What if Religion had admitted it was wrong? (Part 2)

Published on May 7, 2008 By Scotteh In Religion

In the first part of this article i discussed how people consider religion as a means of teaching us how to act responsibly.

I received some interesting comments, mostly about how how people felt they obtained their morality from sources other than religion. Perhaps the most interesting comment, and entirely unrelated was a comment from senior stubbyfinger, who informed us he had a large sexual organ. Congratulations stubby...

Right so Religion, morality, back on track. Lets look at the title of this article, "What if religion had admitted it was wrong?". Firstly i'd imagine we'll have some people asking how religion is wrong exactly. Which you know, if you've been sleeping under a rock since Darwin was around, is a highly appropriate question.

1)God made the world in 7 days Genisis etc.

The earth roughly 6,000 years old? I believe that's the figure provided by most creationists i speak with. Well we now know as a FACT (fact as in 1 + 1 = 2. You get me. FACT? Just like the fact you are going to die, just like the fact i'm mashing my keyboard with my fingers as a write this a not my toes - FACT), the earth is much older. The earth is around 4.5 Billion years old. It's difficult to compute exactly as due to the nature of how it was formed. The oldest rocks found to date are 3.9 Billion years old.

The obvious question to follow is 'How exactly did we get here?'. A puzzling question indeed answered by Darwin in his famous book 'Of the Origins of the Spieces'. I won't go into detail for fear of sending you to sleep and wanting to get to my point, but he believed small genetic mutations which happen every generation of a specicies led to how we developed from small microbes in to full fledged humans. Far fetched? What's even more far fetched is the serious amount of evidence that backs this up (galapagos!).

2)Christianity also said that the Earth was the center of the universe.

That the sun revolved around the earth. So when some bloke from tuscani said otherwise, they were quite unpleased! Even after proving that the observation of the planets and the sun suggested that Galleo (yes i'm talking about Galileo here, re the guy from tuscani not Pope Leo I) was right, they had the audacity to turn around and go 'No no no wait you misunderstand us! It may _LOOK_ like the earth orbits the sun, and maths may dictate it, but it infact doesn't! They just appear that way!'. Yes because that's a helpful approach in a reasonable discussion.

We now know of course that earth isn't the center of the universe and that we do revolve around the sun.

So there's two examples for people to consider why i personally think religion has been wrong in the past. On two MASSIVE issues.

Now if i may move on. What i'd like to consider is what if religion had turned around and said:

'You know what, were based on texts wrote thousand of years ago, when our understanding of the world was very different and people needed a different kind of reassurance. I think it's time we adapt a little more to society'.

I'd guess the next obvious question is what would you change? I'm not sure, i'm no council of nicaea. I dare say the word religion itself would need a reclassifcation. What is it? If it's not just a story about god and his son, is religion morality? Is it just faith in something?

I've always admired some of the charitable teachings in Islam and Christianity. Yet i also detest how they've been the cause of so many wars and suffering in the past. Do we need religion to do amazing things for one another?

One thing is for sure though while we are unable to prove that God isn't going to smite us all for not wearing condoms, someone should not have the power to continue the spread of aids in one of the most desperate continents in the world by saying using them is indeed sinful.

Nor should preachers be able to convince people to attach bombs on to themselves in the hope of a paradise waiting for them on the other side.

I hope i've not genuinley offended someone with this, well so long as your not offended by just the notion of someone questioning your religion, in which case your ignorant and i'm glad i've offended you.

Comments (Page 7)

Artysim

on May 16, 2008

Oh dear Gods!!!! I'm amazed how long these debates go on for and their cyclical nature. I would like to put forth the assertion that Scotteh, Setarcos and Leauki have "won" the thread. I will pray to the flying spaghetti monster for your souls!!!

lulapilgrim

on May 16, 2008

If that happened it would still be just another fruit fly with some variation...which is a long way from changing a fly into some new kind of organisim.

It is a long way from changing a fly into some new kind of organism. But it is a different species of fruitfly.

Point is....after all the time and all the experimentation, it's still a fruitfly.

I don't know your definition of "some new kind of organism", but give the fruitflies time.

No, it's not about time....given what we now know about DNA and it's barriers, the fruitflies will always be fruitflies.

This is not macro-evolution or Darwinism.

A frog changes from one organism into a completely new kind of organism within his lifetime. How can you claim that something like that cannot happen over an even longer period of time?

The frog changing is not an example of macro evolution...it's change within the species...

The same can be said of the acorn growing over time into the oak tree...

or you and I were once embryonic stem cells in the womb who when allowed to grow through all our stages are in the adult human stage today.

All these are examples of growth to maturity or normal patterns of growth within a species and this is not an example of evolution.

lulapilgrim

on May 17, 2008

I would like to put forth the assertion that Scotteh, Setarcos and Leauki have "won" the thread.

I will concede as soon as any one of them or you can provide one scintilla of evidence that shows Darwinism to be true that one creature evolved into a new, different one..as in reptiles to birds, ape into mankind.

In the meantime, I shall dwell on Psalm 32:6-9,

"By the world of the Lord the heavens were established, and all the power of them by the spirit of His mouth; gathering together the waters of the sea, as in a vessel; laying up the depths in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the Lord, and let all the inhabitants of the world be in awe of Him. For He spoke and they were made: He commanded and they were created."

Leauki

on May 19, 2008

What would that be good for? Darwinism does not claim that (animals that are today's) reptiles evolve into birds or (today's) apes into mankind.

Darwinism claims that reptiles and birds have a common ancestor, as do apes and men; and that both those ancestors had a common ancestor as well.

You claimed that DNA would somehow make it impossible for one species to evolve into two. The fruit fly experiment shows that that is not true. Fruit flies regularly evolve into different species.

You claimed that one organism cannot change into another, but the development of a normal frog during his lifetime proves that wrong.

Now you want to observe both together in a process that Darwinism claims takes a very long time?

No, my friend, it's enough. Darwinism can offer an explanation and experiments that result in what Darwinism predicts. Evolution is a fact. Whether evolution is the true (and only) explanation for why we have so many different species now is a question (and the claim is hence a theory). And that is what is taught in science class.

The point is that neither Creationism or ID operate at that level.

Even if you can show in an experiment that a god can create two species from scratch (or, in the case of ID, that any creator, maybe an Alien or a Smurf, can), Creationism and ID would become theories, IF you can explain how the experiment could scale to the real world AND find a way to incorporate evidence like the fruit fly experiment into the new theory.

But at the moment we are waiting for the ID experiment.

Let's do it. Get a god, tell him to create two animals of different species. Then write an essay about how that same god (or another) did the same thing on Earth. If you do that I have no problem with teaching Creationism in science class.

But if you cannot get your god to do that, Creationism is useless as a science and belongs in religious schools (in bad such).

lulapilgrim

on May 19, 2008

Fruit flies regularly evolve into different species.

Name one and show it's picture if possible.

the only thing that has happened with all the fly experiments that I'm aware of it that these flies deveoped more wings, etc. but in essence the end result was they are still flies.

lulapilgrim

on May 19, 2008

Let's do it. Get a god, tell him to create two animals of different species. Then write an essay about how that same god (or another) did the same thing on Earth. If you do that I have no problem with teaching Creationism in science class.

But if you cannot get your god to do that, Creationism is useless as a science and belongs in religious schools (in bad such).

Leauki,

This is stupid as well as a temptation to blasphemy.

lulapilgrim

on May 19, 2008

Darwinism claims that reptiles and birds have a common ancestor, as do apes and men; and that both those ancestors had a common ancestor as well.

Yes, this is true and besides claiming a common primeavial common ancestor, Darwinism claims that over a vast amount of time ape-like creatures evolved into mankind.

Leauki

on May 20, 2008

Leauki,

This is stupid as well as a temptation to blasphemy.

Of course it is. That was my point.

Some people demand that Creationism be taught in science class, I pointed out what would be necessary to do so. But it's blasphemy. It cannot be done legally.

But you will note that it wasn't my idea to do it and nor did I ever support doing it.

In fact, and I thought I made that very clear, I am completely and utterly opposed to the idea of reducing my G-d to a part of an experiment. And I was and am offended by the idea that His work be taught in science class among other subjects that are verified in the lab.

It is, to my knowledge, not allowed to test G-d but science is about testing. You can test creation but you cannot (legally) test the Creator. To you understand the difference now?

the only thing that has happened with all the fly experiments that I'm aware of it that these flies developed more wings, etc. but in essence the end result was they are still flies.

A different species of flies... You are forgetting, perhaps conveniently, that the claim was that no new species would develop. But it did. The two species still look very similar, but that is consistent with the theory.

It takes a LONG time for the two species to start looking differently. But we have seen, in the frog and other animals, that animals CAN change from one body into quite another without some guy redesigning them.

The theory is that the two (evolving into two new species and change of form) explain why there are so many different types of plants and animals today.

Darwinism claims that over a vast amount of time ape-like creatures evolved into mankind.

Well, no. It's really a race of ape-like creatures evolving into the race of mankind. It's not about individuals.

But the point is that we can see how one species can evolve into two and how an organism can change into something really different.
All that supports the theory of evolution.

If Creationism and ID want to keep up, they need some evidence too.

Incidentally, testing ID is not blasphemy. You can happily experiment with the assumption that it was not necessarily G-d but some random designer who is responsible for it all.

I.e. modify the experiment and replace the god or gods with an alien or two, or a magic Smurf, or even the Spaghetti monster. It doesn't matter. Once you demonstrate how a designer or creator can create life and/or new species, we can start teaching the idea in science class.

(But for me to believe that it was G-d, you better come up with a good explanation for why a perfect being would create animals with shoddy eye design and built-in death traps like Diabetes or Cancer.)

I think you have a problem with deep time. If a species of fly can evolve from another and have more wings within a day, can you even imagine how many changes there can be when that species continues to evolve (and split up into more species that do) over a period of several hundred thousands years.

lulapilgrim

on May 20, 2008

Some people demand that Creationism be taught in science class, I pointed out what would be necessary to do so. But it's blasphemy. It cannot be done legally.

You are correct teaching Creationism or mentioning God in schools is illegal....in the USA ever since 1963, God and morality has been kicked out of all government education aka public schools.

We've been reaping the worldwind ever since.

100

SanChonino

on May 20, 2008

reaping the worldwind

That sounds like the name of a rockin' metal album.

"And coming out this Tuesday, the new Ascension Aire album:

"REAPING THE WORLDWIND! On sale for 9.99 at all Graywhale locations!"

PS you can't reap a worldwind, because there's no such thing as a worldwind. You can't reap a whirlwind, either, which is the only conceivable thing you were actually attempting to say.

101

Leauki

on May 20, 2008

You are correct teaching Creationism or mentioning God in schools is illegal....in the USA ever since 1963, God and morality has been kicked out of all government education aka public schools.

I haven't been referring to US law at all, but you are correct in pointing out that teaching religion is illegal in state schools in the US (as far as I know).

I was referring to religious law.

You correctly identified my example of treating Creationism like science as nearly blasphemy. I am going further than that. Teaching Creationism in science class, and hence exposing G-d's truth to TESTING _is_ blasphemy. (However, pointing out the comical results of doing so is not.)

We've been reaping the worldwind ever since.

What does that mean?

The US is a lot more advanced than those countries that teach religion as science.

102

lulapilgrim

on May 20, 2008

You correctly identified my example of treating Creationism like science as nearly blasphemy.

You must have misunderstood my comment. I'm sure God would have no problem with teaching Creation in a science classroom.

Your "comical" example would be putting God to the test is what I was referring to as blasphemy.

You are correct teaching Creationism or mentioning God in schools is illegal....in the USA ever since 1963, God and morality has been kicked out of all government education aka public schools.

We've been reaping the worldwind ever since.

What does that mean?

It means we've had 45 years to examine what has happened since God and all semblances of Christianity were removed from public schools. Christian principles were replaced by atheist/secular humanistic principles.

Since then Math and verbal scores are down...
Teen suicide is up, way up...
Illegal drug use is up, way up..
criminal arrests of teens is way up...
Births to unmarried girls is way up..
one in 4 of our teens are infected with an STD..

103

Leauki

on May 20, 2008

But that's what science class is. I'm not sure you understand that. But treating Creationism as science would mean doing what I proposed in that experiment.

That's what science is: trying out things.

I haven't misunderstood your comment. You find testing G-d is blasphemy. I agree that it is. But you misunderstand your entire point. Teaching Creationism in a science classroom would require testing G-d. It's wrong. And you say you don't have a problem with it.

Perhaps you don't know what science is and what science class is supposed to do.

Perhaps you are not trying to get Creationism into science class but to replace science class with religious indoctrination.

But if you demand that Creationism be taught in science class, you better be fine with what that actually means.

104

Leauki

on May 21, 2008

How do the numbers compare to countries that still teach Creationism (like Iran or the Arab world)?

And what are the Christian principles that are not secular humanistic principles as well?

105

lulapilgrim

on May 25, 2008

And what are the Christian principles that are not secular humanistic principles as well?

Education is primarily the duty of parents. Schools are there to assist. In the past, schools were answerable to parents, but not anymore. Government involvement and monoply in education has led to a usurpation of parental rights...and public education is pretty much a totalitarian affair.

From 1965 on, schools have replaced cognitive education (which addresses the child's intellect and teaches knowledge and skills) with affective education which addresses the child's feelings and attitudes.

Outcome based education is the vehicle to carry out the socio-political agenda of the public school establishment.

Instead of spending classroom time only on learning to read, write, spell, mathematics and the essentials of geography, history, and civics, (which when taught have all been dumbed down into new math, new spelling, whole language, etc.) children learn to be sexually active, about taking drugs, death education, and rationalize immoral behavior in a deliberate attempt to make the child reject his parents' "old fashioned" values and religion.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!