states take action that are not in the best interest of the education of children.

No one wants a theocracy, that is the main reason this country was founded, to escape theocracy.

While certain colonies were founded upon the precept of religious liberty, this nation is founded upon a number of inalienable rights, religious liberty being one among many.

But having the federal government regulating what can and cannot be done in schools is precisely the type of thing that the amendment in question is there for. For most of the 225 years of our country, children prayed, and read out of the bible in schools. They were taught biblical principals, and family values. Christians are not trying to get these things put in where they never were. We are trying to keep them from continuing to root out God from public life. Look at the decline in our society since these things have begun to be removed. It would be a stunning coincidence. If the generation of children that is comming of age does not scare you, you are not looking at what is on the streets out there.

And the good ole's days were Golden where all children listened to their parents, gave an apple to their teacher and walked up hill both ways to school in five feet of snow during 100 degree days in the summer. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

The 1st Amendment, among other things, places the free practive of religious liberty in the private realm among private citizens. It removes the practice and institutionalization of religion in the public realm through the establishment of such practices by state agents using state resources.

Creationism and ID (as if there's a real difference) are by definition religious practice and by inserting them into public school science curriculum those that do so place government in the position of using state agents and states resources in the conduct of said religious practice.

Such an action is an abridgement of the rights of citizens who would rather not participate in such practices, and the 1st Amendment guarantees their ability to seek redress from such practices, either through elected representatives or through the courts.

Ours is not a monolithic heterogeneous culture. While Christianity stills plays a major role in our society, the 1st Amendment is not a means by which to establish its preeminence. Instead, if we Christians want to have an influence in the world, we ought to stop seeking power through government and start seeking powerlessness. For it is through powerlessness that the real message and awesomeness of Christ's Gospel shines through.

One final note: we fought an aweful and bloody war to answer the question as to whether or not the US Constitution was the supreme law of the land, ascendent over all other laws. As a result of the conclusions of that war the Federal government is in a position of being the Constitutions ultimate defender. When Federal courts render decisions that protect and preserve elements of the Constitution they are fulfilling their part of the charge of defending the rights and liberties for all people who enjoy residence within its borders.

 

[Split Rock]

If a city or a town or a community, wants to teach creationism, either by itself, or along side evolution,

This would be inviolation of the separation of church and state

or even if this entity wishes to point out the fact that evolution is only a theory,

What does "only" mean in this context? In science, a Theory is not a guess or a hunch.

or even if they want to mention that there could possibly be mistakes in this theory, the federal government, usually by the request of the aclu or similar organizations puts a stop to it, under the rouge that the alternative is religion.

If the alternative is based on Genesis, then yes it is obviously religion.

The same thing is happening to prayer, and even little phrases such as "under God". The school system was not designed to be regulated by the federal government, nor should it be. It is and always has been a state function.

There are consitutional laws that must be followed by the states. As long as they folow these, the states can do what they want.

No one wants a theocracy, that is the main reason this country was founded, to escape theocracy.

Well, I accept that you do not want a theocracy, but many creationists on this board seem to want one.

But having the federal government regulating what can and cannot be done in schools is precisely the type of thing that the amendment in question is there for.

The Constitution trumps everything else. As long as the states and local school boards do not try to push a religious agenda, they don't need to worry. In Dover, for example, it was made very clear that their little speech recommending an ID textbook was part of a religious agenda, and had nothing to do with good science.

For most of the 225 years of our country, children prayed, and read out of the bible in schools. They were taught biblical principals, and family values. Christians are not trying to get these things put in where they never were. We are trying to keep them from continuing to root out God from public life. Look at the decline in our society since these things have begun to be removed. It would be a stunning coincidence. If the generation of children that is comming of age does not scare you, you are not looking at what is on the streets out there.

People always have nostalgia about the "Good Old Days." They were never as "good" as people seem to think they were. In the past we had poor, we had children working in factories, we had polluted air, food and water, and plenty of crime. Go back far enough and we had slavery. In any case, how do you make the connection between lack of prayer in schools and all this "decline" in scociety? Most Americans still identify themselves as Christians and as believing in God.

 

[cerad]

The school system was not designed to be regulated by the federal government, nor should it be. It is and always has been a state function.

I agree with you 100% and guess what? States are in fact free to ignore any and all federal education guidelines. Of course they have to give up federal money.

 

[cerad]

Back to the Simpson's Show:

I really liked the creationism exhibit in the Origin of Man museum. Wish there could be more in real life. Presenting the notion of some invisible sky daddy poofing people into existence along side serious scientific displays would demostrate how silly the entire creationist argument is.

 

[Mocca]

"Today we had a test and every answer was 'God did it'!"

LAWL!

The Simpsons are awesome.

 

[Gracchus]

Not as much as it is going to "sucK" to be thrown into the lake of fire. You always have to look at the alternative.

Rev. 21:8
"But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

I hate to tell you, JohnR7, but it would seem that lake of fire is going to be really crowded. You had better get yourself some asbestos diapers. Or maybe you shouldn’t be so quick to decide who deserves to go swimming.

For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

– Matthew 7:2

 

[Dannager]

If a city or a town or a community, wants to teach creationism, either by itself, or along side evolution, or even if this entity wishes to point out the fact that evolution is only a theory

What do you mean "only" a theory? Do you believe that it could be something "better" than a theory? Do you even know what a scientific theory is? Do you realize that the theory of gravity, the theory of general relativity and germ theory are all "just" theories? Calling evolution "only" a theory is disingenuous as it implies that there is a higher level that evolutionary theory could aspire to. Please read up on what a scientific theory actually represents. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science.

or even if they want to mention that there could possibly be mistakes in this theory

Why single out evolutionary theory as "possibly" containing mistakes? Why not point out the possibility of the theory of gravity containing mistakes? Or germ theory? Or we could do the reasonable thing and teach children what theories represent, and that it is always possible that at some point in the future a theory will be disproven, without the need to single out any particular theory. I always liked the whole truth better.

the federal government, usually by the request of the aclu or similar organizations puts a stop to it under the rouge that the alternative is religion.

The alternative is religion.

No one wants a theocracy, that is the main reason this country was founded, to escape theocracy. But having the federal government regulating what can and cannot be done in schools is precisely the type of thing that the amendment in question is there for.

No, it isn't. The amendment exists to restrict the government - any form of it - from imposing religious beliefs upon those who do not wish those religious beliefs imposed. As long as your school system receives federal funding they are beholden to the same rules that any government-sponsored body is. Teaching creationism in the science classroom alongside evolution is not only dishonest, it is constitutionally prohibited, as every court that has addressed the issue has agreed (the last decision being made by a Bush-appointed, Republican, church-going Christian).

For most of the 225 years of our country, children prayed, and read out of the bible in schools. They were taught biblical principals, and family values. Christians are not trying to get these things put in where they never were. We are trying to keep them from continuing to root out God from public life.

No, you're trying to get creationism taught, in whatever form you can manage, in a science classroom. I suggest sticking to family values and biblical principles and avoiding science at all costs. Creationists just aren't cut out for it.

Look at the decline in our society since these things have begun to be removed.

What decline? Society has improved over the last hundred years. Have you looked at the actual crime rates or are you just listening to reports of violence covered by your news station?

It would be a stunning coincidence. If the generation of children that is comming of age does not scare you, you are not looking at what is on the streets out there.

I've been a lot of places. The generation that is coming of age right now does not scare me any more than my generation scared my parents' generation, or their parents' before them.

 

[Gracchus]

No one wants a theocracy, that is the main reason this country was founded, to escape theocracy.

In point of fact, all the original colonies had religious tests, and established religions. They came to escape persecution, and so they could persecute they people they wanted to persecute. How can you not expect to be challenged when you post such an egregious falsehood?

 

[Hydra009]

I'm impressed by how hard the episode came down on creationists' methods. Skinner's "this video here will evade your questions!" (or whatever) was particularly awesome.

Yeah, that's what happens when an ideological movement goes from a positive feedback loop to a negative one. It gets hit hard by the public and then disintegrates pretty badly.

But don't worry, I'm sure the more devout inhabitants of the moon will one day claim that God specially created the indigenous zhwer rat.

 

[USincognito]

I was disappointed that Lisa took the position that Evolution and Creation were compatible (the subtlety that Creation is different from Creationism was lost), but apart from that this was a delicious episode. Everything that is wrong with both Creationism (Dr. of Truthology) and Ned getting a mild comeuppance (respect for religious belief even if a bit kooky) were great in pointing out the intellectual bancrupcy of Creationism.

Both Reverand Lovejoy and Rabbi Krustovksy are generally conservative, but I think it would have said a lot of either was used as a messenger of the TE position. I did like that Marge read The Origin of the Sepecies before she "got it" though.

 

[rjw]

I hate to tell you, JohnR7, but it would seem that lake of fire is going to be really crowded. You had better get yourself some asbestos diapers. Or maybe you shouldn’t be so quick to decide who deserves to go swimming.

– Matthew 7:2

Good point Gracchus.

And I would still love to know what makes JohnR7 think that the author of the verse in Rev 21:8 had we evolutionists in mind and that he thought we would be:-

1) cowardly, and

2) abominable, and

3) immoral persons, and

4) idolaters, and

5) all liars.

I have been called many things by creationists, but never so much in one mouthful. (I do accept that JohnR7 was not addressing me directly. But he may just as well have been.)

Does JohnR7 really know this, or is be unreasonably using some one from long ago to do his own dirty name calling?


JohnR7 - I would really love to know the answer to this. Many creationists have called me names and sometimes they, like you, use the Bible to support their claim.

I have never been able to understand why, exactly.

Why not just come out and say it yourselves?



Regards, Roland

 

[JohnR7]

Wish there could be more in real life. Presenting the notion of some invisible sky daddy poofing people into existence along side serious scientific displays would demostrate how silly the entire creationist argument is.

Next to a "serious" science display where evolution poofs them into existance. Showing how silly the theory of evolution is. About the time evolutionists need lisa simpson to be a spokesperson for them, they are in trouble. They have lost contact with what it means to be serious.

 

[JohnR7]

Thankfully, real Christians recognize that we are saved through faith in Christ alone, and not through our disbelief in evolution.
Shame on you, John.

Shame on you for missing the point of something very important that could mean salvation for people. People do not end up in the lake of fire because they accept evolution, it is because they reject creationism. They reject God as the Creator. You can be a evolutionist and a creationist at the same time. There are many theistic evolutionists out there. They are perhaps the largest group of people in this country. People that accept BOTH evolution and creationism. The lake of fire is for those who reject creationism. They are cowards because they will not take a stand for the truth. Then they go around and are critical of people who do take a stand for what is good, pure, right and true.

Really, in the end the question is what do you worship. Because those who worship the beast have nothing to look forward to. People here need to study the book of revelation a little bit more then what they are.

Rev. 14:11
And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."