A A A A Search :
Toledo Talk   (musing about Lake Erie West and beyond)
From pink_slip's workspace   

Belief in God 'childish,' Jews not chosen people: Einstein letter

Albert Einstein described belief in God as "childish superstition" and said Jews were not the chosen people, in a letter to be sold in London this week, an auctioneer said Tuesday.
The father of relativity, whose previously known views on religion have been more ambivalent and fuelled much discussion, made the comments in response to a philosopher in 1954.

As a Jew himself, Einstein said he had a great affinity with Jewish people but said they "have no different quality for me than all other people".

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.

"No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this," he wrote in the letter written on January 3, 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, cited by The Guardian newspaper.

The German-language letter is being sold Thursday by Bloomsbury Auctions in Mayfair after being in a private collection for more than 50 years, said the auction house's managing director Rupert Powell.

In it, the renowned scientist, who declined an invitation to become Israel's second president, rejected the idea that the Jews are God's chosen people.

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions," he said.

"And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people."

And he added: "As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."

Previously the great scientist's comments on religion -- such as "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" -- have been the subject of much debate, used notably to back up arguments in favour of faith.

Powell said the letter being sold this week gave a clear reflection of Einstein's real thoughts on the subject. "He's fairly unequivocal as to what he's saying. There's no beating about the bush," he told AFP. link

created by pink_slip on May 22, 2008 at 03:47:54 pm     Comments: 80

print      source      versions

Comments ... #

And your point is?

posted by FatBabe44 on May 22, 2008 at 04:09:55 pm     #



And now Einstein is saying, "DOH!"

posted by Kooz on May 22, 2008 at 04:12:26 pm     #



posted by FatBabe44 on May 22, 2008 at 04:29:16 pm     #



Love Christian music but oddly I don't like Christianity. Go figure.

Anyway, I read something about this letter some time ago and anyone who knew much about Einstein and his life all ready knew Einstein wasn't a believer. The point of people bringing this letter up is he is often portrayed by Christians going "Look! The greatest genius of all time was on our side!" as if it was some kind of huge war and Einstein was the secret unstoppable weapon. And now the uneducated atheists go "HA! Look at that, Einstein was on OUR side." neither realizing they are both closed minded fools.

posted by Reinhart on May 22, 2008 at 05:18:13 pm     #



More from the aforementioned celebrity scientist:
"The highest principles for our aspirations and judgements are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition. It is a very high goal which, with our weak powers, we can reach only very inadequately, but which gives a sure foundation to our aspirations and valuations. If one were to take that goal out of out of its religious form and look merely at its purely human side, one might state it perhaps thus: free and responsible development of the individual, so that he may place his powers freely and gladly in the service of all mankind. ...[I]t is only to the individual that a soul is given. And the high destiny of the individual is to serve rather than to rule, or to impose himself in any otherway."

Or Neils Bohr: "Einstein, stop telling God what to do." and "There are some things so serious you have to laugh at them."

posted by charlatan on May 22, 2008 at 08:41:52 pm     #



And your point is?

Really? Does it rock your foundation that much that you can't inoculate yourself from someone else's truth? Pitiful.

posted by JJFad on May 22, 2008 at 09:57:34 pm     #



Collectivism cannot exist efficiently with a god in the culture - and it is especially incompatible with Christian teaching in which each individual has a direct relationship with Him.

In a system where the needs of the group are more important than the needs of the individual (eg. collectivism), something has to make the call on morality decisions for the group. If it is god, then the call has to come from one person or a small group in which case the system becomes a monarchy based on divine right which collectivists correctly loathe. So that only leaves one thing: man. And it can't, by definition, be each man for himself - because that's the antithesis of collectivism. Therefore, for the collectivist, morality must be decided by men collectively - just as their labor is pooled, so must their moral decisions on how the fruits of that labor will be distributed. Democracy must replace god for the collective system to function efficiently.

This is why modern liberals are obsessed with eliminating gods from the culture and promoting moral relativism. From my experience, I don't think that most leftist idealists really understand this. Instead, I think they are largely being led around by the nose of being either cool (when they're young) or intellectually elite (when they're older).

In any case, it is a natural requirement for socialism that god be removed from the culture. So any chance to "prove" that a god does not exist (like evolution) or to provide endorsements for his lack of existence (like this post), naturally become priorities of the modern left.

posted by babbleman on May 22, 2008 at 11:33:24 pm     #



Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. -Carl Sagan

posted by jhostetler on May 23, 2008 at 12:52:18 am     #



Right on JHos, big Sagan fan here. It my sound corny and I hate to hark back to old rock music and pop culture in general, and it may be my own interpretation but, these old Cat Stevens lyrics have always kinda said it for me. “I don't want no god on my lawn
Just a flower I can help along
'Cause the soul of no body knows
how a flower grows...”

posted by Offshore on May 23, 2008 at 06:52:53 am     #



There are some things that I want to make clear that I don't think everyone here understands:

a. Christians don't hate science. We consider it to be one of the great ways to see God's glory. Everywhere we look whether it be under an electron microscope or into the Hubble telescope to the farthest point in the heavens - we continue to be amazed His magnificence, and humbled by His size.

b. My belief in God will not be shaken by you or anyone else. He sustains me.

c. Quote all the intellectuals you want, it doesn't make a difference to me. What they say or have said is fine for them.

d. I still have a love for you even though you ridicule and hate me and what I stand for. It's okay because it's not your approval that I need.

e. Because of that love, I pray for you and that you will someday seek Him out.

Lastly, we (true believers) do NOT want to force anyone into anything. We only want you to be aware of the wonderful gift He has for you if you want it.

If you are ever curious about what wonders have been found under that microscope and through that telescope, Google the presentation videos, "Indescribable" "Laminin" or "How Great is our God" by a fellow named Louie Giglio. They are extraordinary.

posted by FatBabe44 on May 23, 2008 at 07:21:59 am     #



Offshore, are you aware that Cat Stevens converted to Islam years ago? He's turned radical too.

posted by FatBabe44 on May 23, 2008 at 07:29:12 am     #



FB 44, yes but during that place and time, I enjoyed him.

Stick with your convictions! I hope these forums lead all of us into inquiry, questioning, growth and strengthening of our beliefs. There is beauty in that. Bless you.

posted by Offshore on May 23, 2008 at 07:32:39 am     #



Thanks! Bless you too!

posted by FatBabe44 on May 23, 2008 at 07:37:14 am     #



There are some things that I want to make clear...

Great list FB!

posted by babbleman on May 23, 2008 at 08:24:58 am     #



babbleman, how would a Christian society be based, if not on the "collectivist" ideals you described (i.e. monarchy or democracy)? Short of anarchy of course...

posted by pink_slip on May 23, 2008 at 11:39:03 am     #



Yes, except that when you extrapolate the condition of the constitution after FB has her way, you'll be living in a close facsimile of Nazi Germany. The inquisition always results when the church has political power. Gotta remeber your history people.

posted by prime3end on May 23, 2008 at 11:39:53 am     #



pink, a government that provides only basic defense of sovereignty and protection of liberty is not what I refer to as collectivist. Even though it takes a common collection of resources to do those things, they are very fundamental functions. And yes, there are still some moral decisions to be made but, again, it is at such a fundamental level that those decisions tend to be easy. Is murder wrong? What about stealing? If you and I sign a contract and I do the work, do you have to pay me?

Once the government goes beyond the protection of liberty and moves into "social programs" the moral decisions compound and end up conflicting within the population, thus creating divisions. At that point, you are effectively making one portion of the population work for another. So you are no longer protecting liberty - in fact you have now begun stealing liberty by forcing some people to work for others. In essence, the government has begun playing god. And that's what I mean - there is only room for one god. So the most logical thing is to eliminate any influence from other gods and define the morality of the new government god through a popular vote.

That's what happens with collectivism. And that is NOT an environment of religious freedom. To the contrary, that is an environment in which you have a state religion. And the morals and character of that religion change every time there is an election. And this point is particularly ironic given the fact that most leftists fancy themselves as great champions of religious freedom when in practice what they produce is the most insidious kind of theocracy.

Religious freedom and the practice of forcing one person to work for another cannot co-exist because who and what a person works for IS their religion and their liberty.

posted by babbleman on May 23, 2008 at 01:38:49 pm     #



babs---So your society would still have a collectivist nature, but only a tiny one, on issues that only you agree with.

As a non-religious person, I have to disagree with your assertion there is a substution of government in the place of god, since god was never there in the first place. There may have been governments in place based on some god's laws, but they always collapse (as you pointed out with monarchies). Luckily, our Founding Fathers showed us a better way, by putting the real power where it belongs--in the people. So you could probably say in this case that man replaced god as ruler, which seems right since man created god.

posted by pink_slip on May 23, 2008 at 03:06:47 pm     #



So your society would still have a collectivist nature, but only a tiny one, on issues that only you agree with.

No, its not only issues I agree with. It is only issues that protect sovereignty and liberty so that I am free to focus my life on what I believe and you are free to focus yours on what you believe. Because if you go beyond that you get into morality. I don't think government should be a manager of morality. Mine, yours or anyone's.

We wouldn't be having this conversation if the government stuck to the fundamental function of protecting liberty. But since it hasn't stuck to just that, we now have to have an argument over whose morality should rule the use of our collective effort. That's not what the country was founded on.

posted by babbleman on May 23, 2008 at 03:28:36 pm     #



But how do we protect sovereignty and liberty? With a national army or with state militias? How are these entities designed and operated? These questions are answered by the "collective" of society. I understand where you're coming from. The greatest internal stuggle for man (IMO) is the idea of "me" vs "we". We are all individuals, but you'd have a hard time getting through your day without depending on others. Your personal relationship with god will only take you so far.

posted by pink_slip on May 23, 2008 at 03:43:04 pm     #



But how do we protect sovereignty and liberty?...These questions are answered by the "collective" of society.

Yes, but they alone are very few and very simply answered. And while even that may result in some give and take from everyone, so be it - the alternative is to not survive.

The greatest internal stuggle for man (IMO) is the idea of "me" vs "we". We are all individuals, but you'd have a hard time getting through your day without depending on others. Your personal relationship with god will only take you so far.

I am not suggesting that men should not cooperate, share, help each other and pool resources. That these things happen is not the question. The question is, is each man free to determine with whom and how he cooperates, shares, helps and pools. My position is, unless he is free to make those choices, there cannot be religious freedom because his religious expression is embodied in those choices. Therefore, to the extent that government forces its own will on those choices, government is engaging in religious persecution.

posted by babbleman on May 23, 2008 at 04:06:02 pm     #



{Yes, except that when you extrapolate the condition of the constitution after FB has her way, you'll be living in a close facsimile of Nazi Germany. The inquisition always results when the church has political power. Gotta remeber your history people.}

You're confusing me with the Catholic papacy. They were a bunch of elitist leftovers of ancient Roman society. Call them, "Caesar Wanna-bees". Take note of the word, "Protestant" - you know...the ones who freed the masses from the enslavement of the Roman Popes who stole Christianity and turned it into some sick and evil tool for power and wealth.

I know my history pink_slip.

The Popes virtually ruled over the kings of Europe for the next 1000 years. The era was befittingly called "the Dark Ages." During the Dark Ages, a European king could not hope to retain his kingdom unless he had the blessing of Rome.

Anyone who claimed to be a Christian during those days also had to acknowledge the supremacy of the Pope, or face the Inquisition. The Roman Church burned tens of thousands of true Christians at the stake for refusing to accept that doctrine.

Following the Protestant Reformation, the authority of the Papacy waned in some parts of Europe, but not all. Both Charlemagne and Napoleon claimed their intent to restore the Holy Roman Empire as justification for their military conquests. After Napoleon's defeat, the power of the Papacy declined. The Popes of Rome no longer dictate to kings, they retain their influence over populations. To this day, the "Kings" of the earth still kneel in audience with the Pope.

Even admitted atheist Mikhail Gorbachev knelt in the presence of Pope John Paul II in 1991. Papal pronouncements affect more than a billion Catholics worldwide. It would be stretching a point to refer to Roman Catholicism as an "empire" in the secular sense of the word. But as a spiritual empire, it has no equal. It was as if the secular empire went "underground", so to speak - from the physical to the spiritual, physically dead, yet spiritually alive!

The Pre Christian Practices of the Roman Catholic Church - Many of the changes in the church of Jesus Christ began to surface after the bishop of Rome became dominant over other Babylonian practices were brought into the church. These practices had one thing in common: They existed before Christ and were not taught by Him. For example, prayers for the dead, not instituted until 300 AD, are nowhere taught in the Scripture but are a regular part of the ancestor worship of the Chinese, who practiced it hundreds of years before Christ. In addition, the worship of Mary and Christ as a baby was conceived in the same form with other names by most of the major religions of the world hundreds of years before Christ.

Easter and Lent observances with 40 days' fasting were practiced for the benefit of Tammuz 500 years before Christ. To prove that Tammuz was worshiped before Christ, just turn to Ezek. 8 v.7-14. The worship of Tammuz was so extensive by that time that even the women of Israel were seen "mourning for Tammuz." The title "Queen of Heaven," given to Mary, is certainly not Christian. In fact, good Roman Catholics should be horrified to find that this expression is found in the Old Testament. Jeremiah 44 v.17 points out that it was used to describe the mother of Tammuz, the mother goddess of Babylon, over 500 years before Christ.

The practice of establishing a celibate priesthood and having nuns is not of Christian origin; nothing in the Bible teaches this. Indeed, 1 Tim. 3 v.1-3 forbids it. Hundreds of years before Christ it was incorporated by the Buddhists and Hindus, who practice it to this day. Where did they get it? From Babylon mysticism, the "mother of prostitutes." The sign of the cross used on the end of a pole is likewise not of Christian derivation. It was used in the worship of Tammuz 500 years before Christ.

We have already seen that making confession, not taught in the Scripture, was practiced in Babylon, and we can go on to include prayer beads, purgatory, and many other pre Christian practices of the Church of Rome. Thinking people can scarcely deny the fact that Rome today is a form of Babylonian mysticism. And that does not even begin to mention what is happening in the Roman Catholic Church today!

Whenever in control of a country, Rome has not hesitated to put to death all who opposed her. Rome's frantic opposition to the Reformation (caused by her pagan indulgences and corruption of the true faith) is a good example.

The Inquisition - The inquisition, called the "Holy Office", was instituted by Innocent III, and perfected under the second following Pope, Gregory IX. It was the Church Court for the detection and punishment of heretics. Under it every one was required to inform against heretics. Anyone suspected was liable to torture, without knowing the name of his accuser. The proceedings were secret. The Inquisitor pronounced sentence, and the victim was turned over to the civil authorities to be imprisoned for life or to be burned. The victim's property was confiscated and divided between the Church and the State.

posted by FatBabe44 on May 23, 2008 at 04:07:36 pm     #



I know my history pink_slip

But you need to brush up on your proper nouns. I didn't address you

posted by pink_slip on May 23, 2008 at 04:22:16 pm     #



There is a perfect exmaple of government mixed with god, they are called the Talliban.
This seems to be the model our god leaders would have us work for.

posted by prime3end on May 23, 2008 at 08:44:02 pm     #



offshore, Cat Stevens...one of my favorites, I have just about every song he's done - plays in my house on a daily basis. Just very calming music. sigh........

fatbabe - how can you say Cat Stevens turned radical???? He's never come close to being radical. (unless a different religion choise than yours is considered 'radical'). According to wikipedia.......

"Stevens converted to Islam at the height of his fame in 1977. The following year, he adopted his Muslim name Yusuf Islam and left his music career to devote himself to educational and philanthropic causes in the Muslim community. In 2006, he returned to pop music, with his first album of new pop songs in 28 years, entitled An Other Cup." (I've read that he walked away from his music career partly because he was disqusted with the trappings & phonyness of it all.)

"He has been given several awards for his work in promoting peace in the world, including the 2004 Man for Peace award and the 2007 Mediterranean Prize for Peace. He lives with his wife, Fauzia Mubarak Ali, and five children in Brondesbury Park, London, and spends part of each year in Dubai....

Following his conversion, Yusuf Islam abandoned his career as a pop star. Song and the use of musical instruments is an area of debate in Muslim jurisprudence, considered harām by some, and this is the primary reason he gave for retreating from the pop spotlight.

He decided to use his accumulated wealth and continuing earnings from his music career on philanthropic and educational causes in the Muslim community of London and elsewhere. In 1981, he founded the Islamia Primary School in Salusbury Road in the north London area of Kilburn; after that, he founded several Muslim secondary schools and devoted his energy to providing an Islamic education to children and to charitable causes. He founded, and is chairman of, the Small Kindness charity, which initially assisted famine victims in Africa and now supports thousands of orphans and families in the Balkans, Indonesia, and Iraq.19 He also was chairman of the charity Muslim Aid from 1985 to 1993...

In 1985, Yusuf Islam decided to return to the public spotlight, for the first time since his religious conversion, at the historic Live Aid concert, inspired by the famine threatening Ethiopia. Though he had written a song especially for the occasion, his appearance was skipped when Elton John's set ran too long.

In 2003, after repeated encouragement from within the Muslim world, Yusuf Islam once again recorded "Peace Train" for a compilation CD, which also included performances by David Bowie and Paul McCartney. He performed "Wild World" in Nelson Mandela's 46664 concert with his former session player Peter Gabriel, the first time he had publicly performed in English in 25 years. In December 2004, he and Ronan Keating released a new version of "Father and Son" that debuted at number two, behind Band Aid 20's "Do They Know It's Christmas?". The proceeds of "Father and Son" were donated to the Band Aid charity. Keating's former group, Boyzone, had a hit with the song a decade earlier.

In a 2005 press release, he explains his revived recording career:

After I embraced Islam many people told me to carry on composing and recording but at the time I was hesitant for fear that it might be for the wrong reasons. I felt unsure what the right course of action was. I guess it is only now after all these years that I've come to fully understand and appreciate what everyone has been asking of me. It's as if I've come full circle - however, I have gathered a lot of knowledge on the subject in the meantime.38

In early 2005, Yusuf Islam released a new song entitled "Indian Ocean" about the 2004 tsunami disaster....Proceeds of the single went to help orphans in Banda Aceh, one of the areas worst affected by the tsunami, through Islam's Small Kindness charity....

On 28 May 2005, Yusuf Islam delivered a keynote speech and performed at the Adopt-A-Minefield Gala in Düsseldorf. The Adopt-A-Minefield charity, under the patronage of Sir Paul McCartney, works internationally to raise awareness and funds to clear landmines and rehabilitate landmine survivors. Yusuf Islam attended as part of an honorary committee which also included Sir George Martin, Sir Richard Branson, Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Klaus Voormann, Christopher Lee and others."

Cat Stevens is a man of peace, NOT radical at all. I'm offended for him by your label.

posted by starling02 on May 23, 2008 at 08:57:40 pm     #



Starling, my reference to Stevens was simply for the sake of quotation. Over the years I have heard that he was Muslim and even radical but I can’t confirm that and your Wiki excerpts seem to counter it. To that I am indifferent but, I too really enjoy some of his music.

I was an impressionable young kid when he was popular and certainly he made an impression. Many of his lyrics have a spiritual bent to them and to me “Longer Boats’ was one of them. Starling I am a scientist, which helps me to think objectively. So, to cite something as subjective as a pop singer is generally not my style. However, Stevens’ artistry, to me, captured the notion of the complxity of nature as well as its subtlety.

Similarly, JHos’s cite of Sagan did too. Sagan, whom I hold in high regard, helps me breakdown and simplify the nature of the Universe. This process does not attempt to disprove the notion of an existent god but allows me to get closer to understanding the concept/construct of creation and the possibility of a wondrous creator. FB44 has listed some of that wonderment under the microscope and is open to discourse concerning her dear faith. It is my opinion that she is a very fine and decent person with faith the size of her self-deprecating name.

posted by Offshore on May 24, 2008 at 06:27:52 am     #



Wow, thank you Offshore. God Bless

posted by FatBabe44 on May 24, 2008 at 11:57:56 am     #



I meant no offense to fatbabe, but when she claimed Cat Stevens was a radical, I felt the need to protest - he's never been a radical. He got turned off of the music industry, and spent much of his life doing good works. His music has always had a spiritual bent, and his music calms me. The fact that he converted to Islam is not an issue with me. I don't presume all Muslims are militant radicals.

posted by starling02 on May 24, 2008 at 07:10:42 pm     #



Yeah Fatbabe, how did Cat Stevens turn radical?

posted by pink_slip on May 24, 2008 at 09:27:20 pm     #



pink -
His name is actually Yusuf Islam. Is this really about him or is just an attempt to prove me wrong? Because it amazes me how quickly people will rush to defend a Muslim on their way to throw a Christian under the bus.

I'll go there if that's what you really want to spend time on. And perhaps I am wrong, but the guy is on a security watch list and denied entry into the country unlike thousands of other Muslims on a daily basis.

posted by FatBabe44 on May 25, 2008 at 10:09:12 am     #



I haven't defended anyone. I view Muslims the same as Christians. Just trying to get an idea as to why you feel he's radical. That's ok, you don't have to answer...

posted by pink_slip on May 25, 2008 at 11:13:12 am     #



I already did. Read the last sentence of mine over again.

posted by FatBabe44 on May 25, 2008 at 12:37:13 pm     #



fatbabe, you're doing it again. How does defending a person's right to be Muslim throw Christians under a bus? Freedom of religion means freedom means precisely that. Your rash assumption that if I respect a person's religious faith & that faith is anything except Christian, then I am disrespecting Christians? You label Cat Stevens a radical because of his religious belief, even though he has lived a life endorsing peace & love. Sounds pretty bigoted & ignorant & intolerant

At any rate - I suggest you do your homework before you talk trash about somebody.

When Stevens nearly drowned in an accident in Malibu in 1975, he reports having pleaded with God to save him. Stevens described the event in a VH1 interview some years later: "I suddenly held myself and I said, 'Oh God! If you save me, I'll work for you.'" The near-death experience intensified his long-held quest for spiritual truth. He had looked into Buddhism "Zen and I Ching, numerology, tarot cards and astrology", but when his brother David gave him a copy of the Qur'an, Stevens began to find peace with himself and began his transition to Islam.

He formally converted to the Islamic faith in 1977 and took the name Yusuf Islam in 1978, saying that he "always loved the name Joseph" and was particularly drawn to the story of Joseph in the Qur'an. (Yusuf is the Arabic version of the name Joseph.)

Denial of entry into the United States

On 21 September 2004, Yusuf Islam was traveling on a United Airlines flight from London to Washington, en route to a meeting with singer Dolly Parton, who had recorded "Peace Train" several years earlier and was planning to include another Cat Stevens song on an upcoming album. While the plane was in flight, the Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System flagged his name as being on a no-fly list. Customs agents alerted the Transportation Security Administration, which then diverted his flight to Bangor, Maine, where he was detained by the FBI.

The following day, Yusuf Islam was deported back to the United Kingdom. The United States Transportation Security Administration claimed there were "concerns of ties he may have to potential terrorist-related activities."28 The United States Department of Homeland Security specifically alleged[citation needed] that Yusuf Islam had provided funding to the Palestinian Islamic militant group Hamas.

The deportation provoked a small international controversy....Yusuf Islam believes his inclusion on the watch list may have simply been an error, a mistaken identification of him for a man with the same name, but different spelling. On 1 October 2004 Yusuf Islam requested the removal of his name.... According to a statement by Yusuf Islam, the man on the list was named "Youssef Islam", indicating that Yusuf Islam himself was not the suspected terrorism supporter.

Two years later, in December 2006, Yusuf Islam was admitted without incident into the United States for several radio concert performances and interviews to promote his new record.

September 11 attacks

Yusuf Islam immediately and vehemently spoke out against the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, saying:

"I wish to express my heartfelt horror at the indiscriminate terrorist attacks committed against innocent people of the United States yesterday. While it is still not clear who carried out the attack, it must be stated that no right-thinking follower of Islam could possibly condone such an action. The Qur'an equates the murder of one innocent person with the murder of the whole of humanity. We pray for the families of all those who lost their lives in this unthinkable act of violence as well as all those injured; I hope to reflect the feelings of all Muslims and people around the world whose sympathies go out to the victims of this sorrowful moment."
He appeared on videotape on a VH-1 pre-show for the October 2001 Concert for New York City, condemning the attacks and singing his song "Peace Train" for the first time in public in more than 20 years, an a cappella version. He also donated half of his box-set royalties to the September 11 Fund for victims' families, and the other half to orphans in underdeveloped countries.

Asked in a November 2006 Billboard magazine interview about why the artist is credited as "Yusuf" rather than "Yusuf Islam", he said, "Because 'Islam' doesn't have to be sloganized. The second name is like the official tag, but you call a friend by their first name. It's more intimate, and to me that's the message of this record."

As for why the sleeve says "the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens", he responded, "That's the tag with which most people are familiar; for recognition purposes I'm not averse to that. For a lot of people, it reminds them of something they want to hold on to. That name is part of my history and a lot of the things I dreamt about as Cat Stevens have come true as Yusuf Islam."

On CBS Sunday Morning in December 2006, Yusuf Islam said, "You know, the cup is there to be filled ... with whatever you want to fill it with. For those people looking for Cat Stevens, they'll probably find him in this record. If you want to find Yusuf, go a bit deeper, you'll find him."

posted by starling02 on May 25, 2008 at 11:32:48 pm     #



And Einstein had a right to his opinion & belief as much as anybody does. Respecting other people's beliefs does not mean we are "throwing Christians under the bus".

posted by starling02 on May 25, 2008 at 11:34:06 pm     #



Starling02- You don't need to preach ethics to me sister. I've been thrown under the bus repeatedly on this forum. Maybe not by you, but I've been cussed at and accused of many awful things for no reason other than I am a Christian.

I did do my research on Yusuf Islam (that's his name now, face it). I don't think that my suggesting he's gone radical in any way takes away any of the good things he's done. Never said that. Never implied it. Stop joining the bandwagon of those who put words into my mouth here, ok?

I also never said Einstein didn't have a right to his opinion either, did I? Look at my first comment on this thread. Do your research starling.

You know as well as I do that this blog/forum has a very long history of throwing anyone/thing Christian under the bus. All one has to do on this blog is mention an opinion on a moral issue and sit back and watch the hate-fest begin. Most of the people here want to shut me up and would love to have me go away because they don't agree with me or my opinion or faith. It amazes me sometimes how mean-spirited it gets. (I'm not pointing the finger at you - this is in general). So, you telling me about respecting other people's beliefs really struck a chord with me. Take a look back in the threads here on religious topics and read some of the vitriol against me and who they think I represent.

posted by FatBabe44 on May 26, 2008 at 07:31:44 am     #



fatbabe - I did NOT preach to you, nor would I presume to do so. I simply took offense that you said Cat turned 'radical', and I asked you to explain what you meant by that. He never turned 'radical' - and I don't feel that a religious conversion should be called 'radical' (unless it's to some bizarre cult) - it is simply their belief. But again, you used the word "radical" in connection to Cat Stevens, and I am asking you to explain or retract. His denial of entry to the USA had nothing to do with HIM, it was a mix-up of names - there is a long list of Muslim type names that airports are supposed to red flag, just because of the name. Profiling, as it were. So, outside of that unfortunate event, what did he do that you consider him 'radical'?

I do not mean this to be mean spirited at all, but am curious. Because the way I see it, when people keep spreading false information about somebody, it's just wrong, and people should be informed if that information is false or not. As for Cat Stevens (he will always be that name to me - read the last sentence of my last post here) - I can accept that you were simply mistaken about the airport profiling problem he faced. Many people leaped to similar conclusions, just because he is Muslim - which works under the presumption that we need to "watch out" for all Muslims. I think that's just as unfair to Muslims as you seem to think it's unfair when you think people typecast you because you are Christian -and using the lowest denominator to do so.

I know as well as you do, that on this blog/forum it has a long history of heated debates whenever the topic is religon based. However, I do not recall ever seeing hate of Christians thrown out (under the bus, as it were). People disagree, they debate a topic, & sometimes they may have a difference of opinion on what somebody's Christian(or any religion) belief is - and sometimes the conversation becomes heated. But I think it's a huge stretch to say it's 'hating Christians' or throwing them under the bus. Nobody expects you to 'shut up' or go away. However, when anybody posts a comment (especially on a controvercial topic like religion or politics) on a public forum, then they'd better expect that people will discuss it, and perhaps even disagree with them. IF you do not want anybody to comment that disagrees with you, then do not post the topic in the first place. Or, if you only want people to agree with what you've said - then post it on a religious forum. Anybody who's used SB or TT (or any online forum) knows that there will be users who may disagree with what you've said, or dispute a comment somebody's made (it's called dialogue - more than one sided). If you get offended when somebody disagrees with you, then simply don't comment at all on those topics. You know full well that religion &politics are heated topics - the two topics that people know are loaded topics.

You say it amazes you how mean-spirited it gets referring to people hating Christians or 'throwing them under the bus'. What I have witnessed, in almost 2 years of sb & tt, is that it is usually the proclaimed Christians who get in a huff, and are the least tolerant of other people's beliefs & opinions. I suggest that you go back & re-read the threads on these topics both here & on sb. I have never seen anybody 'hate' Christians or attack their beliefs. What I have seen, is those Christians taking offense when somebody disagrees with them, and make rash judgements about other people & their beliefs. I got an email from a woman on sb, who told me I was not worthy of being her friend, because I dared to say that I didn't think people were gay by choise - she called me a bigot & a racist to boot. This same woman, the whole week before, was sweet as could be, wanted to meet & be friends. Hmm. Not a loss to me, she proved to me that there are indeed, some people who claim to be Christians who 'love the sinner, but hate the sin', but are lying when they use that word love. She made a rash judgement of me based simply on a difference of opinion about gays. Isn't it God that is supposed to judge man? I have seen more intolerance & hate & judgeing from the proclaimed Christians, then of anybody. So get off the martyr kick, nobody is hating you or throwing you under a damned bus.

posted by starling02 on May 26, 2008 at 08:30:06 pm     #



I'm sorry Starling02 but I disagree.

There have been plenty of hateful things said by "atheists" here and I have never got in a "huff" over a differing opinion or belief (if it's presented in a civil manner) only over the broad paintbrush used on Christianity by some people here. They keep painting all of us as controlling, theocratic, deluded, ignorant, idiots. Those are only some of the names used on TT about Christians.

Here are some of my personal favorites of the hate-speak and false accusations from a few of the discussions related to religion on TT:


I prefer to believe in the god of the anus of the dung bettle's supreme mother. Don't criticize or you could make enemies. Gotta go now, have to go listen to a new band, its all priests, they call themselves "God's Assmonkeys" You don't believe in the anus of the dung beetle's supreme mother, , enough. Its not conservatism,, its just super stupid judegmental conservatism. Nice try at repairing the image of two really crap covered words, (conservatism and fundamentalism), both are covered in shit. Now you can change the meaning of them again on the fly, while the preachers and priests continue their attacks on humanity and even peace. What a corporate pr machine the church has, thousands of zealots making up excuses, just like always.

posted by prime3end on May 21, 2008 at 04:06:15 pm #

Slathering support for the dead, wounded, and those who otherwise sacrifice, coming from and end timer like yourself FB, is hardly appropriate. Its the likes of you who enabled the uber nazis to LIE to the nation to send our troops to war. So no, we are not enamored to this act of treason. Coming from anybody else it would have been more welcome. Most of us don't need such flag waving crap to pay respects to our soldiers who have been falsely sent to war. We simply talk to our neighbors whose children are now in Iraq.

posted by prime3end on May 23, 2008 at 12:35:17 pm #

Yes, except that when you extrapolate the condition of the constitution after FB has her way, you'll be living in a close facsimile of Nazi Germany. The inquisition always results when the church has political power. Gotta remember your history people.

posted by prime3end on May 23, 2008 at 12:39:53 pm #

There is a perfect example of government mixed with god, they are called the Talliban.
This seems to be the model our god leaders would have us work for.

posted by prime3end on May 23, 2008 at 09:44:02 pm #

According to the "scripture" (bullshit) I posted from the bibbbble,, God didn't ALLOW the jews to be slaughtered, GOD SENT THE "HUNTERS" TO KILL THE JEWS. (caps for emphasis) Dear god, now you are inventing shit like "gods permissive will is why the scripture says god sent the hunters to slaughter the jews" Now thats plain fukin english, why don't you understand it. Drink some more of your Jonestown nutty-juice . Better put some whiskey in it so that people can better determine just how dangerous you are. Hitler is your ally in christ then,, nice friends you have huh christians? To fulfill biblical prophecy, you only have about 6 billion of us to kill. You better get busy ** ers.

posted by prime3end on May 22, 2008 at 12:53:55 pm #

Sure FB sure, what denomination are you by thy way. I'm a staunch fairytalbeterianist. You do righteous indignation very well, practice I suppose,, but then that is a prerequisite for judging others isn't it. I learned this from the faithful. The "faithful" have done nothing but screw this country up totally, and no amount of flag waving is going to fix that.
Do you or did you belive that this war would bring on the final battle that would bring Jesus to earth? If the answer in your heart is yes, then your video salute to our sacrificed troops is self serving suicide juice.

posted by prime3end on May 23, 2008 at 07:00:14 pm #

Wow, I guess most of it comes from one person here.

posted by FatBabe44 on May 27, 2008 at 09:13:45 am     #



PinkSlip hates God

posted by Kooz on May 27, 2008 at 03:15:00 pm     #



Aww Kooz, after all we've been through--you have to go there? Despite your afflictive emotions, I still have compassion for you.

posted by Chris99 on May 27, 2008 at 03:17:18 pm     #



Oops, now my identity is out. Sorry

posted by Chris99 on May 27, 2008 at 03:19:36 pm     #



Fatbabe is upset with people who don't like zealots, and I tolerate zealots, until they wipe out democracy, embrace a fascist, and send the country to war in order to bring about the end of the world per prophecy. Fatbabe, answer my previous question, aren't you hopeful that the next oil war with Iran will be the final battle to end the world and bring back Jesus!?
Better be good Fatbabe, only 144,000 survive to go to heaven. My guess is that they will be 144k very rich fascists in a bunker somewhere.

posted by prime3end on May 27, 2008 at 11:43:23 pm     #



fatbabe - it does seem to be coming from one person, and it's probably to be expected that whenever there's a discussion debating (often controvercial) religion or politics, that there will be some who disagree, and some who are disrespectful & nasty in their disagreements. The hot topics seem to be related to homosexuality, abortion, the death sentence & the right to end one's life. It was suggested on SB that all smoking ban topics be discussed in a group, because the debates got so heated & some people just didn't want to bother reading the threads. I disagreed with doing that - shuts down discussion, and people are free to choose to not read a thread, and/or ignore certain posters. Limiting a topic to a special group pretty much guarantees all posters will be in agreement. Kind of pointless, I think. However, you can choose to ignore/not read, primeend's comments. But most posters are not insulting, but there's always one or two that will be.

It's a safe bet that you'd disagree with me on whether people are born gay, or my views on a woman's right to an abortion. Your beliefs seem to be founded in your faith - my beliefs aren't rooted in a faith, it's just how I feel. But my disagreeing with you does not mean I am mocking your faith.

Having said that, I am the first to admit my knowledge of the Bible is limited, and I am not religious. Some religious beliefs seem a little odd to me, but I respect people's right to believe whatever they choose. I have serious issues with some Biblical things - the Old Testament is loaded with hate, incest, slavery, child abuse, infantcide, mass murder, human sacrifice, etc. - and the New T seems to have a kinder, gentler God, which conflicts in my brain because it is the same God in both. Expecting me to believe is like expecting you to believe in fairies, elves & lovelings, as they do in Iceland - so much so, that the government dictates to the highway dept. to curtail or reroute highway work, so as to protect those fairies, etc. Many people have 'searched', prayed, looked for anything that they could believe in, with regards to religion - and many succeeded, but many did not. I am one it has eluded my entire life. But I would not mock your beliefs. I may argue statements made that I find bizarre, or untruthful (like the earth being 6,000 yrs old, when it is actually 65 billion years old). When it seems a person is re-writing history, or fudging facts, so they mesh with their religious beliefs, even when they fly in the face of things proven scientifically, then it makes religion seem less 'genuine' to me, and more made up as we go along. But as contrary & argumentative I may get, I don't believe I have ever bashed anybody's faith. What I have found interesting though, is many times, I have been accused of that, just because I had a difference of opinion, and have been called a 'hater' - by people who are proclaimed Christians, who often take simple disagreements as insults.

As for Cat Stevens & his conversion to Islam, it was a calling he believed in - not one I agreed with or understood, but it was his choise. After 9/11, it seemed that Muslims got automatically branded as evil - which was unfair of course - as unfair as branding all Christians as a cult because some man in Waco, Texas proclaimed to be God himself. I don't like labels, and stereotypes are dangerous - I did a few ugly knee-jerk reactions after 9/11, which I regret.

posted by starling02 on May 27, 2008 at 11:44:24 pm     #



Dear pinkslip-

I am not one that believes the Tim LaHaye version of End Time prophecy. He doesn't speak for all of Christianity.

No I do not look forward to a war and I hope there isn't one. One thing my faith teaches is to be aware of false doctrine and false teachers. I am responsible for seeking out truth for myself.

No, I don't believe in the false interpretation of 144,000 being the only ones to survive and go to heaven. I can explain to you who the 144,000 really are, but I wonder if you would care or just continue to blast your biased and biblically uneducated insults at my beliefs rather than discuss it rationally and cordially.

I would challenge you and Starling02 in a friendly way to seek out truth for yourself and not be fooled by the Hollywood presentation of Christianity. One way you can tell the good from the bad is by their presentation or manner of testimony. Anyone who makes a racket, imposes their will, makes accusations and condemn others, is not Christ-like.

I grew up indoctrinated by a very traditional belief system and only after leaving those Anglo traditions behind and seeking out God for myself, did I find that I had not really known my Saviour all that well. I am still learning and discovering.

posted by FatBabe44 on May 28, 2008 at 07:27:17 am     #



Dear Starling02,

I appreciate your comments, but I still would challenge you to seek out truth for yourself. When you said it's been proven that the Earth is 65 billion years old, I would say that it has not been proven. It is a theory based on scientific research.

Contrary to what has been said by some people here, I love science! I always have. Keep in mind that science changes constantly as new technologies and discoveries are made. There is also science to prove the Bible, but it doesn't get any attention because people have been brainwashed to believe that Creationism is a fairy tale and not backed by scientific facts. We are constantly deluged by subtleties stating evolution as fact when it's not. It's a theory that has yet to be proven. And the scientists that have a good argument against it are hushed, shouted down, fired, and ridiculed by a biased peer group.

There are resources online where anyone can do their research the bible and Creation science vs. Evolution science.
I too used to believe the Earth was billions of years old until I started reading up on recent discoveries proving biblical occurrences.

I will happily provide the links to these resources. Everyone will scream, "BIASED" and I would answer YES, and so are the scientists rejecting it. The difference is in how we each interpret the facts.

I would also suggest you see the "Expelled" documentary presented by Ben Stein. You will hear these scientists say how they really feel about anyone questioning status quo.

Starling02 - I admire you because you seem to be a seeker. You have a natural curiosity in these things. In my faith, we would say that's from God. He gave it to you for some reason.

http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp

http://www.carm.org/seekers.htm

posted by FatBabe44 on May 28, 2008 at 08:20:52 am     #



Fatbabe, once again I did not address you. But since you mention evolution...the fact that evolution happens is a fact. How it happens is a scientific theory. Just like the theory of gravitation. Do you believe in gravity? But you are correct that the Earth is not 65 billion years old---it's only 4.5 billion years old.

posted by pink_slip on May 28, 2008 at 09:13:24 am     #



OOPS! I'm sorry pink_slip.
I meant prime3end. MY BAD.

posted by FatBabe44 on May 28, 2008 at 10:01:23 am     #



Evolution does not happen. Adaptation is a fact.

Something cannot evolve without intelligent intervention.

posted by FatBabe44 on May 28, 2008 at 10:02:18 am     #



Adaptation is a vital part of evolution. Fatbabe, when a species adapts to their changing evironment, are you saying that the changing environment is due to intelligent intervention or the adaptation is due to intelligent intervention?

posted by pink_slip on May 28, 2008 at 10:20:59 am     #



I'm saying that Adaptation and Evolution are two different things.

Evolution is impossible. There is nothing in this world that can make itself more complex and perfect because of it's environment.

In the interest of saving space on the server for ToledoTalk.com, check out this very intelligent argument against Evolution:

http://www.contenderministries.org/evolution/irreducible.php

posted by FatBabe44 on May 28, 2008 at 10:50:23 am     #



What is adaptation to you?

You shouldn't think of it as a species making itself "more complex and perfect". An organism develops traits that are more desirable due to natural selection. But, it's by no means "perfect". If an organism was "perfect", there would be no need to adapt to changing environments. This recent article is interesting. And Fatbabe, why is it that creationists only try to argue against evolution, rather than trying to argue for creationism? None of those links you provided argue for, or present any arguments for creationism.

posted by pink_slip on May 28, 2008 at 11:37:11 am     #



"I know my history pink_slip."

Really? This is what I hate about forums anymore. People confuse their ability to copy and paste with actual knowledge. I believe the following link matches word for word with your lecture:

http://www.discoverrevelation.com/12.html

Maybe I am wrong here, but were you pasting, er I mean posting that history lesson as your own words?

posted by nick44 on May 28, 2008 at 12:14:14 pm     #



Semantics, but I'll play along....

The argument for a Creator is proven by those arguments against evolutionary theory. If you really were interested in hearing/seeing the argument for Creation, you would spend some time actually reading it, you would see the biblical proof. It has been the general consensus prior to modern history that the world and all the creatures in it were created. Doesn't the burden of proof lies with Evolutionists?

The Human Genetic Code is too complex to have formed by accident or slowly changing environmental factors. Hypothesizing that it was from slow changes over millenia doesn't add up. The human cell alone is a whole universe unto itself. It's utterly amazing!

Sources for research:

http://ldolphin.org/genome.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/evolution-or-adaptation

http://www.geocities.com/worldview_3/mathprfcosmos.html

http://www.geocities.com/worldview_3/prophecy.html

posted by FatBabe44 on May 28, 2008 at 01:05:44 pm     #



Nick44, yes I copied & pasted from that website because I've studied a lot of it and am too lazy to type it all myself.
I don't agree with everything or all the doctrine of the people responsible for that website so I didn't want to post their URL. I knew someone would go there and find something on their site that I don't necessarily agree with and read me the riot act about it.

posted by FatBabe44 on May 28, 2008 at 01:08:38 pm     #



Fatbabe, this is just one error in the first link you provided:

Mutations (caused by cosmic rays for instance) cause damage to genes in the chromosome, but these are always disadvantageous to the individual and represent errors in the genetic codes

It was a mutation that eventually allowed humans to continue to digest their milk into adulthood. (just one example)

I will continue to go through the links, since you provided them. However, I don't buy the explanation that argument against evolution is proof of creationism. I would submit that the burden of proof lies upon anyone making any claim, not just those making claims for evolution. It works both ways.

You said:

The Human Genetic Code is too complex to have formed by accident or slowly changing environmental factors. Hypothesizing that it was from slow changes over millenia doesn't add up. The human cell alone is a whole universe unto itself. It's utterly amazing!

Evolution is hardly "accident". It's a long process that favors and chooses good traits over bad traits (in relation to environmental pressures). However, I agree with the fact that the human cell is indeed amazing. Life is amazing. And evolution is an amazing process.

posted by pink_slip on May 28, 2008 at 04:29:59 pm     #



Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of abcense. Philosophy 101

posted by holland on May 28, 2008 at 05:39:04 pm     #



I can't speak for others, but I have never condemned anybody for their beliefs/faith - rather, what I have witnessed (real life, not Hollywood), is that those who proclaim themselves to be Christians (NOT all) are more often the ones who condemn homosexuals, by saying they 'choose' to be gay, and are an abomination against God (I"ve heard people say this). I don't know why this bugs me so much - I"m not gay, don't know many gays - but it's wrong to judge, especially when it's most likely, gays are born this way & do not have a choise in what floats their boat so to speak (unless they live a lie to please others). I've heard more religious people judge others, than non-religous people judging others. Not all, of course.

I will have to agree to disagree on evolution - I believe in evolution, not creationism. There's so much that's been proven scientifically - carbon dating, geologists, etc. - for me to not believe the earth is billions of years old. The Iceman & Sue the T-Rex are proof alone that the earth has to be older than 6,000 years old (google them). Bigger brains than mine have proven these things, and there's no religous website that will make me change my mind.

posted by starling02 on May 28, 2008 at 10:29:48 pm     #



I guess the militant Muslims in the middle east also believe that theirs is the only true religion - I don't believe they are right, either, but they'd dispute your faith, as you'd dispute theirs. Which is why I don't dispute people's faith. I may disagree with some of your beliefs, but do not question your right to believe them. And I never claim to know enough Biblically or scientifically to presume to know all answers.

posted by starling02 on May 28, 2008 at 10:32:13 pm     #



I don't know all the answers either, but I do know how to look at all sides before making a choice on what to believe and not believe. I choose believing that there is more meaning to life than coincidence and accidental goo becoming sentient, intelligent life.

When you brought up the condemnation of gays by some christians (dont' forget the Jews and the Muslims), I wondered where that came from. I have never said anything against gay people so I can only assume that by bringing up some negative aspect of some Christians is possibly another way of justifying your opinion. I don't know.

The so-called "religious websites" contain a lot of scientific and archaeological evidence backing up biblical references. The key factor is FAITH. Both sides of the argument have evidence but no proof.

Hebrews 11:1

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (NKJV)

Webster’s Definition

Faith - (1) Inward acceptance of a personality as real and trustworthy, of an idea as true and obligatory, or of a thing as beneficial; as faith in God; faith in one’s friend; faith in the moral law; faith in medicine. The word had originally a religious sense, and in its various uses generally retains a suggestion of emotional or practical quality. (2) The recognition of spiritual realities and moral principles as of paramount authority and supreme value. (3) Theological a. Historical faith or belief in the truthfulness and authority of the Scriptural narrative and teachings. b. Saving or practical faith or the acceptance by the intellect, affection and the will of God’s favor extended to man through Christ.

I found this online also. It is a debate on proof or no proof of God:

An Atheist Says He Knows There Is No God

Atheist: As to religious arguments I haven't found one that can stand up to the logic of atheism.
Matt: Are you a strong atheist or a weak one?
Atheist: Never heard of a weak atheist
Matt: I’ll explain. A strong atheist states that there is no God. He knows there is no God. A weak atheist, basically, 'lacks belief' in a god of any sort.
Atheist: Then I am a strong atheist.
Matt: Then you know there is no God?
Atheist: As much as knowledge can tell us yes..Maybe it's you who have to catch up on your atheism... Agnostic fits the description pretty well of a weak atheist...
Matt: That is what I said...which are you?
Atheist: I am a strong. Characteristic human thought, coupled with hope is what religion boils down to, the unexplained tried to be explained...
Matt: So, you know there is no god?
Atheist: Yes.
Matt: How can you know that?
Atheist: It's a reasonable assumption. If you want a definitive answer. Does any Christian bother to look in the dictionary to what truth actually means? There is no 100% anything. Only close to it.
Matt: Then you cannot KNOW there is no God. Your strong atheism is illogical.
Atheist: Let's look at Christianity. It runs on faith. Faith is not logical. It gives credence to unicorns, goblins and thing s that go bump in the night.
Matt: Nope. The subject is your atheism. Please don't try to change the subject.
Atheist: The subject can jump where ever.
Matt: Your atheism is illogical. You cannot know there is no God. To do that, you'd have to know All things to know there is no God.
Atheist: I will defend, but also place in attack. Try to defend faith
Matt: One subject at a time....You'd have to have seen all evidences to know there is no God. You cannot claim this, therefore, your atheism is illogical.
Atheist: You can never see all evidences but that does not mean there is a god.
Matt: Correct.
Atheist: No, that means there is not enough information for a conclusion. So we make assumptions as best we can according to our knowledge...
Matt: But you must concede that your claim to strong atheism (that you know there is no God) is not logical.
Atheist: My knowledge of the human brain leads me to believe there is no god...
Matt: Then that means there MIGHT be a God, because you don't know all the evidence. Therefore, you must logically be an agnostic.
Atheist: And so must you... But you picked a side.
Matt: Then it [your atheism] is not logical, but only assumptions you base your atheism on. Your atheism is untenable.... You must admit that agnosticism is more logically viable. If you admit that, we can discuss my faith.
Atheist: I'm not ignorant to say I don't use faith. But only the usage of faith in a situation that remains provable
Matt: So, are you agnostic or atheist? which is it?
Atheist: Atheist.
Matt: You've lost the argument. Sorry...
Atheist: Wrong. What your doing is a ploy. You bring me over.. but you stay the same. Either you must move over as well or the argument is mute in the first place. One can not keep faith and call his beliefs logical. For a bit I will stray over to the agnostic side. But I am willing to state instances where I believe prove my contention that there is no god.
Matt: You have been cornered.... It is not logical for you to claim strong atheism. You have not seen all the facts. Therefore, the possibility of God's existence is real. Therefore, you must admit that agnosticism is more logical in this situation. Alright, Let's talk faith.
Atheist: Alright faith. you first.
Matt: I believe God exists. I have faith that he exists.
Atheist: Proof
Matt: I have none.
Atheist: No proof with faith. So, do you always believe in things that you can not prove?
Matt: No... not at all... I have evidences, but they cannot lead to 100% proof or else all could be forced to believe. But, if there is enough evidence, I do believe.
Atheist: So you must be agnostic in that sense as well.
Matt: No... because I make choices. Though it is possible for my faith to be proven wrong, I still rest on the evidences and draw logical conclusions.
Atheist: Evidence....
Matt: Yes....
Atheist: Then you disregard one of the most fundamental rules of the game...
Matt: Which is?
Atheist: "Where ever knowledge is incomplete, there is a place for "faith;" but where ever knowledge and "faith" conflict, it is "faith" which must be modified or abandoned."
Matt: Or the understanding must be reevaluated.... 'Facts' have been found to be wrong before.
Atheist: Facts are not Truths. They are reasonable assumptions. I will get a dictionary definition for that one...
Matt: That's fine. So what about it? What kind of evidence would be sufficient for you to conclude there is a god?
Atheist: Fact - Reality or actuality as distinguished to from conjecture or fantasy; Something known by observation or experience to be true or real.
Matt: That's good.... Now... what would constitute evidence for God's existence?
Atheist: An instance of superiority... Something humans could not do.. OR not be able to explained through phenomena but event then...
Matt: That's good... now... what would constitute evidence for God's existence?
Atheist: A universal movement. A stoppage of the planet. Nothing earthly.
Matt: If that were to happen, would you conclude there was a god? Couldn't it be explained in other ways?
Atheist: I would of course doubt it at first. I would look for an explanation... And for something like that I would probably find no reasonable explanation..
Matt: If you had could not find one, what would you conclude? Would you conclude that there is a god? or that you simply don't have all the facts?
Atheist: You never have all of the facts... Reasonable assumptions, remember?
Matt: Then you could not safely conclude it was the hand of God, could you?
Atheist: Nope. that would be the only explanation that I could think of that would have the three means, opportunity. (forget motive) [I did not understand him here...]
Matt: Then you couldn't know anything for sure, right? That is, if you don't have all the facts, all of them.
Atheist: Haven't we already agreed you can never have all the facts?
Matt: What you are telling me is that you have no real way of proving or disproving God. So then, doesn't it come down to faith based upon evidence? I have evidence....
Atheist: I have to go. Friends just arrived. Can we finish this later?
Matt: If you want....

I'm not sure how it went with this atheist. But I hope some seeds were planted.

THIS IS ANOTHER ONE FROM THAT CARM.ORG website:

An Atheist Says There Is No Evidence For God

This short dialogue deals with evidence for God's existence. Though the discussion didn't really examine any proofs for God, it dealt more with Dan's presuppositions and what evidence he would accept as sufficient to show that God exists.

It was brought to my attention that some atheists think this dialogue was contrived, that it is a lie from me to make atheists look bad. The truth is that it is a real dialogue. I did not make it up. if the atheists have to resort to defamation to hold their position, then they have no position worth defending.


Matt: Why is it that you do not believe in God?
Dan: Because there is no evidence that he exists.
Matt: You cant say that because you have not looked at all evidence in the world. That isn't possible.
Dan: Lets just say I don't see sufficient evidence for gods existence.
Matt: But, if a person asked you what kind of things you'd accept, within reason, as evidence for God, what would you say? If you have nothing to offer, then you haven't thought your position through... and if you haven't done that, then can you honestly lay claim to the title atheist?
Dan: Come up with a way that you would believe in unicorns, and Ill show you a way to fake it. You come up with an air tight way to believe in unicorns, then get back to me about the illogic of my position.
Matt: The way to believe in unicorns is to find one, or have pictures of one, or a fossil of one, or a bunch of people who said they saw one, and they all described, basically the same thing: a unicorn. That would be a way.
Dan: Well, how about, if he [God] could do something that was clearly illogical, like make a square circle, and show it to me. Then I would believe.
Matt: A square circle is a non-sequitur. It is self contradictory by definition. God cannot violate his own nature. Besides how would you comprehend such a contradictory thing if it somehow were able to be done? You wouldn't know it and your proof would be useless since you couldn't understand it. Besides, it cant be done anyway.
Dan: Why not?
Matt: Can you violate your own nature? Can you will yourself to be bigger than the sun?
Dan: No, but if there is a god, Id expect him to exist outside of logic.
Matt: Perhaps, but not against logic since He created it.
Dan: If he created logic, why cant He do things that run against it?
Matt: If God created the universe and everything in it, then he created it out of his own nature. The design and natural laws had to originate in His mind. Therefore, it will have His characteristics woven into it: logic, physics, etc. These are all reflections of Gods awesome creative character. Also, since God is self-sufficient, He cannot be self contradictory. Otherwise, He could not sustain Himself. Therefore, He cannot violate His own nature.
Dan: So? Is he limited to the things he built into the universe? Isn't he omnipotent?
Matt: Yes....
Dan: Why cant he act against His own universe?
Matt: He could. He could destroy the entire universe. But He chooses not to.
Dan: What a crock. Just like I could stomp the earth and crush all armies with a wave of my hand. I just choose not to. Your argument isn't valid.
Matt: Why? Just because God doesn't choose to do something He has the power to do, it does not mean He does not exist. After all, does it prove that you do not exist if you choose not to do something you could do? If you choose not to clap your hands right now, does that mean you do not exist? Of course not.
Dan: [no response]
Matt: Think about this. God choosing to not exercise His will in something is the same as you choosing not to exercise belief in a god. You could, you just don't. Both are a lack of action. So, how can you complain against God for not moving according to your criteria, when you choose to not move at all in believe in Him?

At this point, the conversation ended.....

I believe that Dan was incapable of finding God because he had a false method of verifying evidence for God. He seemed to require evidence that was naturally impossible. I attempted to show him the error in his logic.

posted by FatBabe44 on May 29, 2008 at 11:14:02 am     #



The key factor is FAITH. Both sides of the argument have evidence but no proof.

The key factor is TRUTH. There are MOUNTAINS of evidence for evolution, and ZERO evidence of a god. No one argues that certain parts of the bible may be true (ex. so and so existed, they lived around this time period, they said these things, etc)

posted by pink_slip on May 29, 2008 at 11:57:38 am     #



Although I believe in a God, I heartily concur with pink-slip. I know my faith is based on - well - faith. There is no credible proof for the existence of anyone's god. There is much credible scientific evidence for the theory of evolution - none for creationism. Creationism is laughable. But you don't have to be an atheist to be able to recognize and live comfortably with all scientific facts, not just the ones you can square up with Bible.

If you have a faith in a God that is not based on fear of death, or damnation to hell, or all the other claptrap the religious hierarchy uses to consolidate it's power, then you are really free to practice doing the best you can with your life. I will say this: Hats off to whoever wrote the 10 commandments. They are a pretty decent set of rules to live by. I actually feel sorry for the overly religious. They seem a miserable lot always worried that around the corner there will come a scientifice revelation that will produce a big OOPS that their handlers ( read religious leaders) can't explain away with some twist from the Bible. The faith that is supposed to sustain and comfort causes some more misery and fear.

posted by holland on May 29, 2008 at 01:14:38 pm     #



Mountains of evidence for evolution. And ZERO evidence of God? Really?

So you've had ALL of the evidence that has ever been gathered and you're thoroughly convinced? Or is that you've only looked at one interpretation of evidence that leads to a an assumption favorable to your position?

Is it so horrible to look at the evidence that points to the truth - that there is a God and the Earth is not billions of years old?

I always wonder, what have you got to lose by believing in God? If you're correct and there is no God, you've lost nothing. If you're wrong and find out after death that there is a God, what then?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
* Some Interesting Evidence That Never Gets Media Attention:*

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9F0CE7DB173AF932A35754C0A965958260
*Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue
70 million-year-old fossil yields preserved blood vessels*

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/utah-testimony-catastrophe
Indian Petroglyph Depicts Dinosaur

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/stone.asp
Messages on Stone

http://www.unexplainedearth.com/angkor.php
Dinosaurs and giant ape men depicted in Angkor?

http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/evol/evolfact.htm
Should Evolution Be Taught As Fact?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070907150931.htm
Marine Team Finds Surprising Evidence Supporting a Biblical Great Flood

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071216124230.htm
Ancient Flood Disrupted Ocean Circulation And Triggered Climate Cooling

posted by FatBabe44 on May 29, 2008 at 01:35:19 pm     #



Fatbabe said: _ Some Interesting Evidence That Never Gets Media Attention_

Yeah, these article never get media attention......except from the MEDIA that you got them from. Seriously, they are interesting articles. But what are you saying by posting them? One article mentions a flood. No problem---floods happen all the time. One article mentions T-Rex tissue being found. Excuse my ignorance, but what does this imply?

posted by pink_slip on May 29, 2008 at 03:09:02 pm     #



You do whatever you need to do to fill that fearful void FB44. Marshall any resource, no matter how tenuous, goofy, misinterpreted or slanted. It's OK. I'll go away now. It obviously disturbs you and that is not something a person, trying to live decently, does repeatedly on purpose. I accept your beliefs. I wish you could accept that people who don't share your faith can be calm, decent, principled and happy people.

posted by holland on May 29, 2008 at 03:19:44 pm     #



Pink_slip, I guess my point was about the media remark is that you have to really go digging for that information to find it. It's never presented on the Discovery Channel, National Geographic, or the History channel, etc.

Re: The Flood - there many interesting discoveries still being made that indicate a worldwide flood several thousand years ago. Check out other theories on how the Grand Canyon was formed, as well as the badlands in Utah.

Well, what happened to all the land animals that did not go on the Ark? Very simply, they drowned. Many would have been covered with tons of mud as the rampaging water covered the land (Genesis 7:11-12,19). Because of this quick burial, many of the animals would have been preserved as fossils. If this happened, you would expect to find evidence of billions of dead things buried in rock layers (formed from this mud) all over the Earth. This is exactly what you do find.

By the way, the Flood of Noah’s day probably occurred just over 4,500 years ago. Creationists believe that this event formed many of the fossil layers around the Earth. (Additional fossil layers were formed by other floods as the Earth settled down after the great Flood.) Thus, the dinosaur fossils which were formed as a result of this Flood were probably formed about 4,500 years ago, not millions of years ago.

As far fetched the story of Noah's Ark is, is it any harder to fathom than the sudden explosion out of nothingness (Big Bang Theory) leading to an ever expanding and inconceivably universe.

Then add to that concept the possibility (or odds) of one tiny insignificant planet in a remote part of the galaxy having the perfect conditions to grow the millions of life forms that exist so harmoniously? These perfect conditions for life to exist are not limited on planetary level, but the way our solar system is organized, and it's placement in a safe area of the galaxy.

What are the odds!? It's astounding! What better way for God to show his people how great he is than by creating our vast universe. (see note at bottom of a fantastic video to watch - humor me).

Re: T-Rex - The blood cells were not fossilized. The scientists could still identify them as red blood cells. Is it really conceivable that they would survive 60 million years? Or is it more conceivable that they actually existed within the past 6000 years? In which instance would you expect these blood cells to remain recognizable? Think about that number again - 60 MILLION.

They belive the petroglyph of dinosaurs were painted by Native Americans. Man had not yet discovered dinosaurs and if they had by some chance found a fossilized bone, would they know how to "flesh it out" in a painting?

There are many examples of ancient art from around the world of various types of dinosaurs. See these interesting links:

http://www.creationists.org/livedinos01.html

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm

This says to me that there is evidence that evolution is not a fact.

Video I referenced above

posted by FatBabe44 on May 29, 2008 at 06:21:53 pm     #



For those that don't believe, no amount of evidence will ever be enough, for those that believe no evidence is necessary.

posted by Linecrosser on May 29, 2008 at 08:26:45 pm     #



Well, what happened to all the land animals that did not go on the Ark? Very simply, they drowned. Many would have been covered with tons of mud as the rampaging water covered the land (Genesis 7:11-12,19). Because of this quick burial, many of the animals would have been preserved as fossils. If this happened, you would expect to find evidence of billions of dead things buried in rock layers (formed from this mud) all over the Earth. This is exactly what you do find.

But that can just as easily happen, without a god deciding to destroy the world and some guy gathering up all the animals. I have no doubt that there could have been a big flood 4,500 years ago, but that doesn't mean that dinosaur fossil aren't older than that. You're taking facts and events, and just putting them in the sequence you prefer--despite the evidence. One of the scientists in the T-Rex article mentioned that it was a rare find, but not unique. He suggested you could find more soft tissues in bone fossils simply by splitting them open. Now I ask you--what is more likely, this explanation or the story of Noah's Ark? As far as the Big Bang, we don't know that it came from "nothingness" (btw, what is "nothingness"?). We know that it came from a singularity. We don't know what happened to cause this--yet. But singularities currently exist in the universe, in black holes. We'll discover the answer. No need to fill in the gaps in the meantime with stories.

Then add to that concept the possibility (or odds) of one tiny insignificant planet in a remote part of the galaxy having the perfect conditions to grow the millions of life forms that exist so harmoniously? These perfect conditions for life to exist are not limited on planetary level, but the way our solar system is organized, and it's placement in a safe area of the galaxy.

Have you ever heard of the Drake Equation? It's a mathematical equation used to estimate the number of civilizations in our galaxy. Note--our galaxay, not the whole universe. Even if you put very conservative estimates into the equation, you'll find that life is teeming in our own galaxy. Space is so vast however, that we'll probably never have actual proof of this. Drake's estimate of civilization just in the Milky Way is 10,000. And our galaxy is just a fraction of the universe. Life is abundant in the universe. Hell, we'll probably find some type of life form on Europa--one of Jupiter's moons. They think it may have a warm ocean underneath it's thick ice crust.

They belive the petroglyph of dinosaurs were painted by Native Americans. Man had not yet discovered dinosaurs and if they had by some chance found a fossilized bone, would they know how to "flesh it out" in a painting?

There are many examples of ancient art from around the world of various types of dinosaurs. See these interesting links:

Even if there is dinosaur art somewhere in a cave, and if some sort of dinosaur existed alongside man----it doesn't mean some god put them there.

posted by pink_slip on May 29, 2008 at 09:00:34 pm     #



For those that don't believe, no amount of evidence will ever be enough, for those that believe no evidence is necessary.

Obi-Wan?

posted by pink_slip on May 29, 2008 at 09:02:33 pm     #



Even if there is dinosaur art somewhere in a cave, and if some sort of dinosaur existed alongside man----it doesn't mean some god put them there.

It also doesn't mean they evolved. And it would also definitely prove they didn't go extinct 60 million years ago.

The whole theory of evolution claims that gradual changes over 10s or 100s of millions years brought about lifeforms to their present form. If that were true, then I would think that during those millions of years there would have to been plenty of time for most all lifeforms to have been obliterated whether it by some cosmic calamity, viral or bacterial phage, or even predation/competition for food sources by other species.

How many species have gone extinct in the past 200 years alone? How many times have we seen how a single drought, (in one small area) for a year can cause devastation? Heck, Americans almost caused the extinction of the American Bison, the Beaver, and the Great Egret at once in less than a hundred years alone. It took human intervention to prevent it.

The fossils found today are consistently the same ones over and over again. They always seem to have died due to some type of catastrophe. I don't believe any creature could have survived such catastrophe without human intervention. So, how did the ones survive that allegedly evolved into today's forms?

The bottom line is that both sides have decent arguments on the interpretation of evidence. Therefore, it is unacceptable to present evolution as fact and creation as fable. Which is what is being done today in education. It is wrong to program children (and adults) into only accepting one possible truth. It's a theory and should be presented as such along with other theories such as Intelligent Design.

I have mentioned many times here that I don't believe in forcing any belief system on another person (that includes evolution). I believe, and so does my faith, that everyone has the right to make their own decisions. How can a person make a decision though if they only have one choice offered to them?

posted by FatBabe44 on May 30, 2008 at 06:29:42 am     #



I forgot to mention that singularities are a fascinating concept, but still being theorized. Every scientific reference out there still labels them as theories.

I would pose the question, where did the laws of physics originate? Where did mass come from to cause the law of gravity?

Nothingness is the absence of matter. Where did matter (gases, electricity, molecules) come from? There is a gap there in explaining it. No one knows for certain how it started. But wouldn't it be cool to know the one who does and did?

posted by FatBabe44 on May 30, 2008 at 06:39:53 am     #



It also doesn't mean they evolved. And it would also definitely prove they didn't go extinct 60 million years ago

How does it mean they didn't evolve? I would think that IF some form of dinosaur was around in the time of man, then that would have given it MORE time to evolve.

I would think that during those millions of years there would have to been plenty of time for most all lifeforms to have been obliterated whether it by some cosmic calamity, viral or bacterial phage, or even predation/competition for food sources by other species.

That exactly what happened. 99.9% of all life that has ever existed on Earth have gone extinct.

It's a theory and should be presented as such along with other theories such as Intelligent Design.

ID is NOT a scientific theory, and it's certainly not on par with evolution when explaning how life came to be. ID is fine to teach in church or religion class, but it is NOT science and should NOT be taught alongside evolution.

posted by pink_slip on May 30, 2008 at 08:07:43 am     #



"But wouldn't it be cool to know the one who does and did?"

I think part of the problem is the personification of that “one”. That whole “in His own image” thingy doesn’t sit well many rational thinkers.

posted by Offshore on May 30, 2008 at 08:25:01 am     #



pink_slip,

How does it mean they didn't evolve? I would think that IF some form of dinosaur was around in the time of man, then that would have given it MORE time to evolve.

What is the proof that they did evolve? Where are the transitional creatures leading up to dinosaurs?
What are transitional forms for all of present day life?
Please explain to me how some goo eventually evolved into the human brain. And why would that goo evolve only one species into something so complex and perfect as a human brain?

The human brain is so complex that we haven't even figured out how to utilize 90% of it. Why would something evolve so complex when it's not even used to it's full potential yet?

Pink_slip said: ID is NOT a scientific theory, and it's certainly not on par with evolution when explaining how life came to be. ID is fine to teach in church or religion class, but it is NOT science and should NOT be taught alongside evolution.

Notice how all the intolerance comes from your side of the table?

How can you say that ID is not a scientific theory? There is plenty of science behind it. I think I've presented some of the scientific data above. It's how we interpret that data that separates us.

For the record, I did not say to TEACH creation. I said to present optional theories. What should be taught is that we don't really know for sure how life began. We can only make assumptions or base theories on all the evidence available. Limiting and controlling education to only one line of thought or idea is a little too fascist for me.

posted by FatBabe44 on May 30, 2008 at 09:15:58 am     #



What is the proof that they did evolve? Where are the transitional creatures leading up to dinosaurs?

Here's a link for you that discusses the evolution of dinosaurs if you are interested.

What are transitional forms for all of present day life?

I'm sure you don't want me to try to explain the shared ancestors of ALL present day life, do you? I got a chance to visit the Field Museum in Chicago last summer. They have a whole wing dedicated to just evolution. It was fascinating. You can just look at the bone structures of the different species, and it was easy to see how they were so similar. But anyway--it's the complexity of the brain that should support a slow, step-by-step evoltion versus the idea that something so complex could just pop up out of "nothingness". What are the odds of that? And where do you get your info about us not using 90% of our brain? That's not correct.

Please explain to me how some goo eventually evolved into the human brain. And why would that goo evolve only one species into something so complex and perfect as a human brain?

In The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins does a great job with explaining how his could happen. Except, he uses the human eye instead of the brain. The human eye is also very complex. But he explains how it evolved in steps. I'm going to provide a video at the end here that shows this. (it's not from Dawkins, and it deals with mollusk eyes, but the concept is the same)

Notice how all the intolerance comes from your side of the table?

It's not intolerant to say that ID is not science. How do you test for the presence of god in a lab? Please explain...The "scientific data" you provided were articles that picked apart Darwin's work, or articles that tried to validate some historical data in the bible. Btw, this is fine. I say--go ahead and pick apart the science behind evolution. It only forces more research to come up with stronger theories. And I've already agreed that the bible has some accurate historical data in it. But none of this proves the existence of a "creator".

posted by pink_slip on May 30, 2008 at 10:32:56 am     #



I should also point out that many evolutionary biologists are religious and many religious people accept evolution.

posted by pink_slip on May 30, 2008 at 11:50:59 am     #



posted by FatBabe44 on May 30, 2008 at 02:40:31 pm     #



The human cell is amazing, no question about that. As for the second video, the website Expelled Exposed does a great job in corrected some of the errors in the movie. Included a response to Maciej Giertych:

Intelligent design advocates spend a great deal of time discussing “information,” yet rarely define the term. Natural selection reduces genetic variability, which can indeed be used as a measure of information, but to say then that selection therefore cannot produce complex structures demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of how natural selection works.

In addition, while natural selection reduces variability, and may even remove traits from a population entirely, it is not the only evolutionary mechanism. Genetic mutations, gene flow, genetic exchange from symbiotic organisms, genetic recombination, and neutral genetic drift all play important roles in evolutionary processes, and anyone who attempts to explain the complexity of life without considering all of these processes is presenting a one-sided and fundamentally inaccurate account of evolution.

posted by pink_slip on May 30, 2008 at 03:30:05 pm     #



Btw, this is fine. I say--go ahead and pick apart the science behind evolution. It only forces more research to come up with stronger theories. And I've already agreed that the bible has some accurate historical data in it. But none of this proves the existence of a "creator".

Science is the exploration of where the evidence leads, no matter where. The problem that is so prevalent today is the silencing of anyone opposing Darwinism. It's not a free society when people are shut down for having an opposing view. If you would watch Expelled, rather than listen to critics only, you would be appalled at how Darwinists are treating anyone with a desire to explore or research the possibility of ID. It's like Scientific Fascism.

fas·cism (fas̸h′iz′əm)

noun

1. the doctrines, methods, or movement of the Fascisti
2. a system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control, belligerent nationalism, racism, and militarism, etc.

posted by FatBabe44 on May 31, 2008 at 08:55:45 am     #



Scientific fascism? What, is the evolution police going around, breaking up ID meetings? Are scientists who espouse ID being thrown into prison? How are ID'ers "shut down"? You are freely discussing it right now. I haven't called the evolution police on you yet. You're safe to study it, discuss it, etc. Scientists who want to study ID can certainly do so, they can write books about it, make movies about it, they can have their own websites, they can make podcasts, etc. Do they want milk and cookies too? If you would read the website, Expelled Exposed, you would be appalled at the dishonesty of the movie-makers, and how they misrepresented the facts.

posted by pink_slip on May 31, 2008 at 03:16:01 pm     #



Only more example.

Texas accused of 'viewpoint discrimination'
Organization staffed with Ph.D.s denied permission to offer degrees
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

The Institute for Creation Research Graduate School has accused Texas officials of participating in illegal "viewpoint discrimination" for refusing it a Certificate of Authority to grant degrees.

The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board recently rejected the formal application from the ICR graduate school program even though the organization now is approved to grant degrees by the state of California, and has been for decades.

The organization said today it wants the education agency to reverse its rejection of the ICR plan to grant Master of Science degrees.

The petition paves the way for ICRGS to file a legal action against the state agency and its officials. Named in the action that cites the state's unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination are Commissioner Raymund Paredes, Assistant Commissioner Joseph Stafford, Academic Excellence Committee chairman Lyn Bracwell Phillips and other THECB board members.

According to ICR, Texas "denied the application of ICRGS because its program is based on a creationist interpretation of scientific data rather than an evolutionary interpretation, which is prevalent in public education."

The organization said its formal petition includes 26 evidentiary appendices that support the academic freedom and other legal rights of ICRGS to offer its 27-year-old graduate program to Texas residents. The petition also was delivered to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott because of the alleged constitutional violations.

WND reported earlier when the state made its decision. It came despite the fact the ICRGS faculty sports Ph.D.'s from UCLA, Penn State, the University of Montana, Colorado State, Case Western and Indiana University.

The rejection came on the recommendation of Paredes despite earlier approval recommendations from a site team dispatched by the state agency to evaluate the education offerings as well as the agency's advisory committee.

In a situation that appears to be an example of the academic censoring described in Ben Stein's movie "Expelled," state officials even read into the record for the agency's hearing a state statute regarding "fraudulent" education programs without giving supporters of the ICR program an opportunity to explain or respond.

"Expelled" covers the following key questions:

* Were we designed or are we simply products of random chance, mutations and evolution occurring without any plan over billions of years?

* Is the debate over origins settled?

* How should science deal with what appears to be evidence of design?

* What should be taught to children and college students about our origins?

* Is there any room for dissent from the evolutionary point of view?

* Is it appropriate for eminent scientists who depart from strict evolutionary dogma to be fired and blacklisted, as is occurring in academia today?

* Should government schools and other institutions be engaged in promoting the secular, materialistic worldview to the total exclusion of diffe