First, I agree that all of Christianity should not be slammed for the foibles of the Religious Right. I also don't mind the idea of religions borrowing from each other. The thing is, the Religious Wrong tries to claim that Christianity doesn't take anything from other religions, and in fact demonizes other religions to the point at which the model for Lucifer is Pan, and the pentagram is called a satanic symbol.
I don't see your other points, though.
The reason the word marriage has such a restrictive connotation these days is because of bigotry, plain and simple. It harms no one to re-expand the term.
The word, "negro," was once synonymous with "slave," in this country. The word "voter," used to mean a white man of legal age. It did not include African-Americans or women. Should we go back to that? How about we call them something different? Let's go back to that "separate but equal" thing that worked so well in the past, and let our culture be completely defined by white heterosexual anglo-saxon protestant males.
And as for ID versus evolution? There is not one shred of evidence for ID. Zip. Zero. Nada. ID essentially consists of the following argument: "We don't fully understand this, therefore, God."
I'm not saying it couldn't have happened, because absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence. The thing is, though, evolution is a scientific fact, not a belief system. The two don't even contradict each other--The Catholic Church has announced that its official position is that evolution is the means God used to create the various species. I'm an agnostic myself, but if I did believe in a god like the Christian one, who would I be to limit the methods through which he can work?
Evolution is defined as the changing of a species over time, and we have direct evidence of this. We actually see this happening in real-time, and have confirmed it with the fossil record and genetic testing. As for human evolution, we have traced human mitochondrial DNA back to older hominids. This is fact.
I challenge you to present even one piece of hard scientific evidence of Intelligent Design. (ID is actually merely a repackaging of Creationism. The "find and replace" in the documents that introduced ID didn't work entirely well.)
Many people get confused when they hear evolution described as a theory; what they don't understand is that, in science terms, a theory has to be testable and have evidence to support it. Gravity is a theory. The general and special theories of relativity are just that--theories. The heliocentric model of the solar system is a theory.
A theory isn't just someone saying, "Well... It could be this way." If it were, we'd be obligated to teach the racial superiority beliefs of the KKK and the Nazis, and that having one's picture taken steals one's soul. Teach all of it. Let the kids decide.
ID proponents like to point out that evolutionary theory isn't complete--that there are gaps in our understanding. Well, duh. There are gaps in our understanding of every field. Physics. Chemistry. Mathematics. Shall I go on? We don't fully understand all of the ins and outs of its workings, but we know it is there.
Let's apply this same "logic" to Creationism (which is the same as ID--and I can prove that) with which creationists try to discredit science. By creationist logic, unless you can tell me what kind of clay God used to make Adam, your entire belief system is invalid.
ID is a belief system. I have no problem with people who believe in ID, until they try to call it science and start saying things like, "Well, teach both theories and let the kids decide."
Um, no. Because ID is not a theory. It's not science. Saying it should be taught in science classes is like saying that we have to teach astrology in addition to astronomy, and teach the "evil spirit" explanation of disease alongside germ theory.
If religion must be taught in schools, then I demand that it be mandated that evolutionary biology be taught in church. If we must have stickers on textbooks that state that evolution is "just a theory," then we also need to make certain the kids know what actually constitutes a scientific theory. I suppose we'd also have to put stickers on every other textbook, as well, including physics, astronomy, and algebra.
And don't forget--In the interest of fairness, we get to have stickers on all religious texts explaining that whatever religion they represent is "just a belief system, for which there is no evidence."
Look, science and religion do not have to be at odds, but much of religion chooses to fight science and reality in an attempt to preserve its preconceived notions of how things work. It has always lost. Gallileo is one famous example of someone whose science was unpopular with the church because his findings didn't match a literal interpretation of the Bible--which clearly presents the Sun as revolving around the Earth.
Science needs to keep its nose out of religion, and religion needs to keep its nose out of science. If the real world challenges your religious beliefs, your beliefs are a lot easier to change than reality. The sun does not revolve around the Earth, and rabbits are not cud-chewing animals. Likewise, evolution is real, and doesn't invalidate religion any more than Gallileo. Get over it.
One final point--Enemies of evolution are, in effect, saying that their god planted overwhelming evidence for evolution, let us witness it in real-time and in person, gave us intellect to figure it out, and expected us not to use that intellect to understand the evidence that he planted. In other words, if evolution isn't real, and there is a god, he's pretty much a dick.
First, I agree that all of
First, I agree that all of Christianity should not be slammed for the foibles of the Religious Right. I also don't mind the idea of religions borrowing from each other. The thing is, the Religious Wrong tries to claim that Christianity doesn't take anything from other religions, and in fact demonizes other religions to the point at which the model for Lucifer is Pan, and the pentagram is called a satanic symbol.
I don't see your other points, though.
The reason the word marriage has such a restrictive connotation these days is because of bigotry, plain and simple. It harms no one to re-expand the term.
The word, "negro," was once synonymous with "slave," in this country. The word "voter," used to mean a white man of legal age. It did not include African-Americans or women. Should we go back to that? How about we call them something different? Let's go back to that "separate but equal" thing that worked so well in the past, and let our culture be completely defined by white heterosexual anglo-saxon protestant males.
And as for ID versus evolution? There is not one shred of evidence for ID. Zip. Zero. Nada. ID essentially consists of the following argument: "We don't fully understand this, therefore, God."
I'm not saying it couldn't have happened, because absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence. The thing is, though, evolution is a scientific fact, not a belief system. The two don't even contradict each other--The Catholic Church has announced that its official position is that evolution is the means God used to create the various species. I'm an agnostic myself, but if I did believe in a god like the Christian one, who would I be to limit the methods through which he can work?
Evolution is defined as the changing of a species over time, and we have direct evidence of this. We actually see this happening in real-time, and have confirmed it with the fossil record and genetic testing. As for human evolution, we have traced human mitochondrial DNA back to older hominids. This is fact.
I challenge you to present even one piece of hard scientific evidence of Intelligent Design. (ID is actually merely a repackaging of Creationism. The "find and replace" in the documents that introduced ID didn't work entirely well.)
Many people get confused when they hear evolution described as a theory; what they don't understand is that, in science terms, a theory has to be testable and have evidence to support it. Gravity is a theory. The general and special theories of relativity are just that--theories. The heliocentric model of the solar system is a theory.
A theory isn't just someone saying, "Well... It could be this way." If it were, we'd be obligated to teach the racial superiority beliefs of the KKK and the Nazis, and that having one's picture taken steals one's soul. Teach all of it. Let the kids decide.
ID proponents like to point out that evolutionary theory isn't complete--that there are gaps in our understanding. Well, duh. There are gaps in our understanding of every field. Physics. Chemistry. Mathematics. Shall I go on? We don't fully understand all of the ins and outs of its workings, but we know it is there.
Let's apply this same "logic" to Creationism (which is the same as ID--and I can prove that) with which creationists try to discredit science. By creationist logic, unless you can tell me what kind of clay God used to make Adam, your entire belief system is invalid.
ID is a belief system. I have no problem with people who believe in ID, until they try to call it science and start saying things like, "Well, teach both theories and let the kids decide."
Um, no. Because ID is not a theory. It's not science. Saying it should be taught in science classes is like saying that we have to teach astrology in addition to astronomy, and teach the "evil spirit" explanation of disease alongside germ theory.
If religion must be taught in schools, then I demand that it be mandated that evolutionary biology be taught in church. If we must have stickers on textbooks that state that evolution is "just a theory," then we also need to make certain the kids know what actually constitutes a scientific theory. I suppose we'd also have to put stickers on every other textbook, as well, including physics, astronomy, and algebra.
And don't forget--In the interest of fairness, we get to have stickers on all religious texts explaining that whatever religion they represent is "just a belief system, for which there is no evidence."
Look, science and religion do not have to be at odds, but much of religion chooses to fight science and reality in an attempt to preserve its preconceived notions of how things work. It has always lost. Gallileo is one famous example of someone whose science was unpopular with the church because his findings didn't match a literal interpretation of the Bible--which clearly presents the Sun as revolving around the Earth.
Science needs to keep its nose out of religion, and religion needs to keep its nose out of science. If the real world challenges your religious beliefs, your beliefs are a lot easier to change than reality. The sun does not revolve around the Earth, and rabbits are not cud-chewing animals. Likewise, evolution is real, and doesn't invalidate religion any more than Gallileo. Get over it.
One final point--Enemies of evolution are, in effect, saying that their god planted overwhelming evidence for evolution, let us witness it in real-time and in person, gave us intellect to figure it out, and expected us not to use that intellect to understand the evidence that he planted. In other words, if evolution isn't real, and there is a god, he's pretty much a dick.