TN Senator:Einstein Would Have Supported Creationism. WTF?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by appleguy123, Apr 19, 2011.

  1. appleguy123, Apr 19, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2011

    appleguy123 macrumors 603

    appleguy123

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Location:
    15 minutes in the future
    #1
    Video of the stupidity @ source
    Why do many Christians mistakenly claim Einstein as one of their own? I seriously don't get it.
     
  2. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #2
    please do not paint Christians which such broad strokes.

    I am a Christian but I am not like this nut case.
     
  3. macquariumguy macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    Sarasota FL
    #3
    While conveniently forgetting that Darwin was one of their own.
     
  4. appleguy123 thread starter macrumors 603

    appleguy123

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Location:
    15 minutes in the future
    #4
    Sorry, that was uncalled for.
    I didn't mean it as all Christians, but rather as asking where this mistaken identity originated and why it is used so much.
    I edited the post.
     
  5. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #5
    I bet it is a minority. not many. Much smaller number than you are making it out to be. I always though Einstien was an Athies or Jewish. I knew he fled germany because of his Jewish history.
     
  6. chrismacguy macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2009
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #6
    Simple, Republicans love Mis-quotes. I seem to remember it was a republican who also claimed Stephen Hawking wouldve died had the US had a system like the NHS here in 'Blighty. Shame hes only alive because of said NHS, but that won't stop Republicans inability to read and comprehend things
     
  7. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #7
    Scientists don't quote politicians so politicians should not (attempt to) quote scientists.
     
  8. vipergts2207 macrumors 65816

    vipergts2207

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    #8
    Most politicians are idiots, nothing new here. How people like that get as far as they do, I have no idea. :confused:
     
  9. rasmasyean macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #9
    You don't always get ahead because of how smart you are. Sometimes it's who you know...as the cliche goes. In this case, they "know" the right ppl...often the public arround them that follows them and elects them to the top. If you were a really bright scientist in Taliban Afghanistan for example...or just really "smart" in general, you will prolly be a low-life if not dead. Then again, "smart" can be just "ppl smart" where you pretent you are with all the fundamentalists and are really good at lying and then you can be a powerful mullah or something.

    I would bet many "Christians" in the past who had bright individual logical ideas were outcasted and even crucified. For example, is Darwin really the first to think of evolution? Or is he just the first person rich and powerful enough to publish a book on it and force it down society's throats? Or perhaps other's who had the resources to do experiments such as his were just "discouraged" from continuing or taking it up in the first place. I mean, Galeleo, Keppler, Newton...these may be just examples of ppl who were "brave enough" to risk persecution in order to say their word. Many other "bright ppl" might have just shut up to preserve their families, social standing, church order, etc.
     
  10. ender land macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    #10
    Correct me if I'm wrong but Einstein did have theistic beliefs.
     
  11. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #11
    I think you are wrong. If Wikipedia is correct, Einstein believed in "Spinoza's God", which describes an impersonal abstraction. A god that follows man (derives from intellectual exploration, much as Einstein's theories did). That is really not what one would call theistic beliefs.
     
  12. vipergts2207 macrumors 65816

    vipergts2207

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    #12
    His parents were non-observant Jews. Einstein said,

    "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a god who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

    Spinoza believed God exists only philosophically and that God was abstract and impersonal.

    Edit - Sydde beat me.
     
  13. ender land macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    #13
    Well, right, I guess I would not necessarily see creationism in opposition to that view.

    Christianity (or any specific religion) yes, but creationism seems somewhat in line with that way of thinking.

    I guess it's somewhat a mute point since he's dead and all ;)
     
  14. FreeState macrumors 68000

    FreeState

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #14
    Really? How does a God that only exists philosophically in an abstract form create?
     
  15. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #15
    I think the issue was more down to poor education etc.

    However the only "advanced" society where evolution is controversial is the US.
     
  16. BigBeast macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    #16
    Actually, Darwin never said the term evolution in The Origin of Species. What he did was observe the world around him, continuously finding what he called descent with modification by natural selection.

    Many other scientists and theories at the time aided in Darwin's publishing ofThe Origin of Species. Scientists like Lamarck, Hutton, and Lyell tried to explain life and where all life originated.

    No one at that time was "forcing it down society's throats." Many times, scientists with new ideas were discredited and ridiculed for creating such new and radical ideas. Scientists would make hypotheses and theories, and society would choose what to do with them.

    Also, a man by the name of Wallace was at the same time coming to the same conclusions as Darwin. Wallace actually wrote his version of descent with modification BEFORE Darwin published his. Wallace sent Darwin his proposed theory which caused Darwin to wake up and try to quickly publish his own findings.

    Also, many scientists at that time still believed in God. They were just searching for answers to questions of the natural world.

    Many of TODAY'S scientists however, are different from those before them and see ONLY evolution as a possibility- almost to the point of fanaticism and as religion.
     
  17. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #17
    That's because the evidence is so strong. Scientists also believe in F=ma almost to the point of fanaticism and as religion.
     
  18. BigBeast macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    #18
    I'm not sure that the reason it's fanaticized is because the evidence is so strong but rather, it's the best explanation thus far. If you were to believe that the origin of species is correct, you must still believe that life arose from inorganic compounds. That is, when no amino acids, carbohydrates, membranes, RNA, or ANY other compound necessary for life and replication just HAPPENED to be formed AND found their way to combine and create such a diverse and complicated world full of life.
     
  19. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #19
    Evolution and origin of life theory are different. The latter is a little controversial the former is not.
     
  20. rasmasyean, Apr 20, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2011

    rasmasyean macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #20
    Well, the difference between early scientists and today's scientists is that Gregor Mendel came along with his selective breeding to "guide evolution", and then later on DNA and it's structure (with atoms etc.) were discovered.

    Well, lets put it this way...if an equivalent scientist today believes in "God", it would not be the bible version. If a kid took secondary school biology...OK, maybe a religious kid would still hold onto Creationism. If you took college genetics, there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY YOU WILL BELIEVE IN CREATIONISM. If you are still a "religious fanatic" the best you can do is say..."God assisted in mankind's morphing"...which they now consider broadly as Intelligent Design, right.

    Religious ppl will always try to find a way to hold onto god...even if it means "God directs the miniscule atomic forces to pre-arrange the DNA atoms when he dicided to make a creature in his image". Because when "most" ppl understand genetics years from now, they will likely still be laymen to atomic physics. Don't forget the religious institutions are political structures too and employ people to do their bidding. When enough ppl cancel thier "donations", their church will collapse.


    BTW, I found this tutorial once and it was pretty good and easy to understand. It's basically a brief history and explaination of genetics in progressive short presentations. If anyone is interested in learning about genetics without going through a college course, this is a really good summary.
    http://www.dnaftb.org/
     
  21. bassfingers macrumors 6502

    bassfingers

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    #21
    Interesting. the more in depth I get into my sciences classes, the more I say "holy crap, and people STILL believed this all happened by chance"
     
  22. R.Perez macrumors 6502

    R.Perez

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    #22
    You should of rethought that application you sent to Kansas State.
     
  23. appleguy123 thread starter macrumors 603

    appleguy123

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Location:
    15 minutes in the future
    #23
    If you're talking about the body systems of animals, I'm not sure what you mean by 'all happened by chance.'
    Evolution by natural selection is the opposite of chance. Sure, the random mutations require a small stroke of luck(say like the luck of rolling double sixes on a dice twice in a row), but the process is not random. Given time, these lucky mutations simply have to carry on to the next generations. Life has had an unfathomable about of time to generate complexity. Our minds are meant to compute the time that happens during our life. Evolution has had 40 thousand thousand of the longest human lives in which to work! Think about that. The sheer magnitude of that is beautifully poetic.
    Also, if you want to substitute a god for this process, you then need a bigger explanation for his existence, because it certainly couldn't have happened by chance!
    If you're talking about other areas of science, their complexity astounds me, but I haven't had time to study them yet. I'm sure that they have equally beautiful answers that henge on simplicity rather than the infinite complexity of a diety.
     
  24. ehoui macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    #24
    You misunderstand the theory of natural selection. You should read up on it and then post your criticisms to at least be more credible. No informed individuals believe that "chance" is the central mechanism by which living things become differentiated, specialized and better suited to their (ever changing) environments.

    There is also a strong argument that even under such a system as natural selection, there is no chance at all. I.e., everything (including human thought and action) is predetermined, but I digress!
     

Share This Page