Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Ben Shapiro :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Liberal War on Science
by Ben Shapiro
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Liberals pretend to be the advocates for science. President Barack Obama has repeatedly portrayed himself as the world’s leading advocate for scientific progress; in fact, he has consistently touted himself as the man who will “restore our commitment to science.” So why are liberals so ignorant of science?

Ignorance is the only possible way to explain a recent liberal program considered in the United Kingdom. The Department for Children, Schools and Families is discussing a plan drawn up by a teen sex “advice service” designed to increase the use of condoms by teens. Teens as young as 12 will be subjected to full-scale sex ed, then handed “condom credit cards” that allow them to pick up free condoms at soccer fields, barbers’ shops and “scout huts.”

*** Special Offer ***

The logic underlying this program and similar programs like it -- read: American comprehensive sex education -- is that adolescents can be trusted to make adult decisions. As former Clinton Administration Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders puts it, “Education is the best contraception.”

There’s only one problem: science shows that adolescents simply don’t have the brains to use condoms. Literally. According to virtually all scientific studies concerning adolescent neural mechanisms, teens are biologically incapable of inhibiting risky behavior. “(T])e major sources of death and disability in adolescence are related to difficulties in the control of behavior and emotion,” explains Ronald E. Dahl, Staunton Professor of Psychiatry and Pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Although adolescents’ brains have developed enough to allow them the capacity to reason better than children, adolescents are biologically driven toward risky behavior and sensation-seeking by their functionally mature limbic systems. And the part of the brain that generally controls such risky behavior -- the prefrontal cortex -- is not yet fully developed. In other words, despite the fact that teenagers are smart enough to recognize the dangers of risky behavior, their brains ignore the risks when things get hot. Thus, teenagers are morons.

Yet liberals insist that teens are fully capable of making informed choices on subjects ranging from sex to abortion to pot smoking. Even if the science doesn’t back them up, liberals say that we must assume that teenagers are logical, and that they will use discretion -- and condoms -- if told of the risks of unprotected sex.

This unscientific philosophy has created an epidemic of sexually transmitted disease and teen pregnancy, and the attendant teen abortions and teen suicides. At least, however, teens are not being grounded by their unhip parents. That would be uncivilized.

Leftist allegiances to disproved myths aren’t restricted to teen rationality. Liberals also ignore the science with regard to the early development of fetuses -- cell differentiation begins in days 18 through 24. By the end of the fourth week of pregnancy, embryos are already visible to the naked eye, and their brains, spinal cords, hearts, and organs have begun to form. During week 10 of pregnancy, the baby’s brain will produce 250,000 neurons each minute. No wonder abortion providers like Planned Parenthood have attempted to block the use of 4D ultrasounds in pregnancy clinics -- they don’t want mothers realizing that their fetuses aren’t merely a bunch of undifferentiated cells. Just another example of liberal ideology triumphing over science.

Want more? How about liberals’ bizarre insistence that men and women are identical, and that gender is merely a social construct? That entirely false belief is the basis for the gay marriage movement, which states that a child with two mommies has essentially the same upbringing as the child of a traditional mother-father coupling. The gay marriage movement also asserts that sex is the equivalent of race -- they say that the differences between men and women are equivalent to the differences between African-Americans, for example, and Caucasians.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Men and women have different brain structures, which have real effects on behavior and perception. “In mammalian species numerous sex differences in brain structure and function have now been documented,” writes Judy L. Cameron of the University of Pittsburgh Departments of Psychiatry, Neuroscience, and Cell Biology & Physiology. “Behaviors showing documented sex difference include behaviors associated with reproduction (mating and maternal behaviors), aggression, activity, and various cognitive functions including spatial cognition, verbal skills, and various aspects of learning and memory.” But this is science liberals don’t like. And so it is largely ignored.

For years, liberals have complained that conservatives ignore science. The truth is that mainstream conservatives often refuse to accept dubious science (e.g. global warming and population bombs). Far more often, it is liberals who ignore hard science in order to promote their agenda of irresponsibility, consequence: free living, and destruction of traditional family values.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Ben Shapiro is a regular guest on dozens of radio shows around the United States and Canada and author of Project President: Bad Hair and Botox on the Road to the White House.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Ben Shapiro's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Liberals don't think...
Liberals are driven by emotion and their own self-centered, narcissistic beliefs that everything they propose is correct. This is not a political opinion, it is a fact of social psychology and lack of true spiritual guidance.

Two thousand years ago a man named Paul wrote about the excess of liberalism in the first few chapters of Romans and that Biblical wisdom is timeless: "They exchanged the Truth of God for a lie" (Romans 1:25). Please, read just the later half of the first chapter and see how God spoke through Paul to warn us that history will repeat itself if mankind abandones Him.

This is why Jesus said we live in an "adulterous and sinful" generation (Mark 8:38). Condoms for children? God help us.

I'm sorry, but social conservatives
are the ones that believe in the so-called "Young Earth Creationist Theory", where the earth "began" 6 to 10 thousand years ago when "God" created Adam from dust.

These biblical scientists tell us that Adam and Eve lived and frolicked in the Garden of Eden next to dinosuars. There was a talking snake in the Garden with the dinosaurs and the people. Sadly, these dinosaurs persished in the Great Flood as they were too large to fit onto Noah's Ark.

These same Young Earth Creationists have the gall to laugh at Darwin.

Letting Young Earth evangelicals read Darwin is like placing pearls before swine.

What we do know.

Actually Educated people understand that at the time the bible was written, mankind's understanding of Billions, millions, and thousands was not sufficent to fully understand the process.


Many strick conservatives take a broader view that the 6 days represented in the bible to explain creation was in a language that early man could understand and just as easily apply to 6 billion years of earth history.

The same is true for evolution. Yes God created man. He may have used the process of evolution to create man. What we do know from science is that what we would call modern man is only 5 to 1000 years old.

However, we do know many narrow minded Liberals discount the Bibilical teachings because they are unable to open their minds and take a broader view and representations outlined in the bible.

They prefer to deamonize those they dis-agree with.

Correction"

The same is true for evolution. Yes God created man. He may have used the process of evolution to create man. What we do know from science is that what we would call modern man is only 5 to 10,000 years old.

Will

There's no arguing with a fundie...

Condoms are Cheap
There is no need for government to provide something like this. Every guy I ever knew had one in his wallet in caser he got lucky.

The Book of Fred and Wilma
"These biblical scientists tell us that Adam and Eve lived and frolicked in the Garden of Eden next to dinosuars."

Who knew that the true history of mankind was written by Hanna Barbara, creators of the documentary series titled "The Flintstones."

Heres what we do know from ...

Heres what we do know from advertising and promotion.

When you stimulate interest in a product, service, or event, you are more likely to get greater participation in the purchase of that product, service, or event.

Liberals support stimulating interest in Sex for minors.

Will
>I'm sorry, but social conservatives
are the ones that believe in the so-called "Young Earth Creationist Theory", where the earth "began" 6 to 10 thousand years ago

I am a "social conservative" and don't assume to know what I believe just because I fall under this label.

>Letting Young Earth evangelicals read Darwin is like placing pearls before swine.

I have read Darwin. Many of his basic principles such as the Finches have been proven false. The finches were adapting rather than evolving, hence the beaks returning to normal shape, size when drought/rainy season change. Evolution is permanent change. "Evolutionary Science" has ruled out his tree, it is more like a web. Darwin's Evolutionists were so facist(like the liberals of today) that Mendel's work was suppressed.

Two options:

A big puddle of sludge suddenly for no possible reason suddenly starts to evolve into a complex creature. Think of all our complex systems and the thousands of years it would take to evolve and put it all together--just to get to the ape stage--How in the world do you get to the survival stage. (Just because you put a bunch of computer peices in a box and shake them up- you won't get a working, functioning computer- you need an intelligent designer with a power source who can set up all the systems simultaneously at once to work in sync.) Now which theory require more faith, really? We appeared out of a puddle of sludge, or we had a designer?

Duhh
Teens have fully developed gas pedals, but no brakes.

For males, intercourse is the end game; for females it is the prologue.

Both statements could be translations from ancient Greek, Latin, Egyptian or oral history of pre-historic man.

You can think about anything at all except a Zebra. Do not think about a Zebra. This command will guarantee the only thought you have is a Zebra. - basic marketing 101

Army Wife 1228

"Now which theory require more faith, really? We appeared out of a puddle of sludge, or we had a designer?"
____________________________________________

I think when you look at some of the comments posted by these liberals it is not hard to see why they, at least, would choose for themselves, the former.

As a matter of fact, I think many of them are still in the sludge state.

will,there was plenty of room on the ark
for the dinosaurs. They just couldn't adapt to the changed environment when they got off.

This is a perfect example of what Ben is talking about. You Darwinists fail to distinguish between the "science" of determining what happened with real science, which is to understand how things work now.

Real scientific theories can be postulated, tested, and repeated by others.

Okay, enough already
Congratulations Mr. Shapiro, you've just parroted the same thesis Ann Coulter presented three years ago in her book "Godless." We all know the Liberal agenda: to sexualize our nation's youth, to promote the idea of male-female "sameness," to support homosexuality and gay marriage, to promote dependency on government, to destroy traditional family values and to disregard real science and replace it with their own falsified ideology. We've heard this spiel time and time again, and it's getting us nowhere.

What we need to uncover is why liberals are promoting the things they promote, why they believe the things they believe, and what their end game is. We need to understand their root philosophy and what they stand to gain by pushing it. We already know WHAT they do, we just need to know WHY they do it. It is the question of WHY that will ultimately reveal the liberal cause - whether it be for good or evil. I, for one, believe it is evil, since all liberal activity tends toward establishing themselves as lords and dictators over their fellow men. We as a nation have already spent blood and treasure ridding ourselves of one king, must we now declare our independence all over again?

Will, two other things - Satan was not
condemned to the form of a snake until after he talked to Eve. He was a beautiful "angel of light" while doing the tempting.

On another subject ...
I find your phrase "Letting Young Earth evangelicals read Darwin" fascinating - Sounds quite medieval - as though there should be a gatekeeper to the mysteries of science, separating the worthy from the unworthy and imparting knowledge only to the initiated.

Mike H nailed it
I was waiting for the author to say liberals prefer social studies to science. Had he, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that.

As for "How about liberals’ bizarre insistence that men and women are identical..." leading up to "nothing is further from the truth" I'll say this. I'm sixty three, voted for liberal candidates up to, but not including, 1992, knew noone who wasn't liberal, and not once in my life have I heard the "identical" phrase uttered. I guess I was in a "vive la difference" crowd. I must say, though, that I can think of a lot of things that seem "further from the truth," X chromosomes notwithstanding.

Maybe I'm wrong, but my sense of the "logic underlying this program" is NOT "that adolescents can be trusted to make adult decisions" I think it's the opposite. I think it's a hopeless surrender to, may I say, the pandemic of bad parenting, (forget mtv, that's over) booty calls, cougars on the tee vee, seven inch stilettos at the prom, ad.......a lot.

I won't accuse liberals of using logic to "get 'em while they're young," but I'm tempted. I think Mr. Shapiro, preaching to a choir, couldn't resist. Not that that's a bad thing...

Myths.
I am a scientist. In my early learning, all books about any science contained a line, usually appearing in the first three pages, "Scientists used to believe...."

Aye, there's the rub.

Proof
"liberals say that we must assume that teenagers are logical, and that they will use discretion -- and condoms -- if told of the risks of unprotected sex."

Proof that the Left is made up of a bunch of people who refuse to grow up beyond their teenage years. If Liberals believe teenagers are logical, Liberals must not be.

Useful
Actually, modern man, scientifically, is between 90,000 and 150,000 years old, given the individuals known as "Y Chromosonal Adam" (about 90,000 years ago) and "Mitocondrial Eve" (150,000), the terms used to describe the latest common male and female ancestors of modern man. Modern CIVILIZATION (the transition from nomadism to setlements and, later, cities) stretches back roughly 5,000-6,000 years.

MikeH
Joycelyn Elders, on both counts.

On part 1) Anyone who supports free condoms in schools, abortion on demand at any age, the fight against parental consent laws, legalized pot.

On part 2) Any female college professor, particularly at Harvard, NOW, GLAAD, etc.

Teenagers are morons

"...the prefrontal cortex -- is not yet fully developed."

Which probably explains why so many youth vote 'democrat'. It isn't until their brains are fully developed that they start to think rationally and begin voting Republican.

Unfortunately some people's brains never develop and they continue to vote democrat their entire life. Example, Hal Dufass.

Psycho Babble
Obviously, Ben, you are not a scientist. And you talking about science like you are is an insult to people who actually do science for a living. Next time, check your facts.

According the Guttmacher Institute, comprehensive sex education works and it has been shown to have positive effects on teens. By giving them the information they need, they can make informed decisions. Saying teenagers are incapable of doing so is not only insulting, it's arrogant. Since more comprehensive sex education has been used, the teen pregnancy rate and overall teen sexual activity has gone down. Don't believe me? See for yourself:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_ATSRH.html

It's clear you don't like the idea of teenagers having fun or exploring their sexuality as all teenagers have done since the beginning of humanity. It's also clear you've NEVER participated actively in the scientific process. Otherwise you would know science doesn't have an agenda. Political parties do. Don't blame the science, blame the parties. But that requires you to do more work and it's clear you don't want that.

science doesn't have an agenda?
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ho ho ho ha ha ha
oops.
milk came out my nose.

Jack, EVERYONE has an agenda.

science
In my freshman chemistry class our professor stated that "science was a series of lies, with each new lie more closely approximating the truth." I'm not sure if he was quoting sombody else or if the comment was original to him, but I liked it and have thought about it many times as I've read the tripe that is often promoted as scientific "fact", like man-made global warming.

Will in CA, I'm not sure what you're referring to with regards to biblical scientists. There is no referrence to dinosaurs in the Bible. The order of the creation as explained in the Bible follows the same general order that most "non-biblical" scientists give for the creation. The assumption that it was created in 6 24 hour days is presumptuous. Just because they "called it the first day" doesn't mean that it was 24 hours long. If you've read the Bible you would realize that the sun and moon were not even created until the fourth day, so how exactly were they measuring time? I see the definition of day used to describe six distinctive steps in the creation process. The original writers of the Bible could have said "and they called the evening and the morning the Jurasic Period," but since that didn't have any meaning then, they just called it a day. Something that everyone was familiar with.


Gayle, I'm going to assume you
take the Bible to be true at least on some level, and answer some of your questions...

- There is no reference to dinosaurs in the Bible. There's also no reference to the duck-billed platypus, yet here it is. Lack of reference doesn't mean it didn't exist. The bones we find prove that dinosaurs did exist.


- The Genesis order of creation does NOT follow the same order old-earthers / evolutionists propose. Consider the Genesis account:
1. Light created, and divided from the dark.
2. The atmosphere.
3. Oceans, land, and plants.
4. Sun, moon and Stars.
5. Fish, Whales and Birds.
6. Land Animals and People.

We have air, oceans, and plants appearing before the sun. We have birds and whales appearing before land-based reptiles and mammals.


- Genesis is as specific as can be that we're talking about 6 single days (24, 23.5 hours - whatever). The sun wasn't created until the fourth day, but light and dark were the first things created - that's "how exactly were they measuring time".

And why all this "evening & morning"? Why "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." How else would you describe a 24 hour period?

If Moses had been referring to an indistinct period, he could have just said "day" (like "the day of the LORD") or "year" and left off all the mornings and evenings.



Turelie
My conspiracy theory on the Why liberals want this.

First, there is a social phenomenon that exits in all people. If you are doing something wrong you psychologically want everyone to do the same thing. It is a juvenile's ways of justifying bad behavior.

Second, (more conspiracy) there is profit to keeping people ignorant, divided and making them feel unconsciously guilty. Especially if they have no proper course on how to deal with their moral mistake. One of religions' powers is that can absolve people from the past mistakes (everyone makes mistakes, everyone feels guilty for them). Bad religions (Jeremiah Wright) use this for political gain. I don't even think they believe in God or what they are saying, but they do believe that if they take this power (absolving) than they can control the South side of Chicago.

Liberalism in the United States wants to replace the power of (absolving through communion with God) with the power of (absolving through recycling, global warming, a fad of their creation). This sounds insane, but talk to a vegan or a Nazi recycle person or a global warming person (what a George Soros would call muck to be manipulated). They truly believe they are morally superior because they do this. If you look deeper you see a shallow person in search for themselves. They aren't ever going to find themselves in recycling or in environmentalism, but there will always be the next fad that will be pushed down their throats. No solid foundation = constantly wandering = easily lead. Truly spiritual and religious = solid moral foundation = not easily lead. Of course like I said before bad religion can = easily lead too.

Libs. *cherry pick* science
Libs. want to break up soc., and separating sex from families and marriages destroys those attachments so libs. can *remake* mankind in their perfected utopias

Both the Fr. and Russian Rev.'s followed the same patterns: exact equality between men women, degradation of marriage (esp. religious), elevation of *single* motherhood, massive *childcare* institutions, and for the Russians in 1919, the legalization of abortion, homosexuality, prostitution, pornography, and incest.

Both societies eventually revolted against the revolutions and restored traditional sexual customs. By 1936, the USSR was paying women to marry and giving bonuses for bearing children.

In courts, libs. are arguing teens do not deserve to be held accountable for their criminal actions as their frontal lobes are under developed: where much judgment resides.

For them then to argue that the same adolescents who can't distinguish criminal from legal acts are capable of responsible sex is more than the normal idiotic lib. mantras.

I know 18 year olds who can't remember assignments, bringing a pencil to class, or where their own locker is.

Giving *tweenies* condoms is just a sop to the US Rubber people. They must have contributed heavily in the last election.

Chris in AL
I believe the word you were looking for was "serpent", not "beautiful angel of light". Not sure which bible you are reading...

Abstinence
I would really prefer it if young teenagers would abstain from sex. However, because their brains aren't fully developed, some of them are going to no matter what we try to teach them. Even more than them not having sex, I want them not to get pregnant or catch an STD. Given that some of them are going to have sex no matter what, I'd rather they did it with a condom than without. It's an odds game, and the numbers I see show that kids given comprehensive sex education are not more likely to have sex, are not more likely to have sex at a younger age, and ARE more likely to use a condom if they do have sex. Abstinence-only programs (and remember that comprehensive sex education should also encourage abstinence, with the additional information provided in a sort of 'if you're going to be stupid and immature enough to have sex anyway after this STD video, here is the best way to protect yourself' way) just aren't as successful in preventing pregnancy and disease. Keeping children ignorant doesn't seem to be the most effective way of keeping them from getting pregnant or sick. I'm not saying Abstinence-only programs don't have a positive effect, just that they're not AS effective.

Genesis
In my day (there's that word again!), we understood that this was meant to relate the special relationship that man, of all of the creatures, had to God, and how we rejected him.

It is not a scientific literal text, and "yom" has every single meaning in Hebrew that it does in English.

Useful Idiots
Actually, DNA and fossil evidence indicates that modern humans originated around 200,000 years ago. Maybe you were referring to modern human civilization, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Dean, you miss your own
disconnect.

If teens cannot be taught that sex will bring them STDs and unwanted pregnancies and the pain of abortion or (rarely) early marriage, how can they be taught to regularly use condoms, as they cannot be taught how to read and write and compute?

The average high school grad. in DC reads on the 4th grade level (NAEP). Do you think he/she is a good candidate to use condoms faithfully ?

If you cannot figure it out, the answer is *No.*

Excuse me.
Someone already pointed that out.

My mistake.

Will 1:07
Couldn't stick to the subject. Had to give a rant against religion to defend your perverted lifestyle. How pathetic.

By the way. Prove evolution.

Explain how a cricket "evolved" a physical change to their legs to make sounds.

Explain how a bombadier beetle developed individual chambers of chemicals in their body that, if combined internally, would explode their bodies. They have injectors to expel the gasses to create a hot spray if attacked. Were there a lot of exploding beetles during the development process?

Explain homing pigeons. How can they find their way home from miles away. Magnetic field detection? Sun charting? Dead reckoning? Were there pigeons experimenting by flying away blind and trying to find their way home?

I see so many holes in evolution. It takes great FAITH to believe it, if you are a thinking individual.

What?
I've already pointed out what I think to be strawman arguments with this article, but it also contains glaring contradictions. For instance, Shapiro states that liberals want comprehensive sex education to be taught in schools along with condom distribution programs because liberals believe "that teens are fully capable of making informed choices...blah blah blah." But it should be obvious that it is precisely because liberals DON'T believe that adolescents are able to make fully informed and wise decisions (like going to the store and buying condoms before having sex) on their own that they want these programs in schools.

Sometimes I wonder if people like Shapiro have to work at being as idiotic as he is. If he had wanted to write an article on the "Liberal War on Science" he could written extensively on the alternative medicine and homeopathy movements or the baseless aversion to genetically modified foods or the "animal rights" movement that terrorizes scientists and universities. Instead, he writes this.

Why Cons Can't Handle Science
Both liberals and conservatives have a hard time with science. That's becasue science is rigorous and hard: most people have difficulty with things that are rigorous and hard. However, conservatives face other, built in, limitations that make it harder for them to grasp and/or accept science.

Conservatives are all about unchanging reality. They favor stable concepts that cannot be challenged. The idea of "revealed truth" plays a large role in their world view. Science, on the other hand, is a pretty well defined process for changing the status quo. And science absolutely opposes the idea of accepting something as true if it is not supported by empirical data.

Conservatives generally can't handle that. That's why the people who believe the world is only 7-10,000 years old, despite massive evidence to the contrary, are virtually all conservatives.

People of any sort can have a hard time with science. Conservatives are just worse at ti than liberals.

Really, and renny
Townhall must be getting desperate if now it can't find enough US programs to attack and is going after programs in England. And the logic of this article is contorted: teenagers make poor decisions, so (by withholding sex education and contraceptives) we should help them make even poorer ones so their sexual explorations will be unprotected (thus resulting in more STDs and pregnancies).

And, renny, the ten years at hard labor I once spent in a public senior high school made it very clear to me that the same kids who can't learn to analyze Macbeth or organize a paragraph can, indeed, master many other skills. Those same kids usually had a great affinity for learning to drive anything on wheels, take it apart and put it back together, get state certificates as cosmetologists, and go into well-paid jobs as refrigerator mechanic trainees.

And, you know what else, renny, they had all learned to screw. We didn't even have to teach it: they picked it up on their own. Their specialty was skipping Macbeth-and-paragraph-writing to go sit in the parking lot in their pickup trucks and have sexual intercourse; the school employed a full-time bouncer for the specific purpose of interrupting that behavior. And they weren't so dumb that they wanted to get syphillis. Or get pregnant.

teens
let me get this straight. teens don't have enough sense to put on a condom but they will heed the advice of an abstinence lecture?

John, nice strawmen. You're engaging
in hypocrisy.

Anyone For an Easter Egg Hunt?
These arguments separating science and religion seem silly to me. I am not a scientist but I have been married to a scientist for 56 years and we have always had a lot of scientists in our circle of friends, so I believe that over the years I have had a good chance to observe how scientists think. I have never known a scientist who was not in awe of the materials he worked with. He may not use the same words as an Evangelistic Christian, but the awe is real.

As for the coexistence of science and religion, I love the charming image made by AE Housman, who said that God has hidden treasures of knowledge all over the universe for man to find, just as parents hide Easter eggs for their children to find on Easter morning. Tens of thousands of scientific advances make our lives safer, easier, and pleasanter every hour that we live. Can we not say that God works through scientists by inspiring them, keep both sides happy in an Obama-esque compromise, and end this silly argument?

Rich
It's customary to add content. Just so you know...

So why...
... why is that Europe has such lower rates of teen pregnancy than America? If the Right is so much better on the science, why did it waste millions supporting 'Abstinence Only' education, which is less effective than including teaching about contraception? If Ben Shapiro has scientific evidence to contradict it then he should be bringing it up. Put up or shut up.

The UK has teen birth rates in between those of America (which is highest) and the rest of Western Europe (much lower). And its sex education is somewhere between the two - not as 'abstinence focused' as America, but not as 'teach sex-ed from a very early age' as place like Sweden or Norway (which have very low teen pregnancy rates).

If you're trying to argue that the UK should go nearer the American method, and further from the European way, then I'd really like to hear the rational.

For what it's worth
Since some of the posters have speculated about the age of the earth and "fundies" being tied to a young earth theory, I thought I'd point out a few facts - of language.

The English verb "was" in Gen 1:2a is an incorrect translation of the Hebrew word "hayah." The word "hayah" is used many times in the Old Testament and, almost always, translated correctly as "became." Thus, Gen 1:2 should begin: And the earth BECAME...

Next, the Hebrew "tohu wa-bohu" is incorectly rendered as "without form and void." Per Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, tohu means "a waste, desolation, or worthless thing; while bohu means "an indistinguishable ruin." Taken together (and in this context), these words mean: wasted and ruined. With respect to earth (the subject) they mean: made unfit for life. Gen 1:2 should begin: And the earth became ruined and destroyed...made unfit for life."

The rest of Gen 1 is NOT about the original creation. It is about RE-creation. I am unable, here, to present a complete discussion of this. Nevertheless, there is an untold gap of time between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2.

BTW, the Hebrew idiom "the evening and the morning" means, exactly, 24 hours. So, the universe may indeed be billions of years old, but re-establishment of life in the universe and creation of human beings in the very recent past. There is no argument, whatsoever, between "religion" and "science" when one understands the actual intent of the Hebrew.

not the brightest bulb
Could Shapiro really be as confused as this column suggests?

The reason for favoring comprehensive sex education is not that teenagers are fully rational. Actually even adults aren't fully rational. The question is whether they will make better decisions if they have access to accurate information than inaccurate information. There is no guarantee that they will, but every serious study of the question shows that in this case they do better with accurate information.

Shapiro's argument presupposes that teenagers prone to risky sexual behavior as long as they are not given access to contraception. Shapiro's argument is therefore bizarrely stupid. Does he not understand what risky means?

His other arguments show a similar lack of understanding of the arguments he seems to have deluded himself into thinking he is refuting.

What is sad is that conservatives have been warring with science so long that Shapiro would feel the need to frame his argument this way tot try to cover. Sad.

book
There is this new book that just came out, called The Darwin Myth, that explains how, perhaps desite his better intentions, Darwin formulated his evolution theories as a way to entirely remove God from science. I thought it was a really interesting read for anyone interested in the topic, from either side.

Lilly
Well said.

A lot of people try to say that God and science cannot coexist. They can. You can talk about God acting through nature. I wouldn't say that it belongs in a biology class though. Maybe in a religious studies class.

Irony
It's very ironic that a blog attacking Lefties for being anti-science attracts lots of posts from right-wing creationists. It would be like a bunch of holocaust deniers attacking others for being anti-semitic.

William, Genesis 3 does use the word
"serpent". My point was the serpent was cursed to crawl on his belly as a result of tempting Eve - therefore he was not crawling on his belly while he was tempting Eve. Elsewhere we learn that Satan is also called "Lucifer" ("bright star") and "angel of light".

Daniel, just one question about the gap
theory: did the sun and moon exist before and during the gap?


I'd also point out that the gap theory was originally proposed to explain dinosaur bones. But there is no need for such a gap - dinosaurs were created with the rest of the animals, and the remains of the ones that died in the flood were fossilized just like the remains of other plants and animals.

Chris
Thanks for the question. The proper translation of a Hebrew word does not depend on anyone's "theory" about anything. Yes, as I said, the universe may have been created billions of years ago - then, it was destroyed and made unfit for life.

The ancients did not have the benefit of science as we do. They did not understand the concept of "nuclear winter." The chaos inflicted upon original creation by a cosmic battle between "good and evil" (to leave personalities out of it for now) left the earth shrouded in a dense cloud of debris. Again, the Hebrew word "hayah" is used in Gen 1:3, so that "became" or "become" would be the proper translation. Gen 1:3 should begin: And the Elohim said: Let it become light(ed) [i.e. let light reach the surface of the earth, again]...

In order to accomplish said unshrouding, the Elohim would have caused this debris to precipitate out of the atmosphere. It was the first step toward re-establishing earth as a place of life.

Polls, economics and science
I knew for years how polls and economics are used to further agendas. It was not until recently that I have learned much of the science community has been taken over by politics (I admit to being late to learn this). Money trumps evidence and facts in the science world. Much of what they do is way above my skill set but I can smell an agenda a mile away. Can you say macro evolution? Pure crap and they know it.

Chris
"The remains of the ones that died in the flood were fossilized just like the remains of other plants and animals."

Hmm, the geologic column in some areas is 5000 meters thick. Is it likely this built up over a year days? Isn't that more than a 10 meters of fossilising a day? Doesn't sound very likely (or scientific).

Some parts of the fossil layers, such as the Minnekahta limestone, were deposited in hypersaline waters - not likely to be flood water at all.

Google to find the origin of this text, and read (if you're interested in actual science, that is. If not, don't bother):

"The fact that the fossils mammals are not found with the earliest dinosaurs, or that no primates are found until the Ft. Union formation or that no full dinosaur skeletons are found in the Tertiary section, implies strongly that the column was not the result of a single cataclysm. Worldwide, no whales are found with the large Devonian fish. If the column was an ecological burial pattern, then whales and porpoises should be buried with the fish. They aren't. The order of the fossils must be explained either by progressive creation or evolution."

Daniel
"The chaos inflicted upon original creation by a cosmic battle between "good and evil" (to leave personalities out of it for now) left the earth shrouded in a dense cloud of debris....
In order to accomplish said unshrouding, the Elohim would have caused this debris to precipitate out of the atmosphere. It was the first step toward re-establishing earth as a place of life"

Whoa, dude. Just wondering WHERE in God's Word do you get your source for this? All from the word "became"? Help a Christian out on this.

AndyR
"5000 meters thick"

Check your number. Are you saying there is a "geological column" over 1,500 MILES thick? I'd be curious to learn more about it if that is the case.

AndyR
Yes, I know, my calculator burped. Still would be interested in an almost three miles thick column. Still, 40 days times 10 meters a day...

And if not
Goodness me, calculator or not, surely you are aware that there's more than a few meters in a mile.

"Still would be interested in an almost three miles thick column."

It's good that you're interested in geology! The Haymond beds alone in the North Dakota geologic column are 1300 m thick. Google talkorigins with geologic column if you want to read about it.

Logic doesn't make sense
If a child's brain isn't old enough to make the choice to use condoms, how are they old enough to decide to abstain from sex? This is why it's laughable sometimes to hear a conservative argument. it makes no logical sense..

And if not
I'm guess that no-one claims the flood deposited all the fossils in 40 days. Isn't that how long it rained for, rather than how long the flood lasted? I believe it was there for about a year in total. But that's still not long enough to make the deposits, all in order. That's similar to the strawman representation of evolution as being like a hurricane creating a jumbo jet. Rather, it's like a hurricane sweeping through a library, mixing up all the pages, then depositing them somewhere else all with the pages in the right order. ie, no bunny rabbit fossil in the Cretaceous period!

AndyR, the distribution of animals can
be explained by differing sizes, densities, and behavior patterns. The earth didn't flood in a day - it took 40 days, then over a year for the water to recede to the tops of mountains. Fossilization of kilometers of sediment all happened simulataneously over the next 50-100 years, or however long it took.

You've got a major problem with slow fossilization in strata as well - scientists will look at strata a few inches thick and explain how each little layer took many thousands of years to lay down... then you look a few yards over and there's a petrified tree sticking through 10 million supposed years of stratification. Nice of it to stand there and not rot while the sediments built up around it...

As for rapid fossilization, we have evidence that fossilization can happen very rapidly. Go take a look around Mt St Helens and get back to me.


The flood is responsible for the majority, but not all fossilization. Some fields fossilized - or were at least covered in sediment - before or after the flood, and can show evidence of different salinities, etc.

J
I agree with J about the lack of sense. The real deterent to kids is concrete and enforced consequences, such as if you have sex you will make a baby. Condoms and abortion (birth control in general) remove negative consequences (at least perceived ones, there is no condom as yet for the heart and soul) and put in place the message: do it.

to Daniel, on translating from Hebrew...
"hayah" can mean any tense of "is" or "become". It could be "was" or "became". For example, when God identified Himself as "I AM THAT I AM", He used "hayah" twice. So it's inconclusive based on other uses of the same word by the same author.

You've also got a problem in v 16, where God made the sun and moon. "asah" is never translated "revealed" - it's always "made" or "did" or something like that.

And if you try to say that Moses (or Adam or whoever wrote the account) didn't understand what happened, and used the wrong word, now you've gotten away from the inspiration of the Bible by God.

Chris
Google the article I referenced and read it. Will be more complete than me answering your points. Gotta go.

Will, Mellor, and their ilk Part I
"…the Earth-Moon distance is increasing. We know this because the
Apollo Astronauts placed reflective mirrors on the moon from which we can bounce of lasers from the Earth and measure the time it takes for the light to travel back and forth between the Earth and the Moon. Successive measurements show that the Earth-Moon distance is indeed increasing."

"As a result the Earth's rotation is slowing down very slowly as well."

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/ast99/ast99639.htm


"The Earth's magnetic field is generated in the fluid outer core by a self-exciting dynamo process. Electrical currents flowing in the slowly moving molten iron generate the magnetic field."

http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/earthmag.html



"The Earth's magnetic field is generated within its molten iron core through a combination of thermal movement, the Earth's daily rotation, and electrical forces within the core."

http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/geology/a_geomag.html


As I understand it, scientists think that the center of the earth is hotter than the surface. Therefore hot material (less dense and lighter) will move outward toward the surface while cooler material (denser and heavier) will move inward toward the center. This movement within the earth’s molten center (convection) causes an electric field to be generated. The motion of the earth’s rotation on its axis magnifies this electric field to generate the electro-magnetic field that we see today. If any component is reduced in any way the electro-magnetic field is weakened. (Summarized from above and: http://knol.google.com/k/j-marvin-herndon/origin-of-the-ea rths-magnetic-field/1x8elf7fue7ro/7#)

J
You are right. Teens are not "old enough to decide to abstain from sex." PARENTS and social norms have to do it for them!

AND IF NOT: Thanks for the interest. First, I have not presented the above because of one word (hayah = became). I followed it, immediately, with three others (tohu wa-bohu = ruined, destroyed, made unfit for life, etc.). You might want to review Rev 12:7 and Eze 28:12b-19.

Another key is the proper understanding of the Greek word katabole (or kataballo), which was translated "foundation" in 10 New Testament verses. In each case, it would be rendered better as "ruin or disruption." It comes from "kata" (down) and "ballo" (cast or throw, violently or with great intensity). Reread Mt 13:35, Mt 25:34, Lk 11:50, Jhn 17:24, Eph 1:4, Heb 4:3, Heb 9:26, I Ptr 1:20, Rev 13:8, and Rev 17:8 with this in mind.

I do not rail against the KJ translators, but they made some significant errors based, in part, on their lack of knowledge of Hebrew and Greek. (Hey, they were well meaning...but men, not gods.) Sadly, the few significant errors they made have contributed to the false "religion/science" debate.

Will, Mellor, and their ilk Part II
Science predicts according to the 2d Law of Thermodynamics that energy will always move from a higher level of excitement to a lower level. From this law we know that the earth is losing energy and ultimately will grow cold; we know that the earth’s rotation on its axis will ultimately cease. It stands to reason that in the past earth had more energy, and earth’s rotation was faster. More energy in the earth and a faster rotation gives a stronger elector-magnetic field.

If we measure the electro-magnetic today and give it an arbitrary value of 1, then we can use the scientifically determined half-life of earth’s electro-magnetic field (1400 years) and calculate the relative electro-magnetic field strength for any time in the past. For instance, ~1400 years ago Mohammed was first selling Islam to the Arabs and the field strength was 2x greater than today. ~2800 years ago, Greece was at its infancy and the field strength was 4x greater than today. ~4200 years ago, Egypt was a fledgling world power and the field strength was 8x greater. At ~5600 years ago, Adam and Eve were still alive and the field was 16x greater.

7000 years ago, it was 32x greater.
8400 years ago, it was 64x greater.
9800 years ago, it was 128x greater.
11200 years ago, it was 256x greater.
12600 years ago, it was 512x greater.
14000 years ago, it was 1024x greater.
15400 years ago, it was 2048x greater.
16800 years ago, it was 4096x greater.
18200 years ago, it was 8196x greater.
19600 years ago, it was 16384x greater.
21000 years ago, it was 32768x greater.
22400 years ago, it was 65536x greater.
23600 years ago, it was 131072x greater.
25000 years ago, it was 262144x greater.
26400 years ago, it was 524288x greater.
27800 years ago, it was 1048576x greater.
29200 years ago, it was 2097152x greater.

Will, Mellor, and their ilk Part III
I have difficulty comprehending an earth electo-magnetic field over 2,097,000 times greater than today – and this ONLY at 29,200 y.a. Today’s electro-magnetic field measures .6 Gauss at its strongest. This translates into a Gauss reading of 1,258,291 at 29,200 y.a. A White Dwarf star registers a 1,000,000 Gauss reading.
http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/ask/a11654.html

It is because of science that I reject evolution.

You can believe what you like, but don’t go around telling people that you have science on your side. You cafeteria shop your science to support your bias and ignore any science that interrupts your propaganda flow.

Chris
Thanks, again. Obviously, you are a serious student of Scripture, as am I; but you have made some assumptions about me that are not true. For example, I would not translate the word asah (Gen 1:16) as "revealed." Gen 1:14-19 does NOT refer to original creation or to the first step in the re-establishment of life on earth. Those verses refer to the PURPOSE of the "heavenly bodies" vis a vis us and the earth. The Hebrew word asah means "to make, prepare, or provide." The Elohim "provided" these heavenly bodies for the purposes stated in this section.

Re the word hayah, it is almost always translated in the KJ of Gen as "became." Given everything else we can learn about original creation, the chaos/disruption that occurred more recently, etc. the best translation in Gen 1:2 would be "became."

Although there are some serious problems with evolutionary theory, I have no problem whatsoever with the probability that the universe is billions of years old. I am trying, here, to explain that a better understanding of Hebrew would deliver us from this false religin/science dichotomy.

Finally, you might want to check out The Companion Bible by Dr. E.W. Bullinger for a much more thorough discussion of this subject.

Faith in Darwinism
I would like to attempt a sincere effort to discuss the merits of Darwinian Evolution, for my own sake if nothing else. I am not a “Creationist’ who believes the world was created in seven days. I am not even an ‘Intelligent Designer’ to the extent that Liberals believe such is nothing more than an attempt by “Creationist’ to apply a new more acceptable name to themselves. What I am is someone who has problems with Darwinism resulting in the variety of species we have today.

For the most part, different species can not interbreed. Some may produce offspring but that offspring can not then successfully breed. I am not even sure science has a good handle on what constitutes a species beyond similar physical straits. I don’t thing they could look at two gnomes and declare that from that content alone they are or are not two different species.

The question, then, is if a new species were to result from some arbitrary genetic mutation, with what does that new species procreate? Even if the assumption is that a new species does not appear suddenly in one individual but rather evolves over a long period of time, problems remain. At some point the first of the new species which could not interbreed with its forebears most have appeared so with what did it then procreate? Also, if it happened over a long enough period of time for evolution to have worked its slow magic, then why do we not see more evidence of it in the fossil record?

There are other issues as well and I am not saying this or they disprove evolution, much less confirms creationism or intelligent design. I expect there may well be an explanation that eludes me. If anyone, right or left, has any insight I would be delighted to hear it.

My only point is that the vast majority of the “Evolutionist” believers have not bothered to think it through and are relying on faith just as much as are the “Creationists” and “Intelligent Designers” they so distain.

Clarifying The Liberal View
I cannot dipute Mr. Shapiro's science, however he draws the wrong conclusion on the liberal view on these issues. The disagreement is not science, rather it is policy.

On contraception, Mr. Schapiro is correct that teens don't have the mental capacity to rational judgements about sex. Liberals agree. But the liberal view is that becasue of teens inability to reason, teens are going to have sex no matter how much we try to stop them. So if they are going to do it, better they have condoms than not.

On abortion, the majority of people in this country as well as liberals think that abortion is wrong. Again the difference is whether the federal government should prevent you having an abortion.

Now I know the majority here disagree with these views, but my point is that liberals do not reject the science, they disagree on the policy.

Also, if you agree with Mr. Shapiro's closing statement "Far more often, it is liberals who ignore hard science" - Are you willing to argue that conservatives do not do the same? Especially when it comes to religion. Then facts are irrelevant - creationism vs evolution.

We all cherry pick facts and science to promote our views. Look at global warming, both sides pick two different sets of facts. Conservatives are just as guilty as liberals.

raymond
>My only point is that the vast majority of the “Evolutionist” believers have not bothered to think it through and are relying on faith just as much as are the “Creationists” and “Intelligent Designers” they so distain.

That is a lot of the "creationists" point. As a creationist and intelligent designist, I have never advocated teaching that in school. What I want though, is an honest dialogue about evolution. I want the holes in the theory to be taught. Right now our children our taugh evolution as though it is set in stone-game over. I think it does our children an injustice. What if both creationism and evolution are both wrong. We are not keeping an open mind. NO ONE is looking for an answer, because science has closed its mind which is in direct opposition to what science is.

Birdman II, I'm with you on almost
everything you said ... except ...

Young-Earth creationists should not try to use the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. There are plenty of other good arguments (some of which you've put forth).

The 2nd law simply states that the entropy of a closed system must always increase. Someone said about it that disorder must increase, which is generally true.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that the Earth is not a closed system - it receives huge amounts of useful energy from the sun. So the entropy of the solar system (a closed system for energy purposes) always increases, but the entropy of the earth does not necessarily have to increase while the sun is still active.

ArmyWife 1228
Yes, I quite agree.

Army Wife 1228 @ 1:26 pm
"My only point is that the vast majority of the “Evolutionist” believers have not bothered to think it through and are relying on faith just as much as are the “Creationists” and “Intelligent Designers” they so distain."
Yes, there is little attempt to really think "evolution" through.

Here is a question for all good scientists who hold to macro evolutionism:
Which evolved first? The adenosine molecule or the deoxyribonucleic molecule? I understand that the adenosine triphosphate molecule supplies the heat energy necessary for the synthesization of other molecules, and the DNA molecule carries all the instructions needed to produce adenosine triphosphate (and every other molecule in the body). Without the one, you can’t have the other; without the other, you can’t have the one.

Do you believe that both suddenly popped into being and began working together?

to Raymond on speciation
The Bible teaches that animals reproduce after their own kind. It says nothing about species. We consider lions and tigers to be of different species, but they could easily be of the same Biblical "kind" or "type" - that is - the Bible does not preclude adaptation and speciation within a type.

Lions and Tigers can breed with each other, although their offspring is sterile - but undoubtedly earlier in their divergance they could produce fertile offspring.

Sometimes animals of different genus can breed - take the marine iguanas and terrestrial iguanas of the galapagos islands that sometimes breed - and are almost certainly descended from the same stock.

That's all fine for gradual changes within a type - but when you have multiple components of a system that all have to change together - to evolve outside a type - the fitness of the animal would have to drop while the components re-sync, which would mean it would not survive. That's the very short version of "irriduceable complexity".

Younger
Another good point and as I said there are more. None of which will get addressed here, but at least we may have stopped the 'everyone who questions evolution is just a religious moron' responses.

Er, no, Raymond

"None of which will get addressed here, but at least we may have stopped the 'everyone who questions evolution is just a religious moron' responses."

Chris
Thanks, I don't see us as being in disagreement expect the part about ' earlier in their divergance they could produce fertile offspring'. I still have a problem with the instance of divergence. However, isn't it nice to discuss without name-calling and ad hominen attacks?

On the lighter side...
Careful not to judge Ben.
You were once a teenager too.

Raymond, who you callin' a hominem?
Seriously ...

On "having a problem with the instance of divergence" - do you mean you see no evidence that it has ever happened?

If so, I'd say we have very good evidence that the iguanas on the galapagos islands are all descended from common stock. But they're still iguanas...

If you meant something else, please explain.

stedes - Masterfully said.
You hit the nail on the head. I lean republican, and these are a few issues that just baffle me. Abstinence doesn't work - its not a reasonable sex ed approach. By all means, promote it - just realize that teens are going to have sex and ignore the abstinence teaching. Everyone was a teen, and everyone knows what that was like. Unless the teen in question is an outcast of some sort, ie - unattractive, shy, etc. they will be having or trying to have sex. So why not give them condoms or at least let that be an option?
They are going to be having sex anyways- i did, everyone i know that could did. I used protection, it wasnt that difficult.

Side note- people quoting the bible as a reason to only promote abstinence- please bear in mind that not everyone is religious - nor are they all christian. So what is said in the bible is not necessarily important to everyone - you have to keep that in mind- the bible is not fact for many.

Chris
Not you if that's what you think. "Will 1:07" is one example.

On "Having a problem with the instance of divergence" I refer back to my original post. With what does the first of new species that can not procreate with any but its own kind, first procreate?

Stedes from NJ - Evolution
Conservatives are not "against" the theory of evolution. Many just argue it is still a theory, yet to be proven. That also happens to be a scientific fact.

Many conservatives take a broader view that "the first man", as described in the bible was created by GOD. It is a belief, not a theory.

The Bible says God created man. God may have used evolution to create man we know not. What we would call modern man able to record history came about appox. 5,000 years ago.

The six days that god used to create heaven and earth could be a representation of the 6 Billion years of Earth's natural history. That would make sense given the limited understanding of the universe by ancient man.

There is no conflict unless one is narrow minded.


Stedes from N.J.
Again you swallow the Liberal line hook line and sinker.

I don't know anyone who believes the Federal Government should ban abortions. I am sure their are few. I do know Liberals who believe it is the Federal Government responsibility to protect abortion rights.

Most conservatives beleive that since the U.S. Consitution is silent on when life begins that the Federal Government should leave the issue to the states. This also happens to be the view of many conservative Judges. Its up to the stastes and not the Federal Government. If a state decides an issue and gets it wrong, they can later change the law. If the Supreme Court decides and issue and gets it wrong, generations may pass before any corrective action is taken. Witness the Dred Scott Decision.

Only Liberals beleive the Federal Government should protect, fund, support and encourage abortions.

You are correct that many people will pick and choose the facts. However, they tend to be the extremist on both sides of an issue.

The Liberal argument about teens will do it anyway so why not give them the information sounds reasonable until you factor in stimulating the young mind before they are ready to make decisions. If you stimulate teens to think more about the arts, you will get more artists. If you stimulate teens about science, you will get more scientists. If you stimulate teens about sports, you will end up with more jocks. For the past 40 years, liberals have been wanting to stimulate teens about sex. Any wonder why 13/14 year olds are now getting pregnant at record numbers?

You can thank liberals for condeming these young ladies to a life of poverty.

By your post, I can tell you have been listening to the extremist Liberals one the left.

Raymond
Your question about interbreeding doesn't address the issue of time. In fact, one of the failings of modern Americans is the inability to grasp really big numbers.

So, it isn't the case that Lemurlikemammal Q all of a sudden can't mate with others of his kind. Lemurlikemammal Q can breed with versions M,N,O,and P. But Q can't breed with versions G,H,I,J,K and L. ADN these variations can be separated by vast stretches of time. Tens of millions of years.




another great article
So, where to begin. It would be nice if TH columnists and readers did a bit of bkgnd research. Tehn they would know that the policy is nothing new, it's been in schools for years and is credited w/ reducing pregnancies. But it first focused on girls and is now adding boys.

It was developed by Brook Advisory Centres, 40+ year old center for free and confidential sexual health advice and services specifically for young people under 25 and includes info about sexually transmitted diseases.

Boys will be able to collect the condoms by showing a plastic card issued to them after they have attended the safe-sex lessons.

If Shapiro had done a bit more research he would have discovered that according to Dr. Dahl, "Adolescence is a key time to intervene in a number of important issues."

But of course Shapiro took the lazy approach


Applause
I applaud those conservatives who have come to the fore and stated that the idea of a 7,000 year old earth is an unlikely, to say the least, scientific possibility.

However, you all have to admit that young earth belief is quite common, even predominant, among fundamentalist Christians. And one must also accept the fact that fundamentalist Christians form a powerful and influential block within the conservative movement.

Useful Idiots
If Gen 1 had not used the expression "the evening and the morning" (were the first day, second day, etc.), then your speculation that the "six days" of Genesis 1 could be "6 billion years" might be worth considering. However, the Bible was not written in English. The Hebrew translated "the evening and the morning" are from a Hebrew idiom that mean a 24 hour period of time, i.e. 1 literal day. I do not believe (as indicated in previous posts, above) that Gen 1 refers to original creation - which, indeed, may have been billions of years ago. Rather, it refers to the re-establishment of order out of chaos, the re-establishment of life in a dead universe.

I have taken the time today to present several posts so as to demonstrate that a "fundamentalist Christian," such as myself, need not be anti-Science. In my opinion the religion/science debate (re creation, evolution, etc.) is based on a misunderstanding of Hebrew...not on what Scripture, actually, reports!

No problem with evolution
A lot of the religious leaders at the time of Darwin also had little problems with the idea that life evolved and changed. Where the problem lies is the claim by extreme Darwinists that evolution disproves the existence of God as creator of the Universe. In truth, evolution says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of God, but merely describes a process. The Christian would claim that this process was guided by God according to a plan. The secularist would say that everything is random and 'natural'.
To those who insist on a literal seven thousand year old earth, the earliest theologians didn't necessarily see it that way. Also, who am I (and who are you) to limit how God chooses to create? Could a 'young earth' version of life and reality be possible? Of course. But it isn't likely. And nothing in a longer term for history takes away from the glory of God.

Robert
More applause.

Though I am decidedly not religious, there is no logical reason that evolution could not be God's mechanism for creating different life forms.

You also ask why some folk seem committed to limiting the nature of God. That is, I submit, a particularly apt description. Much of what is identified as fundamentalist Christianity is really an effort to reduce God to human, and therefore understandable, proportions.

One of the bugs in the system is the insistence on literal interpretation of teh Bible. Evolution, and science itself, is distrusted and battled for only one reason: it challenges the simplistic, literal reading of the Bible that is so central to many CHristians.




John
>fundamentalist Christians form a powerful and influential block within the conservative movement

What do you consider a fundamentalist? I consider myself a fundamentalist. I believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. I believe the Word of God is not mistaken only are perception and translation of it. The Bible speaks of seven days, we assume that God is speaking of 24 hour days. The word yom is used to describe day in genesis. This does not necessarily mean 24 hours. There are some indication in genesis of this. 3rd day trees grew from seeds to maturity and they bore like seeds. This process would take years.
The truth is we cannot claim to understand God. An ant cannot understand a computer. It is out of the realm of the ant's consciousness. It does not mean a computer does not exist.

Raymond, the hominem thing was just
a poor attempt at humor.


On speciation, the first of a new species - if you can call it that - breeds with a member of its former species and produces fertile young which "fall between" the two species. Eventually if the environmental forces favor the new species, there will be plenty members to begin breeding as a new and distinct population. The "old" and "new" can still breed with each other, but after a while they may only be able to produce sterile offspring.


One thing scientists have recently discovered is that adaptation (selection of existing phenotypes) happens much more rapidly than previously realized. Darwin's finch populations, for example, can go from a fully short, thick beak to a fully elongated beak in a single generation, and back in the next. Once the phenotype is in the population it doesn't take long at all for natural selection to do its work.

John
So, if Jesus Christ wanted to reach as many people as possible with his message (via his disciples, the church, and the Bible) of varying degrees of intellect, what method should he use? a) 'Simplistic' literal understood by most or b) a highly figurative language only understood by those with special knowledge and/or training- perhaps his secret club!

You confuse a literal reading with simple meanings. I may "believe on Jesus Christ and be saved", but salvation entails many different meanings, a word that scholars and clergy throughout the centuries have spent lifetimes studying.

Some things clearly are symbolic in Scripture, but when Christ spread His message of eternal life to mostly the poor peasants of Palestine, I don't think He meant that they would be raised from the dead figuratively.

By the way, you'd be surprised to find that many fundamentalists do trust science, but have a better appreciation of its limits than dedicated materialists (matter is all there is). That is as much an article of faith as any religious tenet- perhaps more so, given the fact that it is backed by less evidence than the existence of God. At one point in history, they made a 'science' of studying the dimensions of human skulls to deduce a person's mental and character traits(phrenology). This has since been discredited. Not everything that calls itself 'science' merits the term, and science itself calls for the use of one's critical faculties to distinguish good ideas from bad. Oh, I forgot- 'scientists' never make mistakes, feel pressure from their peers, etc. Sorry.

Shapiro stupidity lives!!!
And just where is the evidence from these 'VIRTUALLY ALL SCIENTIFIC STUDIES..." Up your behind? Ben can't contrive any Obama-hate this week so he writes a fictional account of a "study" done in the UK. Bullsh** lies pure and simple. Your ignorance about the world continues to be about on par with the rest of the ninnies out there. So, you think that you're going to turn the tables and decry that it's liberals who are anti-science and not the neocons? And you're going to do this by trying to tell people that you are now an expert on teenage behavior, and you're familiar with all the studies? Baloney. You know nothing about "science" or teenagers because if you did you would know that for much of the world, there is no such thing as a teenager. You go from childhood to adult complete with adult responsibilities. Take your head out of your butt, Shapiro. Even for your bottom-feeder standards for intelligence, this is a pathetic lie. Sure hope no one out there is buying this garbage -- if so, you're as pathetic as he is.

chris - Jun 10, 2009 - 1:32 PM EST
"Birdman II, I'm with you on almost everything you said ... except ..."
...
The 2nd law simply states that the entropy of a closed system must always increase. Someone said about it that disorder must increase, which is generally true.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that the Earth is not a closed system - it receives huge amounts of useful energy from the sun. So the entropy of the solar system (a closed system for energy purposes) always increases, but the entropy of the earth does not necessarily have to increase while the sun is still active."

And the sun itself is burning up energy. Ultmately, the sun will cease to emit energy because ultimately everything is within the closed system of the universe. Another way to look at entropy is water flowing downhill. The ordered state is water in the mountain. The disordered state is water in the oceans. If all water is in the oceans then no water wheels turn. It takes work or effort to move the water to the mountain tops just as it took work or effort for the Big Bang to occur. Once set in motion, everything flows downhill until ultimately there is no more usable energy in the universe.

The earth's rotation is not dependent upon the energy from the sun. The moon's regression means that the earth's rotation slows. Once it slows there does not appear to be any means of resetting the earth's rotation. Slow the rotation of the earth and the dynamo loses strength. decrease the strength of the dynamo and the electro-magnetic field weakens. 2d Law in action.

Daniel
The Hebrew word "yom" means day or an indefinite period of time. It is confirmed to be an indefinite period of time in the first verse 2:4 "4 ?These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,?"


The verb "hayah", the imperfect form of the verb "to be" in Hebrew, has many meanings and must be translated in context. It is not always, or almost always "became". The present form of the verb "to be" is not used in Hebrew because it is the same word as Yahweh, the unspoken name of God.

1961 ???????, ????? [hayah /haw·yaw/] v. A primitive root [compare 1933]; 491; GK 181 and 2118; 75 occurrences; AV translates as “was”, “come to pass”, “came”, “has been”, “were happened”, “become”, “pertained”, and “better for thee”. 1 to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out. 1a (Qal). 1a1 ——-. 1a1a to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass. 1a1b to come about, come to pass. 1a2 to come into being, become. 1a2a to arise, appear, come. 1a2b to become. 1a2b1 to become. 1a2b2 to become like. 1a2b3 to be instituted, be established. 1a3 to be. 1a3a to exist, be in existence. 1a3b to abide, remain, continue (with word of place or time). 1a3c to stand, lie, be in, be at, be situated (with word of locality). 1a3d to accompany, be with. 1b (Niphal). 1b1 to occur, come to pass, be done, be brought about. 1b2 to be done, be finished, be gone.



Also, the best way to translate Genesis is using the "present perfect" form, which makes the Bible come alive. "In the beginning God creates the heavens and the earth. ... And God says be light and light is!" In this case, we know what the meaning of is is.

Rosario
>Shapiro stupidity lives!!!
And just where is the evidence from these 'VIRTUALLY ALL SCIENTIFIC STUDIES..." Up your behind?

Why don't you actually make an argument instead of going on a rant about how stupid Ben is.

Armywife

There are fundamentalists who do not believe in the literal truth of the Bible. And there are fundmentalists who do believe in the literal truth of the Bible. I leave it to them to hash that out. In just this thread, several different interpretations of genesis have been presented. Each of them is accepted as Truth by its proponent.

The point is not that one is right and one is wrong. The point is that the literalists are a powerful force in the Conservative movement.



Birdman II - I think we're now just
having a semantic argument. I completely agreed with your description of decaying magnetic fields and rotational rates. I only took exception to the use of the 2nd law when discussing the earth's temperature.


"Ultmately, the sun will cease to emit energy"

Yes, we're in agreement there.

"Another way to look at entropy is water flowing downhill. The ordered state is water in the mountain. The disordered state is water in the oceans. If all water is in the oceans then no water wheels turn. It takes work or effort to move the water to the mountain tops"

Yes. That work is currently being done by the sun as it evaporates the water..., so as far as water cycle on earth goes, entropy is roughly static. You have to consider the entropy of the entire solar system including the sun, where entropy is rapidly increasing.


I now realize you exactly didn't do this ... but my pet peeve is when I hear people try to use the 2nd law to prove that life cannot become more complex. There are many reasons why sponges cannot evolve into people, but the 2nd law is not one of those reasons.

John
>Armywife

There are fundamentalists who do not believe in the literal truth of the Bible.

I believe in the literal truth of the bible, but I also know the bible was written in another language that used many different words to express different things. No one believe everything literally from the bible as Jesus himself does not speak literally at times- he used metaphors and parables many times. A fundamentalist believes that the bible is the inerrant word of God. Fundamentalism has become a parody in the mainstream. Many of us may have faith, but have not come to faith blindly. I "evolved"(excuse the pun) to faith over years. It was not an aha! moment for me.
When I feel the need to doubt the Bible--I always come back to what Jesus said to Nicodemus, "If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

Fascinating!
Having read this thread through #96, I'm finding myself in an unusual position. I'm actually seeing discussion instead of vitriol (except for the few dingbats on both sides). I've also been learning a little more science, a little more Hebrew, and seeing some good pilpuls (look it up). Thanks, one and all.

As for teen sex and rational thought. Teens can make rational decisions about sex. In my teens I had a exceedingly lovely and willing girlfriend. I kept thinking of her farther's 12-guage shotgun. Cooled my ardor, it did!

P
One of the things you say puts the rest into perspective. You write "I don't think He meant that they would be raised from the dead figuratively."

You may not think that, but early Christians absolutely believed that! Many early Christians believe that Jesus would be back within a very short period of time: just a few years or even a few months. The Catholic Church believed for centuries that rising from the dead was a literal truth.

What you believe is immaterial. The point is that many many modern Christians DO believe in the literal truth. They believe not only in the inerrancy of the BIble, but that the English King James version of the Bible (or some other version) is the inerrant version.

Sarah Palin, for example, the darling of the conservative movement, is a young earther. The people who made it illegal to teach evolution in 1920's Tennessee were young earthers. The Dover PA school board members were young earthers.

Most people have trouble with science. As I said, it is hard and it is rigorous. But the conservative movement has a built in problem with science. The movement draws a lot of energy and good deal of its critical philosophy from CHristian fundamentalists. Even if they are not literalists, they definitely have a fondness for "revealed truth". Either way, they have a built in tendency to believe that Truth has already been established. Science works in teh other direction; it works toward Truth, not from truth.


chris
I used the water cycle merely as a mental picture of 2d Law in action. No where did I ever claim anything about life. However, one of the problems with evolution is the necessity of long time frames for their theory to even sound plausible. As I have shown, by calculating the expected half-lives over after a tiny 29,000 years, at present decay rates, the earth's elector-magnetic field would have rivaled a white dwarf star. Even if the half-life was doubled to 2800 years, the time frame would be only 58,000 years. Evolutionists are looking for spans of billions of years. How intense must the the earth's electro-magnetic field have been if their scenerio of billions is correct? The only way out for them is to totally ignore real scientific measurements and reasoning. And they claim that belief in a young earth is unreasonable? Which belief system is more unreasonable?

Chris
Your short sightedness is apparent. Your take on what was a day in the beginning doesn't make sense, not in time or space. Doesn't matter when the sun was created. The definition of day in the Universe is as varied as the number of stars. The 24 hour day is only applicable to Earth. Not to Venus, Mars, or the rest of the Universe. There is no way we know what a day was in the beginning.

Birdman II
An apt name

Do you, perhaps, have an actual citation regardign the "half life" of Earth's magentic field? Or did you just come up with this concept on your own?

You did touch on a very real issue. Evolution does indeed take a time frame of hundreds of millions of years. That's why Chrisitans go to such absurd lengths to prop up the idea of a young earth. Only on a young earth can the Bible have any kind of literal accuracy.

John
>Sarah Palin, for example, the darling of the conservative movement, is a young earther.

Sarah Palin HAS NEVER confirmed this. A teacher who writes for a liberal blogs claims( and he is the only one that I know of) that he heard her addressing a small group of graduating homeschool children in which she claimed that man walked the earth the same time dinosaurs did. It is amazing if this is a deeply held belief how they cannot find another instance of her stating this other than in front of this liberal music teacher.

John
Your vision of time is a limited as Chris. We still don't understand its full concept. It is realy space/time, and rapid travel can bend it. If you can expand your narrow thought, imagine beings could survive on the Sun and they measured a day by light and a night by dark, as Chris alluded to. Their scientists would insist the Sun is less than 1 day old.
So, what exactly is a "young earth"?

John
>But the conservative movement has a built in problem with science. The movement draws a lot of energy and good deal of its critical philosophy from CHristian fundamentalists

No, we have a problem in that science has REPLACED religion. You cannot tell me that some evolutionist are just as extreme and dare I say religious in their view of Darwinism? You cannot tell me that Global Warmist crush dissent much the way the you claim fundies crush dissent? The point is that science used to be a source of complimenting God. Scientist used science to prove the hand of God. Now the basis of science is to prove there is no God. We are the uneducated, unwashed masses if we do not bow to the religion of science. As I said before I am a fundie, I believe that the bible is inerrant. The errors are made in the translation and the perceptions of mankind. A lot of fundies have studied the language, the archeology etc. They don't just say "praise the lord." It is the mainstream parody of fundies that have been used overtime to radicalize and marginalize our voice. No fundy I know takes every part of the bible literally. As I said before, we are aware it is filled with metaphors, parables etc.

Wow Rosario
You referred to the stupidity Mr. Shapiro and claimed his take was totally pathetic, without a shred of evidence to back your claims. So if Mr. Shapiro is pathetic, what does that make you exactly?

Hey army wife
Rosario isn't on a rant...shapiro is.

A couple of problems with the column:

The UK policy is nothing new, it's been in schools for years and is credited w/ reducing pregnancies. But it first focused on girls and is now adding boys.

It was developed by Brook Advisory Centres, 40+ year old center for free and confidential sexual health advice and services specifically for young people under 25 and includes info about sexually transmitted diseases.

Boys will be able to collect the condoms by showing a plastic card issued to them after they have attended the safe-sex lessons.

If Shapiro had done a bit more research he would have discovered that according to Dr. Dahl, "Adolescence is a key time to intervene in a number of important issues."

But of course Shapiro took the lazy approach...beat up on Liberals and Obama, mistate studies and quote out of context. Where does he get this stuff?


Shapiro took the lazy approach
jdhfjdhf ... you took the lazy approach and did not understand the content of Mr. Shapiro's column.

Sex education is the job of the parent.. not the government....period

You cite the Brooks Advisory Center for developing a government school sex education program that has worked..supposedly.

Dr. Dahl is correct "Adolescence is a key time to intervene in a number of important issues."
That is the job of a parent. That is not the responsibility of a school.

Liberals feel that it is the responsibility of the government to be the parent.

Why are you not screaming about the lazy parents that allow thier children to be taught about sex education by the government. I am sorry, but people that do not have the time to teach and support thier children.. well they should not be parents at all.


Shapiro
Shapiro quotes no 'science' to show that teaching about contraception increases pregnancies. Perhaps because he knows that it decreases pregnancies. The fact that he pretends the opposite is the case is shoddy. That he does so in an article attacking another group for being down on science borders on lunacy.

Throw in a bunch of strawman claims - 'liberals claim there's no difference between men and women', and you've got one of the lamest articles I've ever read. Oh and he mentions that there are differences between the brains of men and women. No-one's ever claimed that there aren't. What he doesn't mention is that many studies show differences in the brains of straights and gays. Guess that's another piece of 'science' he wants to ignore. Thought that was the 'liberal perogative'?

John
"Sex education is the job of the parent.. not the government....period"

Shapiro seems to be arguing that all sex ed is useless anyway, because kids are all morons, regardless of who teaches them.

And yeah, you can blame lazy parents, but if the kids get pregnant, then they're pregnant - not much point in pointing fingers of blame at that point.

And it's not a case of 'it works, suppposedly'. There's no supposed about it. Western Europe has more extensive sex ed than America, it has far lower teen pregnancy. But apparently you'd be a fool and a communist to make a connection.

AndyR
Just how 'extensive' or 'comprehensive' must sex ed BE to lower the pregnancy rates? Do you seriously believe that showing kids how to put condoms on cucumbers necessarily equates to personal responsibility in actually USING them? What's next, having the school nurse standing by to make SURE condoms are used? What the hell is wrong with parents-my DH and I included, expecting our boys to keep it zipped, and our girls to keep their knees together? Are YOU a parent?

It is NOT 'comprehensive sex ed' that is the key. The key is parents who will be honest with their kids wrt sex and ALL its aspects, emotional, physical and psychological-and allowing them to take the consequences of whatever choice they ultimately make. PARENTS MATTER-and the kids ARE listening even though they'd die before ever admitting it. Having educated our four myself in sexual matters, either something must have stuck or else they have been very, very careful-for with the boys being 23, 21 and 18, I'm not a grandmother yet. Neither is our daughter particularly interested in becoming a teen mother.

Honestly, what IS it with people like you telling parents like us we're not competent to teach our kids!?

Army Wife
Well, it seems inevitable that this would arise.
I have no problem dealing with it.

You write: "No, we have a problem in that science has REPLACED religion."

This is in NO WAY true. Religion is fine in America. In other countries, religion is way way ahead of science. Think Iran. Saudi Arabia. Egypt. In those countries God is way ahead of science.


The you write: "Now the basis of science is to prove there is no God." This is a complete fabrication. Utter BS. But it does prove that conservatives have a much greater problem with science than liberals.

Then "No fundy I know takes every part of the bible literally." I have had the arguments myself with fundamentalists. And I suggest that teh creation science museum (http://creationmuseum.org/) proves you dead wrong.

Finally, you write "We are the uneducated, unwashed masses if we do not bow to the religion of science." I know nothign of your personal hygiene. But you are right about being uneducated.




AliveInHim & Andy R.
>Just how 'extensive' or 'comprehensive' must sex ed BE to lower the pregnancy rates? Do you seriously believe that showing kids how to put condoms on cucumbers necessarily equates

AIH, Yes, it is amazing that our children are the most educated they have been about sex, and yet our STD rate, and pregnancy rate remains high.

AR -Your U.K. rates, do they include abortion? As early as last year--1/2 of all U.K. teen pregnancies ended in abortion.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article4175 899.ece

Do you stats account for that?

John
>This is in NO WAY true. Religion is fine in America. In other countries, religion is way way ahead of science. Think Iran. Saudi Arabia. Egypt. In those countries God is way ahead of science

It hasn't? Years ago we went to court in the Scopes trial so that a teacher could teach dissent to creationism in school.. Now we go to court so that teachers may teach dissent to evolution.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259844,00.html

>Now the basis of science is to prove there is no God." This is a complete fabrication

Every new discovery in Evolution has been met with "now we can shut those creationists up." New missing link disproves creationism...

>"Now the basis of science is to prove there is no God." This is a complete fabrication. Utter BS. But it does prove that conservatives have a much greater problem with science than liberals

I have no problem with science that does not involve agenda. That is the crux of the problem. Science has become a religious fervor for some people who feel the need to marginalize and demonize fundamentalist. We have watched as others have attack what we hold dear for no other reason, but to prove the sky fairy theory wrong.
You don't have faith, I am sorry for you. Maybe you should do some further study in to archeo biblio study.

>We are the uneducated, unwashed masses if we do not bow to the religion of science." I know nothign of your personal hygiene. But you are right about being uneducated.

Thank you very much about making my point for me.

No I'm NOT a contrarian!
Even a 6 year-old knows enough to use the "I'm rubber, you're glue" tactic, so it's not surprising that Townhall columnists have figured out how to take criticisms liberals level against conservatives and turn them around. But this article is a poor attempt to own the "War on Science" line.

First of all, I'm not sure how the adolescent mind's inability to evade danger makes them incapable of using condoms, but still allows them to make a long-term abstinence pledge, which, I'm sure you'd agree, requires far more self-control and is way more of a commitment than stopping to put on a condom. Doesn't sound like the kind of a thing that people who are incapable of evading danger would do at all. Huge logical error there.

Moving on, the fetal development issue isn't a matter of "liberal ideology triumphing over science", it's a matter of liberal ideology vs. conservative ideology. The fact that fetuses develop quickly isn't being disputed, the debate is over values: whether or not this highly-developed fetus should be considered to be equal to a person (one of those humans that has escaped the womb), and whether the government should play a role in family planning. There's nothing scientific about any of that, it's all value judgments.

And the last point is a total straw-man argument. Maybe there are some far-left liberals arguing that "gender is merely a social construct", but it sure ain't a part of the Democratic party's platform, nor is it the basis for the gay marriage movement by any stretch of the imagination. The basis for the gay marriage movement is the notion that while religious institutions should be allowed to define marriage any way they want, the government should have a different legal definition of marriage that is not influenced by the church. It's a radical notion directly endorsed by the first amendment.

Two may
>different legal definition of marriage that is not influenced by the church. It's a radical notion directly endorsed by the first amendment.

Dear amateur legal scholar,

Their case has nothing to do with the first amendment. It has to do with the equal protection clause. Homosexuals have legally yet to find an exclusionary principle, since no group of any sexual orientation has been able to marry the same sex therefore they have not been singled out for discrimination. They have the right to marry a consenting adult of an opposite sex.

The state does not care about love or sexual orientation. The state regulates who it can and cannot marry by providing licenses. This is restrictive to consenting adults, no incestuous relations etc. Marriage is not a right. The one case in which SCOTUS called it a right Loving v. Virginia, blacks were being excluded from bi-racial marriage(caucasians and hispanics were marrying already). A couple of years later a gay couple challenge Minnesota saying marriage was now a right. SCOTUS "dismissed the appeal "for want of [a] substantial federal question". That dismissal by the Supreme Court of the United States constituted a decision on the merits, and established Baker v. Nelson as the controlling precedent as a matter of federal constitutional law on the absence of federal authority regarding same-sex marriage."

BTW, there is no seperation of Church and state. All the first amendment states is "Congress shall make no law"... In fact, many original colonial states had official state religions. Why do you think many of our Ivy league schools were founded?

two may
>whether or not this highly-developed fetus should be considered to be equal to a person (one of those humans that has escaped the womb),

I remember a debate quite like this one. Something along the lines of Dred Scott.

What is the Answer?
Well I agree with the conservatives that if you teach kids about sex you'll get more of it. To say otherwise is counterintuitive and ridiculous - I don't care what study you cite. I am doubtful teens would be truthful about everything they do sexually. I know I wouldn't have been.

But I also agree that they need to know about prevention of pregnancy and possible protection about STD's etc. because there's a liklihood they'll be doing it.

What I don't like is it being taught in schools because it is not the govmint's job to do so. To make matters worse in this regard it ends up being taught by people who a) have a liberal slant and are only too happy to also teach my kids about fisting, gay sex, anal sex, etc. while at the same time b) these are the same people who cannot adequately teach our students reading. writing, arithmetic to keep up with the rest of the world or teach true and not revisionist history.

It is a quandry for sure because there are so many irresponsible parents out there but it should not be up to government to do.

Army Wife
Dear Amateurish debater:

What you say re: equal protection may well be true, and maybe you disagree with the way I framed the gay marriage debate. To be honest, I think it's all extremely irrelevant. Religions should be able to define marriage the way they want, and the state will define it legally based on the will of the people, which will inevitably be influenced by religious views, the church being a political instrument and all, but whatever. At the end of the day whether gays get married or not has no impact on your life or mine, and I for one don't get my undies in a bunch about it, although it is rather annoying to hear people parrot that asinine line about gays being allowed to marry people of the opposite gender...

The salient point is that I know of no one who is arguing for gay marriage because "gender is a social construct" and even if there is someone making that point, it's not even necessarily an anti-science stance; I'm sure you could find a University professor or 50 who have written books arguing that point, if that's the basis by which we judge something to be anti- or pro-science.

And by the way, Loving v. Virginia makes a GREAT case for what conservatives refer to as those dastardly "activist judges!" What hubris those judges exhibited, allowing bi-racial marriage!

As for the Dred Scott comment, you are REALLY reaching...

Classic

First Shapiro claims liberals ignore science more than conservatives, then a bunch of YEC conservatives come on here and prove him wrong. Reminds me of the Muslims who object to being depicted as violent, and respond with violence.

As has already been mentioned, if Shapiro really wanted to talk about anti-science liberals, he had plenty of legitimate targets such as PETA, homeopaths, the all-about-environment crowd, and some gun control advocates who play fast and loose with the data (didn't know suicides and rightful police shootings are included in "gun death" stats? You do now).

Instead he chose topics where the conservatives either ignore the data (abstinence-only ed flunks), the topic isn't about science as much as value judgements (abortion), and a fiction he yanked from his arse (men=women).

All the YECs showing up was just gravy on this rhetorical suicide, since they are 1) blatantly anti-science and 2) outnumber all those liberal groups I mentioned above by orders of magnitude. This is, as another poster rightly noted, a function of conservative philosophy, which discourages change, and values revelation, both concepts being antithetical to the hypothesize-experiment-revise method of science. Conservatives will always be more anti-science than liberals, even when they are right. It is inherent in their nature.

More Moronic Liberalism

I was driving on the freeway the other day, when I came across some Leftie who likes to wear her heart on her bumper. Yes, another liberal college student who loves to wallpaper the hind end of her vehicle in lame bumper stickers.

But this one was particulary filled with irony, when the driver had posted, side-by-side two stickers that said it all, when it comes to liberal cluelessness.

The sticker on the left said "AN INJURY TO ONE IS AN INJURY TO ALL," and to its right was a familiar sticker that said "KEEP ABORTION LEGAL."

I am sure the irony was lost on the dim bulb behind the wheel, because she is too blind to know the cruel injury that Abortion inflicts on its innocent, helpless victims.

Of course, a little knowledge of modern science might have caused this Mensa candidate to pause and reflect on the cruelty that abortion perpetrates on living beings whose only crime is to be unwanted by their mommies. But I suspect that this genius flees any science oriented classes, and biology in particular, in case she might have to dissect a frog.

Liberal Evolutionists
Liberals who are evolutionists are bluffing when they say their beliefs are scientific. Be sure to look at the list of evolutionists who refuse the debate challenge from Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo. See the list at http://www.lifescienceprize.org/.

two may
>And by the way, Loving v. Virginia makes a GREAT case for what conservatives refer to as those dastardly "activist judges!" What hubris those judges exhibited, allowing bi-racial marriage!

Nope, it clearly went against the equal protection close since blacks were the ONLY race excluded from bi-racial marriage... Please tell me what sexual orientation can currently marry the same sex?

J
It's comical to me that teaching abstinence is comical to you. Why must it be one or the other? Why can't it be both?

Surely liberals can agree that abstinence is the only foolproof method of avoiding pregnancy (100%) and STDs. Why must they scoff at it as some kind of religious thing when it is a simple fact?

It's just like the creation statement people wanted to be made when evolution is being taught. You libs always argue for your own agendas by saying there is a need to put all the information out there but then exclude anything that pertains to religion as if yu can disprove it. Hypocritcally however liberals believe there is no reason to not teach about Buddists, Muslims, Hindu and other religions. Just don't mention the name Jesus Christ.

Like your undying faith in evolution even though you can't prove any of it. I challenge any liberal to prove Jesus Christ was not the Son of God and was not correct in his teachings but I digress.

The fact is libs just want to control the desemination of information and keep out conservative or religious viewpoints - period.

If this is the typical libeal "it's all about the children" shouldn't they know everything that is believed by everyone about it so they can make informed decisions? Or is it only about the things libs know or believe? I thought that was the reason for this sex ed stuff anyway. What is wrong with libs that keeps them from allowing differing perspectives on these types of things?

None of us can prove any of this stuff conclusively and no matter which side you are on it is a matter of faith to believe what you do because science has never PROVEN all of its hypotheses in these things. Accepted science is disproven all the time.

To constantly have this argument with liberals who simply choose to disregard or sneer at conservative or religious beliefs is maddening. Just another thing that proves the tolerant liberal is anything but.

Correction
>close

I mean clause

>The salient point is that I know of no one who is arguing for gay marriage because "gender is a social construct

You haven't heard that two loving homosexual parents are no different than a loving heterosexual couple in the rearing of children? There is clearly a push to say that both sexes are not of value. That all you need is two adults who are "loving." Gender does not matter.

>As for the Dred Scott comment, you are REALLY reaching...

Nope it was another class of people who were deemed less than a full person. The moment of conception is when life begins. Human DNA makes it human. Viability changes with medical innovation. They are just in a lower stage of development. It is like saying a newborn is less of a person than a two year old.

John
I definitely do NOT make things up.

Thomas G. Barnes, D.Sc. "A computer analysis of these data has shown that the decay is an exponential one, as expected from the physics, and that the half-life of the magnetic moment is 1400."
http://www.icr.org/article/63/258/

As I searched for URL's I found that all were of a creationist bent. I realised that you will not accept any of my immediate URL's so I gave you one and then tried to find something from your side of the argument. Although some did state a general field decay, none stated a rate of decay. I did find this one from a Mitch Battros.

"At present, the overall geomagnetic field is becoming weaker at a rate which would, if it continues, cause the field to disappear, albeit temporarily, by about 4000 AD. Other sources have put the date of field collapse as early as 3000 AD."

http://www.mayanmajix.com/art2018.html

The bad news here is that the author implies a straight line decay. The author states no data other than to reference Dr Olson, geophysicist from Johns Hopkins University.

The good news is that I believe the curve to be exponential wherein the field will never be zero.

But this points up to the problem. I have my references which you reject out of hand. You have your references which I question. The reason for my questions is that there are nagging items that your theory does not/will not answer. It is those non-answers or refusals to answer that fuel my sparks of query. And the more I search for answers, the more I find that the Creationists do attempt to answer those questions (even with plausible concepts) whereas you do not.

Bobbit Sums it Up
Bobbit said: "To say otherwise is counterintuitive and ridiculous - I don't care what study you cite"

There's your anti-science attitude in a nutshell: my intuitions count more than your evidence.

Not in science they don't. In science, if the evidence is counter to one's intuitions (like it is in quantum mechanics, plate techtonics, heliocentrism, evolution, and many other areas), then its the evidence that must rule. If you can't handle that, it doesn't necessarily mean you are wrong, but it does mean you aren't being scientific.

Mellor SJ2 #76
See what i mean? There have been a number of posts which raise significant questions about darwins theory of evolution that should have promoted intelligent and vibrant discussion.

Your tyipcal libtard respons? "Er, No."

What a maroon.

Science Avenger
> the evidence is counter to one's intuitions (like it is in quantum mechanics, plate techtonics, heliocentrism, evolution, and many other areas), then its the evidence that must rule.

I guess you didn't see Al Gore's movie...

If the above is true- Can you tell me why science books used Haeckel's Embryos for long even after they were considered a fraud? Or why there have been so many others when it comes to science... One reason-- The scientist had an agenda. Science is not purity itself, and largely depends on those who are doing the research. Scientist sometimes make a conclusion and fit the finding around that conclusion. They do not reach their conclusion from their findings, especially now when code words like global warming, AIDS etc. can bring big government grants.

It's not a fact
Bobbit again: "It's comical to me that teaching abstinence is comical to you. Why must it be one or the other? Why can't it be both?"

It should be both, and if you actually ask liberals what they think (instead of guessing as so many TH posters do), you'll find many if not most of them agree with you. The mainstream objection is not against abstinence per se, it is against abstinence ONLY.

"Surely liberals can agree that abstinence is the only foolproof method of avoiding pregnancy (100%) and STDs. Why must they scoff at it as some kind of religious thing when it is a simple fact?"

Because it's NOT a simple fact, which should be obvious upon brief reflection with reality. Ever hear of Ryan White and Arthur Ashe, who both got AIDS from blood transfusions? How about victims of rape, you know, the ones some people think ought to be allowed to get abortions? The fact is there is no foolproof method of avoiding pregnancy, STDS, or most anything else in life. Very little in life outside of mathematics is so black and white.

This is not a science site

Oh, and on the subject of the inevitable challenges to this or that science that always appear on these threads, this is not the place for that, and doing so only further reveals an anti-science attitude. If one is interested in science, one goes to science sites and reads the scientific literature. Going to political sites to ambush nonscientists with minutia instead only reveals an interest, not in science, but in cheap rhetorical/political victories.

John and Robert
I would like to recommend a book to your both that helps science and God co-exist. It's called "The Science of God" by Gerald L. Schroeder. The author is an applied theologian with undergraduate and doctoral degrees from the Massachussetts Institute of Technology.

He offers theories that make it possible to reconcile our faith in science with a belief that the Bible is the Truth.

Science Avenger
Your post in response to me indicates that you believe that science and therefore man is infallible while I have over my lifetime seen numerous scientific absolutes reversed sometimes more than once. Your supposition that I am anti-science is strictly a misguided assumption.

The obvious difference between us is you believe that humans and their science are all knowing and always correct while I am more of a realist.

I know in matters like these we cannot and will not ever have all of the facts from which to reach a concrete conclusion. We are talking about theories about a span of millions of years developed out of limited facts.

Heck science has changed it's opinion in whether coffee is good or bad for you again and again.

Thanks for playing.

ArmyWife

You prove my point as well. Al Gore is not a scientist, and ironically it is the global warming deniers, not those on the side of the mainstream scientific organizations around the world, that concern themselves so much with him.

As for frauds in science, they happen for the same reason they happen anywhere else: human beings can be biased and flawed. What you conveniently leave out is that science's errors tend to be corrected by other scientists, and rather quickly, whereas those outside of science tend to last much longers. Piltdown man was exposed in a matter of 40 or so years, whereas it took the Catholic church over a century to acknowledge the evidence of evolution, and many of similar mind still haven't caught up.

That's what anti-science people really don't get - what gives science the edge over other epistemologies is not trust, but doubt. The entire modern scientific enterprise is based on the assumption that no one can be trusted: produce your evidence, science says, and in a way in which others can replicate, or be gone.

Oh, and every crank who loses the battle of science claims there is some sort of conspiracy against them. The "government grant" argument is just the latest version, and just as worthless as all the others.