Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

[Obsessed]

The Egg
By: Andy Weir

You were on your way home when you died.
It was a car accident. Nothing particularly remarkable, but fatal nonetheless. You left behind a wife and two children. It was a painless death. The EMTs tried their best to save you, but to no avail. Your body was so utterly shattered you were better off, trust me.
And that’s when you met me.
“What… what happened?” You asked. “Where am I?”
“You died,” I said, matter-of-factly. No point in mincing words.
“There was a… a truck and it was skidding…”
“Yup,” I said.
“I… I died?”
“Yup. But don’t feel bad about it. Everyone dies,” I said.
You looked around. There was nothingness. Just you and me. “What is this place?” You asked. “Is this the afterlife?”
“More or less,” I said.
“Are you god?” You asked.
“Yup,” I replied. “I’m God.”
“My kids… my wife,” you said.
“What about them?”
“Will they be all right?”
“That’s what I like to see,” I said. “You just died and your main concern is for your family. That’s good stuff right there.”
You looked at me with fascination. To you, I didn’t look like God. I just looked like some man. Or possibly a woman. Some vague authority figure, maybe. More of a grammar school teacher than the almighty.
“Don’t worry,” I said. “They’ll be fine. Your kids will remember you as perfect in every way. They didn’t have time to grow contempt for you. Your wife will cry on the outside, but will be secretly relieved. To be fair, your marriage was falling apart. If it’s any consolation, she’ll feel very guilty for feeling relieved.”
“Oh,” you said. “So what happens now? Do I go to heaven or hell or something?”
“Neither,” I said. “You’ll be reincarnated.”
“Ah,” you said. “So the Hindus were right,”
“All religions are right in their own way,” I said. “Walk with me.”
You followed along as we strode through the void. “Where are we going?”
“Nowhere in particular,” I said. “It’s just nice to walk while we talk.”
“So what’s the point, then?” You asked. “When I get reborn, I’ll just be a blank slate, right? A baby. So all my experiences and everything I did in this life won’t matter.”
“Not so!” I said. “You have within you all the knowledge and experiences of all your past lives. You just don’t remember them right now.”
I stopped walking and took you by the shoulders. “Your soul is more magnificent, beautiful, and gigantic than you can possibly imagine. A human mind can only contain a tiny fraction of what you are. It’s like sticking your finger in a glass of water to see if it’s hot or cold. You put a tiny part of yourself into the vessel, and when you bring it back out, you’ve gained all the experiences it had.
“You’ve been in a human for the last 48 years, so you haven’t stretched out yet and felt the rest of your immense consciousness. If we hung out here for long enough, you’d start remembering everything. But there’s no point to doing that between each life.”
“How many times have I been reincarnated, then?”
“Oh lots. Lots and lots. An in to lots of different lives.” I said. “This time around, you’ll be a Chinese peasant girl in 540 AD.”
“Wait, what?” You stammered. “You’re sending me back in time?”
“Well, I guess technically. Time, as you know it, only exists in your universe. Things are different where I come from.”
“Where you come from?” You said.
“Oh sure,” I explained “I come from somewhere. Somewhere else. And there are others like me. I know you’ll want to know what it’s like there, but honestly you wouldn’t understand.”
“Oh,” you said, a little let down. “But wait. If I get reincarnated to other places in time, I could have interacted with myself at some point.”
“Sure. Happens all the time. And with both lives only aware of their own lifespan you don’t even know it’s happening.”
“So what’s the point of it all?”
“Seriously?” I asked. “Seriously? You’re asking me for the meaning of life? Isn’t that a little stereotypical?”
“Well it’s a reasonable question,” you persisted.
I looked you in the eye. “The meaning of life, the reason I made this whole universe, is for you to mature.”
“You mean mankind? You want us to mature?”
“No, just you. I made this whole universe for you. With each new life you grow and mature and become a larger and greater intellect.”
“Just me? What about everyone else?”
“There is no one else,” I said. “In this universe, there’s just you and me.”
You stared blankly at me. “But all the people on earth…”
“All you. Different incarnations of you.”
“Wait. I’m everyone!?”
“Now you’re getting it,” I said, with a congratulatory slap on the back.
“I’m every human being who ever lived?”
“Or who will ever live, yes.”
“I’m Abraham Lincoln?”
“And you’re John Wilkes Booth, too,” I added.
“I’m Hitler?” You said, appalled.
“And you’re the millions he killed.”
“I’m Jesus?”
“And you’re everyone who followed him.”
You fell silent.
“Every time you victimized someone,” I said, “you were victimizing yourself. Every act of kindness you’ve done, you’ve done to yourself. Every happy and sad moment ever experienced by any human was, or will be, experienced by you.”
You thought for a long time.
“Why?” You asked me. “Why do all this?”
“Because someday, you will become like me. Because that’s what you are. You’re one of my kind. You’re my child.”
“Whoa,” you said, incredulous. “You mean I’m a god?”
“No. Not yet. You’re a fetus. You’re still growing. Once you’ve lived every human life throughout all time, you will have grown enough to be born.”
“So the whole universe,” you said, “it’s just…”
“An egg.” I answered. “Now it’s time for you to move on to your next life.”
And I sent you on your way.

 

[MercyPercy]

I've come to the conclusion that arguing with people who take the bible literally is an exercise in self control. It's far too easy to mock these people who literally believe in absurdity and hold ideas so irrational and intellectually dishonest that a lot of us get caught up in piling on. I certainly am guilty of this, and I'll be the first to admit it.

It's hard for us to take these debates too seriously. It would be akin to trying to maintain your composure in an discussion with someone who is vehemently arguing for the existence of unicorns or mermaids. While that sounds harsh, that's the only way I can explain our perspective in a way that believers can understand our frustration.

This is why, instead of circular debate where no ground is given, with cries of fallacy in every other post, I'd rather try and understand the religious mindset. On the macro, as a global phenomenon, and the micro, specifically what makes Christians view their specific religion as the only legitimate one. PKT says it's either Pascal's wager or revelation. I understand what revelation is in theory, but aside from Biblical examples, have yet to get an account from a living person.

I personally believe religiosity is sort of like child raising in that it involves both nature and nurture. I think some people may be pre-programmed to be more accepting of superstitious beliefs, and thusly, if many Christians were born in the middle east they would have been Muslim, and vice versa. Additionally nurture plays a part in the form of indoctrination.

I'm mostly interested in the largest contributor to religiosity. I have my opinions and theories but I'm always looking for more insight.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I've come to the conclusion that arguing with people who take the bible literally is an exercise in self control. It's far too easy to mock these people who literally believe in absurdity and hold ideas so irrational and intellectually dishonest that a lot of us get caught up in piling on. I certainly am guilty of this, and I'll be the first to admit it.

It's hard for us to take these debates too seriously. It would be akin to trying to maintain your composure in an discussion with someone who is vehemently arguing for the existence of unicorns or mermaids. While that sounds harsh, that's the only way I can explain our perspective in a way that believers can understand our frustration.

This is why, instead of circular debate where no ground is given, with cries of fallacy in every other post, I'd rather try and understand the religious mindset. On the macro, as a global phenomenon, and the micro, specifically what makes Christians view their specific religion as the only legitimate one. PKT says it's either Pascal's wager or revelation. I understand what revelation is in theory, but aside from Biblical examples, have yet to get an account from a living person.

I personally believe religiosity is sort of like child raising in that it involves both nature and nurture. I think some people may be pre-programmed to be more accepting of superstitious beliefs, and thusly, if many Christians were born in the middle east they would have been Muslim, and vice versa. Additionally nurture plays a part in the form of indoctrination.

I'm mostly interested in the largest contributor to religiosity. I have my opinions and theories but I'm always looking for more insight.

Just as a recommendation per the future believers you'll hope to get these answers from, try approaching them with mutual respect as opposed to contempt and mocking, and you may find someone willing to have dialog about that which they hold personally dear. After your actions here, I'd say the well is pretty much poisoned.

 

[MercyPercy]

Just as a recommendation per the future believers you'll hope to get these answers from, try approaching them with mutual respect as opposed to contempt and mocking, and you may find someone willing to have dialog about that which they hold personally dear. After your actions here, I'd say the well is pretty much poisoned.

So you'd rather I be disingenuous and manipulative in my attempts to discern their motives? I think they should respect being up front and not tip toeing around the subject more.

We aren't ever going to come close to seeing eye to eye if we're worried about hurt feelings.

 

[Orange_Crush]

So you'd rather I be disingenuous and manipulative in my attempts to discern their motives? I think they should respect being up front and not tip toeing around the subject more.

We aren't ever going to come close to seeing eye to eye if we're worried about hurt feelings.

Wow. You really are a piece of work.

 

[MercyPercy]

Wow. You really are a piece of work.

I like to think so.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I like to think so.

Treating others with whom you disagree with mutual respect... Restraining from mockery... Is "disingenuous" on your part. The sad part is that you don't even realize that you just defined why people would by definition not want to discuss matters of personal value with you, and you're proud of it. Good luck trying to get anyone to enter a fruitful dialog with you.

 

[MercyPercy]

Treating others with whom you disagree with mutual respect... Restraining from mockery... Is "disingenuous" on your part. The sad part is that you don't even realize that you just defined what a despicable person you actually are, and you're proud of it. Good luck trying to get anyone to enter a fruitful dialog with you.

I already admitted at fault me and others on my side can be condescending, but I tried to explain where that comes from in regards to this type of debate.

I see now that I must have wounded you beyond repair, hopefully some others with thicker skin can tolerate my less gracious qualities a bit longer than you could. Cheers.

 

[Vol8188]

What would you teach about creation? What is there to be taught? None of you have answered this.

And still nothing.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

Hovind. I'd recommend that any believer stay away. Yes, he does state some things that are verifiable. The problem is that this isn't always the case. His financial indiscretions example his less than honest approach. His presentations are laced with rhetoric and bad jokes and he comes off to me as a jerk.
The bottom line is he has no credibility.

I actually agree with this. Some here would like to paint me as a fanboy etc..this is not true. I do however agree with much of what he has to say, and that's why I brought up this particular lecture. American kids are being indoctrinated to believe an unproven theory, and the curriculums and textbooks are using diagrams and verbage that is KNOWN to be lies. Charts and drawings exposed by scientists themselves to be falsified decades ago. The kids are taught that evolution, lumped all together to include everything from variation in species(fact) to the origin of life (unproven fiction)...they are taught that these things are fact and to dispute them is a mark of inferior intellect. Despite this...there are many here who will deny that..." they are not teaching it as fact!!"...but won't watch the video..where it is called out and identified by book, chapter and page number. They will deny that their belief system(which is what it is...its definitely not scientific fact by definition). Is being forced on every child in public school. I spend a great deal of money and make a lot of sacrifices to keep my kids from being taught these exact lies. If others want their kids to be taught this belief system, fine. However it needs to be done at home. There is no place for this crap in public schools anymore than there is a place for Bible study, or the Koran. Many in this exact thread will deny that evolution is taught as fact. I've been thru this before..in this forum. The evidence that it is taught as fact is right in front of you. You can choose not to watch it but that doesn't mean its not there, and that the indoctrination isn't happening.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I already admitted at fault me and others on my side can be condescending, but I tried to explain where that comes from in regards to this type of debate.

I see now that I must have wounded you beyond repair, hopefully some others with thicker skin can tolerate my less gracious qualities a bit longer than you could. Cheers.

Pity != wounded. :hi:

 

[MercyPercy]

Pity != wounded. :hi:

I pity the fool..

 

[marcusluvsvols]

And still nothing.

Nothing in public schools. Nothing. No belief system should be taught as fact in a public school. Christainity, Islam, and unproven scientific belief systems such as abiogenesis should be taught in the home. Schools are for facts...anything besides verifiable fact should be marginalized, and presented honestly for what it is...if it is presented at all.

 

[Vol8188]

Nothing in public schools. Nothing. No belief system should be taught as fact in a public school. Christainity, Islam, and unproven scientific belief systems such as abiogenesis should be taught in the home. Schools are for facts...anything besides verifiable fact should be marginalized, and presented honestly for what it is...if it is presented at all.

Yes, but some in this forum disagree. Crush and BOT have both mentioned teaching creationism or intelligent design at one point.

Neither can state what should be taught. Probably because it's not actually a science.

 

[utvolpj]

Nothing in public schools. Nothing. No belief system should be taught as fact in a public school. Christainity, Islam, and unproven scientific belief systems such as abiogenesis should be taught in the home. Schools are for facts...anything besides verifiable fact should be marginalized, and presented honestly for what it is...if it is presented at all.

every subject contains theories. I'm having a hard time thinking of one that doesn't

 

[marcusluvsvols]

every subject contains theories. I'm having a hard time thinking of one that doesn't

The keywords above are " as fact ". If one theory must be taught then I think intellegent design should also be presented. As a theory. My biggest concern is that in many cases it is presented to kids as fact. At a school they are required to attend, lest mom and dad go to jail (unless they can quit their jobs and homeschool, or afford private). Many here may not want their kids to be presented with Creation...well they won't. You would have to take them willingly to a place where that was being taught. Public school is a whole different arrangement in that it is legally mandatory for your kids to attend. Pj you always seem to be pretty level headed and I hope I haven't offended you in any way. Obviously this does get under my skin even though my kids aren't exposed to it. My nieces and nephews, and neighbors kids etc. Are...and I simply believe its wrong. The examples of the "thinking critically" questions in the textbooks just eat my lunch. "There are 20 basic proteins in DNA amond mammals, how is this proof we share a common ancestor?"
What? We don't. I don't know about you but I don't have a common ancestor with a dog, a whale or a chimp. None of them. But this is the way that this theory id presented to kids...as if it should never be questioned. Its criminal IMO

 

[MercyPercy]

Criminal.. lmao.

 

[Septic]

The keywords above are " as fact ". If one theory must be taught then I think intellegent design should also be presented. As a theory. My biggest concern is that in many cases it is presented to kids as fact. At a school they are required to attend, lest mom and dad go to jail (unless they can quit their jobs and homeschool, or afford private). Many here may not want their kids to be presented with Creation...well they won't. You would have to take them willingly to a place where that was being taught. Public school is a whole different arrangement in that it is legally mandatory for your kids to attend. Pj you always seem to be pretty level headed and I hope I haven't offended you in any way. Obviously this does get under my skin even though my kids aren't exposed to it. My nieces and nephews, and neighbors kids etc. Are...and I simply believe its wrong. The examples of the "thinking critically" questions in the textbooks just eat my lunch. "There are 20 basic proteins in DNA amond mammals, how is this proof we share a common ancestor?"
What? We don't. I don't know about you but I don't have a common ancestor with a dog, a whale or a chimp. None of them. But this is the way that this theory id presented to kids...as if it should never be questioned. Its criminal IMO

For the record and for the umpteenth time - Creationism and Intelligence Design are NOT scientific theory's. No matter how much you want them to be, no matter how many times its repeated.

ID/Creationism is assuming an answer and working back to the question. The scientific process doesn't allow for such conclusions. Go read about it.

You keep using the word indoctrination and referring to the 'kids' and that makes me sad. Partly because you think that Hovind brought credible science to the party and partly because you will likely never fully grasp that you've been teaching your own kids about faith and belief while dismissing science as fraudulent. You'll likely never see the irony in the indoctrination you appear to despise.

 

[VOLatile]

The keywords above are " as fact ". If one theory must be taught then I think intellegent design should also be presented. As a theory. My biggest concern is that in many cases it is presented to kids as fact. At a school they are required to attend, lest mom and dad go to jail (unless they can quit their jobs and homeschool, or afford private). Many here may not want their kids to be presented with Creation...well they won't. You would have to take them willingly to a place where that was being taught. Public school is a whole different arrangement in that it is legally mandatory for your kids to attend. Pj you always seem to be pretty level headed and I hope I haven't offended you in any way. Obviously this does get under my skin even though my kids aren't exposed to it. My nieces and nephews, and neighbors kids etc. Are...and I simply believe its wrong. The examples of the "thinking critically" questions in the textbooks just eat my lunch. "There are 20 basic proteins in DNA amond mammals, how is this proof we share a common ancestor?"
What? We don't. I don't know about you but I don't have a common ancestor with a dog, a whale or a chimp. None of them. But this is the way that this theory id presented to kids...as if it should never be questioned. Its criminal IMO

Why shouldn't schools teach something that nearly the entire scientific community regards as a fact?

 

[Roustabout]

For the record and for the umpteenth time - Creationism and Intelligence Design are NOT scientific theory's. No matter how much you want them to be, no matter how many times its repeated. ID/Creationism is assuming an answer and working back to the question. The scientific process doesn't allow for such conclusions. Go read about it.

I have shown on multiple occasions that creationism and ID research are NOT the same thing. Your evidence is to just keep repeating the same thing over and over again. I have linked info that shows ID research utilizing the multiple competing hypothesis method which is certainly a scientific process.
I have given examples of the hypocrisy of allowing Darwinist presuppositions while denying ID presups that actually comply with objective observation.

You keep using the word indoctrination and referring to the 'kids' and that makes me sad.

There is an indoctrination and sadly we have many here who are unknowing victims of being brainwashed to adhere to postmodern philosophy and actually advocate logic that encourages fallacious reasoning to support one's worldview. You need to equally apply your skepticism.

Partly because you think that Hovind brought credible science to the party and partly because you will likely never fully grasp that you've been teaching your own kids about faith and belief while dismissing science as fraudulent. You'll likely never see the irony in the indoctrination you appear to despise.

I agree in one sense that bringing Hovind into the equation is a terrible mistake. Still, I've heard on more than one occasion you and others argue about not being lumped in with this or that. Or, you getting upset about what someone thinks about your worldview. Fine, but you are nothing less than a hypocrite to turn around and do the exact same thing.

 

[Roustabout]

fyp

I've come to the conclusion that arguing with postmodern, secular humanists is an exercise in self control. It's far too easy to mock these people who literally hold ideas, such as fallacious reasoning is OK. They are so irrational and intellectually dishonest that a lot of us get caught up in piling on. I certainly am guilty of this, and I'll be the first to admit it.

It's hard for us to take these debates too seriously. It would be akin to trying to maintain your composure in an discussion with someone who is vehemently arguing that there is no objective truth, while at the same time insisting that their opinion is truth you that should conform to. While that sounds harsh, that's the only way I can explain our perspective in a way that atheists/agnostics can understand our frustration.

This is why, instead of circular debate where no ground is given, with cries of "you point out fallacy" in every other post, I'd rather try and understand the postmodern mindset. On the macro, as a global phenomenon, and the micro, specifically what makes postmoderns view their specific ideology as the only legitimate one. Some say it's either determinism or fatalism. I understand what those are in theory, but aside from self-defeating examples, I have yet to get an account from a living person.

 

[MercyPercy]

fyp

Please, spare me.

 

[Roustabout]

Why shouldn't schools teach something that nearly the entire scientific community regards as a fact?

Do you realize you just made a faith statement?

You have muddied the very meaning of 'fact', and have suggested that schools be able to teach secular humanism as a fact. Do you really think people like Dawkins just think that science should be presented objectively to unsuspecting students?

 

[MercyPercy]

They wont acknowledge near scientific consensus because it makes them look bad.

 

[Roustabout]

1. Yes, it is a theory. And like all scientific theory it is based on large amounts of research and evidence.

2. Of course there are missing links. They are trying to link every single living species on earth back to the first living creature, ever. Obviously they haven't found them all yet, because they've not found every creature to ever live! And yet they've found a large number of them. Which is why I said "you expect them to find an infinite number of missing links". So thanks for proving my point there.

3. If you are claiming many scientist disagree with evolution, then show me the numbers. What percent of scientist disagree with this?

Serious question. What would you say is hands down the most convincing single example of a missing link?
And, what do we specifically know this example to have evolved from and to?