Legislate against creationists

MooseJam

I'm all for freedom of speech but there there are limits to everything, creationism is an impediment to the spread of scientific knowledge, it has nothing positive to be said about it and seeks to maroon mankind in a sea of lies and superstition so lets just ban it. I wouldn't be seeking to ban religion, people could still believe in their Gods, but espousing creationist notions would be illegal, a bit like you can't deny the holocaust in some countries., what say you

BrianCalgary

Sorry a no go. Where do you draw the line?

No reading of Genesis 1 anywhere?

Do we outlaw everything that anyone considers a lie?

Not a good idea to legislate against any type of speech, unless it incites riots and or violence, then you may have an argument there.

PDN

And Christians get accused of being intolerant? :rolleyes:

Crucifix

I don't think so. I don't care if people want to believe it, my only beef is having it taught in science class.

Son Goku

No, because of freedom of speech. However it is reaching the point where it is effecting pure science a bit and medical research a lot and I don't know what to do about that.
Even recently Hans Kung, a theologian I thought was quite intelligent, said that scientists should know it isn't their place to research the Big Bang. My fear is that Benedict XVI will say something anti-evolution or more likely, anti modern evolution. Enough people listen to him to take it seriously.

As much as we debate it over on the Creationism thread, we know how important evolution is to drug manufacture and medicine in general, so if it reached the point where Creationism is a detriment to science, what would we actually do?

robindch

Ban talk of creationism? Good heavens, not at all! If that happened, we'd be no different from the religions which spent long enough suppressing things they didn't like and it took a many centuries for people to shake themselves free of them.

I wouldn't permit it to be taught as "truth" in science class, any more than I'd permit flat-earthers, holocaust-deniers or alchemists free rein with kids in geography, history and chemistry classes. Though if parents wanted their children to "learn" it outside of a science class, then there's little one can do. At least I'd try to make sure that kids were given an education in baloney-detection, so that at least some of them would be able to spot rhetoric and hand-waving passing as knowledge and reason -- whether it issues from the mouth of a politician, or a preacher.

And SG's point is valid. What happens when you've a president in the White House who seems to think that the earth was materialized out of thin air around the start of the Bronze Age by an invisible sky deity, and bases his decisions concerning stem cell research on this? That's something in which a man's pious ignorance becomes less a laughing matter, and more a threat to the free pursuit of knowledge and research into medications for sick people.

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote:

As much as we debate it over on the Creationism thread, we know how important evolution is to drug manufacture and medicine in general, so if it reached the point where Creationism is a detriment to science, what would we actually do?

I don't think we shall ever be able to prevent the folly of the day temporarily hampering progress, and no-one has ever managed to legislate folly out of existence.

What will happen, in a competitive world, is that those who allow their scientific communities to be hamstrung by Creationist baubles will quickly fall behind those who don't, both scientifically and economically. Of course, the recommended cure for the problem may turn out to be more of the same, but in a world where Creationism is only ever going to appeal to a certain number of competing countries, the problem is reasonably self-righting in the medium term. Companies that require science unburdened by religious manacles will move their operations elsewhere.

Creationism, should it become doctrine, will go the way of the ban on usury and crossbows, and for the same reasons - competition between nations.

Such legislation would also set an appalling precedent, since it introduces a doctrinal clause into science, which is exactly what Creationism wishes to do. Once there is such a clause, it merely becomes a problem of making it say what one wishes - the initial hurdle, of requiring doctrinal purity from scientists - has already been overcome.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Hell no! Whats wrong with you? Creationism has been forbidden from being taught in science class, because its not science, which is perfect. Anything more becomes completely untenable. If you disagree with what someone is saying then start saying the opposite, don't try and stop them from speaking in the first place.

Dades

MooseJam wrote:

I wouldn't be seeking to ban religion, people could still believe in their Gods, but espousing creationist notions would be illegal

I could see it happening in certain European countries in the future. Like the Germans with Holocaust and Scientology - they just said no, you're brainwashing people with rubbish.

But banning it where it matters - forget it.

Galvasean

Crucifix wrote:

I don't think so. I don't care if people want to believe it, my only beef is having it taught in science class.

My sentiments exactly.

MooseJam

yes I guess it's a bad idea, blame it on the creationist thread over in Christianity, It drives me to distraction but I can't stop going back

Zombrex

MooseJam wrote:

I'm all for freedom of speech but there there are limits to everything, creationism is an impediment to the spread of scientific knowledge, it has nothing positive to be said about it and seeks to maroon mankind in a sea of lies and superstition so lets just ban it. I wouldn't be seeking to ban religion, people could still believe in their Gods, but espousing creationist notions would be illegal, a bit like you can't deny the holocaust in some countries., what say you

While I understand your frustration, legislation against Creationism would make us as bad as them. At the end of the day freedom of belief and speech means that people have a right to believe in idiotic things.

Sangre

I can't imagine a Constitution in a developed nation that would allow this to stand as is.

Also what of the issue of someone using a valid scientific breakthrough but for creationist means? For example, what if someone did find a flaw in a method of dating but tried to poorly use this to show the world is 6000 years old?

The creationist thread is particulary hilarious at the moment with JC going on about the specifics of the Ark and trying to load it up. Hilarious and frustrating.

robindch

MooseJam wrote:

blame it on the creationist thread over in Christianity, It drives me to distraction but I can't stop going back

I think we're all a bit like that

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

And Christians get accused of being intolerant? :rolleyes:

Indeed - all it takes, apparently, is one person to suggest something like this, and then even if everyone else is outraged, you can still call your opponents intolerant for suggesting it...

...indeed, if you're quick, there's no need to even find out whether the suggestion is supported by any more than the one person who made it, and whether indeed they're simply speaking out of frustration rather than any genuine intolerance...

amused,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

MooseJam wrote:

yes I guess it's a bad idea, blame it on the creationist thread over in Christianity, It drives me to distraction but I can't stop going back

That's a secret weapon. That thread is addictive. Reel another one in JC:D

Zombrex

Asiaprod wrote:

That's a secret weapon. That thread is addictive. Reel another one in JC:D

LOL

Galvasean

Asiaprod wrote:

That's a secret weapon. That thread is addictive. Reel another one in JC:D

We can say what we like about that guy, but he keeps Boards.ie busy

Sleepy

Once religion is banned entirely from any state institution, particularly in the education sphere I'm happy. As a corollary to this, however, I don't believe any religion has the right to start their own schools.

Esmereldina

Crucifix wrote:

I don't think so. I don't care if people want to believe it, my only beef is having it taught in science class.

Yep, these would be my sentiments. Once you ban something, it starts to have a certain allure for some people that it didn't have before. It might become dangerous and exciting rather than just faintly ludicrous. The best way to help it die slowly is just to ignore it or laugh at it, while of course preventing children from being indoctrinated.

PDN

Sleepy wrote:

Once religion is banned entirely from any state institution, particularly in the education sphere I'm happy. As a corollary to this, however, I don't believe any religion has the right to start their own schools.

I presume you mean enforced religion? Or are you seriously suggesting that a Scripture Union, for example, should not be permitted in a College?

Scofflaw

Esmereldina wrote:

Yep, these would be my sentiments. Once you ban something, it starts to have a certain allure for some people that it didn't have before. It might become dangerous and exciting rather than just faintly ludicrous. The best way to help it die slowly is just to ignore it or laugh at it, while of course preventing children from being indoctrinated.

I suspect this may be part of why Creationists claim to be victimised and isolated, even where they in a majority.

cordially,
Scofflaw

jhegarty

Can we get a list of all topics you would like to see banned....

Fallen Seraph

People have the right to be wrong. And indeed, like drugs, banning the topic would probably just make it less easy to come across accurate debunking information thusly making it harder for people in the inevitable underground movement to break away.

Sangre

Sleepy wrote:

Once religion is banned entirely from any state institution, particularly in the education sphere I'm happy. As a corollary to this, however, I don't believe any religion has the right to start their own schools.

How is that a corollary?

Hivemind187

BrianCalgary wrote:

Sorry a no go. Where do you draw the line?

No reading of Genesis 1 anywhere?

Do we outlaw everything that anyone considers a lie?

Not a good idea to legislate against any type of speech, unless it incites riots and or violence, then you may have an argument there.

I would hesitate to limit even that kind of speech because it is open to interpretation what constitutes "incitement", it depends on whose listening, how impressionable they are and being able to assertain the motives of the individual speaking them.

This is the kind of error that led to Irish Ballads being banned from being sung in England because they were considered to be rebellious and glorifying acts of terror.

Its either all right to say any7thign and everything or its not alright to speak without permission. No grey areas. No matters of degree. If you do not believe that it is all right to say anything you like on any subject then you dont believe in free speech you believe in limited freedom of speech with broad parameters which is not the same thing.

stereoroid

I don't know if this is a "troll" post or not, but it's the kind of thing you'd ask if you wanted to get "intolerant atheist" reactions you could point to. So I'm glad to see there haven't been any of those in this thread. Free speech is free speech, and I'd have no more right to ban the Bible than a Bible-thumper would have to ban the Harry Potter books.

What I do see, however, is theists stepping over the "free speech" line in to real-world discrimination. In the UK, for example, some clergy are opposing the govt's new non-discriminatory rules on adoption, saying (in effect) "we reserve the right to discriminate against gays, because the Bible authors didn't like them"). That's not "free speech" any more, it's real-world discrimination.

Hivemind187

stereoroid wrote:

I don't know if this is a "troll" post or not, but it's the kind of thing you'd ask if you wanted to get "intolerant atheist" reactions you could point to. So I'm glad to see there haven't been any of those in this thread. Free speech is free speech, and I'd have no more right to ban the Bible than a Bible-thumper would have to ban the Harry Potter books.

What I do see, however, is theists stepping over the "free speech" line in to real-world discrimination. In the UK, for example, some clergy are opposing the govt's new non-discriminatory rules on adoption, saying (in effect) "we reserve the right to discriminate against gays, because the Bible authors didn't like them"). That's not "free speech" any more, it's real-world discrimination.

Which should be stopped and fought against. Freedom of speech may allow for such things to arise but it also allows people to fight back against it.

Tar.Aldarion

Sangre wrote:

How is that a corollary?

It's a follow on from no government school having religious influence to no school having religiouse influence maybe...

Sangre

Well I personally wouldn't call banning religions from setting up private schools or classes a corollary or 'natural consequence' of secularism. The opposite really, the whole point of secularism should be a non-theist government so that those in the population who are theistic are free to follow their own pursuits without government hinderence or aid.

Tar.Aldarion

I don't know, I'm just trying to guess what he could have meant.
I would't call blind jealousy a corollary of love but it is by the definition. Depends on what definition that is being followed maybe.
I don't know what he meant by saying it.
Maybe he means it as a corollary of his own opinion and it doesn't make sense.
Only Sleepy knows the truth now.
God bless.

Galvasean

stereoroid wrote:

I don't know if this is a "troll" post or not, but it's the kind of thing you'd ask if you wanted to get "intolerant atheist" reactions you could point to. So I'm glad to see there haven't been any of those in this thread. Free speech is free speech, and I'd have no more right to ban the Bible than a Bible-thumper would have to ban the Harry Potter books.

What I do see, however, is theists stepping over the "free speech" line in to real-world discrimination. In the UK, for example, some clergy are opposing the govt's new non-discriminatory rules on adoption, saying (in effect) "we reserve the right to discriminate against gays, because the Bible authors didn't like them"). That's not "free speech" any more, it's real-world discrimination.

That brings to mind a case in America where a kid wore a T-shirt to school saying something along the lines of, "Gays are evil, Islam is stupid, God is great". After people complained about it the school (reluctantly) allowed him to wear the shirt because to stop him would 'violate his religious freedom and freedom of speech'. Yet, the US constitution clearly states that in both cases you may do as you wish so long as you are not inciting hatred. I think branding two broad groups of people as evil and stupid respectively counts as inciting hatred. Its weird how 'religious freedom' seems to be the one get out clause for everything. I don't mean to go on a Dawkins style rant here (too late says you), but why is it that if someone says something you don't agree with whether it be political or institutional you have every right to argue with and/or criticize their point, but once they use their religious beliefs as a shield they suddenly become impervious to correction?

Esmereldina

Galvasean wrote:

Its weird how 'religious freedom' seems to be the one get out clause for everything. I don't mean to go on a Dawkins style rant here (too late says you), but why is it that if someone says something you don't agree with whether it be political or institutional you have every right to argue with and/or criticize their point, but once they use their religious beliefs as a shield they suddenly become impervious to correction?

Well, (unfortunately if you like...) we do live in a world where the majority of people belong to an organised religion. We atheists and non religious people are in the minority. Religion also happens to be something to which people who believe in it have a very strong personal and cultural attachment, so they get very upset when people offend it. And basically, this majority is in charge... so life's not fair

dan719

Are they really in charge though. Throughtout history an intelligentsia has always existed, a sub-culture of sorts. Since the majority of highly intelligent people are atheists(as documented by studies by Mensa among others) would posters not agree that those pushing the frontiersof human knowledge are in fact non-religeous. Decisions such as those by Harvard University to privately fund stem cell research ( as Bush has banned public funding) suggest the creationists have far less influence then they would like to believe.

Esmereldina

dan719 wrote:

Are they really in charge though. Throughtout history an intelligentsia has always existed, a sub-culture of sorts. Since the majority of highly intelligent people are atheists(as documented by studies by Mensa among others) would posters not agree that those pushing the frontiersof human knowledge are in fact non-religeous. Decisions such as those by Harvard University to privately fund stem cell research ( as Bush has banned public funding) suggest the creationists have far less influence then they would like to believe.

But politicians, who write constitutions and make laws, are in the main religious (or pretend to be and act accordingly). They have to be in order to appeal to a majority of the electorate. How many openly atheistic politicians do we have in Ireland, the UK or the US? You've given a great example of the influence of the 'non religious intelligentsia' in the funding of stem cell research, but I'd be sceptical about how much influence this so called intelligentsia really has in society, apart from in the case of a very rich east coast university deciding how to use its funding (though this is no small matter, I agree). I work in the humanities, and most of the ideas I've come across in university don't really have any influence on society at large

dan719

But surely such an inteliigentsia should be at the forefront of society, ahead of the zeitgeist as it were. Consider Darwin when he first proposed evolution and natural selection; the majority of society were outraged. Today most intelligent people except the theory(with some small modification). Radical ideas today become accepted in the future. In that way the intelligentsia have a great impact in society.

Esmereldina

dan719 wrote:

But surely such an inteliigentsia should be at the forefront of society, ahead of the zeitgeist as it were. Consider Darwin when he first proposed evolution and natural selection; the majority of society were outraged. Today most intelligent people except the theory(with some small modification). Radical ideas today become accepted in the future. In that way the intelligentsia have a great impact in society.

Pfft... always the science though isn't it? :rolleyes:

The Mad Hatter

Esmereldina wrote:

Pfft... always the science though isn't it? :rolleyes:

Nope

Hobo Sapiens

PDN wrote:

I presume you mean enforced religion? Or are you seriously suggesting that a Scripture Union, for example, should not be permitted in a College?

Evolution is a religion, as dogmatic as any. Its supporters are just as zealous and blind to reason as any theistic fundy.

(NB: the e. theory offers no explanation for the origin of life (how life somehow arises from inanimate matter; the fossil record to date show NO transitional forms, even though there ought to be millions of these according to the theory; random mutations - the theory's mechanism of evolution - are almost always negative, ie, they add no useful information and often cause adverse effects.)


So, ban creationism, ban evolution theory, ban everything you disagree with?

Galvasean

Hobo Sapiens wrote:

the fossil record to date show NO transitional forms,

Archaeopteryx lithographica disagrees.

Scofflaw

Hobo Sapiens wrote:

Evolution is a religion, as dogmatic as any. Its supporters are just as zealous and blind to reason as any theistic fundy.

(NB: the e. theory offers no explanation for the origin of life (how life somehow arises from inanimate matter; the fossil record to date show NO transitional forms, even though there ought to be millions of these according to the theory; random mutations - the theory's mechanism of evolution - are almost always negative, ie, they add no useful information and often cause adverse effects.)

Please do step over to the Creationism thread in the Christianity forum - where these claims have been repeatedly discussed. We try to keep other threads free of what is known to be an interminable subject...

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

Hobo wrote:

the fossil record to date show NO transitional forms

...or, if you have some free time, you could visit to the National Museum here in Dublin to see some of these "no transitional forms" in the glass display cases that fill the place.

Ekancone

MooseJam wrote:

yes I guess it's a bad idea, blame it on the creationist thread over in Christianity, It drives me to distraction but I can't stop going back

Dawkins generally refuses to participate in formal debates with creationists because doing so would give them the "oxygen of respectability" that they want. He argues that creationists "don't mind being beaten in an argument. What matters is that we give them recognition by bothering to argue with them in public."

Ekancone

Hobo Sapiens wrote:

(NB: the e. theory offers no explanation for the origin of life (how life somehow arises from inanimate matter; the fossil record to date show NO transitional forms

Irrelevent, you want proof of evolution, look no further than bacterial superbugs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_resistance

Zombrex

Hobo Sapiens wrote:

Evolution is a religion, as dogmatic as any. Its supporters are just as zealous and blind to reason as any theistic fundy.

(NB: the e. theory offers no explanation for the origin of life (how life somehow arises from inanimate matter; the fossil record to date show NO transitional forms, even though there ought to be millions of these according to the theory; random mutations - the theory's mechanism of evolution - are almost always negative, ie, they add no useful information and often cause adverse effects.)


So, ban creationism, ban evolution theory, ban everything you disagree with?

Nice to see JC has found the Atheists forum :rolleyes: