[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Macro-evolution is no more testable. And one needs to have just as much, if not more faith in evolution than a religious person has in God to believe evolution is responsible for life as we know it.

[Kerrigan]

Granted, the amount of physical evidence for the evolution of humans is very small (you could fit the skeletons of all our pre-historic forebears into one flatbed pickup truck). And there are quite a lot of assumptions that go along with the theory of evolution . . . . but the fact is that evolution is a valid theory, and ID is not. I don't think ID is even considered to be in the realm of science.

Protestants are shooting themselves in the foot by propagating this theory. Teleological arguments for god have always failed. If you attach your faith in god to a dodgy "theory", what is going to happen to future generations of believers when that "theory" is laughed off the stage? Christians should heed Jesus's warning about the danger of blindly following established religious authority, and should think twice when their spiritual leaders are propagating pseudo-science.

Also keep in mind that it was a devout Catholic who came up with the big bang theory, perhaps one of the most important scientific discoveries of the 20th century. Despite the fact that the big bang theory seems like the ultimate creationist story, its discoverer wisely chose not to inject it with religious dogma.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The definition of "religious" is somewhat nebulous, but I think most people would agree that an invisible being who created the universe falls under that heading.

Who says it has to be a "being"? Could be some kind of energy force or some sort of state of being we've yet to have encountered. There are a lot of people who believe in some sort of "higher power" who will tell you that they are in no way "religious".

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

This is a back door so religious asshats can get their superstitions into the science classroom.

And as it's pointed out, you could argue that the insistence that all ideas which include some "higher power" in favor of a dogma that only evolution as a means for the origin of the species is possible, are being excluded as a back door so atheists can continue to push their agenda in denying the existence of God (which would violate the first amendement).

You can question motives all you want. If there is no mention of God, worship or denomination, there is no violation of the first amendment as our founding fathers intended it. If you want to do something other than have judges legislate from the bench in this matter, you should probably seek to have the Constitution amended again and maybe THIS TIME you'll find enough people to agree with Jefferson and do it his way. He couldn't close the deal back then, though intellectually dishonest judges have been trying to help him for years now.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

but the fact is that evolution is a valid theory, and ID is not. I don't think ID is even considered to be in the realm of science.

The factual value of that contention does not increase based on the number of times it is repeated.

[Kerrigan]

Wow Big Mac, with that one tiny, weak line of text you have debunked my entire argument.

[Big Mac]

You're welcome.

[stupendousman]

I think Charles Fort said it best:

"People with a psychological need to believe in marvels are no more prejudiced and gullible than people with a psychological need not to believe in marvels."

[Luca Rescigno]

No one has responded to my assertion that evolution never contradicts the Bible unless you also believe that the Earth is around 10,000 years old and was created in six literal days (six 24-hour-long rotations around its axis).

It's a little ways up. What's wrong with that theory? Those who support evolution (like myself) aren't even saying that God can't exist. They're just saying that evolution is a scientific explanation for how species have developed. But who's to say that's not just a reflection of how God changed the creatures of Earth over time?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

No one has responded to my assertion that evolution never contradicts the Bible unless you also believe that the Earth is around 10,000 years old and was created in six literal days (six 24-hour-long rotations around its axis).

The problem here is that those who suggest you should not regard the Genesis text literally do not give you an idea of when it is okay to take Scripture literally. They've tried certainly, but I've yet to see a consistent day-age usage to illustrate their supposition.

Genesis 1:5; And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
Aside from the fact that upon this premise the weekly Sabbath day was established, if we're to assume this means something other than a literal 24-hour day, what of the other instances of 'yom' or "day" in the Bible;

Exodus 16:8 "And Moses said, this shall be when the Lord shall give you in the evening flesh to eat, and in the morning bread to the full." Is this a thousand years of meat-eating and a thousand years of bread-eating or is this not regarding a daily sustenance?

Genesis 30:36: "And he set three days journey betwixt himself and Jacob." So... Laban traveled for 3,000 years? 3,000,000 years?

Leviticus 19:6: "It shall be eaten the same day ye offer it, and on the morrow: and if ought remain until the third day, it shall be burnt in the fire." Are we talking about thousands of years here?

As a stretch for purpose of illustration- was Jesus raised from the dead 3,000 years after death? 3,000,000 years after death? Was he raised from the dead at all or is this allegorical also? (remembering of course that a literal interpretation of Scripture in this context is core to Christianity)

It's a little ways up. What's wrong with that theory?

IMO, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the theory with the exception of not providing a clear demarcation of when it is acceptable to take the Bible literally. I personally do not have a problem with this nor simply saying; "I don't know". There are many who believe 'young-earth' adherence is somehow critical to salvation. I'm guessing if there are 20 important messages in the Bible, the actual numerical age of the earth is among the least important.

Those who support evolution (like myself) aren't even saying that God can't exist. They're just saying that evolution is a scientific explanation for how species have developed. But who's to say that's not just a reflection of how God changed the creatures of Earth over time?

There's absolutely nothing to suggest that God (or 'a god') could not have created in the evolutionary context. In other words, I don't necessarily have a problem with this.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

I don't think ID is even considered to be in the realm of science.

While the merits of the argument are questionable, it has been suggested by noteworthy proponents of ID that it is often used in science. Archeology; how do you determine the difference between a deliberate pile of stones and an accidental pile of stones? Criminology; how do you determine the difference between homicide, suicide, and/or death by natural causes?

Protestants are shooting themselves in the foot by propagating this theory. Teleological arguments for god have always failed. If you attach your faith in god to a dodgy "theory", what is going to happen to future generations of believers when that "theory" is laughed off the stage?

Because of the belief that Scripture is inerrant, it and its subsequent interpretations will always be subject to greater scrutiny than the debunked theories of man. I'd argue that this is not an equal footing for discourse.

Christians should heed Jesus's warning about the danger of blindly following established religious authority, and should think twice when their spiritual leaders are propagating pseudo-science.

... like geocentrism propagated by the Catholic religious establishment authority?

Also keep in mind that it was a devout Catholic who came up with the big bang theory, perhaps one of the most important scientific discoveries of the 20th century. Despite the fact that the big bang theory seems like the ultimate creationist story, its discoverer wisely chose not to inject it with religious dogma.

This of course should not detract from the knowledge that 'The Church' has been wrong on several matters scientifically and guilty of intellectual suppression throughout its history.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Why would I compare science to religion? Why don't you visit the new Creation Museum http://www.creationmuseum.org/

I didn't ask why they would. Why they would should seem patently obvious. I'm asking why you (a proponent of scientific methodology?) would. In an attempt to separate yourself from those whacky Creationists, you're giving them the utmost flattery by assuming their premise? Again, this makes no sense to me.

They're doing a bang-up job of attempting to debunk science, claiming that Jesus rode on dinausors, and that the earth is only 6,000 years old, etc., etc. How much more disingenuous can you get?

I've seen some absolute disingenuous claims made by these folks. This does not surprise me. Not unlike the chimeras of our past including the piltdown man and Nebraska man- humans do what they do in spite of the integrity of their discipline.

Godlessness isn't founded on fairy tales that have been handed down through the generations.

Really? Not unlike the notion that discrediting evolution bolsters Christianity, many of your ilk believe discrediting Scripture somehow bolsters atheism. Most often it is too easy to illustrate where they are ignorant of the languages and culture that comprise the text and where their indictments of inaccuracy are founded on these passages taken out of context. I see no side with more integrity than the other, but then I employ a healthy skepticism of human nature. Something that requires a little more introspect than you're seemingly willing to entertain.

Interesting how your opponents' arguments are tired and moronic, and you're the one claiming that some mythical supernatural being made up the universe and watches down on it, and those who practice subservience to it will somehow be "saved."

Could you please state where I made this claim? No?

Please accept your statement above as exhibit A of tired and moronic arguments. Thank you.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

eBuddy, did you read the article? The law doesn't explicitly list Intelligent Design, Creationism, Bigfoot, Space Herpes, or religion, but the architects of the law are quite proud to point out that the law was made to encourage views of alternative theories.

So... the intent of law or of a science for that matter is subject to its architects? Interesting premise. Evolution science is atheism as founded on the philosophical opposition to the damnable doctrine of faith?

Now, I would be the first to support such a law, but the problem is that it doesn't restrict itself to scientific theories.

There is specific mention of the prohibition of religious promotion in the law itself.

According to the new law, you can teach the "theory" of creationism as an alternative to theory of evolution.

Creationism is only relevant to what is said of it in Genesis of the Bible. This most definitely is a breach of the law as written. A law that is wholly constitutional. Again, this doesn't mean that it won't be abused not unlike the abuse of the zealous science of recapitulation and sexual continuum. The law can easily be applied both ways. This should not be a problem for any learned educator.

Likewise, as Chuckit pointed out, the "theory" of Intelligent Falling can be promoted as an alternative "theory" to gravity.

How so?

This completely destroys the entire premise behind a science class! It's not so much the theories or the laws, or which one is right or wrong, it's the process of testing and discovery. Once you remove those key factors, it is no longer science. Since Intelligent Design can not be tested, it is not science.

No one is proposing that ID be taught in class.

The law is intended to allow teacher to introduce non-scientific alternatives to scientific theory.

Such as?

For the life of me, I don't understand why this is even an argument. If it's not science, it doesn't belong in the science classroom. What is so difficult about that? Intelligent Design is not a theory, it is not science, it does not belong in the science class room.

Is there anything in the law that states a teacher cannot frame the ID supposition just as you have above? No? What's the problem here? Again, this should not be a problem at all for a learned educator. The fear is that the educators are not educated enough on their discipline to address these issues. It is a shame and something the scientific community is busily trying to resolve. This is not the problem of the Creationist, it is the problem of the educators.

[Lava Lamp Freak]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

No one has responded to my assertion that evolution never contradicts the Bible unless you also believe that the Earth is around 10,000 years old and was created in six literal days (six 24-hour-long rotations around its axis).

I agree with your stance that evolution does not disprove the existence of a God who could have started it. My problem with that, though, is that if the idea of God was created by man, why should we believe that there is still some unprovable fact behind it?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No one is proposing that ID be taught in class.

Sure, it may allow for discussions on more than just evolution, but promoting creationism/ID is the whole reason for this law. It keeps popping up in states all over the country with different wording, but the same agenda.

What supplemental materials do you think Gov. Jindal keeps referring too?

http://www.discovery.org/a/6141

The law is straightforward and clearly restricts any intent to promote a religious doctrine. There is no mention of either intelligent design or creationism. Darwinism is not banned and teachers are required to teach students from standard textbooks. But the Times calls the legislation a “Trojan horse” because the state board of education must, upon request of local school districts, help foster an environment of “critical thinking” and “open discussion” on controversial scientific subjects. This allows teachers to use supplemental materials to analyze evolution and show views other than Darwin’s theory. It allows evolution to be criticized, and the law protects the rights of teachers and students to talk freely about a wide range of ideas without fear of reprisal

...

Scientist Casey Luskin, a scholar with the Discovery Institute said, "We would like to see evolution taught in an unbiased fashion and also want students to learn how to think like scientists and to weigh the evidence for and against."

That sounds great until you read the history of the Discovery Institute.

The C. S. Lewis & Public Life program is part of the Discovery Institute's Religion, Liberty & Public Life program which seeks to define and promote the role of religion in society. It says what "the proper role of religion is in a free society" is the "animating question behind Discovery's program on religion and civic life."

The C. S. Lewis & Public Life program provides analysis and commentary on the writings and thinking of C. S. Lewis, a noted Christian apologist, and how they can influence public policy.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I think Charles Fort said it best:

"People with a psychological need to believe in marvels are no more prejudiced and gullible than people with a psychological need not to believe in marvels."

That doesn't make sense. Most people who disbelieve has come to that conclusion going through believing in "marvels" realising gradually how little sense those things make. But then again Fort never made any attempt at making a coherent argument.

It does however illustrate what flawed reasoning the "atheism is just another religion" mindset is.

[- - e r i k - -]

So many moving targets in this thread it is making me dizzy. Very weak.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by Lava Lamp Freak 

I agree with your stance that evolution does not disprove the existence of a God who could have started it. My problem with that, though, is that if the idea of God was created by man, why should we believe that there is still some unprovable fact behind it?

What I'm saying is that regardless of whether you believe in God or not, it's not really important to the evolution debate. It confuses the issue and makes people on both sides think (erroneously) that God and evolution are diametrically opposed.

If you want to try to refute God, go ahead, but do so outside of the context of the evolution debate. In fact, in this area I think advocates for evolution have caused more problems than creationists because they have tried to refute every aspect of religion in the course of the debate rather than focusing on only certain ones. My science-loving friends have spent so long associating evolution with atheism that it's only natural for religious people to push back with their own hare-brained "theory" to put a theist spin on it. I don't think anyone's looking at the real core of the situation, which is that science and religion are in fact looking at very, very different things, and can coexist perfectly. They are looking at two different planes of reality. Science only deals with the part that we can observe. Religion deals with that which we can never observe, and thus we can't apply the scientific process to it.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That's your subjective view of things.

That's not a subjective view. That's what it is. You're arguing water isn't wet.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Macro-evolution is no more testable. And one needs to have just as much, if not more faith in evolution than a religious person has in God to believe evolution is responsible for life as we know it.

Despite being stated over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again, there is no such ting as macro-evolution. Everything happens on the cellular level. So stop bringing it up. Please.

The concept you're trying to peddle: isolated species changing "suddenly" and so dramatically that new species are created, does happen. Yes, "macro-evolution" has been directly observed, repeated, tested, and peer reviewed.

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...-back-drawing/

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Is there anything in the law that states a teacher cannot frame the ID supposition just as you have above? No? What's the problem here? Again, this should not be a problem at all for a learned educator. The fear is that the educators are not educated enough on their discipline to address these issues. It is a shame and something the scientific community is busily trying to resolve. This is not the problem of the Creationist, it is the problem of the educators.

As the article states, they avoid calling it "Intelligent Design." They gloss it over with titles like "Exploring Evolution," then go directly into religious dogma.

It will be a problem for educators because schools are democratic. When the majority of the school board is like the retards in Dover, they're going to force the issue on the teachers.

We'll have educators that, instead of not teaching enough, will be teaching 100% bullsh*t to the students. I'd rather have students not get enough education and make the decisions themselves, than to be forced to accept religious crap as "scientific fact."

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The problem here is that those who suggest you should not regard the Genesis text literally do not give you an idea of when it is okay to take Scripture literally. They've tried certainly, but I've yet to see a consistent day-age usage to illustrate their supposition.

Just to take things off on another tangent, this is my biggest problem (read: thing that puzzles me) with organized religion in general. From my way of thinking if the sacred text is important enough to be used as a literal guide in some areas of behavior how come it is not used as a literal guide in all areas? In other words, how can the believer pick and choose which parts of the sacred text to take as a literal guide without running afoul of their deity? To me, it would seem foolish to be a believer in a faith and say that we are going to use our faith's central sacred text as a literal guide in only part of our lives. To me, that seems like a quick way to be labeled as "not a true believer" by other adherents of the faith and to anger one's god.

As an example, you have these sacred texts in the JudeoChrislamic faith and some contemporary believers use specific passages to justify certain contemporary actions like suicide attacks (Islam and the Qu'ran) or anti-homosexual ideology (Christianity and Leviticus) or Israel's ownership of Jerusalem (Judaism and the Torah). What gets me is how contemporary believes will pick and choose certain passages from their respective sacred texts and use them as justification for action. I have yet to see or hear of any Christians* using Leviticus to advocate for stoning women who are sexually active outside of marriage or who use Leviticus as a guide for how they plant their crops (no two crops shall be planted in the same field) or wear clothing (no clothes made from fabric of two different materials) or trim their hair and beards (something about not rounding off the hair). While I am a non-believer and don't really understand the mind-set of a believer, I think this inconsistency in belief about the literalness of the sacred texts would mark one as "dangerous to the faith" by other believers of the faith for not completely believing in the literal application of all aspects of the faith to one's daily life.

Thoughts on this?


*I do know the Amish use some of these precepts in how they live their lives but I am too ignorant of their practices to say with any definition what it is they do and do not adhere to in regards to these strictures.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

That doesn't make sense. Most people who disbelieve has come to that conclusion going through believing in "marvels" realising gradually how little sense those things make.

Doesn't sound like you can make sense of much at all. I think that the point was pretty clear.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

...or who use Leviticus as a guide for how they plant their crops (no two crops shall be planted in the same field).

On another tangent, it's too bad they didn't use that one. Crop rotation has been the staple of any advanced agricultural society. "Modern" agriculture uses the same two or three crops season after season. To get rid of the insects that perpetually infest the never-changing plants, farmers rely more and more on insecticides.

Farmers have known for tens of thousands of years that regularly changing your crops around not only prevents insect infestations, but it's also very healthy for the soil.

Oh well.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Despite being stated over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again, there is no such ting as macro-evolution. Everything happens on the cellular level. So stop bringing it up. Please.

The concept you're trying to peddle: isolated species changing "suddenly" and so dramatically that new species are created, does happen. Yes, "macro-evolution" has been directly observed, repeated, tested, and peer reviewed.

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...-back-drawing/

That's the experiment where you admitted it "doesn't have any bearing at all on macroevolution"?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

That's the experiment where you admitted it "doesn't have any bearing at all on macroevolution"?

Is there a name for this private little world of yours? I said no such thing. The thread is about how that experiment created the conditions (by pure chance) to reproduce "macroevolution," conditions that Creationists/Intelligent Design proponents claim are impossible.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I said no such thing

But you should have. You were wrong that it had anything to do with macroevolution. And here, you're pretty careless to say in the same post that "there is no such thing as macro-evolution" AND "macro-evolution has been directly observed, repeated, tested and peer reviewed." Which is it?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

But you should have. You were wrong that it had anything to do with macroevolution. And here, you're pretty careless to say in the same post that "there is no such thing as macro-evolution" AND "macro-evolution has been directly observed, repeated, tested and peer reviewed." Which is it?

I did get the attribution wrong. It was U.S. who wrote that. Sorry.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Lava Lamp Freak 

Sure, it may allow for discussions on more than just evolution, but promoting creationism/ID is the whole reason for this law. It keeps popping up in states all over the country with different wording, but the same agenda.

What supplemental materials do you think Gov. Jindal keeps referring too?

http://www.discovery.org/a/6141

So... by this logic if a terrorist organization supports Obama for President, Obama is sympathetic to them? This doesn't make sense to me and I'll tell you why;
A. The very entities that would bring the law down on those teachers currently proselytizing under the guise of "science" would still be just as guilty under this new law.
B. This law also allows teachers to use supplemental material such as Hitchens, Kenneth Miller, and Talk Origins.
C. An ABC poll using a random sample of nearly 2,000 high-school science teachers across the U.S. in 2007 found that approximately 16% of them said they believed human beings had been created by God. The teachers with less formal training in evolutionary biology were less prone to spend time on evolution in class than those with more formal training. This is not a Creationist problem, this is an educator problem.

This shouldn't be regarded as some taboo subject matter that can't be discussed in the classroom. Whether you like it or not, per CBS poll; 51% of Americans polled believe God created humans in present form, 30% believe God guided the evolutionary process, and only 15% believe in evolution exclusively. It's going to come up. The Dover case that many are railing about and this new law in Louisiana are recent anomalies. Evolution has dominated the classroom since the mid to late 1960's and yet your polling results above were logged as of October 2005. Creationists have been fighting the teaching of Evolution since the late 1800's and yet current science remains the order of the day in the public school science curriculum for most. It certainly was for me even here in the God-fearing midwest, was it not for you?

If science teachers are held accountable for their knowledge through residual training and application of such in their classrooms, there should be no problem addressing the questions of those being raised up in the average American household. Again, the issue is going to come up and apparently the 40+ years of scholastic status quo is not winning the minds to what you'd no doubt view as a satisfactory handle on scientific methodology.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

As the article states, they avoid calling it "Intelligent Design." They gloss it over with titles like "Exploring Evolution," then go directly into religious dogma.

It will be a problem for educators because schools are democratic. When the majority of the school board is like the retards in Dover, they're going to force the issue on the teachers.

We'll have educators that, instead of not teaching enough, will be teaching 100% bullsh*t to the students. I'd rather have students not get enough education and make the decisions themselves, than to be forced to accept religious crap as "scientific fact."

Again, 51% of Americans polled believe God created humans in present form, 30% believe God guided the evolutionary process, and only 15% believe in evolution exclusively. Evolution has been the standard public school curriculum since the mid to late 60's and yet here we are as of CBS polling data compiled in 2005. The Dover case is recent, the Louisiana law is even more recent.

This is not a taboo subject that should be hush-hushed in school. Whether you like it or not it is the populace view of our country. It should be addressed. We can continue to sweep it under the rug as you suggest or we could begin holding teachers more accountable for their level of understanding. The ones that know more, teach more. The ones that know less statistically are more prone to teach less evolution and more alternatives.

With an antagonistic view of religion as the foundation for discourse it is all too easy to indict those of religious persuasion. In reality they wouldn't be as persuasive statistically had the educators been more prepared for what will invariably come up in school. Besides, this also means that a teacher is free to use Hitchens or Talk Origins. The law works both ways. There is nothing to fear, but ignorance and fear.

With so few high school science teachers claiming faith in God, Creationism, and ID, I'm more inclined to believe the zealotry has been skewed in the opposite direction. Perhaps it is more to do with potential accountability that causes such a concern among your ilk.

[macintologist]

There's a difference between normative Religious Studies and positive religious worship.

[Lava Lamp Freak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So... by this logic if a terrorist organization supports Obama for President, Obama is sympathetic to them? This doesn't make sense to me and I'll tell you why;
A. The very entities that would bring the law down on those teachers currently proselytizing under the guise of "science" would still be just as guilty under this new law.
B. This law also allows teachers to use supplemental material such as Hitchens, Kenneth Miller, and Talk Origins.
C. An ABC poll using a random sample of nearly 2,000 high-school science teachers across the U.S. in 2007 found that approximately 16% of them said they believed human beings had been created by God. The teachers with less formal training in evolutionary biology were less prone to spend time on evolution in class than those with more formal training. This is not a Creationist problem, this is an educator problem.

I see what you're saying, but I don't see it as the Discovery Institute just being sympathetic to the cause. They are helping write these laws.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Creationists have been fighting the teaching of Evolution since the late 1800's and yet current science remains the order of the day in the public school science curriculum for most. It certainly was for me even here in the God-fearing midwest, was it not for you?

I went to two public schools and then in 8th grade my parents started homeschooling me using a Christian curriculum. I honestly don't remember my elementary science classes, but apparently at some point I was told about evolution and my parents were not happy about it. They talked to the schools' superintendent, and they were assured it was "just a theory" and was being taught as such.

In high school, while homeschooling, all science in my Christian curriculum was taught from a creationism standpoint. I didn't really start thinking for myself until long after high school and into my early 20s.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If science teachers are held accountable for their knowledge through residual training and application of such in their classrooms, there should be no problem addressing the questions of those being raised up in the average American household. Again, the issue is going to come up and apparently the 40+ years of scholastic status quo is not winning the minds to what you'd no doubt view as a satisfactory handle on scientific methodology.

From my own experience, I know that religion has a large impact on what you'll even believe a science teacher telling you. I'm all for students being taught to be skeptical, but I don't see how adding controversy such as ID vs Evolution to the classroom is the way to do it.

Like you said, it isn't new. The people behind the Discovery Institute have been trying to get their books into childrens' hands for decades. It's just that it is finally happening. I guess we'll see how it plays out over time.

[Kerrigan]

I bet you guys are going to have fun when Obama starts talking about how he believes in ID.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Just to take things off on another tangent, this is my biggest problem (read: thing that puzzles me) with organized religion in general. From my way of thinking if the sacred text is important enough to be used as a literal guide in some areas of behavior how come it is not used as a literal guide in all areas? In other words, how can the believer pick and choose which parts of the sacred text to take as a literal guide without running afoul of their deity? To me, it would seem foolish to be a believer in a faith and say that we are going to use our faith's central sacred text as a literal guide in only part of our lives. To me, that seems like a quick way to be labeled as "not a true believer" by other adherents of the faith and to anger one's god.

As an example, you have these sacred texts in the JudeoChrislamic faith and some contemporary believers use specific passages to justify certain contemporary actions like suicide attacks (Islam and the Qu'ran) or anti-homosexual ideology (Christianity and Leviticus) or Israel's ownership of Jerusalem (Judaism and the Torah). What gets me is how contemporary believes will pick and choose certain passages from their respective sacred texts and use them as justification for action. I have yet to see or hear of any Christians* using Leviticus to advocate for stoning women who are sexually active outside of marriage or who use Leviticus as a guide for how they plant their crops (no two crops shall be planted in the same field) or wear clothing (no clothes made from fabric of two different materials) or trim their hair and beards (something about not rounding off the hair). While I am a non-believer and don't really understand the mind-set of a believer, I think this inconsistency in belief about the literalness of the sacred texts would mark one as "dangerous to the faith" by other believers of the faith for not completely believing in the literal application of all aspects of the faith to one's daily life.

Thoughts on this?
*I do know the Amish use some of these precepts in how they live their lives but I am too ignorant of their practices to say with any definition what it is they do and do not adhere to in regards to these strictures.

I've often said that faith falls on a continuum of sorts. For example, I'm 98% faithful upon leaving church on Sunday and approximately 65% by mid-week. I might be all for "turning the other cheek" until someone eggs my car. ("turn the other cheek" is being used in its popular form and may not mean simply being preyed upon) This is the painful fact of human nature and you might know this is not exclusive to religion. There are many ideals that would quickly get abandoned when one finds themselves in a situation where their long-held view would get in their way. Watch as the politicians do it this election year having nothing to do with religion. Examples of this will be numerous for both candidates by November. Short answer? Religious people are human too.

I'll let those of Jewish persuasion speak to living by the tenets of the OT. Christians believe God has made "agreements" with mankind. Notably, an old covenant (testament) and a new covenant. The OT is generally understood by Christians as necessary for building the foundation for Jesus' coming. Much of Jesus' teaching in the NT related to admonishing the established "minds" of religious leadership for the very reasons you suggest; for forgetting the "weightier matters" of the law such as judgment, mercy, and faith.

The specific questions you asked were more formally dealt with in the mid 1600's. Christians generally believe that there are three main aspects of OT law. Moral law, Ceremonial law, and Civil law.
The Moral law is the Ten Commandments and none of them have been abandoned.
The Ceremonial law are those laws dealing (crudely) with sacrifice. Christians believe any such law had been fulfilled with the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus as the end-all, perfect sacrifice for sin in the new agreement or testament. Ceremonial law includes the items you mentioned like the foods you eat, cleanliness, etc... It should be noted that many of these practices continued because... well, they're just damned sensible.
The Civil law (or judicial) is the more rigid enforcement of righteousness against what was deemed criminal to God's elect at that time. This includes the other items you brought up such as stoning women, etc... The problem here is that God's elect at that time enjoyed a theocracy as we know it. The US does not as well as most other nations. Those that remain in oppressive governance have a higher propensity towards enforcing in a manner we'd deem archaic. I'm not saying those laws are "wrong" necessarily, but archaic, obsolete, etc... I'm getting distracted.

In Galatians 6:16 of the New Testament, we're told that we are the Israel of God. i.e. God's elect. The agreement is open to all, but not under oppressive governance rather, of personal choice in fellowship and faith. As it was determined that lawfulness does not equal righteousness (closer to God), rigid lawfulness declined toward the secular laws of man. The NT teaches respect for the laws of man unless they are in conflict with the laws of God. Since Jesus preached that we've fallen short of the weightier matters of law, implied is the lesser. The archaic. The obsolete.

It should be noted that you're talking to someone who abandoned his life-long "organized" religion of Catholicism in favor of a non-denominational Christian church. My summary of the above is very crude, but hopefully it touches on some of your deeper questions.

As for me personally, I like to keep it simple because I can be pretty thick-headed. 1 Corinthians 2:2; For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I try to remain consistent, but it is difficult. At times, I would have those of faith tell me that my views or the manner in which I deliver them is dangerous and heretical. In fact, a noteworthy contributor to this forum is Catholic and has done so. The ideology in the NT is anti-sin, not anti-homosexual. It teaches that the wage of one sin is death and that no one is without sin. It does not weigh one sin against another. There are those quick to rail on the travesty of homosexuality while pinching one off in the shower drain picturing the neighbor's wife in compromising positions. I choose my battles.

Christian leadership today is as guilty as the Pharisees of yesterday. Short answer? They're just as human as a politician.

[Kerrigan]

Like Erik said, this thread is making my head spin. Why are we even debating evolution? And it seems like only 1 or 2 people in the whole discussion are keeping the debate alive on the ID side. Let's just close up shop and start a new thread about something more interesting, like sex or drugs.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Lava Lamp Freak 

I see what you're saying, but I don't see it as the Discovery Institute just being sympathetic to the cause. They are helping write these laws.

You posted a link that required me to read 2/3rds the way down to find a linked pdf stating nothing more than the hosted site said in the first place. What does it say?

- The Discovery Institute is now presuming to interpret what SB 733 means for Louisiana education. John West, associate director of DI’s creationist Center for Science and Culture, states that the bill is needed because “science teachers are being harassed, intimidated, and sometimes fired for trying to present scientific evidence critical of Darwinian theory along with the evidence that supports it. Second, many school administrators and teachers are fearful or confused about what is legally allowed when teaching about controversial scientific issues like evolution.”

This says nothing of "helping write it". What it says is that the associate director of the Discovery Institute believes the bill is needed. I'm sure an atheist would promote the teaching of evolution, this does not make it atheist doctrine.

- Casey Luskin, former student ID follower and now DI employee, accompanied Virginia creationist and ID supporter, Dr. Caroline Crocker, to Baton Rouge when she testified in favor of SB 733 before the House Education Committee on May 21.

I certainly hope no atheists testified for the promotion of evolution teaching in this district or it would have to be deemed atheist doctrine. Again, no mention of "having helped write the law".

- DI senior fellow and legal advisor, Gonzaga University law professor David K. DeWolf (torts and consumer law, not constitutional law), has reveal that he helped craft SB 733 in accordance with DI’s model academic freedom act. DI coordinated the introduction of such legislation, in various forms, in six states this year, including Louisiana.

Sounds like this senior fellow is trying to secure a place for himself among his faithful. I'd be willing to bet there's a place on the DI website for donations. Good to know they're doing something after all. He's taking credit for something that has not been attributed to him in any official capacity. Did he promote the bill? I'm sure he did. This is not "writing". I see they've pointed out his lack of constitutional law, but even the head of the ACLU has deemed that the law as written is constitutional.

I went to two public schools and then in 8th grade my parents started homeschooling me using a Christian curriculum. I honestly don't remember my elementary science classes, but apparently at some point I was told about evolution and my parents were not happy about it. They talked to the schools' superintendent, and they were assured it was "just a theory" and was being taught as such.

In high school, while homeschooling, all science in my Christian curriculum was taught from a creationism standpoint. I didn't really start thinking for myself until long after high school and into my early 20s.

I'm guessing your tutelage was not provided by one formally trained in biological evolution? Her ardent faith was only part of your problem IMO.

From my own experience, I know that religion has a large impact on what you'll even believe a science teacher telling you. I'm all for students being taught to be skeptical, but I don't see how adding controversy such as ID vs Evolution to the classroom is the way to do it.

I respect your personal experience.

The problem here is that "what the teacher is telling you" has been found to correlate with their degree of knowledge. The only thing that changes in this law is the removal of the taboo with regard to scientific discourse. You'd want it no other way IMO. Any learned educator should have no problem addressing all of the above. Can you believe there are teachers still teaching human gill slits? This law would not be necessary if it weren't for the irresponsible teaching of science in the first place. Like I said, evolution science has prevailed in the public school system since the 60's and I've given you the statistics on what we believe today. There's nothing new under the sun here. We can't pretend the arguments don't exist regardless of their merit. Furthermore, there is nothing in the law supposedly written by the Discovery Institute that specifies it is okay to teach ID. Nothing at all. Can it use an argument by Michael Behe? Maybe. Are the arguments lodged by proponents of ID all bad? Can they not at times be similar to those proposed by those at evolution science conferences as fellow proponents of the theory? Indeed. If scientists can debate aspects of evolution why can't the teaching of the discipline include its most basic methodology?

Like you said, it isn't new. The people behind the Discovery Institute have been trying to get their books into childrens' hands for decades. It's just that it is finally happening. I guess we'll see how it plays out over time.

I personally welcome the verbiage. I think it will do nothing, but strengthen the knowledge of educators and of the faithful alike. There should be absolutely nothing to fear here. Whatever law is in place to hold educators accountable for proselytizing faith remains intact. In fact, it has been clarified and bolstered in section 1D of the new Louisiana law.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

But you should have. You were wrong that it had anything to do with macroevolution. And here, you're pretty careless to say in the same post that "there is no such thing as macro-evolution" AND "macro-evolution has been directly observed, repeated, tested and peer reviewed." Which is it?

It does not exist. I always put "macro-evolution" in quotes because there is no such thing, it's a term made up by Creationists/Intelligent Design proponents to try and establish a problem where none exists. As I stated in the thread, everything happens at the cellular level. There's no macro- anything in the sense that Creationists/Intelligent Design proponents define it. Even minor genetic mutations can result in large changes, even to the to the point of creating an entirely new species (should the mutation prove helpful and propagate to future generations.)

The experiment exemplified "macro-evolution," a process that Creationists/Intelligent Design proponents said was impossible. The bacteria in an isolated gene pool randomly developed the ability to digest citrate. That's the equivalent of an entire branch of human beings having scaly skin and being able to process chlorine.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I personally welcome the verbiage. I think it will do nothing, but strengthen the knowledge of educators and of the faithful alike. There should be absolutely nothing to fear here. Whatever law is in place to hold educators accountable for proselytizing faith remains intact. In fact, it has been clarified and bolstered in section 1D of the new Louisiana law.

I have no problem with them using their books in a class room, just not the SCIENCE class room, and especially not while claiming their bullsh*t is fact. (Edit: OK, claiming their faith-based viewpoint is fact. It may not be bullsh*t. I don't know if there's a God or not.)

They're pushing the wrong agenda. They're trying to turn their religion into science by changing the laws. That's just simply wrong.

What they should be doing is, perhaps, make an offshoot of a Philosophy/Sociology class. They can then debate the merits of (or rather, lack of) Intelligent Design, Intelligent Falling, and Intelligent Teapots 'til their hearts' content.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Again, 51% of Americans polled believe God created humans in present form, 30% believe God guided the evolutionary process, and only 15% believe in evolution exclusively. Evolution has been the standard public school curriculum since the mid to late 60's and yet here we are as of CBS polling data compiled in 2005. The Dover case is recent, the Louisiana law is even more recent.

In the immortal words of The Rock, "It doesn't matter what you think!" You're missing the entire premise of scientific theory. You can think, believe, or have faith in absolutely anything you want. I can't make this any more clear, as I am constantly repeating myself.

IF YOU CAN NOT TEST IT, DIRECTLY OBSERVE IT, OR LOGICALLY DEDUCE IT, IT IS NOT SCIENCE. YOUR BELIEFS (RELIGIOUS OR NOT) ARE COMPLETELY BESIDE THE POINT.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is not a taboo subject that should be hush-hushed in school. Whether you like it or not it is the populace view of our country. It should be addressed. We can continue to sweep it under the rug as you suggest or we could begin holding teachers more accountable for their level of understanding. The ones that know more, teach more. The ones that know less statistically are more prone to teach less evolution and more alternatives.

I have never suggest sweeping it under the rug. My problem is calling it science. Calling it a theory. Suggesting it is an alternative to evolution. Suggesting it is scientific in any sense of the word. It is not. Keep it out of the ing science class room. I've suggested many, many times that they can create classes around the subject. It just isn't scientific. PERIOD. You can NOT test it in any measurable way. They are pushing it the wrong direction. Here it is again: It's not science! So stop trying to put it in there. They're pushing faith and belief as fact, and that is wrong.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

With an antagonistic view of religion as the foundation for discourse it is all too easy to indict those of religious persuasion.

That's why they have philosophy and history classes.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

In reality they wouldn't be as persuasive statistically had the educators been more prepared for what will invariably come up in school. Besides, this also means that a teacher is free to use Hitchens or Talk Origins. The law works both ways. There is nothing to fear, but ignorance and fear.

You're just not getting it. There was never a problem with Talk Origins because it approaches the problem from a scientific view. It explains the inherent problems with Creationism and Intelligent Design through evidence, discovery, and deduction.

There isn't a problem explaining why Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. Hell, have the students discover it themselves. When they get the mystical God or super power part, ask them how to test it. Tell them to set up an experiment to test the existence of that Intelligent Creator. They will then know why Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, and why it does not belong in a science class.

That is completely different than letting teachers flat out lie to their students, telling them why Intelligent Design is a scientific theory, that it can be tested, and why it's a valid subject for them to learn in a science class room. There will be no lab on the subject. You just have to have faith.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

With so few high school science teachers claiming faith in God, Creationism, and ID, I'm more inclined to believe the zealotry has been skewed in the opposite direction. Perhaps it is more to do with potential accountability that causes such a concern among your ilk.

It's your ilk's complete lack of understanding of why my ilk is so concerned. It doesn't matter if they teach it in school, just so long as it's not in the science class room and it is made abundantly clear that it is not a scientific theory. My mom taught at a Christian primary school for 12 years. They have Bible study right next to math and science. They keep the subjects separate (probably in part because the school also hosted non-religious students.) That is all I ask for in a public school. Keep them separate. Stop trying to force faith and religious doctrine into the science class room, it doesn't belong there.

[Luca Rescigno]

In fact, olePigeon, not only do I completely agree with you, but I think that Intelligent Design should definitely be taught in schools. But as you say, not as science, since it isn't science. It's such a big movement it needs to show up in social studies classes, though.

In science class, as you say, they could present the ideas but they wouldn't be able to teach it as a science. It'd probably have to be presented in the same way that geocentricism is presented - showing the ideas behind it and how the proponents of the theory tried to rationalize it, but how it ultimately fails the scientific method.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

IF YOU CAN NOT TEST IT, DIRECTLY OBSERVE IT, OR LOGICALLY DEDUCE IT, IT IS NOT SCIENCE. YOUR BELIEFS (RELIGIOUS OR NOT) ARE COMPLETELY BESIDE THE POINT.

Logically deduce it?

Interesting. So, in the absence of any other reason why a bunch of nothingness one day decided to have itself a big bang, logic dictates that there *must* be an outside influence. Since, at the time, the nothingness encompassed the whole of everything, said influence must be outside of space and time. I wonder what said outside influence could be.

Religion or science?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Logically deduce it?

Interesting. So, in the absence of any other reason why a bunch of nothingness one day decided to have itself a big bang, logic dictates that there *must* be an outside influence. Since, at the time, the nothingness encompassed the whole of everything, said influence must be outside of space and time. I wonder what said outside influence could be.

Religion or science?

Logic doesn't dictate that — or at least you're going to have to spell out your logic a lot more than that if it does. Physics as we understand it didn't exist before the Big Bang, so it's difficult to apply logic in the absence of information.

[Luca Rescigno]

Also, Doof, your example has nothing to do with anything after the Big Bang. Even if you assume that God caused the Big Bang, how do you know he had any influence on it afterward?

God may well have conceived of every event that would happen and created the Big Bang in such a way that such things would unfold as he planned. He is omnipotent after all. I mean, he could have done anything, including causing a tremendous explosion of energy that, billions of years later, would coalesce into an intelligent civilization (among many other things of course).

[paul w]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Logically deduce it?

Interesting. So, in the absence of any other reason why a bunch of nothingness one day decided to have itself a big bang, logic dictates that there *must* be an outside influence. Since, at the time, the nothingness encompassed the whole of everything, said influence must be outside of space and time. I wonder what said outside influence could be.

Religion or science?

You're mixing up common sense with logic.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

God may well have conceived of every event that would happen and created the Big Bang in such a way that such things would unfold as he planned. He is omnipotent after all. I mean, he could have done anything, including causing a tremendous explosion of energy that, billions of years later, would coalesce into an intelligent civilization (among many other things of course).

Exactly. For any religious folk to say that God didn't do evolution is to say that God is incapable of such a thing.

The way I see it, God put a big bunch of equations in place and let it get on with it.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Exactly. For any religious folk to say that God didn't do evolution is to say that God is incapable of such a thing.

The way I see it, God put a big bunch of equations in place and let it get on with it.

And since we have no way of proving it one way or the other, why not stick with what we can observe in the science classes and keep religion in the religion and social studies classes?

I think religious folks are going about things all wrong. They're (and I use that only to refer to certain ones, not all of them) trying to refute science on scientific grounds by coming up with alternate theories. If they really want to go all out, it would make more sense to dispute the value of the scientific method itself. A reasonable interpretation of that would be to say that, while science can tell us about what we can observe, it doesn't speak to human spirituality or faith.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Logic doesn't dictate that — or at least you're going to have to spell out your logic a lot more than that if it does. Physics as we understand it didn't exist before the Big Bang, so it's difficult to apply logic in the absence of information.

'Tis the Sherlock Holmes school of logic.

@everyone:
Isn't this whole thing a little silly? Is knowing how it all happened going to get you a Ferrari? Is it going to cure Cancer? Is it going to lower taxes? Is it going to prevent your real freedoms being eroded by your government?

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

And since we have no way of proving it one way or the other, why not stick with what we can observe in the science classes and keep religion in the religion and social studies classes?

No problem with that.

However, you're going to have to address the issue of when some bright spark puts his hand up in class and says "Miss - what caused the big bang?". At which point is it really too difficult to say "we don't know. Some religious folks think God did it"?

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

I think religious folks are going about things all wrong. They're (and I use that only to refer to certain ones, not all of them) trying to refute science on scientific grounds by coming up with alternate theories.

Now, I'm not in the US so don't have experience of just how far the religious folks go with this. I only have experience of the proper young earthers (my step dad) and the normal Christians (to which ID is evolution, but God made it happen).

How much of this is actually the IDers going a step beyond "God made it happen" and how much of it is hardcore atheists running smear tactics so they don't have to have God mentioned at all? Because, to me, ID is nothing more than God setting up a framework for evolution to take place in.

[Luca Rescigno]

I think the main problem scientists have with intelligent design isn't that they hate that other people believe things that aren't true. It's that they're infringing on the scientific method by trying to come up with scientifically accepted justification for their beliefs.

I mean sure, whether we evolved or not isn't extremely important for day-to-day life (though it still has many consequences for genetics research!). And the details surrounding the origins of the universe are certainly not very important to us outside of curiosity. But we're afraid that, if certain religious groups are able to mold accepted scientific fact to fit their particular belief system, that they will eventually start applying it to things where it would make a difference. Look at medicine. Certain religious groups think that medicine is evil or poisonous, and think that prayer and noninvasive medicine is the only way to treat someone. And then their children die. That's an example of religious dogma infringing on reality.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

No problem with that.

However, you're going to have to address the issue of when some bright spark puts his hand up in class and says "Miss - what caused the big bang?". At which point is it really too difficult to say "we don't know. Some religious folks think God did it"?

I wouldn't have a problem with it at all. I'm an atheist and I'd say that. It just bothers me when certain people totally misunderstand how science works and assume that because we don't have scientifically proven answers to everything, right now, that science is a farce. I know you're not saying this, but some people do.

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

How much of this is actually the IDers going a step beyond "God made it happen" and how much of it is hardcore atheists running smear tactics so they don't have to have God mentioned at all? Because, to me, ID is nothing more than God setting up a framework for evolution to take place in.

Well, there are two components there. One is the presence of the Christian God vs. a generic deity or ultimate intelligence of some sort. The other is the issue of whether the Earth was created as it appears today or whether animals evolved over time.

As for the presence of God, well, that's something that I always thought ID proponents tried to avoid. Virtually all of them believe in the Christian God, but they are forced (mostly by their own better judgment) to not mention him by name. Instead they say that the infinite complexity in the world necessitates a creator. They never say who that creator is. This is because they want to push to have this "theory" taught in schools (even though it's really just a premise). If they said that God did it, they wouldn't be able to (separation of church and state). So they say that some nameless creator did it. Same thing.

As for evolution, this is the part I don't get. It seems to me any reasonable person could easily reconcile evolution with creationism. But as far as I can tell, many ID proponents try to argue that everything was created just as it appears today. One thing they seem to really hate is the idea that "people came from monkeys." Well, if you look at a monkey, or better yet an ape, you can't deny the resemblance. Whether large apes evolved into humans by natural means or by the touch of God's hand doesn't seem to matter that much. But many creationists/ID proponents (at least in the US) seem to be trying to argue that all animals were created exactly as they appear today and have never really changed.

For all I know, though, most could believe that God is the mechanism behind evolution. I think it says a lot about the state of this debate in general when one side doesn't even know the other side's position.

Actually, there was a survey someone posted earlier (ebuddy I think) that said more people believed in the static animals idea than believed in the idea of evolution (either totally natural evolution or as guided by God).

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

I think the main problem scientists have with intelligent design isn't that they hate that other people believe things that aren't true. It's that they're infringing on the scientific method by trying to come up with scientifically accepted justification for their beliefs.

But they're not infringing on the scientific method, are they? They're simply postulating that the results acquired by scientists using the scientific method have a reason for being a particular way. They're attempting to provide the "why" to the scientists' "how".

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

But we're afraid that, if certain religious groups are able to mold accepted scientific fact to fit their particular belief system, that they will eventually start applying it to things where it would make a difference. Look at medicine. Certain religious groups think that medicine is evil or poisonous, and think that prayer and noninvasive medicine is the only way to treat someone. And then their children die. That's an example of religious dogma infringing on reality.

Land Of The Free, yadda, yadda, yadda.

As long as they're not imposing their belief structure on *your* kids, then it's not your business. Now, some people may actually think that this is their business - you know, social services stuff - but it's not. This is where society starts to lose its freedoms - when people start thinking that something which has nothing to do with them is their business.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

But they're not infringing on the scientific method, are they? They're simply postulating that the results acquired by scientists using the scientific method have a reason for being a particular way. They're attempting to provide the "why" to the scientists' "how".

I only wish this were true in most cases. Yes, I fully agree that science attempts to answer "how" and religion (along with philosophy, from a secular viewpoint) attempts to answer "why." One can't really be used for the other. The Bible isn't a scientific text any more than a physics textbook is a spiritual one.

I was more referring to those who have a sort of "my way or the highway" viewpoint where, for whatever reason, one MUST be true and the other MUST be false. We're both talking about how you can reconcile the two but a lot of people out there refuse to accept that.

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Land Of The Free, yadda, yadda, yadda.

As long as they're not imposing their belief structure on *your* kids, then it's not your business. Now, some people may actually think that this is their business - you know, social services stuff - but it's not. This is where society starts to lose its freedoms - when people start thinking that something which has nothing to do with them is their business.

Eh, I'd say refusing to vaccinate your kids or treat them for diseases should be considered child abuse. It's one thing if you do it to yourself, but not to another person. We may have to agree to differ on that one.