Comic Genesis Forums

The main point that irks me about the FSM business is that it strikes me as an attempt to sidestep meaningful discussion by distracting people with a mockery, and I find it difficult to believe that is not one of its purposes. Some people would very much like to keep the controversy centered around the legal and political issues surrounding the matter, and the FSM construct is a very good example if the controversy is merely about teaching religious stories in the science classroom, but that is missing the point. The public education system is a part of this conflict, but it is not the main focus. The controversy will not be decided by who gets a monopoly on the public school science curriculum, but by who is right and who is wrong about the origins of life, the universe, and everything.

A comprehensive scientific comparison is necessary-- for the purposes of the test, all sides that care to take part must temporarily scrap all of their currently held data, start their theories over from scratch, and do joint experiments, with all sides making their own predictions as to the results, but the actual observations being made jointly. This must happen in order to resolve the controversy. If the main factions continue on as they are, doing their own research and publishing in their own separate journals, they will keep on ignoring each other's evidence whenever it suits them, or accuse each other of doing so. What is important is that a test of this nature is done as soon as possible, not the legal minefield surrounding the discussion of origins in public schools.

i know that the origin of the FSM is about a controversial issue but i started fsm comic day because i think FSM is funny. i really don't think it matters what your beliefs are regarding whether or not you think a spaghetti god whose afterlife consists of a beer volcano and stripper factory is funny. the FSM should be something everybody can laugh at.

my opinion on the topic? science belongs in science class and christian dogma belongs in churches.

and it's in one week so get crackin' with your FSM comics!

Hey, presume you automatically know someone's beliefs based on whether or not they participate in a webcomic event that points out a grievous breach of one of the founding precepts of this country! Way to go, Warren!

Religion is not science and therefor cannot be judged by scientific method. Science is based upon observable phenomena. Religion is based on faith. If someone had proof God exists you wouldn't have faith, but rather definite knowledge. Further, if one tries to scientifically "prove" God exists they not only completely circumvent the path of faith which is necessary to sustain a spiritual belief, they have lost the substance pursuing the shadow. That's my take on it anyway.

If people believe so fervently, then they should <i>believe</i> rather than shoving it down others' throats. Otherwise it only drives people away. Who are they trying to convince? Others or themselves? If their faith is strong children can survive being subjected to the godless teachings of evolutionists. Indeed, might not enduring such a test might even be part of God's plan?

Personally, I see attempts to shoehorn religion into schools as no different than how German schools rejected aspects of psychology, physics, and other sciences in favor of faith-based "German" math and "German" psychology - - it's simply the actions of a cold and manipulative force at work in our culture, just as it gnawedat the roots of post WWI Germany's civilization, a force based in a rejection of rationality.

It's an impossibility to KNOW how life began. That's the only fact we're working with here.

The issue is that people want to teach religious beliefs in science class in public schools. Not only is that absurd, it's unconstitutional. We teach evolution because it's the best theory about the origin of life that we have (remember Warren: A theory is not a hypothesis). We don't teach creation because it's not science. Intelligent design at least walks in the right direction, but it's more of an interesting guess than a theory. Intelligent design claims that we're too complicated to be products of chance. Which is fine if you think that but you have to admit that the criteria is less than empirical.

The big winner here is CW. As she points out, evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive. No one here (necessarily) is saying that god didn't create the world and life and stuff. What we're saying is that if he did, he did it like this. There's little scientific interest in proving or disproving god.

Religion is a personal thing. Even if I when I was religious I didn't want the school board deciding how I should view god. If it bothers you that your child might learn something that may contradict the most literal reading of your holy book, either home school or send the kid to your local religious school. Otherwise, have enough faith in the way you brought the kid up to test the child's beliefs. It's gonna happen sometime anyway.

wishmaster wrote:If people believe so fervently, then they should believe rather than shoving it down others' throats. Otherwise it only drives people away. Who are they trying to convince? Others or themselves? If their faith is strong children can survive being subjected to the godless teachings of evolutionists. Indeed, might not enduring such a test might even be part of God's plan?

Religion relies on numbers to be successful so spreading the beliefs is part of the indoctrination. Religions have to "shove what they believe down other peoples' throats" because if they don't then another religion will convert them and gain power.

BeefotronX wrote:A comprehensive scientific comparison is necessary-- for the purposes of the test, all sides that care to take part must temporarily scrap all of their currently held data, start their theories over from scratch, and do joint experiments, with all sides making their own predictions as to the results, but the actual observations being made jointly. This must happen in order to resolve the controversy. If the main factions continue on as they are, doing their own research and publishing in their own separate journals, they will keep on ignoring each other's evidence whenever it suits them, or accuse each other of doing so. What is important is that a test of this nature is done as soon as possible, not the legal minefield surrounding the discussion of origins in public schools.

Although that's a good idea they already did that shortly after evolution was created and came to the conclusion that evolution was the right theory. (And this was when a majority of the scientific community was in support of creationism)

Please don't pick a fight, WishMaster.

yeahduff wrote:It's an impossibility to KNOW how life began. That's the only fact we're working with here.

Agreed.

yeahduff wrote:The issue is that people want to teach religious beliefs in science class in public schools. Not only is that absurd, it's unconstitutional.

Precisely.

yeahduff wrote: Intelligent design claims that we're too complicated to be products of chance.

Which means we could be the products of genetic engineering by extra-dimensional beings as easily as the creations of a deity. It all depends on what "school" of intelligent design you belong to. Chariots of the Gods, man! Chariots of the Gods!

yeahduff wrote: Otherwise, have enough faith in the way you brought the kid up to test the child's beliefs. It's gonna happen sometime anyway.

Which is what I was getting at, but you have to be all concise and well spoken about it!

LibertyCabbage wrote:Religion relies on numbers to be successful so spreading the beliefs is part of the indoctrination. Religions have to "shove what they believe down other peoples' throats" because if they don't then another religion will convert them and gain power.

My questions were more rhetorical in nature, LC. I understand both organized religions and pyramid schemes, yes. I asked what I did more in the interest of the ol' saw about removing the plank in your own eye before removing the splinter in your brother's eye.

Warren wrote:Just remember, it's still the theory of evolution too.

The standard answer to this is "gravity is also just a theory."

These ID vrs. Evolution has been debated and refuted on both sides by far more qualified people than a bunch of comic artists. Go there if you want to argue.
http://www.talkorigins.org/ <-- go here if you want the science side refuting ID/creationism in its various incarnations.
http://www.icr.org/ <-- Institute for Creation Science
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/ <-- Intelligent Design Network
http://www.venganza.org/ <-- Flying Spagetti Monster

yeahduff wrote:Please don't pick a fight, WishMaster.

Not sure if this post is in regard to my previous post or the one just after the above post. Either way, I'm not trying to pick a fight, chief. Honestly. I thought all of this fell under the heading of discussing things. If it wasn't perfectly obvious that, while I believe in separation of church and state, I am not entirely unsypathetic to the spiritual point of view I hope this post clears up any confusion. I'm too new around here to pick fights.

You called out someone in particularly, and in a mocking way. Everything else you've said is fine, and I clearly agree with you, but that opening bit was picking a fight.

yeahduff wrote:You called out someone in particularly, and in a mocking way. Everything else you've said is fine, and I clearly agree with you, but that opening bit was picking a fight.

Gotcha. From the placement of the warning I wasn't sure which post of mine you were referring to specifically. I was just calling it like I see it, but in the future I will attempt to maintain a more objective distance when responding to anything. Also, I shall refrain from singling people out specifically. No offense was meant. My mistake.

No problem. A lot of action in this thread, so it's easy to get things crossed.

Various:

Not gonna participate, but not because I don't think it's funny. Just don't see how to fit it in.

Regarding the ID vs. Evo vs. Science Class debate: I seem to recall that I know what the term "creationism" means from science class in elementary. I certainly didn't learn it from my childhood church. They just called it Creation or Genesis, not "ism". I'm fine with it being taught in class, but I can't see it needing "equal time" as the ID people are advocating. It's not a complicated enough theory for that, nor does it have enough evidence to support it, and furthermore most of the arguments for it are opposed to all other science, so unless you stop teaching radioactive decay in science class, you can't really give ID equal time. You are somewhat uneducated if you don't what creationism and intelligent design are, so they should be taught.

*wants to say something but resists*

LC wrote:Sept. 26: FSM Comic Day

uh... topic reminder?...

wishmaster wrote: Religion is not science and therefor cannot be judged by scientific method. Science is based upon observable phenomena. Religion is based on faith. If someone had proof God exists you wouldn't have faith, but rather definite knowledge. Further, if one tries to scientifically "prove" God exists they not only completely circumvent the path of faith which is necessary to sustain a spiritual belief, they have lost the substance pursuing the shadow. That's my take on it anyway.

Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes. That is the main reason intelligent design doesn't belong in a science classroom -- no scientific evidence; just faith. Science is not based on faith, and as such faith-based theories don't belong in science curriculum. That's why we need a FSM -- some people are trying to get "both sides" of an issue taught in science class. In and of itself, that's valid, but the "other side," so far, is faith-based. Not scientific. Doesn't go in a science classroom.

faub wrote: These ID vrs. Evolution has been debated and refuted on both sides by far more qualified people than a bunch of comic artists.

If we were debating/discussing the specifics of each theory, I'd agree, but so far I think we've been mostly dealing with abstract concepts and ideals, which anyone can form, defend, and disagree with. What we can't do is back them up with specific, credible scientific evidence (for the most part), but since we haven't really gone there yet, it's all good.


...

OMFG THE MONKEY'S BEING ABDUCTED BY THE FSM EVERYONE LOOK AND AAAAH!

..... Everyone lookit the monkey.

Mommy, why do monkeys die?

They don't die, honey. They get touched by His Noodly Appendage!

I love you, Mommy!

.... *imagines mokey running from "noodly appendage" with a grim reaper puppet on it*

Well since the damn conversation happened anyway...

Show me the evidance of evolution, and I will allow you to exclude my faith and my ideals and the faith and ideals of others from the next generation, because I do admit, I don't have any evidance to present to you for the existance of a God, other than that of personal experiance.

It should go without saying that I don't think it's possible for you to do that. Why? There is no overwelming evidance that it did happen, and there is no evidance at all for whether or not it happened without God.

This does not even begin to touch why I think teaching evolution as it is taught today in a classroom and not teaching the views of other scientists who believe in creation theory is wrong. Most of the things being taught in classrooms are pure WAGs and theories. The evolution of the elephant can't be backed up with the skeletons of the purported evolutionary links. The evolution of a whale from a land animal is a nice idea, but there is no evidence that it's real. There is no evidence of that lightening bolt that jumpstarted the first cell. The smooth, clean, beautiful evolutionary theory taught in classrooms has all the blank spaces filled in with nice ideas, and it is presented to young minds who are trusting their teachers absolutely to give them PROVEN FACT. I'll be the first to say that just because the evidence isn't there doesn't mean it didn't happen...BUT you SHOULD NOT, and I mean SHOULD FREAKING NOT teach information that can. not. deliver. and then exclude other theories for the same reason.

Evolution is not science--wait! Not done! Put the knife down and back away from the shot gun! Evolution is not Science the way my toes are not Me. You can have me without my toes. You can have science without evolution. Evolution does not help buildings be built, cars drive, planes fly, computers calculate, medicine to cure or space ships to go into space and then come down intact. Other branches of science that are not remotely effected by evolutionary theory do. I have yet to see evidance of a positive--or for that matter, existing--discovery based in evolutionary study and not in another branch of science.

The only bit of Creation theory that I think should be taught is this:

At some point, a higher being decided to create life, and did so.

No mention of when, no mention of how, no mention of why, and lets go so far as to say, no mention of who--these things are all debateable because there are so many religions that we really don't need to muddy these waters up further by picking one to be imprinted into young minds. But just that: It was started by a higher power. The inclusion of that posibility does not harm one iota of science fact. I don't see how it can. I believe in God and I can accept every bit of science except for the suggestion that it excludes Him.

So to end:
1. The only things that should be taught in schools are facts
2. If a factual explination for something does not exist and this something cannot be excluded from a cirriculum (I know, I know) then the most posible/most believed explinations should be included and presented to the student in such a way that the student is allowed to choose which one to trust.
3. Evolution does not have the facts to back up its claims.
4. Neither do religious creation theories
5. The only bit of creation theory that should be included in a science book is that it is possible that a God started this whole mess off.

6. Arguing about this isn't going to change anybody's mind at all, ever, peroid, the end, everybody should kiss, make up and go get drinks or something.

(and maybe 7. Mr. FSM makes me a little angry because I feel like I'm being laughed at just because I don't agree with science in one very tiny area)

CW

Dang.

Didn't realize that was so very, very long and all. Sorry about that guys.

Now please, please, please, please please for everybody's sake PLEASE PLAY NICE.

CW