We’ve heard from St. Petersburg politician Bill Foster before. When the new Florida science standards were being written and reviewed, Foster wrote a letter to his local school board warning about the evils of evolution.
Now Foster is running for mayor and his creationist beliefs are under the microscope. Will those beliefs hurt him or help him? I guess we’ll find out on election day. From the St. Pete Time article:
St. Petersburg mayoral candidate Bill Foster believes, contrary to the overwhelming majority of scientists, that dinosaurs and humans co-existed. He believes the world was created in six literal days, and he once complained to school officials when his son was taught about Darwin’s theory of evolution in fifth grade.
Is that relevant to the campaign for mayor of Florida’s fourth-largest city?
…
In an interview at his law office, Foster talked about some of his beliefs and refused to talk about others.
“Dinosaurs are mentioned in Job, so I don’t have any problem believing that dinosaurs roamed the earth,” he said, referring to the book of Job, which mentions the “behemoth.” He said he believes dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time, though most scientists say there is a gap of at least 60 million years between dinosaurs and mankind.
…
But in this election Foster has been dogged by questions about his religious beliefs after he sent a controversial letter to the Pinellas School Board, urging members to allow discussion about alternatives to the theory of evolution, such as the Genesis account. His letter suggested that Darwin contributed to the rise of Hitler and the Columbine massacre.
Foster insists he was merely promoting free speech for students.
Wow…Darwin led to Hitler and Columbine…dinosaurs and humans together…I hope there are better choices for those voters.
The unfortunate fact is that 60% of the public agree with Mr Fosters views and will vote for him.
How hard do you think it would be to get Matt Damon to pay us a visit here in FL?
This guy has got a brain. He can read and he doesn’t think dirt made itself.
Wow Chris, that dirt sure is something,you can even make the first humane if you say the right magic words to it.
Here, I’ll save some time: “If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?!?!?ONE!?”
Thats right James and if evolution is true, why are there no crocoducks?
Where’s my bear-shark????
I guess that was a little lofty. Everyone knows dirt made itself. Without this advanced component of evolution the theory would just be a religion
Come on Chris, taking cheap pot-shots is a little cowardly don’t you think?
If you have something to get off your chest regarding evolution, then go ahead and make your points. I’m sure you will have no problem in getting responses from people on this site. However, watch out for that magic dirt, it just might get stuck under your finger nails.
You’ve mentioned that 60% of the public agree with Foster’s views on evolution. Why would you consider that unfortunate?
A lot of people including my self have a hard time seeing the magic dirt evolutionist say is so common. Perhaps is you could provide some, it might make a difference.
Chris, if you would like to know about evolution try reading Richard Dawkins latest book”The Greatest Show On Earth”
When almost 60% of the public fail to see the overwhelming evidence for evolution, either because of a failed education system or a theocratic mind set, it is unfortunate. I’m not quite sure about your comments on “magic dirt”,I’m sure you know were dirt comes from. If you are implying where or how simple life first arose,evolution does not cover that. That line of study is known as Abiogenesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis. Perhaps this will make a difference for you?
Why is 60% of people agreeing with Foster’s view on evolution unfortunate? The same reason if 60% of researchers in drug discovery believe that snake oil and prayer is an effective cure for cancer despite all physical and statistical evidence pointing to the contrary, and actually going to great lengths to sabotage, destroy, and spread misinformation about any and all research that even hints at an alternative to their wonderful conclusion.
The state of mind required to integrate and reinforce ALL elements of Christian Creationism into one’s perception of reality can only be accomplished by unintentional ignorance, or the willful kind that requires active and violently reactionary suppression of most higher brain functions. The latter tends to promote an environment that encourages the proliferation of the former. It’s just not a good thing seeing how humans relied on those higher brain functions to get to where they are today.
All jokes and magic dirt aside (and where did you even get the bizarre notion of magic dirt in evolution???), the scientific methods behind evolution theory, an extremely important component of evolution theory that is shared by all other scientific theories in existence, would be irreparably damaged by the notion that it’s okay to ignore experimental results if you don’t agree with them. If the colorimetric reaction keeps appearing as yellow but my favorite color is blue, it’s perfectly acceptable to exercise my academic freedom and write “blue” in my lab report. Or if 4 out of 5 lab monkeys die from exposure to that new organophosphate pesticide and I prefer to believe that all five of them are still alive and doing the Charleston with little adorable tophats and canes, I can totally write that in my report and submit it to the USDA. This is what Foster wants to make acceptable.
Karl
In your view you are correct. And by your choices of executable evidence you’re correct.
The magic dirt comes from the same spot as our imaginary ape like creature ancestors came from.
So what’s the problem with a mayor who doesn’t think he’s a mutated monkey, has real self worth and could even have a personal moral code.
Unfortunately, the fact that I am correct is not limited solely to my personal views, or whatever “choice” evidence I chose. It’s limited to virtually all available physical evidence in existence, the history of science, and the well-documented actions and effects of extremist creationist reactionaries.
The problem with Foster as mayor stems from that letter to the school board he wrote. A good leader should at at least respect the beliefs of those under him, even if he/she doesn’t share them. A good leader should also realize and evaluate the consequences of his/her decisions and actions before undertaking them. Finally, a good leader should be honest. Foster has none of these qualities. The fact that Foster arrogantly believes that all students would be better off subscribing to his particular Christian worldview blatantly disrespects those who aren’t Christian (Yes, there are people who don’t believe in Christianity. Shocking I know!!!). The fact that Foster seems oblivious to the numerous school district-bankrupting legal precedents set by past attempts of introducing creationism into the biological sciences shows that he is either ignorant of of the consequences of his actions, or he just doesn’t care. Finally, the choice of arguments Foster used against evolution (Hitler et al) have been conclusively proven false (Hitler actually used biblical scriptures and Norse mythology to justify the persecution of Jews and the supposed superiority of the Aryan race as the real chosen people of God. Read Hitler’s own words in Mein Kampf if you don’t believe me. Also, anyone who seriously believes that the Columbine shooters massacred those students after reading Origin of Species, and not due to their extensively documented psychological history of of anger issues and sociopathic tendencies must be delusional.) This, again, either makes Foster ignorant, or a willfully dishonest liar. So there you have it. Woefully ignorant or maliciously self-serving, Foster is completely unfit for political leadership.
And before you get into how this one itty bitty letter doesn’t characterize Foster, pfft… hey, Foster was the one who took a single line about natural selection from one of the shooter’s blog and tried to make a full blown case that they were Darwin worshipers, conveniently ignoring their obsession with violence and irrational hatred for various people in their lives…
The only information I have on Foster came from this site. Maybe I missed it, but there hasn’t been anything here mentioned which would characterize him as a extreme creationist reactionary.
There can be no doubt that evolutionary theory devalues human life from a divine creation to a undirected freakish accident. So the connection by those who see animalistic behavior as inspired by a theory which sees men as mutated animals, should stand justified. Imagine if one of the Columbine idiots was wearing a shirt which said ,”God is my pilot” or ” “Jesus Saves” Would we ever here the end of that by evolutionist, I think not. So you’ll just have to put up with it.
Just because someone doesn’t find themselves no better than monkeys as Dawkins and his faithful followers have proclaimed, it doesn’t nessarrly mean they are unfit.
Sure there are lots of people who don’t believe in Christianity and it shouldn’t be creamed down peoples throats who aren’t interested. By the same token not every body is a Religious Humanist and that religious doctrine shouldn’t be forced on people ether. The problem you have is not recognizing your molecule to man theory is a humanist religious doctrine, no different than water baptism or the resurrection of the dead. You can call it science, but not everybody will agree.
Perhaps you could try and read Foster’s letter and do some research on the claims he made against evolution. Even if you ignore all the scientific and religious issues, Foster still comes off as either a self-serving jerk who only listens to himself or completely clueless. His particular young-earth creationism beliefs alone makes him a reactionary Christian extremist.
The problem here is that you are confusing evolution theory with social Darwinism, an unfortunately-named concept that draws many elements from theories and ideologies that actually pre-date Darwin’s Origin of Species (Herbert Spencer, Thomas Malthus, and others). If you actually bothered to read about evolution theory from an actual biology text book instead of getting your information from inflammatory rhetoric and misinformation produced by organizations such as the Discovery Institute, you’d realize that social Darwinism and derivatives like eugenics are actually detrimental to the survival of the human race, and Darwin knew it. In fact, Darwin was especially critical about eugenics and wrote extensively on it’s impracticality.
To sum it up, marginalizing or actively preventing the survival of individuals that we perceive to be weaker would damage our gene pool. As a species, our survivability only improves with greater genetic diversity. To intentionally destroy this serves no good purpose. For a real life case study, read up on sickle cell and malaria resistance. Funny how people with this sometimes fatal genetic defect ended up with a better survival ability in an environment prone to malaria infection. In a way, evolution theory teaches us that even those that we see as weak should be saved because changes may occur in the future that make the strong become the weak and vice versa. It also teaches us that all humans are of the same species and that the different “races” of people we perceive are genetically irrelevant. Why else would Darwin be involved in humanitarian works throughout his life, protesting against the destruction of native cultures and peoples through colonization, slavery, and other behavior that “devalues human life” so to speak. There is no definite “better/stronger” with evolution. Only different, and they are all valued. And a lot of different is good for survival of all.
I do think you are wrong on that hypothetical “if the columbine shooters were into God” scenario. Christian extremists have committed many notable acts of violence. We have the Christian identity movement, which is known for many incidents of racial violence and form the core beliefs of hate groups like the KKK and Neo-Nazis. We also have the usual abortion clinic bombers, shooters, attacks on homosexuals, crazy child-abusing sex cults, etc. Even with all this, we still haven’t seen the mass uprising of “God causes murder” that you were griping about. Perhaps we “evolutionists” (and I really hate that term) realize that Christianity is not the sole cause of why these people do such horrible things, even if many of them outright say they are doing it in the name of God.
It’s no surprise you should mention Dawkins, because while I respect his scientific works, his use of evolution theory as an argument for atheism is full of crap. Evolution theory does not confirm nor deny the existence of a God(s). In fact, it doesn’t really explain the actual appearance of life on earth (that’s abiogenesis, and so far, there’s only several hypothesis about how molecules led to self-replicating life). All it does is offer an explanation of how the simplest forms of life we’ve found from fossils and such evolved into the life we see today.
On a different note, are you familiar with theistic evolution? If you’re curious as to how one may recognize the scientific validity of evolution theory without compromising one’s belief in God, perhaps you should read into it. If you think about it, the majority of people asking you to choose between God and evolution are other misinformed Christians led by a few vocal extremists. This is why you sometimes see such high double-digit figures for creationism from polls about America’s beliefs in either evolution or creationism. Polls like Gallup are notorious for this, forcing you to choose between believing in God, or evolution only (implying that you don’t believe in God be default). It’s rather cruel to ask one to choose between the two, and God usually wins out anyways. In a properly done poll where categories for young/old earth creationism, intelligent design, theistic evolution, or straight up biological evolution, the percentage of Young/old creationism and intelligent design combined is in the low 20% range with a good 60+% majority believing in some form of evolution. Have you thought that perhaps it is an even greater demonstration of faith to believe that despite all the scientific discoveries and explanations of the various natural phenomenon in existence, God is still waiting beyond what hasn’t been discovered or explained by science?
60%….The USA general public is such an embarrassment right now. I hear the commentary from citizens of other countries on this, and it is … well… nothing to be proud of. Our education has clearly failed a large part of the population, who would rather fill their ignorance with polarized, partisan anti-science and conspiracy theories. The public’s gullibility for false dichotomy is as staggering as it is disheartening.
Science is not trying particularly hard to refute Creationism- it isn’t difficult, once a person becomes literate in scientific disciplines. Scientists for the most part ignore creationism, not wanting to grant the impression amongst the public, that there is anything at all worth debating. Some scientists, in the interest of trying to familiarize and educate the public, do try to speak / debate. And of course, there is a quarrel in the public, creating a false dichotomy with the issue, as Chris here so typically demonstrates. Every single argument a creationist makes is founded in some misunderstanding, or lack of familiarity with correlated subtleties of other relevant scientific fields. Creationism is both deficient and wily in defining pivotal facets of it’s arguments, and ultimately it tells us -nothing- about nature or how the world works. Creationism exists in opposition to science -only- to placate a strong monotheistic, interventionist religious belief seeded by Judeo-Christian thought.
Evolution is singled out from the whole of science for similar selfish reasons. Nowadays Darwin is little more than a history lesson. Nobody references his works to reinforce or uphold any “belief.” We could ignore his works completely, and still be stuck with all the modern evidence and observation of descent with modification (evolution), just the same. Funny how nobody is going on about “Mendelists” where genetic evidences are concerned.
Morality does not come from a belief in God or in creation. I don’t know where this notion comes from, but it’s simply ridiculous, vacant, thoughtless. Pirahnas don’t devour each other. Is this because they have morals? Because they believe in a “god” or a “creation”? I would think not. This is apparent all over nature. There are many cooperative elements.
The Theory of evolution is about as correlated with genocide/eugenics as the Theory of gravity is associated with pushing people off of a cliff. Honestly. It’s the nature & habits of the human mind in general which are responsible for such violent or hateful intentions. Violence and hate is a human problem. Trying to pin this on “atheists” or on “evolution” is prodigiously daft. Especially when you are illiterate in what science itself is, and how it works.
That’s why people get offended. They’re not “reactionaries” who are pitted against creationism in some complusory, knee-jerk manner. Scientists are getting angry and offended by Creationism because being so is perfectly reasonable and legitimate given the constitution of the arguments and tactics. Anyone who received criticism from someone else, on a topic which the critic clearly had no dynamic understanding, would feel this way… obviously people get angry. Obviously.