News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

Russ Tanner wrote:


So is religion, with Christianity among the foremost affected. Just take an honest look at history. Just take an honest look at the world today for that matter.

The fact that some aspects of science may or may not be influenced by malignant persons does not invalidate its findings (aren't you the same person who said you love science?). Because if it did, then by the same logic Christianity would be invalidated. Telling me all the evil things done in the Christian name were not committed by "true" Christians doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. That's far too easy an excuse. You've accused evolution of being a deliberate agenda to dehumanize the population so that atrocities can be committed -- does that mean you think that RAZD or LinearAq, a professed Christian, are among the lot? Are you accusing them of being part of a grand conspiracy to dehumanize other people? Or is it possble, just maybe, that they believe what they do because they see evolution as the most plausible explanation? You accept Christianity because you say that you've "let the data lead you" there. Does that mean you're a pitchfork wielding villager who intends to burn his neighbour at the stake for having a pet cat? Of course not. Rather, you see your religion (and make no bones about it, it is a religion) as the most rational explanation.

Anyway, the world does not work in absolutes, in pure black and pure white. I understand that many Christians live in a world where evil seems very far apart from righteousness. Sadly, this is not the real world. Every bad thing has some measure of good in it, every good thing has some measure of bad in it. There is no such thing as pure good or pure evil. So too is there no such thing as a belief sytem, be it evolution or creation, as wholly part of a conspiracy. I can use Christianity, Scientology, voodoo magic, etc., etc., to spark a conspiracy to life. That does not make any of the above, in and of themselves, invalidated. Carrots are good for your health, but I could probably find a way to create a conspriacy using carrots. That doesn't make carrots "wrong". I'm sure you see the obviousness of my statement here.

Whether correct or incorrect, we as humans should be free to study the theory of evolution and see what we can learn from it. If you want it abolished in schools then you sure as sh*t better expect YOUR religion to be abolished as well. Religion is for adults anyway. Raising children under a religion is inhumane brainwashing.

Just from reading the evolutionist side of the debate here I have learned some of the most fascinating things. The world is yet full of many undiscovered wonders, and new findings crop up every day. Just from what I'm witnessing here, between the two sides of the debate, it makes me wonder if there is one single "Biblical Literalist" who works as an archaeologist, paleantologist or geologist. If I were a betting man, I think I have a pretty good idea where I'd place my chips. That there's not a single bloody one. This speaks volumes, to me. That there is an express desire not to learn about these things for fear of having one's faith contradicted. I've always wanted to interact, face to face, with a chimpanzee or similar primate. It seems so very fascinating to me, to see what kind of communication we can establish between one another. Yet I have a sneaking suspicion that if "Biblical Literalist" (sorry, I'm not sure what the accurate term for such a one is) had the chance to interact with a chimpanzee, (s)he'd turn the offer down faster than you can blink. Why? And just watching the frustrations here by posters like Bex and CTD, the very blatant emotion involved, makes me ever thankful that my religion is not dependant upon a written document. And that isn't intended to come across as arrogant, instead it's simply a matter of fact, phew!-sigh-of-relief-type comment.