I saw a movie that talks about "Intelligent Design" versus "Evolution". In that movie it gives me an impression that in the U. S., teaching children or students in schools about how the earth came into existence by virtue of "Intelligent Design", that somebody must have created the earth is labeled as "religion" and thus prohibited from being taught in schools. Well first of all let me refresh our minds about the meaning of "religion". Farlex on line free dictionary has given four meanings of "religion" however I am going to quote just two meanings, the "CLASSIC" meaning and the "RELEVANT" meaning respectively. The first meaning is "Belief in and reverence in the supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe." This is the classic and perhaps the old meaning of religion. For this discussion the more accurate meaning and up to date definition herein referred to as "RELEVANT" meaning is "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion". Considering the relevant meaning that I mentioned could it be that evolutionism falls into the category of religion? Why is it that people who embraced this belief are pursuing with zeal and with much conscientious devotion to protect "evolution" which is technically a religion in the guise of "science" from possibly being out of school in the near future because "Intelligent Design" has followed the leading of the evidence that they're trying to investigate? Why is it that evolutionists would try to suppress their colleagues in the academia by means of banning them from teaching in schools? In my own opinion, evolutionists are not playing fair this only show that there is something more than just being a "science." Evolution is religion! Considering the attitude of the proponents of evolution, considering their zealousness in pushing and protecting their belief, it all points to one direction and conclusion that "EVOLUTION IS RELIGION!!!". If religion is not allowed in schools then I guess it is fair enough to say that evolution should be banned from being taught in public schools and should be taken out from the schools curricula after all "evolution" remains to be a theory.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The End Is Near
We've heard rumors about the end of the world. Well, the Bible tells us that the world is not going to last forever. God, has it's time frame as far as the end of the world is concern.
While we still have time to change our attitude towards Him let us do so because regrets will always happen in the end.
God said that in the end times people will be lovers of themselves. People will become lovers of money. Today, people won't mind the moral aspect of the things they planned to do for as long as there is money for profit, that's all right.
6 comments:
Under your RELEVANT definition of religion, as a friend commented, even stamp collecting becomes a religion. :)
As for ID being religion, it falls under your CLASSIC definition (your categories) in that ID is nothing but Creationism disguised - yes, it's trying to mislead by calling it another name, it's LYING about ID not having anything to do with Creationism. (I suggest you read the transcript of the Dover trial). It's religion in the first sense of your definitions and this is the definition that you should use.
You cannot have it both ways. You mean one thing (using your CLASSIC definition to apply to ID/Creationism which is correct and I assume an acknowledgment from your part) but then shifts the meaning of the word religion into another (RELEVANT, which I can also agree to some degree) to make your assertion about evolution. This amounts to the logical fallacy of equivocation.
ID cannot be taught in public school because it's not science but religion (CLASSIC definition) but evolution which is also science is not a religion (in your CLASSIC definition although as you may call it religion in the RELEVANT definition). The argument is about the CLASSIC definition only. Behind the ID/Creationism movement is the Christian right coalition agenda, not a scientific one.
BTW, thanks for dropping by my blog.
Is your friend trying to imply that farlex dictionary has committed an error by supplying such meaning? I agree with your friend unequivocally.
Stamp collecting can become a "religion" if ....... it is pursued like many of the atheists are doing right now(with zeal or conscientious devotion). Sounds funny but your actions and gestures make it look like that. The problem is the argument does not evolve on the classic definition only but must include the relevant meaning also or else the discussion becomes irrelevant. I just realize that i am wasting my time discussing "rubbish" when i should be doing things which are worthwhile.
Rubbish? You are caught with a logical fallacy of equivocation. It's not an argument you've got. Learn logic that is something worthwhile for you to learn. :)
BTW, to address your point, no Farlex is correct, but no you are wrong to use the second meaning with regards to the separation of church and state which apply only to religion/god. I cannot emphasize it enough. Yes, go educate yourself and do something worthwhile instead of writing rubbish.
Now who's confused? I did not even mention the words "separation" "church" "state". Thanks for refuting my "fallacy of equivocation" with three fallacies. Ad Hominem my friend maybe of little benefit in legal battle but in logic this is the worse argument that a person can build. Suggestion is well taken i am submitting myself for education to real intellectuals not to people who has mastered "ad hominem" rebuttals coupled with "presumptions" and fallacy of relevance.
Dude, I will excuse your ignorance. The reason why Intelligent Design is not allowed to be taught in US public school is because of the separation (of church and state) clause of the First Amendment of the US constitution. If not for that clause, there will not be legal battles surrounding Creationism being taught in public schools. Now, this separation clause pertains only to religion that falls under what you call the CLASSIC definition of religion. Get that?
Now on ad hominem. Again, your ignorance is showing. The fallacy of ad hominem pertains to the truthfulness or falsity of a statement is not determinded by the character/attribute of the person asserting it. I am refuting your statements by stating the reasons why your statements are false not because you are ignorant. That you are ignorant about what you are blogging about is a statement of fact, not a logical ad hominem. Go add logic into your future study lessons.
Post a Comment